Variation of third verse: And all the teachers are dead

Mass debt is profitable to the ones pulling the strings of our government.

"A poison—so subtle, so insidious so irreversible. It won't even kill you unless you stop taking it."

You're allowed to do whatever you want, I'm not the debate police.

pro tip: it's not necessary to put sarcasm in quotes.

> And what happens is that in the next budget cycle, they say, "Hey, there's all this money over here. We don't need to fund that anymore. And now there's a shortfall again.

I do not know how to parse this sentence.

This isn't intended or designed for ongoing funding. This doesn't factor into the state budget. It's a completely separate fund specifically to shore up health care and education systems that have been neglected due to recent/chronic underfunding. None of this impacts their normal operating budgets year over year,

The best analogy I can think of is a bond. When the government wants to raise money for a project or investment in the future, they will often issue and sell bonds to raise that money. Bonds mature and pay back with some interest, and are not recurring or factored into the normal budgeting. This is functionally the same thing, except instead of borrowing via bonds and paying back with interest it's just a straight up tax on billionaires.

> Absent actual, careful reduction of wasteful spending

I'm willing to bet that there's far less "wasteful spending" than you think there is, and it's just a matter of you not understanding what is being paid for and why. See also: DOGE "savings" and how we're suffering the consequences of cutting "wasteful" spending on programs that were actually really important but not in obvious ways.
=Smidge=

> You both can't be correct.

We can be, because shortfalls and deficit spending are not the same thing.

The new CA budget for this year is, reportedly, balanced. $0 deficit.

But $0 deficit this year does not magically erase the past several years of falling behind due to insufficient funding, e.g. shortfalls. This is why it's a one-time tax, and why I described is as a catch-up. I say "over the next few years" because the tax is expected to raise about $100B but only $25B/year can be withdrawn.

The full text of the bill is linked in the article summary, by the way.
=Smidge=

> First off: In CA we have prop 13, which prevents CA assessor from taxing your home

Aw gosh too bad there's no way to change a law with another law huh? Oh wait... this Act modifies Article XIII of the state constitution - the same Article that you refer to as "prop 13" - to allow the assessment and tax. Turns out it's rather easy to change a law with another law, 'cause the thing you cited has been amended at least nine times so far.

"The taxes levied by this Act are not "ad valorem taxes on real property" for purposes of Section 1 of Article XIIIA. To the extent any provision of Article XIIIA would otherwise be construed to limit, restrict, or apply to the rate, base, valuation, or imposition of the tax authorized by this Section, that provision shall not apply to, and is superseded by, this Section."

Womp womp, Mr. Moneybags.

> Second, If you've been through IPO you would know this:

And how is that anyone's problem but the billionaire's? Okay, so you can't liquidate stocks for a few months... that does not change your net personal wealth assessment, and it's your net wealth that's being taxed not each specific asset, nor is each specific asset required to be used to pay its own apportionment of the tax.

> Those nice fat numbers will drop considerably

"For all publicly traded assets, the fair market value of the asset shall be presumed to be the asset's market trading value on the valuation date..." ""Valuation date" means December 31, 2026"

So as far as stocks go, whatever the market value is on December 31st of this year is what your tax assessment will be based on, along with the value of everything else you own on that specific date. Market volatility doesn't factor into anything when the valuation is based on a one-time snapshot on a specific date.

Nothing of what you said is applicable because you do not understand what is being proposed nor, apparently, the existing law.
=Smidge=

> The big problem is that it's a one-time windfall that might trigger recurring spending proposals.

No? This is purposely a one-time tax to fund with very clear and specific uses, and the law creates that fund entirely separate from the general government funding. The money raised is specifically to cover shortfalls in health, education, and food security programs due to lack of federal funding over the next few years (expected to last 4-5 years).

There are no recurring spending proposals. There are no spending proposals at all. This effectively creates a catch-up fund to replace all the money they were already promised but never received because you-know-who is petty dipshit.

That said, yeah I'd love to see some sort of tax on loans with stocks as collateral. That's a much harder framework to create though since there are lots of reasons where it would be beneficial to encourage people to borrow against their assets especially for the purpose of enhancing those assets, such as home equity loans or business loans. It's not easy to draw a line with what should or should not be taxed without creating loopholes tat would make the whole thing pointless. A flat tax on net worth is a lot harder to skirt around.
=Smidge=

If they can borrow money against those "unrealized gains" - a major source of wealthy people's cashflow - then they can tax those "unrealized gains."

The tax is structured precisely because billionaires play shell games with their assets to avoid paying taxes.

> we need to change the rules to stop them from accruing the wealth to begin with.

And how do you do that, if not through taxes? Oh your stock/property holdings have a market value of $10B? Nope California law says they can only be worth $1B? That's just not possible to implement. The only realistic way is to tax those assets as they accrue and force them to exchange that "unrealized gains" for cash.
=Smidge=

While I agree with you the poster's hyperbolic analogy was off the mark. And perhaps now I'm being a bit off topic, but I do need approval from my county government to add an electrical outlet to my house. I think the permit was around $150. Luckily I am allowed to do the work myself, so I don't need to hire anyone licensed.
Turns out having a society means there are rules in order to coexist. Ideally rules that benefit people in that society and if it is democratic in any way, that people mostly agree to follow on principle rather than on threat.

When ADHD negatively impacts your life, it is time to seek treatment options. Medication can be very effective in most individuals, and both children and adults have a lot of self-doubt tied up into the troubles with executive function that ADHD/ADD bring.

While it is true that modern public school systems, especially how they operate in the United States, was in many ways designed to create obedient factory workers for the industrial revolution. That sufferers of ADHD don't thrive in that environment is a symptom of a greater challenge that individual is facing, simply removing our arcane repressive education system doesn't suddenly fix everything for someone with ADHD. I completely agree with the sentiment that public schools are not looking out for what is in the best interest of the children. A problem that exists for children that don't have ADHD as well. But even in a home school environment, the outcomes for someone with untreated ADHD is not encouraging. Not just academic outcome, but psychological, emotional, and relationship outcomes as well.

Loss leader is a strategy of using the power of capital to win market share. Instead of innovation, production, or hard work to produce a better product or better value for the consumer. Winning on your own merits hasn't been part of our economic system as far as I know. (while China claims to be communist, they readily participate in the same global market as everyone else)

Punished for not being fully on board with building killbots for the government. Hesitation is treason.

I semi-retired on NVDA. And you can see them on the bottom of my link.

it's more that we're not talking about the same thing and you mislabel it. And then when you go to compare Democratic Party platform to your mislabeled socialism, you conveniently slide over to a completely different definition. In short, you're not arguing in good faith.