California was once known as the destination for anyone seeking a fortune, from the Gold Rush to Hollywood. The image of a line of wagon trains heading West has now been replaced by a line of U-Hauls heading anywhere but California. Unable to stem the exodus, California is again toying with retroactive taxes — targeting the wealthy regardless of whether they flee the state. Welcome to Hotel California, “you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”California democrats have long faced the same dilemma of constantly tapping the wealthy to cover their deficit spending: these individuals and their wealth are mobile. They can simply leave and many are doing so. We recently discussed how California is now losing a taxpayer every minute.Previously, the state moved to tax people who left the state. Now, the state is seeking a billionaire tax and making it retroactive. Thus, even if you were waiting to decide to leave, it is too late. You are being taxed for the prior year.
California Democrats are pushing the retroactive billionaire tax targeting the roughly 220 billionaires residing in California in 2025. It signals not just desperation in the face of crippling debt and overspending but a recognition that California is chasing its highest earners out of the state.
The “2026 Billionaires Tax Act” would impose a one-time 5% tax on individual wealth exceeding $1 billion. While technically using 2026 wealth figures, it would apply to billionaires who resided in California in 2025. So you cannot hope to flee… at least with your wealth intact. It is a penalty for those who stayed too long hoping that rational minds would prevail in California.
The tax is a familiar tactic of many in politics who attack the wealthiest citizens as somehow ripping off the poor. If states can do this for billionaires, it is likely to do it for those in lower tax brackets as they face the choice between financial discipline and tax increases.
As I discuss in my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, there is a common myth that the top five percent of this country do not “pay their fair share.” However, putting that debate aside, the question is whether it will produce more revenue than it costs the state in the long run. As these politicians campaign on clipping the “fat cats” who are not paying their fair share, many are likely to follow the exodus to lower tax states with greater fiscal discipline.
The constitutionality of a retroactive tax has long been controversial. In Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), the Supreme Court declared “the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence… [e]lementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and conform their conduct accordingly; settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted.”
Most Americans are obviously not billionaires, but see the obvious unfairness to such retroactive taxes. People are allowed to make decisions on whether they want to stay in a state and how to invest their money in light of tax and other considerations. These retroactive taxes allow a bait-and-switch for taxpayers as politicians tap wealth from prior years.
However, in United States v. Carlton (1994), the Court addressed a new estate tax deduction for selling stock in employee stock ownership plans that was included in the 1986 tax reform law. In January 1987, the IRS announced that the legislation had a flaw: it did not require a taxpayer to own the stock before dying. New legislation was passed in December 1987 with retroactive effect to the 1986 law.
The Supreme Court refused to strike down the 14 months of retroactive application. Calling the change “modest,” the Court noted that the IRS sent out a quick notice that it would seek a legislative fix, and that the law essentially corrected an unintended error. However, even that left some on the Court uneasy, and justices like Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas warned against “bait-and-switch taxation.” The key was the notice and the fact that it only applied to a single year.
Some retroactive taxes have been struck down. For example, in Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142 (1927), a 12-year period of retroactivity was struck down as “so arbitrary and capricious as to amount to confiscation.”
The Court has left the area a mess of countervailing rationales and holdings. However, it has clearly held that retroactive taxes are not per se unconstitutional. In Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147 (1938), the Court upheld a retroactive tax and held that the outcome depends upon whether “retroactive application is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation.” It stressed that:
“Provided that the retroactive application of a statute is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means, judgments about the wisdom of such legislation remain within the exclusive province of the legislative and executive branches . . .’
The rational basis test is difficult for a state to fail. However, California could force the Court to reexamine this area and offer more concrete protections for citizens who are retroactively fleeced by a state.
Until then, welcome to the Hotel California:
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
“Relax,” said the night man
“We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave”
This is a fundamental repudiation of the concept of “rule of law”.
“Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand-rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge… While every law restricts individual freedom to some extent by altering the means that people may use in the pursuit of their aims, under the Rule of Law the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts.” Written by Frederick Hayek in 1941 in “the Road to Serfdom”
hi Larry. I always do a double-take when people invoke ‘rule of law’ without defining it. thanks for your input.
however, doesn’t every country have ‘laws?’ yes. does the phrase mean simply what it says in three words? Francis Fukayama says different:
he says ‘Rule of Law’ means the leaders believe there is something above themselves. for two thousand years western rulers have taken a cue from the Christian church and believed there was a higher law that they may not violate.
for instance, does Barak Obamalinsky believe there’s anything above himself? nope. he’s the ultimate. how bout Joe Xiden or the Hildabeast or Therapist Bill Clinton? nope. each has the ego and arrogance to believe his/her notions are the be-all and end-all.
it is the belief in something higher that keeps good leaders on the straight and narrow. to good leaders like Ronnie or W this causes a humility that prevents excesses. this is what makes ‘rule of law’ real for them and tissue paper for atheist ego-heads; this is why good leaders defend ‘rule of law’ and bad leaders consider ‘rule of law’ to be an obstruction to their goal of total power.
this is why scolding leaders of Latin, African, Communist and other Banana Republics is a naive waste of effort.
if you ask my philosophy, I’ll say I’m a custom concoction: agnostic-atheist-Christian. this is why although I am not a formal Christian, I definitely want a Christian to be my President. not only will s/he defend the ‘rule of law,’ but faith gives him/her strength to face the daily drumbeat pressures and humility to seek and accept advice on the fairest and most moral decision.
if leaders do not believe in a higher power than themselves, you cannot and will not have ‘rule of law.’ I think he’s right.
Tax the rich, feed the poor
‘Til there are no rich no more
Ten Years After
‘I’d love to change the world.’
1971
Won’t someone think of the billionaires? The ones who can pay for media coverage favorable to them?
“Unable to stem the exodus . . .”
CA survives by looting those who are productive. But it has a problem: A dwindling supply of victims.
But don’t cry for CA. It has a solution — create new victims, with really deep pockets:
The city of San Francisco just filed a lawsuit against, among others, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Kellogg, and Kraft Heinz.
So they’re suing Mexico? Those corporations sold.
@Sam,
That’s ok. Those big corporations don’t have the 2A to help defend them from this onslaught of failed legislation.
(You have to understand the whole anti-2A set of laws that are about to get overturned by SCOTUS to get that comment.)
Here’s something to consider.
SCOTUS hear’s Trump’s argument about asking about Citizenship on the US Census.
He’ll succeed.
Then what?
CA, and other Dim controlled states will suddenly be on the hook for their huge influx of illegals and non-citizens who are a drag on the economy.
H1B, Greencard, Students… aren’t the issue. So now this large population set holds no value to the Dims. Fewer congressional seats and less government funding. So those funds have to come from the state.
-G
They tore down the Berlin Wall and moved it to California.
Why California Is Unaffordable
10% of California’s population is concentrated in just 0.1% of its geographic area, while 80% is concentrated in just 3.0% of its geographic area, and 90% is concentrated in just 5.1% of its geographic area. These realities likely impact the efficiency and impacts of policies implemented across such a vast state.
https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/quick-hits/california-density/#:~:text=A%20map%20of%20the%20state%20of%20California%2C,focused%20our%20analysis%20on%20census%20tracts%20rather
…………………………………………..
California is no longer desirable for middle-class families. And these stats tell us why. An overwhelming majority of Californians live on relatively little land. Because most of California consists of mountains, deserts and range unsuitable for cities. Water, of course, is always an issue; either too much or too little. The truth is that maps of California look deceptively big in proportion to livable space.
I can’tsee how a California retroactive billionaire tax is not an ex post facto law specially prohibited by article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution.
3rd world comes to mind.
And possibly a Bill of Attainder, also within Article 1 Section 10
I love headlines…
“Republicans want a health care plan. They don’t know what will go in it.”
Maybe they can all come together with some “hope and prayers”. It worked for mass shootings, Its bound to work for a new health care bill.
Awww, does Gigi have unresolved anger issues and she needs to vent? That’s cute.
So you’re telling me their plan is “hope and prayer”?
That would be about 10 times as effective as Obamacare.
$1B stolen by a bunch of Scarecrows in Minnesota with the full assistance of a blubbering idiot of a governor. Think how much healthcare that $1B would have provided for our own Citizens.
FREE Derek Chauvin Now!
We have 60+ years of experience with Healthcare laws.
Without exception they have ALL failed.
They have made healthcare less affordable.
Th best thing Republicans could do would be to repeal all the prior healthcare laws.
That would actually improve heatlhcare and make it more affordable.
Going to a doctor is a good health care plan.
Here’s the only moral health care plan:
Devise your own. Pay for it out of your own pocket.
It’s your life. Take some bloody responsibility.
as to the billionaires’ tax, even if they pay-up like sheep being shorn, the money will be grafted, grifted, bribed, stolen and lost, as usual.
Who is John Galt?
AI Overview
In Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, “business fairness laws” refer to a series of government regulations that mandate collectivism and sacrifice of individual achievement for the supposed “public good.” These laws are presented as the primary drivers of economic collapse in the book’s dystopian world. Key “fairness” laws and their functions include:
The “Fair Share” Law: This regulation dictates that all buyers are entitled to an equal share of a given product (such as Hank Rearden’s newly invented metal), regardless of their contribution, need, or ability to pay. This prevents producers from dealing with whom they choose by mutual consent, thus stifling trade and innovation.
The “Equalization of Opportunity” Bill: This law aims to limit the number of businesses a single person can own to just one. Its purpose is to break up integrated companies like Rearden Steel (which owned its own ore mines), allowing the government to seize assets and deny essential supplies to successful industrialists.
The “Anti-dog-eat-dog” Rule: Passed by the National Alliance of Railroads, this rule is designed to prevent “destructive competition” by giving an industry alliance authority to forbid competition between railroads in certain areas. It is used by the villains to politically manipulate the market and drive out successful competitors like the Phoenix-Durango Railroad.
The “Economic Emergency Law”: This overarching law, among others, forbids discrimination “for any reason whatever against any person in any matter involving his livelihood.” In practice, it forces employers to retain incompetent workers and prevents business owners from making judgments based on ability or merit.
In the novel, these laws are not based on objective principles of justice but rather on the subjective, ever-changing demands of “need,” “fairness,” and the “public good.” Ayn Rand uses these scenarios to argue that such government intervention stifles individual creativity and productive effort, leading the most capable people to “go on strike” and withdraw their talents, resulting in societal collapse.
Atlas Shrugged is an excellent dystopia outlining how this left wing nut nonsense fails
But we do not need Randian Fiction.
We have the real world to show us that this type of nonsense always fails.
Where is the USSR ?
+100
James Watson died on November 6, 2025 at 97.
_____________________________________________________
“It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.”
– James Watson, 25, and Francis Crick announced their discovery of the double helical structure of DNA in 1953.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“DR. WATSON WAS CORRECT ON ALL ACCOUNTS”
National Institute of Health/PubMed. 2008 Apr 28.
James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: faces the consequences, Jason Malloy, PubMed PMID: 18440722 DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.03.041
Abstract
Recent comments by the eminent biologist James Watson concerning intelligence test data from sub-Saharan Africa resulted in professional sanctions as well as numerous public condemnations from the media and the scientific community. They justified these sanctions to the public through an abuse of trust, by suggesting that intelligence testing is a meaningless and discredited science, that there is no data to support Dr. Watson’s comments, that genetic causes of group differences in intelligence are falsified logically and empirically, and that such differences are already accounted for by known environment factors. None of these arguments are correct, much less beyond legitimate scientific debate. Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts: (1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations, (2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and (3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors. The media and the larger scientific community punished Dr. Watson for violating a social and political taboo, but fashioned their case to the public in terms of scientific ethics. This necessitated lying to the public about numerous scientific issues to make Watson appear negligent in his statements; a gross abuse of valuable and fragile public trust in scientific authority. Lies and a threatening, coercive atmosphere to free inquiry and exchange are damaging to science as an institution and to scientists as individuals, while voicing unfashionable hypotheses is not damaging to science. The ability to openly voice and argue ideas in good faith that are strange and frightening to some is, in fact, integral to science. Those that have participated in undermining this openness and fairness have therefore damaged science, even while claiming to protect it with the same behavior.
Good post. You should adopt a moniker.
Of course Watson was correct. So was ” The Bell Curve.”
Our species, like the others, has adapted [evolved] to survive in its environments.
Many different environments yield many different adaptations.
Every human characteristic has varied: height, body shape, skin, hair, bone density, bone structure, tolerance for, heat, cold, air density, etc, resistance and susceptibility to disease…everything.
It is not only improbable but against strong evidence , that intellectual abilities alone would remain identical across all sub-species of human. That is the realm or superstition.
The Court has left the area a mess of countervailing rationales and holdings. However, it has clearly held that retroactive taxes are not per se unconstitutional. In Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147 (1938), the Court upheld a retroactive tax and held that the outcome depends upon whether “retroactive application is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation.”
This shows the folly of using a reasonableness test or rational basis, or the type of multi-factor standard Justice O’Connor was so fond of. What constitutes a tax that is “harsh” or “oppressive” is often in the eye of the beholder. I do not trust that judgment to a bunch of lawyers whether they put on a black robe or not. Interpret and apply the Constitution without all these mealy-mouth lawyerly phrases that just allow the state, with its power to destroy through taxes, to abuse that power with a wink and a not from some judges in high places. Give us a bright-line rule of no retroactive taxation. Make the Constitution mean something real, solid, and palpable, not something squishy. Put limits on what the government can do to its citizens through taxation.
Is the tax “confiscatory” or punitive?
If a tax targets an extremely narrow class, is triggered by past behavior, imposes a one-time levy on accumulated wealth, and is intended to deter exit or punish residence, … courts may view it as confiscatory, which violates due process.
I would say a tax on the wealth of such a small group of taxpayers is definitely confiscatory. If I was a taxpayer in Ca, I move out of the state and transfer or liquidate any holdings I had there.
Fullycatda: “Is the tax “confiscatory” or punitive?”
Worse than either.
It is stupid.
President Donald Trump is urging U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to block any release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on his investigation into the president’s alleged mishandling of hundreds of classified documents, in a case that had been charged in part under the Espionage Act.
Please, burn the report. Heaven forbid we find out how many classified documents trump put in his bathroom, oops, reading room. And we really do not want to know how many “guests” to Mary a logo might have been handed a real life classified report so they can heap praise on the great and powerful oz, oops trump.
^ Stage 4, hospital level TDS ^
What a load of crap. That case is over forever.
What does that have to do with the CA tax laws?
Here is an article about Jack Smith’s report: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/02/trump-jack-smith-classified-docs-report-00673178
Read my lips. Jack Smith is a lying hit man. Read them again. Nobody cares.
Smith’s appointment and investigation is not and never was legal or constitutional.
It does not matter what his report claims
Firstly, you can’t spell. Secondly, any document transferred physically to anywhere by a sitting President is appropriately handled. He is THE ONLY authority for any level of classification. This was definitively settled by the Supreme Court over thirty years ago.
Lastly, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is just another of your daily rants caused by your Terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome.
However, it actually warms my heart to realize that you are so fixated on hating Mr. Trump and the rest of us normal people that you will never have another peaceful and relaxing breath. So, rage on!
Is there anything I can do to further ignite your rage?
ATS – why do we want a garbage report by someone who was not conducting a legal investigation into a non-crime ?
Regardless, JW vs. NARA more than a decade ago established that The president can take whatever WH documnets they wish with them as they leave office – classified or not, and they can do whatever they wish with them – they are their property.
There NEVER was a crime.
While there is ample evidence that Trump did NOT toss classified documents about willy nilly.
The documents were always in the part of AML that is exclusively Trump’s
Even withing that isolated portion of MAL they were primarily in a SCIFF or in Trump’s office.
As the FBI raid established they were not in Baron’s bedroom, they were not in Melanie’s underwear drawer.
That is opposed to Biden who as Ex VP – and former VP’s do NOT have the right to take classified docs with them.
Had classified docs he accumulated over the course of 40 years – including as a Senator where he had to steal them from a SCIFF, strune all over multiple homes, and offices that were not secured by either the secret service or private security – MAL had both.
They were in offices in a fascility that the Chinese proived for Biden and had access to.
They were in multiple home that were not guarded as Trump’s MAL residence is.
They were mixed in piled of books and papers, They were in boxes in an unlocked garage.
I was just entering the job market when JFK lowered the top income tax bracket that had been 98%. Kennedy’s tax cut (why the democrats don’t mention Kennedy) caused the economy to blossom. If Johnson hadn’t started the Vietnam War it would have been a golden age for America. But in a few years the war became a money eating machine. I went to war, but the working people back home got more tax. Whatever your tax, you had to pay an extra 10% just for the war. The democrats will never have enough of other people’s money.
I was born in California. I haven’t gone for a visit in 30 years and probably never will again.
Johnson didn’t start the Veitman war. Eisenhower sent in advisors who ended up fighting, Kennedy got us in deeper with more actual troops, which were called “in country” at the time not ‘boots on the ground”. Johnson also sent in more troops. Nixon tried to end the war by bombing North Vietnam into submission but that didn’t work either and Nixon extended the war to win his second term but then resigned over Watergate but started the peace process. Ford oversaw the final disasterous withdrawal of Siagon. Learn history, though young to an adult I lived through it.ñ
JFK hinted at military support for Saigon. Johnson started the war on orders. Johnson was on his way to prison for multiple crimes before he and a cast of thousands of Deep Deep State “Swamp” denizens carried out the JFK assassination, leaving LBJ at their mercy.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
The term “Billie Sol Estes affair” primarily refers to the large-scale business and political scandal of the 1960s involving the fraud committed by Texan con man Billie Sol Estes. The “affair” became a major political scandal because Estes claimed that Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and other politicians were financially involved. More controversially, Estes later alleged under oath that Johnson had ordered the murder of an investigator, Henry Marshall, to conceal the political connections to his fraud schemes.
Eisenhower sent in a TINY number and had decided to remove them.
Kennedy expanded the number by an order of magnitude – but it was still a very small number, and it is near certain Kennedy was leaving Vietnam asfter the disasterous Assassination of Diem – which Kennedy was partly complicit in.
It is Johnson that turned Vietnam into a War
The B52 raids brought the North Vietnamese to the Bargaining table. Ultimately the war ended with South Vietnams defeat,
But Nixon did negotiate the successful withdraw of US troops.
No Nixon did not extend the war to win an election – that is just absurd.
The Vietnam was was NOT popular by the time Nixon was elected – having failed to end it HURT Nixons re-election, it did not help it.
Nixon beat McGovern almost 2:1 at the polls. McGovern lost every state except Massachusetts.
The election was not even close.
While outside the area of foreign policy – where Noxon was a genius, otherwise Nixon was a disasterous president – but he was also a popular president.
John
During the election while Johnson was President, Nixon secretly flew Kissinger to France to negotiate with the NV to derail Johnson’s negotiations for ending it. It was illegal and Johnson actually considered going after him however he didn’t and Nixon won. Kissinger was a disaster for our military and Nixon did extend the war longer than needed.
I’ve read all 4 massive volumes of Robert Caro’s LBJ biography. he said he wasn’t going to go down in history as the first American President to lose a war. he shared the flawed view of the times that if America ever walked away from any commitments to allies they’d lose faith in us and we’d totally lose our moral leadership.
such stupidity caused the massive escalation of the war, and it’s all Johnson’s fault.
the very day after that lying democrat said he wouldn’t escalate the war he ordered 25,000 troops to Vietnam.
Caro trumpets Lyndon’s political genius, and cites several examples. it’s not a hit piece, nor a puff piece. (it’s been over 10 years, but his fifth and final entry is probably not going to be published in my lifetime. at the end of volume 4 it’s 1963 and protesters are chanting ‘Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” outside the White House.)
if you want to blame Ike, explain why he didn’t move to support the French in 1954.
you are wrong to blame everyone equally. just as wrong as to say both our political parties are equally corrupt. not so.
Really: my only surprise is that ‘classical liberals’ are somehow surprised at this point. Where have you all been for the past at least 25 years? Just empty-headedly pulling the trigger on blue in November? That is my best guess, as none of this is remotely new. You woke up much, much too late. Hopefully we can fix it together, and that means dissolving woke-ism altogether, and finally telling your kids, ‘No.’.
“Where have you all been for the past at least 25 years? Just empty-headedly pulling the trigger on blue in November?… You woke up much, much too late.”
Exactly correct. And, unfortunately, “woke up” is a question begging term. It is pretty discouraging that even Turley seems to insist on keeping his blinders on in a lot of respects.
James – “classical liberal” has two closely related meanings.
First it is the name for Free Market Economics.
Second it is the name for the political group that ideologically encompasses free market economics – that would be libertarians.
Famous Classical Liberals include Adm Smith, John Stuart Mill, Jean Batiste Say,
Liberal – without the Classical Modifier refers to democrats in the 60’s and 70’s – the advocates for free speech and other individual rights.
Alan Derschowitz is a Liberal, Prof. Turley is a liberal.
The modern left woke idiots are NOT LIBERAL in any way. Very few of them use the term liberal – prefering progressive if they prefer anything.
What is the dollar amount of revenue for the one time tax of the 250 billionaires? What is the amount of the shortfall California is trying to close? Is the tax revenue a rational basis to solve California’s problem? This tax “solution” has got to be tax policy fentanyl for places like Illinois, New Jersey and New York. There is no Bankruptcy bailout for States as opposed to cities. So the interest is understandable, however misguided.
“What is the dollar amount of revenue… What is the amount of the shortfall”
You don’t expect the idiot perpetrators of this sham/scam to actually exert themselves by doing the math, do you? They might suffer a mental hernia…
Mike – Google’s AI overview says approximately $100 billion.
Even if they get this retroactive tax it’s a one time thing and they will still be gone with their future revenues. Also anyone approaching that threshold will move in advance. It’s just self destructive policy that will accelerate money moving elsewhere.
All retroactive taxes are unconstitutional. Period.
One consideration that appears to be overlooked is that most wealth is not held in liquid assets. Property and investments may have to be liquidated to raise the cash. For most, even below the billionaire level the state will only get one bite at the apple. There are safer and saner places to live than Ca.
Once again our idiot president proves he is an idiot
“We have reduced drug prices by 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 percent, depending on the drug, depending on the company.”
Can he count to 5?
Trump also said…
“It doesn’t mean anything to anybody…. The word affordability is a Democrat scam…. They say it, and then, they go on to the next subject — and everyone thinks: Oh, they had lower prices. No, they had the worst inflation in the history of our country.”
Now this does not surprise me at all. Despite living through the 1970s when inflation was much higher than the early 2020s, Dementia Don has no memory of that time. His brain is Swiss cheese.
and your logic smells like limburger.
Is it true that inflation in 2024 or 2025 was the worst inflation in the history of our country?
Not even close. Look it up on Wikipedia, even your favorite source fails you.
Once again your idiot comment proves you are an idiot.
This is a genius comment. Where genius means idiot in this context.
“Quiet, quiet piggy”
As he points his finger in the face of a female reporter.
🥱 🛌 💤 😴
I guess you love a president with an IQ of 80. So much higher than yours.
As he points his cigar at an interns hoochiie hoo…
Savor the flavor, it’s hard to beat a pair of predators with a low card of Piggy piggy’s…
Men invading girls’ locker rooms and showers. 20 million unvetted illegal immigrants. Defund the police. No cash bail. Bidenflation. Close down LNG exports. Close down domestic energy production. Billions in “renewable” subsidies for Biden/Obama cronies, for money-losing energy projects. Government-social-media censorship complex. Ministry of Truth with Scary Poppins. Lawfare and two-tiered justice system. Embracing Islamic terrorists on college campuses. Assassination chic culture. Trying to assassinate the nominee of the other party, twice. Destruction of once-great cities like San Francisco. But you care about “quiet piggy”? Pffffft, GFY
hey, who’s that freak standing knee-deep in sewage yelling bad things about Donald Trump?
“Retroactive Billionaire Tax”
I don’t know why people who are not billionaires worry. They are not going to be taxed, or are they? Such a tax is a Band-Aid for the state that has been run foolishly, but that doesn’t come from any of us.
Let’s think about this. In 1969, the AMT was passed. It was only supposed to tax the richest millionaires, slightly over 150 of them. The rest of us were secure, even George Svelaz. Before that tax was overhauled, not that long ago, millions of people paid the AMT, and that could include a person who never had a dime in his pocket.
We have a choice. Think superficially like George Svelaz and don’t worry about economic theory as long as you aren’t taxed, or be smart and recognize what taxation is and how it affects everyone. Taxation might be necessary, but excessive taxation is shortsighted because excessive taxation kills the golden goose.
Perhaps what is truly needed is a politician tax. I propose that all politicians be taxed at 80% of their total monies received by their political efforts. 90% on any and all returns or future returns made on investments made during their political tenure.
Or we just kick them ALL out, return to the founding principles and return our country to sanity.
“Or we just kick them ALL out, return to the founding principles and return our country to sanity.”
Put them all on a gigantic float and push it out to sea when a strong offshore wind is blowing. We an make bets on whether most of them dies of thirst and starvation, or if they all murder each other before that can happen…
All taxes once passed are expanded. The unrealized capital gains tax was supposed to be for billionaires only, but eventually it would have been expanded to your home and retirement accounts plus any collectables that appreciate (inflate).
There is no such thing as an unrealized capital gain. If my investment goes up $10,000 in December and the government taxes me on that, then goes down $12,000 in January, will the government be giving me a tax refund next year? I had a loss, not a gain. It is nothing more than the government stealing people’s money.
taxation IS legalized theft at the point of a gun. at all times in all cases.
also, tariffs are piracy made legal.