TX GOP Adds Some Fun New Planks to Its Party Platform

[Fantine]

There is absolutely no way this passes. I just read a reddit post from a Lawyer and he explained that this would definitely affect the Supreme Court's "One Person One Vote" thing. Also, it would likely disenfranchise black voters who would be SEVERELY underrepresented in many, many counties.

Thank heavens.

 

[Fantine]

It does nothing of the sort. For one thing, it acts at the state level, not at the city level, so in theory, it prevents small states from getting trampled by larger ones. But more importantly, when a state adopts a winner-take-all approach to its electors (as most have), it winds up giving more power to whichever party already has the majority. States like California and NY that have large urban populations wind up steamrolling the millions of rural voters who vote the other way. Trump's largest ever single-state vote count was California in 2020, with just over 6 million votes - none of which mattered because Biden beat him in CA.

That doesn't pass the smell test. Perhaps Democrats win some statewide office in red states but the legislatures have so painstakingly gerrymandered state districts that there are often supermajorities in the state houses--far more Republican than fairly written districts would produce.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That doesn't pass the smell test. Perhaps Democrats win some statewide office in red states but the legislatures have so painstakingly gerrymandered state districts that there are often supermajorities in the state houses--far more Republican than fairly written districts would produce.

What doesn't pass the smell test? Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the electoral college. I don't see how it would have anything to do with the proposed measure in TX, either, since county boundaries are static.

 

[rambot]

I personally like the electoral college - so yes It is a good principle that makes sure large cities don't trample smaller ones.

Do you believe everyone's vote is as important as everyone else's or do you believe some people's vote should have a greater weight and meaning?

 

[Fantine]

What doesn't pass the smell test? Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the electoral college. I don't see how it would have anything to do with the proposed measure in TX, either, since county boundaries are static.

Before they came up with this malevolent proposal, they had already gerrymandered the local districts so they bore no demographic resemblance to the state as a whole
But that still left them with the problem of how to drive the final nail into progressives' coffin.
Enter malevolent proposal to subvert democracy and force one party rule.
I have lived in four states--corporate moves. I have never eaten fried okra, white gravy (looks like wallpaper paste), or collard greens. I don't own a gun or hunt. I have little interest in college sports.
Just because fate placed me here doesn't mean I have to change who I am.
I have made a good life and have plenty of open-minded friends. People who say change or leave are ignorant of what America should be.
Growing up in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, I know better.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I love it when your snarky replies try to suggest some sort of deficiency on the part of the other person while not answering the question and/or suggesting that you didn't understand the question in the first place.

answered in the next part you quoted

I asked you for evidence of why people are moving away. Pointing out that the exodus is happening on Newsom's watch is evidence of when it's happening. Do you understand the difference? Or do I have to explain it to you?

Answered in the next part you quoted.

Last I checked high COL was not a policy. It may be a downstream effect of policy, but it is not itself a policy.

It has been talked about for four years that I recall - perhaps a different news source would be of help.

This would only apply to wealth over $30 million - wealth that the state often helped generate. Apparently, CA is so unbearable that people ought to be able to go there to get rich, but not pay taxes to fund the systems that helped them get rich.

https://www.flclaw.net/understanding-the-california-exit-tax/

Oh - then that makes it perfectly fine to tax people for the privilege of moving out of the state. In red states you have the freedom to live where you want without penalties.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Do you believe everyone's vote is as important as everyone else's or do you believe some people's vote should have a greater weight and meaning?

I believe the system we have is the best.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oh - then that makes it perfectly fine to tax people for the privilege of moving out of the state.

The proposed 'exit tax' was part of a wealth tax proposal that died in January.

Governor Newsom opposed the idea.

 

[iluvatar5150]

answered in the next part you quoted

Answered in the next part you quoted.

It has been talked about for four years that I recall - perhaps a different news source would be of help.

So your answer to the question of “what policy” is the effect of some unnamed policy?

Oh - then that makes it perfectly fine to tax people for the privilege of moving out of the state. In red states you have the freedom to live where you want without penalties.

Do red states not have property taxes?

 

[Always in His Presence]

So your answer to the question of “what policy” is the effect of some unnamed policy?

I linked and article

Do red states not have property taxes?

Not for people who are moving. You sell your property there can be a capital gains tax - but good ole' California wants to hit you a second time with a wealth type tax just because you are leaving.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I linked and article

It’s behind a paywall. The section you quoted does not answer the question.

Not for people who are moving.

But they do for people who stay there, which means they do penalize you for where you choose to live.

You sell your property there can be a capital gains tax - but good ole' California wants to hit you a second time with a wealth type tax just because you are leaving.

The proposed wealth tax would have also applied to unrealized gains. And, again, it was only 0.4% and only on wealth over $30 million.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I personally like the electoral college - so yes It is a good principle that makes sure large cities don't trample smaller ones.

This isn't at all like the electoral college. The electoral college (as benighted as it is) proportions the power to the units (the states) relative to their population. That's why California has way more EVs than Nevada, etc.

This scheme does no such thing. It makes all counties equal regardless of population. This is the equivalent of making each state equal in the vote for president. One state, one vote.

While I would argue against the "electoral college-ifcation" of additional levels of government, a scheme that required the candidate to win the majority of the state legislative districts or congressional districts each of which is equally proportioned would not be even close to as egregiously undemocratic as this is.

 

[Always in His Presence]

unrealized gains.

Define unrealized gains.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Here is a beauty!

Those who have lived in the state at any point in time in the past and who earn an annual income greater than $30 million are affected by the wealth tax and would have to pay an annual tax on their wealth for as long as 10 years after they have left the state.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Define unrealized gains.

Gains on which you haven’t cashed out yet.

If you buy $1000 worth of stock, and it increases in value to $2000, then as long as you hold the stock, you have $1000 in unrealized gains. Selling it “realizes” those gains.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Gains on which you haven’t cashed out yet.

If you buy $1000 worth of stock, and it increases in value to $2000, then as long as you hold the stock, you have $1000 in unrealized gains. Selling it “realizes” those gains.

And if the next year the stock drops to 500.00 and you loose half your investment?

How can one justify taxing some for funds they don’t have?

Then some justify it by saying it is ok, because it is just the wealthy.

How warped a system is that?

 

[iluvatar5150]

And if the next year the stock drops to 500.00 and you loose half your investment?

You’d have to check the proposed legislation to see how that would’ve been handled, but realized losses are handled by allowing them to be booked against current and future gains.

 

[Always in His Presence]

You’d have to check the proposed legislation to see how that would’ve been handled, but realized losses are handled by allowing them to be booked against current and future gains.

Once your money (that you have not gained yet) is taken. It is gone. It is one of the most intrusive and authoritarian moves I have heard come from the left ever.

You are being taxed for something you do not have.

A person takes their income, which is taxed federallly and state), invests it. Pays taxes on what they don’t have and when the stock is sold , pays capital gains taxes.

And that is ok?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Once your money (that you have not gained yet) is taken. It is gone. It is one of the most intrusive and authoritarian moves I have heard come from the left ever.

You are being taxed for something you do not have.

A person takes their income, which is taxed federallly and state), invests it. Pays taxes on what they don’t have and when the stock is sold , pays capital gains taxes.

And that is ok?

Almost none of what you said is accurate. You clearly don’t understand how this works and I’m not particularly in the mood to educate you on the basics of tax law, again. Lots of states levy taxes on wealth rather than just gains. Property tax on real estate is the most common, but some also levy property taxes on other belongings like vehicles and household goods. If you don’t like that, fine. That’s your business. But it’s far from unheard of.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Almost none of what you said is accurate.

Let's do a fact check then, shall we?

Once your money (that you have not gained yet) is taken. It is gone.

True or false - once a tax is paid - you never get it back. hmmmm..... true

It is one of the most intrusive and authoritarian moves I have heard come from the left ever.

My opinion - true

You are being taxed for something you do not have.

True - by your own words it is a tax on unrealized gains -

Gains on which you haven’t cashed out yet.​

A person takes their income, which is taxed federally and state)

Does a person pay federal and State income tax? - true

, invests it. Pays taxes on what they don’t have

true - unrealized means you do not have it

and when the stock is sold , pays capital gains taxes.

True - you pay capital gains on stock sales.

Fact check - 100%

You clearly don’t understand how this works

Clearly my statements are accurate and true

and I’m not particularly in the mood to educate you on the basics of tax law, again.

Thank you - I don't think you have the ability to educate anyone on the subject.

Lots of states levy taxes on wealth rather than just gains.

Name them - please include links - I looked - After Success in Massachusetts, Lawmakers in 10 States Push Wealth Tax | Common Dreams there is exactly one - Massachusetts who taxes an additional 3% for people with an income over 500k - not .4% for those over 30 mil.

Property tax on real estate is the most common,

Property tax is based on value - not unrealized gain - do you own a home> Even a dummy like I know the difference.

but some also levy property taxes on other belongings like vehicles and household goods. If you don’t like that, fine.

Those are the States that people are leaving by the thousands - ever wonder why?

That’s your business. But it’s far from unheard of.

At some point you run out of other peoples money -

How about requiring states, and the US to balance their budgets?