When socialism comes to America..

[UNI88]

Florida names NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani 'Economic Developer of the Year' in Times Square campaign
A billboard thanks Mamdani for driving wealth, businesses and families to the Sunshine State

….

Xi Jinping should follow suit and name trump China's Statesman of the Year.

[kalm]

Florida names NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani 'Economic Developer of the Year' in Times Square campaign
A billboard thanks Mamdani for driving wealth, businesses and families to the Sunshine State

….

History and recent economic analysis shows this is not a thing. The same was said of Seattle when it raised its minimum wage.

Besides, wealthy people, including the wealthiest are replaceable. Everyone is.

[Caribbean Hen]

Florida names NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani 'Economic Developer of the Year' in Times Square campaign
A billboard thanks Mamdani for driving wealth, businesses and families to the Sunshine State

….

History and recent economic analysis shows this is not a thing. The same was said of Seattle when it raised its minimum wage.

Besides, wealthy people, including the wealthiest are replaceable. Everyone is.

Their tax dollars aren’t, unless the socialist are gonna tax the socialist… eventually they will have to

[kalm]

History and recent economic analysis shows this is not a thing. The same was said of Seattle when it raised its minimum wage.

Besides, wealthy people, including the wealthiest are replaceable. Everyone is.

Their tax dollars aren’t, unless the socialist are gonna tax the socialist… eventually they will have to

Sure they are. And socialists pay taxes too when they make enough. In places like Norway they appreciate the services provided by those taxes.

[kalm]

[BDKJMU]

Florida names NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani 'Economic Developer of the Year' in Times Square campaign
A billboard thanks Mamdani for driving wealth, businesses and families to the Sunshine State

….

History and recent economic analysis shows this is not a thing. The same was said of Seattle when it raised its minimum wage.

Besides, wealthy people, including the wealthiest are replaceable. Everyone is.

Wrong.
NYC specific. Pre Mamdami data. It’s only going to get worse for NYC.
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 5#p1483725

NY State
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1497378
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1493008
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... a#p1491727
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1487008

[kalm]

History and recent economic analysis shows this is not a thing. The same was said of Seattle when it raised its minimum wage.

Besides, wealthy people, including the wealthiest are replaceable. Everyone is.

Wrong.
NYC specific. Pre Mamdami data. It’s only going to get worse for NYC.
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 5#p1483725

NY State
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1497378
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1493008
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... a#p1491727
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1487008

Yawn. Your links and numbers are always highly suspect. Besides, I’m sure there was much clamoring or previous changes. NYC will be just fine.

Next time, how about a DIRECT link to unbiased data.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong.
NYC specific. Pre Mamdami data. It’s only going to get worse for NYC.
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 5#p1483725

NY State
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1497378
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1493008
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... a#p1491727
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... 8#p1487008

Yawn. Your links and numbers are always highly suspect. Besides, I’m sure there was much clamoring or previous changes. NYC will be just fine.

Next time, how about a DIRECT link to unbiased data.

The data above came from

High-income taxpayers contribute a significant share of New York's personal income tax revenue, making their residency choices important to funding robust public services. From 2010 to 2022, New York's share of the nation's millionaires declined from 12.7 percent to 8.7 percent. New York’s number of millionaires doubled, but it tripled in California and Texas and quadrupled in Florida, leaving New York State with the fourth-most millionaires behind those states.

New York's Share of Millionaires Has Declined the Most

NYS Could Have Collected $10.7B More in Tax Year 2022 if Its Millionaire Share Held Steady

https://cbcny.org/research/competitive-nys#taxes
And note the chart shows they could have collected 15.3 billion more a year in 2021.

and
https://cbcny.org/newsroom/cbc-releases ... aire-share

[kalm]

Yawn. Your links and numbers are always highly suspect. Besides, I’m sure there was much clamoring or previous changes. NYC will be just fine.

Next time, how about a DIRECT link to unbiased data.

The data above came from

High-income taxpayers contribute a significant share of New York's personal income tax revenue, making their residency choices important to funding robust public services. From 2010 to 2022, New York's share of the nation's millionaires declined from 12.7 percent to 8.7 percent. New York’s number of millionaires doubled, but it tripled in California and Texas and quadrupled in Florida, leaving New York State with the fourth-most millionaires behind those states.

New York's Share of Millionaires Has Declined the Most

NYS Could Have Collected $10.7B More in Tax Year 2022 if Its Millionaire Share Held Steady

https://cbcny.org/research/competitive-nys#taxes
And note the chart shows they could have collected 15.3 billion more a year in 2021.

and
https://cbcny.org/newsroom/cbc-releases ... aire-share

So some flight to tax havens. This just shows their victimhood and lack of gratefulness and social responsibility. My point still stands.

[kalm]

As Hartmann suggests, Americans aren’t really embracing socialism, they’re rejecting 50 years of steadily increasing oligarchical power.

“If a monkey hoarded more bananas than it could eat while most of the other monkeys starved, scientists would study that monkey to figure out what was wrong with it. When humans do it, we put them on the cover of Forbes.”

Americans aren’t really asking for that much: Canada has it all. England has it all. France has it all. Germany has it all. Spain has it all. As do dozens of other countries, all the way down to little Costa Rica.

This isn’t rocket science. People simply want a government that will help them and their children achieve their highest potential, an economy that’s not rigged by and for the morbidly rich, and a job that pays enough to sustain a middle-class lifestyle.

The problem we face today is that a large cohort of our billionaire and CEO class are suffering from the mental illness commonly known as hoarding syndrome, a subset of obsessive-compulsive disorder. There’s never enough for them, no matter how much they have, so they don’t care how many people must die or live in poverty for them to maintain their (tax-deductible) islands, palaces, bunkers, yachts, and private jets.

Those billionaires and CEOs, following the 1971 advice of notorious tobacco lawyer and sociopath Lewis Powell, built out a massive think tank and media infrastructure to transform America from a middle-class nation into a full-blown oligarchy, where every decision made by the Supreme Court, Congress, and most state legislatures would take care of their wants and desires before those of anybody else.

Nixon put Powell on the Supreme Court in 1972 and in 1978 he authored the Bellotti decision, saying that corporations are “persons” and money is the “free speech.” That let Reagan float into the presidency two years later on a tsunami of oil industry money (along with the treasonous deal he cut with Iran’s Mullah’s to hold the American hostages until after the election), remove Jimmy Carter’s solar panels from the roof of the White House, and kill his plans for solarizing America.

https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartm ... medium=ios

[BDKJMU]

The data above came from

https://cbcny.org/research/competitive-nys#taxes
And note the chart shows they could have collected 15.3 billion more a year in 2021.

and
https://cbcny.org/newsroom/cbc-releases ... aire-share

So some flight to tax havens. This just shows their victimhood and lack of gratefulness and social responsibility. My point still stands.

And your point has been shown by the recent data to be wrong

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

So some flight to tax havens. This just shows their victimhood and lack of gratefulness and social responsibility. My point still stands.

And your point has been shown by the recent data to be wrong

By YOUR recent data. There a number of studies showing wealth flight to mostly be a myth. Will you lose a few individuals and companies? Perhaps. But as I’ve said before, they are replaceable. And it’s not as if wealth tied up in over-priced real estate assets is contributing to these communities. We have a wealth extraction based economy. Not sustainable.

[BDKJMU]

And your point has been shown by the recent data to be wrong

By YOUR recent data. There a number of studies showing wealth flight to mostly be a myth. Will you lose a few individuals and companies? Perhaps. But as I’ve said before, they are replaceable. And it’s not as if wealth tied up in over-priced real estate assets is contributing to these communities. We have a wealth extraction based economy. Not sustainable.

Links?

And it’s not like NYC confiscating more wealth, causing some of it to flee (mostly to FL), is contributing to those communities either.
https://flvsnyc.com/

And we have a wealth creating economy. Perfectly sustainable..

[kalm]

By YOUR recent data. There a number of studies showing wealth flight to mostly be a myth. Will you lose a few individuals and companies? Perhaps. But as I’ve said before, they are replaceable. And it’s not as if wealth tied up in over-priced real estate assets is contributing to these communities. We have a wealth extraction based economy. Not sustainable.

Links?

And it’s not like NYC confiscating more wealth, causing some of it to flee (mostly to FL), is contributing to those communities either.
https://flvsnyc.com/

And we have a wealth creating economy. Perfectly sustainable..

Comparing NYC to an entire state?

Extracting wealth from natural resources and the working class (think social programs, environmental safety and conservation, etc) is not really a wealth creating economy. And it’s certainly not sustainable. Perpetual growth incuding wealth creation is not found anywhere in the natural universe.

[kalm]

Is there no end to these commies?!?

[BDKJMU]

Links?

And it’s not like NYC confiscating more wealth, causing some of it to flee (mostly to FL), is contributing to those communities either.
https://flvsnyc.com/

And we have a wealth creating economy. Perfectly sustainable..

Comparing NYC to an entire state?

Extracting wealth from natural resources and the working class (think social programs, environmental safety and conservation, etc) is not really a wealth creating economy. And it’s certainly not sustainable. Perpetual growth incuding wealth creation is not found anywhere in the natural universe.

Like I thought, no links. Just pulled a statement out of your arse.

Lol extracting wealth from nat resources is a wealth creating economy. And it’s perfectly sustainable. Examples
-Petroleum: Besides for fuel & energy there’s thousands of petroleum based products. And the theory of ‘peak oil’ keeps getting pushed back decades and decades.
-Mining: minerals used in thousands of products. Ex your smart phone alone has 40+ diff minerals in it. And we’re not anywhere close to running out. ..For centuries.
-Logging: thousands of wood and paper products.
And it certainly is sustainable.

If we didn’t extract from natural resources we would literally be still stuck in the Stone Age.

And lol going on 3 centuries (since the start of the Industrial Revolution) of perpetual worldwide economic growth and wealth creation says otherwise.

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

Comparing NYC to an entire state?

Extracting wealth from natural resources and the working class (think social programs, environmental safety and conservation, etc) is not really a wealth creating economy. And it’s certainly not sustainable. Perpetual growth incuding wealth creation is not found anywhere in the natural universe.

Like I thought, no links. Just pulled a statement out of your arse.

Lol extracting wealth from nat resources is a wealth creating economy. And it’s perfectly sustainable. Examples
-Petroleum: Besides for fuel & energy there’s thousands of petroleum based products. And the theory of ‘peak oil’ keeps getting pushed back decades and decades.
-Mining: minerals used in thousands of products. Ex your smart phone alone has 40+ diff minerals in it. And we’re not anywhere close to running out. ..For centuries.
-Logging: thousands of wood and paper products.
And it certainly is sustainable.

If we didn’t extract from natural resources we would literally be still stuck in the Stone Age.

And lol going on 3 centuries (since the start of the Industrial Revolution) of perpetual worldwide economic growth and wealth creation says otherwise.

Like I thought, you’re too intellectually lazy to make a quick search on your own.

Opponents of California’s proposed 2026 Billionaire Wealth Tax Act repeat a familiar warning: tax the wealthy and they will leave. The claim has rhetorical force; it makes sense on the surface — don’t billionaires make most decisions based only on money? It turns out billionaires aren’t one-dimensional or solely motivated by money. They care about home, long-term personal and business relationships, and some care about improving the lives of the poor and workers.

That there is little to no economic evidence showing that billionaires will move to avoid a small and one-time wealth tax — dedicated to a specific humanitarian cause — is no surprise.

Decades of economic research show that billionaire “flight” is rare, exaggerated, and often confused with tax avoidance through accounting maneuvers rather than physical relocation. That distinction matters. Policymakers who mistake avoidance for exit risk misdesign taxes and leave substantial revenue on the table. The proposed one-time wealth tax in California is exceptionally well-designed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghil ... res-leave/

Links are in the article.

The rest of your drivel just confirms the intellectual honesty.

I’d suggest you research some less biased sources on sustainability and extraction industries but we know you won’t. Honest curiosity might lead you to shatter some personal myths, and that’s a scary thing to go through.

[UNI88]

Comparing NYC to an entire state?

Extracting wealth from natural resources and the working class (think social programs, environmental safety and conservation, etc) is not really a wealth creating economy. And it’s certainly not sustainable. Perpetual growth incuding wealth creation is not found anywhere in the natural universe.

Like I thought, no links. Just pulled a statement out of your arse.

Lol extracting wealth from nat resources is a wealth creating economy. And it’s perfectly sustainable. Examples
-Petroleum: Besides for fuel & energy there’s thousands of petroleum based products. And the theory of ‘peak oil’ keeps getting pushed back decades and decades.
-Mining: minerals used in thousands of products. Ex your smart phone alone has 40+ diff minerals in it. And we’re not anywhere close to running out. ..For centuries.
-Logging: thousands of wood and paper products.
And it certainly is sustainable.

If we didn’t extract from natural resources we would literally be still stuck in the Stone Age.

And lol going on 3 centuries (since the start of the Industrial Revolution) of perpetual worldwide economic growth and wealth creation says otherwise.

Extraction is sustainable if we're smart about it and don't try to extract as much as possible or ignore the impact on air or water quality.

There is also value in maintaining our national parks as they are rather then turning them into oil fields, mines, etc. in order for a small number of people to profit.

[BDKJMU]

Like I thought, no links. Just pulled a statement out of your arse.

Lol extracting wealth from nat resources is a wealth creating economy. And it’s perfectly sustainable. Examples
-Petroleum: Besides for fuel & energy there’s thousands of petroleum based products. And the theory of ‘peak oil’ keeps getting pushed back decades and decades.
-Mining: minerals used in thousands of products. Ex your smart phone alone has 40+ diff minerals in it. And we’re not anywhere close to running out. ..For centuries.
-Logging: thousands of wood and paper products.
And it certainly is sustainable.

If we didn’t extract from natural resources we would literally be still stuck in the Stone Age.

And lol going on 3 centuries (since the start of the Industrial Revolution) of perpetual worldwide economic growth and wealth creation says otherwise.

Like I thought, you’re too intellectually lazy to make a quick search on your own.

Opponents of California’s proposed 2026 Billionaire Wealth Tax Act repeat a familiar warning: tax the wealthy and they will leave. The claim has rhetorical force; it makes sense on the surface — don’t billionaires make most decisions based only on money? It turns out billionaires aren’t one-dimensional or solely motivated by money. They care about home, long-term personal and business relationships, and some care about improving the lives of the poor and workers.

That there is little to no economic evidence showing that billionaires will move to avoid a small and one-time wealth tax — dedicated to a specific humanitarian cause — is no surprise.

Decades of economic research show that billionaire “flight” is rare, exaggerated, and often confused with tax avoidance through accounting maneuvers rather than physical relocation. That distinction matters. Policymakers who mistake avoidance for exit risk misdesign taxes and leave substantial revenue on the table. The proposed one-time wealth tax in California is exceptionally well-designed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghil ... res-leave/

Links are in the article.

The rest of your drivel just confirms the intellectual honesty.

I’d suggest you research some less biased sources on sustainability and extraction industries but we know you won’t. Honest curiosity might lead you to shatter some personal myths, and that’s a scary thing to go through.

That there is little to no economic evidence showing that billionaires will move to avoid a small and one-time wealth tax

A Wealth Tax Will Raise Needed And Substantial Revenue

If it’s a ‘small’ wealth tax, how can they then claim it will raise ‘substantial’ revenue.

lol at anyone who believes this will be ‘one time’. Watch 5 years from now (this ‘one time’ tax is spread out over 5 years) the money grubbing pols in CA decide to make this permanent…

And at ‘Needed’ revenue. CA doesn’t NEED more revenue. Local and state per capita spending CA is 3rd behind Alaska (they cut citizens checks from oil revenues) and NY. CA has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/ ... res-capita
Also the authors in this opinion piece:

-Ignore the elephant in the room: Taxing unrealized gains. There are billionaires who are only billionaires due to unrealized gains on paper. Stock rich, and cash poor. They don’t have hundreds of millions to lying around to pay this.

-Only accounted for outmigration. They didn’t account for millionaires/ billionaires who would have move to high tax places from lower tax places if not for the higher taxes. To capture that have to do a comparison to other states of share of billionaires over time, as the articles I previously linked contained.

As far 4 studies cited:
-One is a 15 year old for the state of NJ after NJ’s top rate was 6.37% to 8.97%. Behind an paywall so can’t access. Regardless, it outdated because it doesn’t include the NOW top rate of 10.75%. Also the study only accounted for outmigration. It doesn’t account for millionaires who would have moved to NJ if not for the higher taxes.

A second link is an international one “Taxation and the International Mobility of Inventors” that states

narrow group of “superstar” scientists and inventors are somewhat responsive to tax differences — but even there, mobility is limited and concentrated among globally mobile elites.

Just including scientists & inventors and including other countries, most smaller & that don’t have state systems like we so it isn’t even germane to the subject.

A 3rd & 4th studies linked include is a Danish study (Paywall/membership blocked) and a Swedish one. Small countries with small populations that aren’t comparable to the US. and its states. Irrelevant.

The 5th study linked is a recent one which the authors admit support the arguement of an CA exodus.

[BDKJMU]

Economic simpletons don’t understand this. There’s a reason Newsome and other sane, smart donks (yeah lol) are against this.

money goes to the founders, who are now worth billions of dollars over night. They are the definition of cash poor, stock rich

How are you going to tax them ? Make them borrow money against their shares, if they can? They just raised money to grow their company and a bank will come along and loan them money ? A company that has been in business maybe less than a year ? lol

Will you take their stock if they can’t ?

Do you really think each of multiple founders, who started an amazing company in Cali and is now a billionaire, can each just pull out $250m per billion of net worth from their raise ? You know they can’t.

If this passes , and it doesn’t directly impact me at all, I won’t be a cali resident, but you can bet if I’m investing in a multi billion dollar startup, I’m asking them to move from California first.

IMO, if this passes, only idiot startup founders stay in Cali.

I’ve done it before and will do it again. Dallas. Pittsburgh. Indiana. I will make NOT being in California a pre requisite for an investment

Ideology is not a strategy Ro.

[UNI88]

Taxing unrealized gains is foolish and at anyone who believes a "wealth" tax will be a one-time thing.

[BDKJMU]

Taxing unrealized gains is foolish and at anyone who believes a "wealth" tax will be a one-time thing.

Hey we agree on something.

[kalm]

Like I thought, you’re too intellectually lazy to make a quick search on your own.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghil ... res-leave/

Links are in the article.

The rest of your drivel just confirms the intellectual honesty.

I’d suggest you research some less biased sources on sustainability and extraction industries but we know you won’t. Honest curiosity might lead you to shatter some personal myths, and that’s a scary thing to go through.

That there is little to no economic evidence showing that billionaires will move to avoid a small and one-time wealth tax

A Wealth Tax Will Raise Needed And Substantial Revenue

If it’s a ‘small’ wealth tax, how can they then claim it will raise ‘substantial’ revenue.

lol at anyone who believes this will be ‘one time’. Watch 5 years from now (this ‘one time’ tax is spread out over 5 years) the money grubbing pols in CA decide to make this permanent…

And at ‘Needed’ revenue. CA doesn’t NEED more revenue. Local and state per capita spending CA is 3rd behind Alaska (they cut citizens checks from oil revenues) and NY. CA has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/ ... res-capita
Also the authors in this opinion piece only accounted for outmigration. They didn’t account for millionaires/ billionaires who would have move to high tax places from lower tax places if not for the higher taxes. To capture that have to do a comparison to other states of share of millionaires over time, as the articles I previously linked contained.

As far 4 studies cited:
-One is a 15 year old for the state of NJ after NJ’s top rate was 6.37% to 8.97%. Behind an paywall so can’t access. Regardless, it outdated because it doesn’t include the NOW top rate of 10.75%. Also the study only accounted for outmigration. It doesn’t account for millionaires who would have moved to NJ if not for the higher taxes.

A second link is an international one “Taxation and the International Mobility of Inventors” that states

narrow group of “superstar” scientists and inventors are somewhat responsive to tax differences — but even there, mobility is limited and concentrated among globally mobile elites.

Just including scientists & inventors and including other countries, most smaller & that don’t have state systems like we so it isn’t even germane to the subject.

A 3rd & 4th studies linked include is a Danish study (Paywall/membership blocked) and a Swedish one. Small countries with small populations that aren’t comparable to the US. and its states. Irrelevant.

The 5th study linked is a recent one which the authors admit support the arguement of an CA exodus.

And the authors address only the out migration-billionaires who might flee CA. They ignore the already billionaires who would consider moving to CA if it wasn’t for their high taxation.

It was one quick example. You had to nitpick and manipulate to try and win something. Fail.

Keep defending the billionaire class tho. I’m sure they appreciate you.