Is this like the Berlin wall when USSR was trying to keep the Communists inside?
What do you guys know about the exit tax?
California proposes "exit tax" for fleeing refugees.
Posts
Total:
91
We don't need to keep them in. We were trying to keep the capitalist pigs out.
So, you have to pay to leave? Whats the purpose of that, other than to keep poor people in?
-->
@Best.Korea
If the poor people leave, who will install your bidet and who will give you good manicure?
Keeping the poor trapped is good strategy, no?
-->
@ponikshiy
It indeed is. I was just wondering if there is some other purpose for exit tax, such as preventing people from coming in since they know they wont be able to come out easily.
-->
@Greyparrot
Chicago tried something similar:
Exit tax?? I what a crock of 💩!!!
-->
@Best.Korea
I googled it. The argument is 2 things. but to be clear, it only applies to people who make 30 million per year or more.
1) since the state has invested heavily in your success (tax breaks, incentives etc), they don't want people who used california's resources to build their wealth to just move it elsewhere after leaching off them.
2) to crack down on a tax loophole. Apparently they have a higher capitol gains tax than other states. So rich people move their assets out of california before selling it to avoid the capitol gains tax. This would help to prevent that.
it only applies to people who make 30 million per year or more.
Well, I misunderstood then.
-->
@HistoryBuff
to crack down on a tax loophole. Apparently they have a higher capitol gains tax than other states. So rich people move their assets out of california before selling it to avoid the capitol gains tax. This would help to prevent that.
It is shocking that given the option rich people will pay less tax. Maybe California should threaten other states if they dont raise taxes to match theirs. .
-->
@ponikshiy
It is shocking that given the option rich people will pay less tax. Maybe California should threaten other states if they dont raise taxes to match theirs. .
Rich people all over the country don't want to pay their fair share. That's why they have been getting richer but average salaries have been declining (when compared to inflation) for decades. They are happy to play each state against each other in their quest to rob us all blind. I don't begrudge a state attempting to actually make them support the state they leech off of. Whether this specific measure is a good plan, I have no idea. But in general, raising taxes on the rich is a good plan.
-->
@HistoryBuff
President Dwight David Eisenhower, perhaps the last real Republican, had a 90 percent tax rate for the super rich during his administration.
Eisenhower explained it this way: The super rich could avoid the high taxes by investing their money in things that make America stronger. If they wanted to avoid high taxes, he said they could invest in business expansions and higher employee wages. They could give a million or two to tax-exempt non-profits that feed, house and clothe poor people of America, among other things.
They did some of that, but the Eisenhower years generated enough taxes to launch and complete the labyrinth of interstate highways, the largest road project America had ever seen and is needed again.
President Trump said that his tax cuts would cause big business to generate more jobs. Federal sources said that the tax cuts didn’t bring about more employment. Businesses took the tax break money and squirreled it away or bought back their company’s stock. Greed won. America lost. And Trump got richer.
Eisenhower explained it this way: The super rich could avoid the high taxes by investing their money in things that make America stronger. If they wanted to avoid high taxes, he said they could invest in business expansions and higher employee wages. They could give a million or two to tax-exempt non-profits that feed, house and clothe poor people of America, among other things.
They did some of that, but the Eisenhower years generated enough taxes to launch and complete the labyrinth of interstate highways, the largest road project America had ever seen and is needed again.
President Trump said that his tax cuts would cause big business to generate more jobs. Federal sources said that the tax cuts didn’t bring about more employment. Businesses took the tax break money and squirreled it away or bought back their company’s stock. Greed won. America lost. And Trump got richer.
Remember that Trump increased the Debt 39 percent.
Refugees? You lie. As usual you can’t tell the truth.
-->
@ponikshiy
This is the work of moose and squirrel.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I do not know those people.
-->
@cristo71
I am guessing the Exit tax didn't pass in Chicago?
-->
@ponikshiy
-->
@Greyparrot
Correct, and I was one of many who left…
-->
@cristo71
Chicago lost another good one then.
Of course you do. You are Natasha
Thank you
-->
@HistoryBuff
1) since the state has invested heavily in your success (tax breaks, incentives etc), they don't want people who used california's resources to build their wealth to just move it elsewhere after leaching off them.
Normal pro-theft bullshit simply being used on even more insane forms of theft. As I have long said there is no limit to what a fallacy can 'prove'.
Hey buddy, isn't that what the income tax is supposed to pay for?
So what is it, the people who stay haven't truly given back to California for its benevolence yet?
2) to crack down on a tax loophole. Apparently they have a higher capitol gains tax than other states. So rich people move their assets out of california before selling it to avoid the capitol gains tax. This would help to prevent that.
You sound like someone who has never had to deal with taxes.
What assets can you move out and not have local capitol gains tax apply to you?
None. There is no such loophole. You buy stock in Japan you have to report it on your federal and state taxes, moving to Iowa doesn't help. Then you just have to report it to Iowa, but that's not really a loophole as much as a "I got the hell out of California".
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Hey buddy, isn't that what the income tax is supposed to pay for?'
pay for what exactly? My quick search on this topic indicated it was aimed at stopping people from finding loopholes around the capitol gains taxes by moving them out of state before selling them. If you want to treat capitol gains as normal income and have it taxed that way, I would be totally on board for that.
So what is it, the people who stay haven't truly given back to California for its benevolence yet?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
What assets can you move out and not have local capitol gains tax apply to you?
I didn't write the law. I did a quick search to see what the point of this law is. My quick research said that in california there is a loophole that allows rich assholes to avoid the local capitol gains tax (which is higher than in other states) by moving out of california before selling the assets. why would you even care about this? The only way this kind of thing could affect you is if you had hundreds of millions of dollars.
None. There is no such loophole. You buy stock in Japan you have to report it on your federal and state taxes, moving to Iowa doesn't help.
ok. but the taxes in california are higher than in other states, according to my quick search. So they are dodging california taxes by moving out of state temporarily, selling the assets, then coming back. With an "exit tax" this would no longer work since they'd have to pay anyway.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Hey buddy, isn't that what the income tax is supposed to pay for?'pay for what exactly?
The imaginary debt to society, where the government of California is magically substituted for society like priests magically substitute for god.
What assets can you move out and not have local capitol gains tax apply to you?I didn't write the law. I did a quick search to see what the point of this law is. My quick research said that in california there is a loophole that allows rich assholes to avoid the local capitol gains tax (which is higher than in other states) by moving out of california before selling the assets.
How in the world is that a loophole? Does someone from Texas need to pay California when they make money?
It sounds like you just don't believe them when they say they're moving out of California. Well you don't get to decide what they identify as ;)
why would you even care about this? The only way this kind of thing could affect you is if you had hundreds of millions of dollars.
Abstract moral principle is the only alternative to savagery. If I was a freeman I would still care about the injustice done to a slave.
So they are dodging california taxes by moving out of state temporarily, selling the assets, then coming back. With an "exit tax" this would no longer work since they'd have to pay anyway.
If it's a temporary thing make it a rentry tax eh? No of course not, because it's not about any silly loophole. Communists think they own everything. A rich person is already a thief in their eyes, at best they're borrowing wealth from society, so when they rich person leaves the communist sees that as making off with all the toys in the sandbox.
That is why they create exit taxes and eventually barbed wire fences.
Here it will fail horribly of course because it's an escalating dynamic where the more you try to trap people the more fear they have and the faster they try to leave. Since California can't actually build a wall without causing a civil war they will drive out all of their productive residents if they actually continue down this path.
I look forward to them trying for that reason, strip the regressive government and parasitic citizens (some not all) of California from the vestages of wealth they did not create or earn.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How in the world is that a loophole? Does someone from Texas need to pay California when they make money?
of course not. But if someone from california moves to texas for a few weeks, sells assets, then moves back to california, then absolutely they need to pay california.
It sounds like you just don't believe them when they say they're moving out of California. Well you don't get to decide what they identify as ;)
I'm just describing what this law is intended to do. Whether or not I believe them is irrelevant. There is a loophole where rich people from california "move", sell their assets in a lower tax state, then "move" back.
Abstract moral principle is the only alternative to savagery. If I was a freeman I would still care about the injustice done to a slave.
blah, blah, blah. The rich shouldn't have to pay their share. gotcha.
If it's a temporary thing make it a rentry tax eh? No of course not, because it's not about any silly loophole.
while this would of course also close the loophole, it would also hit people just trying to move to california. Which they don't want. They only want to target the assholes abusing the system.
Communists think they own everything.
I'm not aware of any communists in America. Certainly not in any government role.
A rich person is already a thief in their eyes, at best they're borrowing wealth from society, so when they rich person leaves the communist sees that as making off with all the toys in the sandbox.
most rich people make alot of their money using public funds. They use public infrastructure. They benefit from the free public schooling the state provides etc. Without the state, these people would not have made their money. And yes, that means they should pay their fair share back into the system that helped them make their money.
-->
@HistoryBuff
If it's a temporary thing make it a rentry tax eh? No of course not, because it's not about any silly loophole.while this would of course also close the loophole, it would also hit people just trying to move to california. Which they don't want. They only want to target the assholes abusing the system.
Reentry, so say only if they had lived in California in the past five years.
Communists think they own everything.I'm not aware of any communists in America. Certainly not in any government role.
Bla bla bla, playing dumb. Gotcha.
most rich people make alot of their money using public funds.
You mean they were paid by the government for a good or service. If the government is getting a bad deal stop giving them money to waste... oh wait they'll physically attack you if you do that.
Bringing us back to taxes.... seems like the snake is eating it's tail. The justification for taxing the rich is because the rich are getting public funds which the rich will continue to receive because the "rest of us" are literal slaves via taxation.
I have an idea! Stop the government from stealing. Then you will still have your money and you won't have to have the government steal it from the rich after the government stole it from you and gave it to the rich.
Best part about this plan? Nobody has any stolen goods so you can tell what the hell is going on. Except that feature is the problem for corrupt politicians/corporations and the communists (that are still communist even if they deny it), because we all know damn well there would still be rich people even without government contracts, and there needs to be an excuse to steal.
They use public infrastructure.
And I've bought a ferry ticket before, doesn't mean the boatman owns me. All prices must be clearly marked, and unless otherwise specified in formal contract final. Anything else is fraud.
In other words, pay for the road with tolls.
They benefit from the free public schooling the state provides etc.
If it's free, why do you claim to be using it as a justification for seizing property?
Trace any economic interaction. The rich pay there way in every conceivable measure the same as the rest of us. The corrupt rich are no different from the corrupt poor morally. The solution to fraud is criminal charges. The solution to government theft is to stop the government from stealing.
There is no moral justification for stealing because of some magic unquantifiable aura of civilization.
Without the state, these people would not have made their money.
Without the state (or at least a state) your mother would have been raped and murdered before she had you, doesn't mean the state owns you.
And yes, that means they should pay their fair share back into the system that helped them make their money.
They did already (excluding fraud and corruption as always). That's what the money means. It's an I Owe You for all the things the rich person provided to others.
You miss the forest for the trees. If you have fed every bird, then you have fed the flock.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Reentry, so say only if they had lived in California in the past five years.
that might work
Communists think they own everything.I'm not aware of any communists in America. Certainly not in any government role.Bla bla bla, playing dumb. Gotcha.
Name me a single communist in office and what communist policy they have suggested. You either can't name one, or you don't know what the word communist means.
Best part about this plan? Nobody has any stolen goods so you can tell what the hell is going on.
this whole rant was little bit nonsensical. All companies make money based on public funds. Their employees are educated using public funds. The roads they use to transport goods are built with public funds etc. Without public services, most companies couldn't function. So yes, it is critical that they pay back into to system to help support it since we all rely on those public services.
And it sounds like you are suggesting like life without any taxes would be some kind of paradise. that is literally not possible. society would collapse and some other society that does use taxes (literally all of them) would take over.
And I've bought a ferry ticket before, doesn't mean the boatman owns me. All prices must be clearly marked, and unless otherwise specified in formal contract final. Anything else is fraud.In other words, pay for the road with tolls.
this is dumb. I mean, should fire fighters charge the person whose house is burning and refuse to put it out if they can't pay? The kind of model you are suggesting died out in the middle ages.
If it's free, why do you claim to be using it as a justification for seizing property?
I'm not sure you understand. nothing is "free". It is just free at the point of service. IE a child or their parents don't pay to go to the school. The school is funded via taxes. History has proven this is a vastly superior way to do it even if you take morality and fairness out of it. It ensures you have an educated workforce which improves the economy and makes everyone richer. If people had to pay to access education, there would be millions who couldn't afford it and we would all be worse off.
Trace any economic interaction. The rich pay there way in every conceivable measure the same as the rest of us.
no, not really. They pay a lower tax rate than you do. In some cases billionaires can actually pay $0 in tax.
Without the state (or at least a state) your mother would have been raped and murdered before she had you, doesn't mean the state owns you.
I have never claimed the states owns me or anyone else. But the state provides services that are critically important. Therefore we all have a duty to pay into the system to make sure those services are provided.
They did already (excluding fraud and corruption as always). That's what the money means.
what? the fact that they have money does not mean they paid their fair share. The rich constantly use loop holes and tax havens to avoid paying their fair share. Billionaires can often pay as little as $0 in taxes. Most rich people pay a lower tax rate than you do. And that's just the officially available numbers. The money they made and just hid without paying taxes on it at, no one could even begin to guess.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Reentry, so say only if they had lived in California in the past five years.that might work
That would apply only to this so called loophole, but the exit tax serves the true purpose of frightening the wealthy into staying.
You either can't name one, or you don't know what the word communist means.
Communists are what communists do. Not interested in playing that semantic game at this time. Not when you're engaging on substantive matters.
Without public services, most companies couldn't function. So yes, it is critical that they pay back into to system to help support it since we all rely on those public services....But the state provides services that are critically important. Therefore we all have a duty to pay into the system to make sure those services are provided.
Q: Is it possible for a modern state to run without steel?
A: No
Q: Given that providing steel is a critical service, do we all have a duty to pay into the steel providing system to make sure that services are provided?
A: Yes, given that premise.
Q: Therefore, if US steel decides to bill each of us (backed up by armed goons) according to our wealth instead of how much steel they delivered that is morally justified?
A: ?
What's the answer HistoryBuff?
And it sounds like you are suggesting like life without any taxes would be some kind of paradise. that is literally not possible. society would collapse and some other society that does use taxes (literally all of them) would take over....this is dumb. I mean, should fire fighters charge the person whose house is burning and refuse to put it out if they can't pay?
This always happens with taxes, people turn off their imagination circuits completely and then make me go through 20 pages of explaining the blindingly obvious. At the end of explaining legal and financial structures that would motivate everyone to prevent and put out fires would you care? No. You'll just wonder off because it's an excuse.
You don't really believe that something intrinsic about public services that requires blank check theft. You have a problem with wealth inequality and you want a legal way to steal to 'fix' it.
I would have hoped a history buff would know that in the USSR bread was an essential government service. How are we going to pay for the bread without taxes HistoryBuff? How?!
Trace any economic interaction. The rich pay there way in every conceivable measure the same as the rest of us.no, not really. They pay a lower tax rate than you do. In some cases billionaires can actually pay $0 in tax.
Taxes are untraceable economic interactions. I meant when they get something from a store they pay for it.
They did already (excluding fraud and corruption as always). That's what the money means.what? the fact that they have money does not mean they paid their fair share.
There is no measure of a "fair share" superior to a mutually agreed upon price.
So, assuming no one's consent was ignored that is exactly what having a positive balance sheet means.
The rich constantly use loop holes and tax havens to avoid paying their fair share.
They owe nothing but what they agreed to pay, same as the rest of us.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Communists are what communists do. Not interested in playing that semantic game at this time. Not when you're engaging on substantive matters.
I mean, you engage in normal right wing tactics. Claim that communists are doing terrible, terrible things. But when challenged on what communists you mean and what exactly they have done that makes them communists, you just refuse to answer.
What's the answer HistoryBuff?
that this example is stupid. Steel is not a public service. It is a good. They are not giving that steel to anyone. They are selling it. The government does not sell roads to people. It does not sell schools to people. It provides them to public for free so that everyone benefits. If the government wanted to produce steel and give it away for free, only then would it be a similar concept. But your average person has no use for bars of steel, so it would still be silly.
You don't really believe that something intrinsic about public services that requires blank check theft. You have a problem with wealth inequality and you want a legal way to steal to 'fix' it.
the funny thing about your beliefs is that large chunks of them were the norm for thousands of years. Where people had to pay for their own education. Where roads had to be built by the wealthy and they could control them. These practices, while effective in a rudimentary way, held back society for millennia. It is only when a centralized state started taking over these services that we got ever increasing advances. Our modern world would not have been possible without taxes and government services.
I would have hoped a history buff would know that in the USSR bread was an essential government service.
you don't know what the word service means do you? Because bread, by definition, is not a service.
Taxes are untraceable economic interactions. I meant when they get something from a store they pay for it.
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So it's a wierd thing to say.
They owe nothing but what they agreed to pay, same as the rest of us.
no one "agrees to pay" taxes. That is not how anything works. That's like saying, "I didn't agree to parking laws, so I'm not going to pay my parking ticket". It's childish. We as a society determine what services we need and how much we need to chip in to make that happen. Individuals each have the same amount of say in this. A rich person should have no more say in this than a poor person.
-->
@HistoryBuff
They are not giving that steel to anyone. They are selling it.
Exactly, that's what honest people do when they can't steal.
But do they have a right to not set a price, tell you that you're benefiting from what they do, and then take what they deem fit and use it for what they deem fit?
Our modern world would not have been possible without taxes and government services.
Nor would the holocaust, I guess we'll have to do a more detailed analysis after all. (By 'we' I mean you, I've done that analysis a long time ago).
I would have hoped a history buff would know that in the USSR bread was an essential government service.you don't know what the word service means do you? Because bread, by definition, is not a service.
Sophistry, there is no relevant difference. People need it, it takes resources and labor. It can be priced. It can be used as a shallow excuse to steal.
I meant when they get something from a store they pay for it.I don't believe anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So it's a wierd thing to say.
You said they haven't paid their fair share. Their fair share of what to whom?
Every time they pay another person or company they are paying their fair share. You may have known the fact, but you do not understand the implication. A man who interacts by honestly gained consent cannot be a thief.
There is no mystical debt.
They owe nothing but what they agreed to pay, same as the rest of us.no one "agrees to pay" taxes.
Thus no one owes taxes.
"I didn't agree to parking laws, so I'm not going to pay my parking ticket"
If I built the parking lot the analogy is sound. Otherwise it is not because using someone else's property does require their consent, even if that someone else is a collective (such as a corporation or state).
It's childish.
It's the objective moral truth.
Individuals each have the same amount of say in this. A rich person should have no more say in this than a poor person.
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Apply your logic to consent for sexual contact, how do you feel about that?