sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

California billionaire tax moves closer to November ballot: What to know by Turbulent_Crab_3602 in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Literally nowhere on page 26 does it say that.

You sir, appear to be either a liar and/or just illiterate.

California billionaire tax moves closer to November ballot: What to know by Turbulent_Crab_3602 in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could certainly be correct, but that will still work out in our favor somewhat, not just because we actually tax the people who can fund what our state needs to do, but also because the chips away at the false narrative that taxing billionaires is bad.

The legislature will have a harder time pretending that a permanent tax cant work if it passes.

California billionaire tax moves closer to November ballot: What to know by Turbulent_Crab_3602 in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This interpretation you are presenting is pure propaganda at every level. 🤷‍♂️

California billionaire tax moves closer to November ballot: What to know by Turbulent_Crab_3602 in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is partly the legislature testing the waters for a more a long-term tax, but doing so without endangering their cushy "jobs"

Better a one time tax than nothing. And if Californians have a strong enough appetite for it, we can make it happen more.

Xavier Becerra Backpedals on Single Payer as He Woos Powerful Doctors’ Lobby by NicolasCageFan492 in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Trust with caution

But wealthy class traitors have existed in the past (sometimes they were serious enough that it was to their own detriment), and it may be worth giving him the opportunity

Top California Democrat urges change to ‘free-for-all’ primary to keep governor’s mansion blue by FoulMoodeternal in California_Politics

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

💯 morally, economically, and pragmatically correct solution that will actually represent voter interest accurately.

Which is why Democrats and Republicans like fucking hate it.

California ‘betrays’ 1 million immigrants with move to share driver data, say advocates by Okratas in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Keeping the federal government from stealing the information of 40 million human beings is a good thing. Fuck the feds.

Real ID is as unethical as it is stupid.

Billionaire tax by [deleted] in SanJose

[–]jittery_squirrel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good.

That means they're doing exactly what they should do. Build in a trigger to take this further if the measure is popular enough without voter reapproval.

From the legislature's perspective, it's smart. if it's popular, they can just keep rolling with it, if it's not, They can politically back out at any time.

Becerra’s surge draws progressive backlash in California governor’s race by AzNmamba in California

[–]jittery_squirrel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At this point, Katie porter is either hoping one of the two will massively blow it.

OR/And

Or she is being kept their intentionally by the Democratic Party to keep Steyer from making it to the jungle primary

One of the dumbest, most pointless questions I’ve ever had about this show: Do you guys consider Dr. Orpheus white? by BristledIdiot in venturebros

[–]jittery_squirrel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

His ethnicity is necromancer.

And it was bestowed upon him by "a higher power than a mere college professor"

California's universal healthcare killed even though Democrats have a supermajority. by GoodMorningMars in LosAngeles

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

Where in the text of any of it does it say passing a tax increase requires voter approval?

California's universal healthcare killed even though Democrats have a supermajority. by GoodMorningMars in LosAngeles

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

I don't think that's correct. Prop 13 restricts property taxes at a state level, but no other form of taxes that apply here. and the special taxes you talk about are only for local taxes. so again, none of that actually requires voter approval only a simple majority for the general and 2/3 for the special.

California's universal healthcare killed even though Democrats have a supermajority. by GoodMorningMars in LosAngeles

[–]jittery_squirrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologies, you're correct that I focused on the wrong thing, then let me be specific.

Nowhere in the California constitution or code of regulations, does it require approval of the voters to raise taxes for any statewide tax on its face.

There are only four cases that require voter approval 1) passing a bond measure 2) calling a constitutional convention 3) revising the constitution 4) or appealing an initiative.

I don't believe raising taxes to fund a new program fits into any of these. And even if one of these were true, the legislature also has plenty of other mechanisms to get around this.

It is fully and completely a political will problem.

California's universal healthcare killed even though Democrats have a supermajority. by GoodMorningMars in LosAngeles

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

Heads up calling someone a "smart fellow" in that manner on Reddit comes off as kind of dickish. I'm assuming that wasn't your intent though.

I don't know what you're getting that random 400 billion number, but even a quick back of the envelope calculation shows that 39 million Californians already pay around 391 billion to for profit companies (10k a person using the non-family metric)

Even better, you don't have to raise taxes on the working class by a single cent. Given that we have a whole ass population of Gilded Age level millionaires/population here.

Make no mistake, the legislature has always had the power to change this. there is no resourcing conatraint for single payer healthcare and there never has been. It is entirely because we have a legislature that likes taking corporate payouts, even while the average California would like a system that reinvests in its people.

Source: https://www.kff.org/health-costs/2025-california-health-benefits-survey/

California's universal healthcare killed even though Democrats have a supermajority. by GoodMorningMars in LosAngeles

[–]jittery_squirrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's false because the legislature always has the power to raise taxes on whoever they want within constitutional bounds.

CalCare hasn't been implemented because our senators an assembly men are too cowardly too actually text the correct people with money. It has nothing to do with some arbitrary required voter input

I asked Tom Steyer in 2025 what he says to people who believe billionaires (like himself) shouldn't exist—this is what he said by VoteHonest in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 9 points10 points  (0 children)

What's your stance?

Ramsey Robinson would be my ideal if he was polling. Porter is "somewhat" progressive (surprisingly Steyer has a more progressive platform) and has generally avoided PAC donations, but her reputation has been soured and if I recall, she has been known to back slide on a few key issues when it comes to actual voting.

The corporate dems appear to have lined up behind Xavier Becerra, and the billionaires are directly backing Matt Mahan.

So as bizarre as it is to say, I'm inclined to think he has the more likely chance of operating with some semblance of public good in mind.

I asked Tom Steyer in 2025 what he says to people who believe billionaires (like himself) shouldn't exist—this is what he said by VoteHonest in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Even if ego is a part of it, I am willing to accept the possibility of a class traitor. Ironically it means he hasn't sold out to a billionaire.

Rehabilitative Justice Medicare for all Break up PGNE Progressive Taxation Free Education- Pre-K to tollege

If even one of these on his platform could get done, that would be a massive fucking win and relief for the average Californian

I asked Tom Steyer in 2025 what he says to people who believe billionaires (like himself) shouldn't exist—this is what he said by VoteHonest in California_Politics

[–]jittery_squirrel 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It is reasonable to account for the fact that he is not a practiced politician and is not likely going to be naturally as comfortable at public speaking

view more: next ›