California Wealth Tax

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
DrHenley

DrHenley

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
18,125
I'm speechless...

Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) made an appearance on “Cavuto: Coast to Coast” Friday to discuss his Wealth Tax proposal. Bonta told Cavuto the tax “affects about 0.15% of the California population — not the top 10%, not the top 1%, the top .15%, about 30,000 people.”
“The California Wealth Tax (AB 2088 as amended) would apply a 0.4% tax on the portion of a taxpayer’s net worth that exceeds $30 million. (approximately 30,400 people),” Bonta’s website says.
Bonta blames coronavirus for creating “inequality” in California, and not previous legislation and policies.
Knowing about the huge outbound migration from California, Cavuto asked what would happen to wealthy people who move out of state. Bonta said tax “avoidance” would not be allowed as California would tax them for the next ten years, despite what state they live in. Bonta said that because they accrued the wealth in California, the state can continue to legally tax it.
QTGaTVh.png

California Dems' Wealth Tax Follows People Who Move Out of the State - California Globe
 
The way he described it, it is an ex post facto law:

An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.​

Check Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution...
 
DrHenley said:
The way he described it, it is an ex post facto law:

An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.​

Check Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution...
Click to expand...

Of everything I’ve ever witnessed in Cali, this is the worst! There will be legal challenges to this. Count on it.
 
I'm not an attorney or a tax accountant, but that sure sounds unconstitutional to me. I wonder how much revenue he expects this law to generate? It is just so wrong on so many levels.

You expect 30,000 people to foot the bill for 40,000,000? Who wants to live in a state where you get punished for being successful? I would be willing to bet the people with that kind of money have teams of lawyers and accountants protecting it, and guarding against this type of legislation. If they can't find a way around it they will move. Good luck trying to collect. Just ask France how it worked for them?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...x-forces-12-000-millionaires-YEAR-France.html
 
A wealth tax in of itself is not ex post facto. But this is:

Bonta said that because they accrued the wealth in California, the state can continue to legally tax it.​

An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

If you live in California, and are taxed on wealth you possess while living in California at the time, that is not ex post facto. But if you live elsewhere, and are taxed on wealth that you earned in California before that wealth was taxable, that is ex post facto, and is unconstitutional.

Besides, they are shooting themselves in the foot with that. By making what is taxable depend on where it was earned, a millionaire who earns his wealth elsewhere and then moves to California with it could say that by that stipulation, his wealth is not taxable since it wasn't earned in California.
 
DrHenley said:
A wealth tax in of itself is not ex post facto. But this is:

Bonta said that because they accrued the wealth in California, the state can continue to legally tax it.​

An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

If you live in California, and are taxed on wealth you possess while living in California at the time, that is not ex post facto. But if you live elsewhere, and are taxed on wealth that you earned in California before that wealth was taxable, that is ex post facto, and is unconstitutional.

Besides, they are shooting themselves in the foot with that. By making what is taxable depend on where it was earned, a millionaire who earns his wealth elsewhere and then moves to California with it could say that by that stipulation, his wealth is not taxable since it wasn't earned in California.
Click to expand...

That's why I want california to be challenged on it in court because it is a gray murky area, in the same breath the courts haven't been kind to the tax payer by giving the Feds and States wide latitude on tax collections.
 
GeorgiaPeachie said:
They have to get more money from someone to keep up with their FREE stuff to illegals. Free education. Free healthcare. Free food. You get the picture.
Click to expand...
The terms used here is "Leveling The Playing Field", BEE "Black Economic Empowerment", "Affirmative Action", "Confiscation without Compensation". In the USA you are called "White Privilege" here it is "Colonialists". I've heard the terms used like "reparations" over there and some group said "They want Texas." The term used by the commies here for themselves is "Previously Disadvantaged" which will perfectly fit into their narrative over there because their great, great, great grand daddy's where slaves.
 
The fairest system is to get rid of income tax altogether. I would get rid of corporation tax too and just tax VAT at 1000 percent for all non essentials items. Only basic food ingredients and water are not taxed. Sure it won't be popular but it would sort out a load of problems.
 
Arcticdude said:
"1000%"?!? Are you crazy? How about a flat 10% with no exemptions. If course we all know that any new tax scheme would just be added to what we have now or it would creep up forever.
Click to expand...

People should learn to live with only things that they need, not things they want. Also capitalism and all its excesses are causing too many problems. Oh and I would ban all forms of loans. You want something you save for it.
 
Arcticdude said:
"1000%"?!? Are you crazy? How about a flat 10% with no exemptions. If course we all know that any new tax scheme would just be added to what we have now or it would creep up forever.
Click to expand...
yup,we have this car tax here...it was supposed to be a temp measure and end within a couple of years...guess what, it never did..
 
A consumption tax like a sales tax is probably the most equitable. For people struggling to make ends meet, most of their income goes to housing and basic food costs which should be either exempt or taxed at a lower rate. Here in Georgia, groceries are exempt from state sales tax.
 
Karloshi said:
People should learn to live with only things that they need, not things they want. Also capitalism and all its excesses are causing too many problems. Oh and I would ban all forms of loans. You want something you save for it.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, you just said that people shouldn't be able to get "things they want". But then you say if someone wants something they should "save for it". And what kind of problems are caused by capitalism? Do you mean like bringing people out of poverty? Like if you work hard enough you will get ahead? Things like that?
 
Arcticdude said:
Wait a minute, you just said that people shouldn't be able to get "things they want". But then you say if someone wants something they should "save for it". And what kind of problems are caused by capitalism? Do you mean like bringing people out of poverty? Like if you work hard enough you will get ahead? Things like that?
Click to expand...

I mean if people really want something that is non essential then they should be taxed at an extortionate amount. The main problem of capitalism is that it has turned humans in to consumers of crap we don't need and that causes excess waste which despite what some people believe does damage the environment.
 
Karloshi said:
I mean if people really want something that is non essential then they should be taxed at an extortionate amount. The main problem of capitalism is that it has turned humans in to consumers of crap we don't need and that causes excess waste which despite what some people believe does damage the environment.
Click to expand...

Sooo, total CONTROL of all people by a few, eh? What about self control? What about people choosing their own wants and desires?
 
Karloshi said:
I mean if people really want something that is non essential then they should be taxed at an extortionate amount. The main problem of capitalism is that it has turned humans in to consumers of crap we don't need and that causes excess waste which despite what some people believe does damage the environment.
Click to expand...
If you don't like the freedom you have, move to China you might love it there, even Russia is much to free for your sense.
 
This thread was started about punishing the wealthy. I am not in favour of punishing people who are successful. I was just suggesting an alternate way to make a sustainable economy. One other option could be to give all newborn an equal number of credits, say 1 million and you can spend it how you like through your life but when it has all gone you won't get a penny more. That would teach some self control. If some make more along the way then good for them, if some **** it up then tough luck. No inheritance, just reset the clock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top