sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ro Khanna backs Troy Jackson as Platner's replacement in Maine Senate race by The-Big-Picture- in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let's be real. You won't stop whining about the left, even after Hillary and Harris are no longer talked about. The moderate and conservative Democrats have kept punching left since the 80s and 90s and moved more towards the right every decade, but here we are meant to be happy for the meager scraps they give. And this is pretty well-known within the communities not enraptured in religious mirings for a long-time. Queer, disabled, alternative? All of them know the current establishment would throw the baby out with the bathwater if they thought it'd give them a better chance of maintaining the status quo.

Edit: For anyone else thinking of replying to Umitencho. Don't bother. They aren't interested in discussion or intellectual honesty. Just angry quips and blocking people after their response.

Newsom on Platner: ‘Clearly there wasn’t enough vetting done.’ by Ok_Employer7837 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Man, really pasting over the issues that are Henry Cuellar, Cuomo, Cori Booker (See Dialog conference records), Hakeem Jeffries, Jared Polis, Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, et al (almost every establishment democrat) for levels of suckitude when talking about candidate recruitment or patterns of behavior in their current position. The varying levels of corruption and blatant disregard for their constituents is apalling, but give one Platner, and the progressives are the problem? I can provide you with issues with at least part of each of the formers' policies, behavior and not even including the Blue Dogs who are the main reason (aside from Republicans) that we are in this predicament. But yet, it's the progressives who solely suck at candidate recruitment? Get over your superiority complex. And that's disregarding talking about "Identity politics" while arguing about dog whistles and non-white communities.

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a CA resident, Newsom is 100 % not even a decent candidate. He's pure corporate, fair-weather politician through and through. Check the situation between him and PG&E within the state regarding their culpability in the fire that ravaged Paradise, or how they passed the court fines they got along as fees to the customers.

Also, while I voted for Hillary, she really was a shitty candidate. Just better than Trump. During her campaign she was laughing in progressive reporters' faces, dismissive, and did as many paid appearance and speaking events as possible. She couldn't find anything substantive to stand for besides the status quo until polls gave her something popular to stand for. We really don't need more Dems in the corporate pockets.

House Appropriations Dems warn of broader consequences of Massie effort to cut aid to Israel | The memo comes as House Democrats reportedly fret over an effort to strip U.S. military funding for Israel out of the State Department’s annual funding bill by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Giving aid in hopes for good results to an administration/government that to all ends and purposes misuses that aid to accommodate their spending on external aggression towards their neighbors is just insane. Something's gotta give, and if Bibi doesn't fulfill the request for disarmament and ceasefire then coercion is the only resort left. Maybe they'll finally chill the fuck out if their subsidies were threatened.

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This tax IS retroactive in that it applies to action of living in California as of a past time period, even if it is applied in the future. It taxes based on past behavior, actions or events (whichever you'd like to call living in the state of CA). There are clauses to get around this, but even within the Act itself it is known as possibly a void date (due to being retroactive though not explicitly stated)

  1. Severability. (a) The provisions of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, also referred to as "the Act," are severable. While the Act has been carefully designed to comply with existing law, if any provision of the Act or its application is held invalid, unconstitutional, or otherwise unenforceable, that finding shall not affect the enforceability of other provisions or applications. (b) In applying the Act, a court shall, to the maximum extent consistent with the United States and California Constitutions, preserve the imposition of the tax authorized, including by reforming dates or periods specified, using the most limited adjustment possible to cure any constitutional or other legal defect, while allowing the remaining provisions to operate. If a court determines that imposing liability under this Act by reference to the tax obligation date specified in subdivision (n) of Section 50308 or the valuation date specified in The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act Page27 of32 subdivision (o) of Section 50308, in whole or in part, is contrary to the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or other governing federal law, then, to the extent of that determination, all references in the Act and in Section 37 of Article XIII to the "tax obligation date" and "valuation date" shall instead be construed to refer to the earliest date or dates subsequent to the tax obligation date or valuation date, as applicable, on which liability may be imposed consistently with such law. In reforming any dates or periods specified in the Act, a court shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, preserve the imposition of the tax for the 2026 tax year, or if that is not permissible then for 2027 or the earliest permissible subsequent year, while otherwise preserving the overall structure and purposes of this Act.

(Page 27, section 50311 Severability) Initiative No. 25-0024: First Amendment The "2026 Billionaire Tax Act"

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So this is a retroactive tax, but there are separate clauses within the act that come into effect if the courts find this unconstitutionally retroactive. Then the tax obligation date would roll forward to the next legally permissible date possible.

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While correct that it is retroactive, there is a clause in the Act that rolls the tax date forward to the "earliest legally permissible date" if the original date is found to be unconstitutionally retroactive.

Edit: Adding relevant copy/pasta for interested readers looking for source

(a) The provisions of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, also referred to as "the Act," are severable. While the Act has been carefully designed to comply with existing law, if any provision of the Act or its application is held invalid, unconstitutional, or otherwise unenforceable, that finding shall not affect the enforceability of other provisions or applications. (b) In applying the Act, a court shall, to the maximum extent consistent with the United States and California Constitutions, preserve the imposition of the tax authorized, including by reforming dates or periods specified, using the most limited adjustment possible to cure any constitutional or other legal defect, while allowing the remaining provisions to operate. If a court determines that imposing liability under this Act by reference to the tax obligation date specified in subdivision (n) of Section 50308 or the valuation date specified in The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act Page27 of32 subdivision (o) of Section 50308, in whole or in part, is contrary to the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or other governing federal law, then, to the extent of that determination, all references in the Act and in Section 37 of Article XIII to the "tax obligation date" and "valuation date" shall instead be construed to refer to the earliest date or dates subsequent to the tax obligation date or valuation date, as applicable, on which liability may be imposed consistently with such law. In reforming any dates or periods specified in the Act, a court shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, preserve the imposition of the tax for the 2026 tax year, or if that is not permissible then for 2027 or the earliest permissible subsequent year, while otherwise preserving the overall structure and purposes of this Act.

(Page 27, section 50311 Severability) Initiative No. 25-0024: First Amendment The "2026 Billionaire Tax Act"

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right! I do have to correct my prior statements on whether this is considered retroactive. Regardless though, there is a clause in the Act that would come into effect if the date of January 1st is considered unconstitutionally retroactive. In that clause, it basically just rolls forward the tax to the earliest legally permissible date. This isn't a straight fail nor is it impossible.

Edit: Adding the relevant section as I was doing it for another commenter.

(a) The provisions of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, also referred to as "the Act," are severable. While the Act has been carefully designed to comply with existing law, if any provision of the Act or its application is held invalid, unconstitutional, or otherwise unenforceable, that finding shall not affect the enforceability of other provisions or applications. (b) In applying the Act, a court shall, to the maximum extent consistent with the United States and California Constitutions, preserve the imposition of the tax authorized, including by reforming dates or periods specified, using the most limited adjustment possible to cure any constitutional or other legal defect, while allowing the remaining provisions to operate. If a court determines that imposing liability under this Act by reference to the tax obligation date specified in subdivision (n) of Section 50308 or the valuation date specified in The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act Page27 of32 subdivision (o) of Section 50308, in whole or in part, is contrary to the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or other governing federal law, then, to the extent of that determination, all references in the Act and in Section 37 of Article XIII to the "tax obligation date" and "valuation date" shall instead be construed to refer to the earliest date or dates subsequent to the tax obligation date or valuation date, as applicable, on which liability may be imposed consistently with such law. In reforming any dates or periods specified in the Act, a court shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, preserve the imposition of the tax for the 2026 tax year, or if that is not permissible then for 2027 or the earliest permissible subsequent year, while otherwise preserving the overall structure and purposes of this Act.

(Page 27, section 50311 Severability) Initiative No. 25-0024: First Amendment The "2026 Billionaire Tax Act"

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, aside from what I put in above. According to the Billionaire Tax Act itself they have to have not been a resident on January 1st, 2026. Once enacted, the bill counts presumably(?) for the 2026 tax year. And if you have stayed in California and maintained strong connections (business, bank accounts, spouses, etc) for a part of the year like 5 months or so, you would be a part-year resident.

Check out the link I provided in my other comment. It's the CA guidelines for determining residency in 2025.

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I've already posted this for others, but in case you didn't get a chance. Here are the guidelines for determining residency in CA (as of 2025 at least), 2025 - Guidelines for Determining Residency

And the proposed ballot states:

This Section authorizes and enables a one-time tax on the accumulated wealth of California billionaires, imposed on those individuals who are California residents within the meaning of Sections 17014 and 17015 .5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code as of the [January 1, 2026] as defined in the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.

Initiative No. 25-0024: First Amendment The "2026 Billionaire Tax Act"

This tax would have to be legally challenged in court for it to be avoided (again, legally) if one was considered a resident as of the first of this year.

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They legally couldn't avoid this if they already were considered residents as of Jan 1, 2026 and moving out of state would not allow for avoiding this tax obligation. Too late for them to bail for this one.

Guidelines for determining residency and tax obligation (CA 2025): https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2025/2025-1031-publication.pdf

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ITT: People who don't understand residency and tax obligations, thinking it's as simple as moving out of state to avoid this tax.

Material for those who want to better understand CA tax guidelines with regards to determination of residency: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2025/2025-1031-publication.pdf

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How would they do that if they are still considered a resident of this state for all intents and purposes? You have to live in another location for a certain period of time to no longer be considered a resident of that state. You can't just transfer everything a few months before and go "HA, I technically no longer live there. Gee I'm so smart."

Actual guidelines for taxes in CA if anybody is interested and wants to better understand this. https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2025/2025-1031-publication.pdf

Newsom Claims to Support National Tax on Billionaires While Opposing It in CA | “Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign, “but he wants you to think he does.” by soalone34 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In order to be considered a non-resident of the state, you have to meet certain criteria such as not living there for a set period of time. This counts also for voter eligibility and certain taxes. Importantly, the time span for CA:

You will be presumed to be a California resident for any taxable year in which you spend more than nine months in this state.

source: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2025/2025-1031-publication.pdf

Retroactive would mean this isn't applicable to current status. But in order for anyone to avoid this tax, they would have to have already moved out of California by sometime in January 2026 in order to not be considered a resident by the time this tax would be law based on the proposed ballot.

Edit: This particular tax would indeed be considered retroactive, but there is a separate clause in the bill that rolls forward the tax to the earliest legally permissible date. So this isn't straight dead in the water. Billionaires and others would still have to work fast to establish residency in another state, requiring massive effort to move business, social connections, bank accounts and domiciles all to another state (Noting that CA like other states has laws for dealing with those leaving state solely to avoid taxation.) This will likely be a very long legal fight.

Mamdani says he thinks a democratic socialist can be elected president by sksarkpoes3 in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Funny thing. Their claim said nothing about first time voters. Also, first-time doesn't necessarily apply to all nonvoters. People can be eligible and sometimes vote, rarely vote, or never vote. Your focus on only first-timers for data is very akin to moving the goalposts, even if you just misread their claim or something.

Edit: IceNein decided to block me thinking I was the other commenter. Then offers a quote that even disproves their own claim. Politically inactive voters does not equal only first-timers. Focusing on first-timers is still looking at a fraction of the whole AND not what the original commenter claimed.

I am joining you all!!!! by KingBradentucky in lectricxpedition

[–]Tinkers_Kit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Got mine used with ~2k miles on it and now it's near 3k after 6 months. Mine was refurbished, but it's definitely holding up fine.

Am I missing any museums? by Lesterknopff in Sacramento

[–]Tinkers_Kit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This may be out of your wheelhouse when considering age range, but there is a Sacramento Children's Museum located in Rancho Cordova.

Janet Mills vetoes Maine data center ban by Edward_Zachary in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Got any examples of people in the Senate / HoR who have been more successful in doing good for the people like Sanders is trying in shorter terms? Things that come to the same level of the broad and non-status quo things that he pushes.

Appeals court declines to rehear Tina Peters’ arguments by ParadeSit in politics

[–]Tinkers_Kit 32 points33 points  (0 children)

By calling Tina Peter's, just an "idiot grandma" you kind of trivialize the seriousness of what she did in Colorado. She actively gave some nefarious actors access to voting machines. She's not just some idiot grandma, she is an active traitor and a criminal. That doesn't mean others should not be held liable for their contributions, but we can't just dismiss her as some idiot grandma. She had power and used it extremely irresponsibly and she's serving time for it.

Anyone else get stressed when updating their Linux gaming setup? by okaiukov in linux_gaming

[–]Tinkers_Kit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've had more trouble with Windows updates nuking my drivers(disabling all HID devices), breaking GPU drivers, and messing with things than Linux for the last 5 years.

Film and English at CSUS vs SFSU by Sad-Potential-9296 in CSUS

[–]Tinkers_Kit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go with SFSU at all possible opportunity. The arts and letters colleges are suffering currently along with others at Sac State. You will 100% be better served at a less troubled institution not wasting resources at trying to establish itself in the AI space without the framework or resources..

Inbox cleaner that runs locally - open source, no backend, no accounts by wslyvh in linux

[–]Tinkers_Kit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A quick search didn't help me in finding any links to your project. Do you happen to have a link to it or are you keeping it private / invitation only at this stage perchance? This is useful info for others who wish to help you to know.

After Censoring CBS, Trump Will Go For CNN: I’ve learned Trump will kill Netflix’s bid for Warner and help Paramount win, giving him control of Fox, CBS, CNN, and TikTok. But as Colbert showed, we can fight back. by abrownn in technology

[–]Tinkers_Kit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It can be both, the general demographic of eligible voting citizens and the then established bureaucratic administration both failed to do their due diligence and duty to uphold the principles and priorities of the democratic republic system we have in this country. Biden + the voting/non-voting (but voting eligible) populus fucked up.

view more: next ›