California Billionaires Are Leaving the State in Response to Proposed Wealth Tax

Stopped_lurking · Monday at 11:23 PM

Hentenza said:
No one. Socialism sucks and fails every time.

If we know have reached a point when we recognize that wealth tax alone is not enough to make an economy socialist, what is the relation between the above quote and California?

Why are we discussing California in the same context as Cuba and Venezuela, which are states where the state controls much of the means of production and have plan economies? Which I believe is a major reason to call an economy socialist, in contrast to a wealth tax.

When the wealth tax was introduced for the first time in Sweden (1911, perhaps even in the world?) it was not by a socialist party.

Edited to add, no the Netherlands seems to be have been first in 1892. I couldn't find if the government was socialist or not. My guess is that is was divided along protestant and catholic lines more than socialist/liberal/conservative lines.

Hentenza · Tuesday at 8:56 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
If we know have reached a point when we recognize that wealth tax alone is not enough to make an economy socialist, what is the relation between the above quote and California?

Why are we discussing California in the same context as Cuba and Venezuela, which are states where the state controls much of the means of production and have plan economies? Which I believe is a major reason to call an economy socialist, in contrast to a wealth tax.

When the wealth tax was introduced for the first time in Sweden (1911, perhaps even in the world?) it was not by a socialist party.

Edited to add, no the Netherlands seems to be have been first in 1892. I couldn't find if the government was socialist or not. My guess is that is was divided along protestant and catholic lines more than socialist/liberal/conservative lines.

We have discussed that having a wealth tax on its own does not reflect a socialist government, however, in the context of a free market economy it would be quite the departure. This type of programs hints at a change of direction and the slippery slope of government intervention where there should not be. Why do I worry? Look at the 2019 gallop poll where almost 49% of millennials and Gen z view socialism positively. So we start with a wealth tax but that is still not going to be enough so what’s next.

I have some experience here as I am Cuban by birth and have studied the history of Cuba including how the “revolution” started by promises to the workers and in particular to the young minds. Socialists are fond of saying that socialism has not failed because real socialism has never been tried. In the eyes of today’s democratic socialists, the earlier socialist leaders failed because they were “authoritarian socialists” who believed in a strictly hierarchical, top-down bureaucracy and “perverted” socialism’s noble ideals, instead, if our socialist government is led by public-spirited people whose beliefs are rooted in democratic principles, then we will achieve real socialism and all will be well. The problem, they argue, has never been the socialism itself, but the socialist leaders that led it astray.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. When today’s socialists talk about building a non-authoritarian socialist government rooted in democratic and humanitarian principles, they are far from original. In fact, that has always been what the earlier socialists said they would achieve. Aimed at improving the lot of the common people and creating a more egalitarian society, the early socialist movements emerged primarily as a reaction to the inhumane working conditions and large wealth disparities in industrialized Europe. Empowering working-class people, dismantling societal hierarchies, and ensuring a more equitable distribution of goods and services have always been among the many honorable objectives of socialist leaders. Socialist regimes have all ended in varying degrees of totalitarianism, to be sure, but there is no denying that earlier socialist leaders, just like today’s, generally started with good intentions.

But as history has clearly show good intentions do indeed get perverted and the end result is far from the promise.

Stopped_lurking · Tuesday at 9:20 AM

Hentenza said:
We have discussed that having a wealth tax on its own does not reflect a socialist government, however, in the context of a free market economy it would be quite the departure. This type of programs hints at a change of direction and the slippery slope of government intervention where there should not be. Why do I worry? Look at the 2019 gallop poll where almost 49% of millennials and Gen z view socialism positively. So we start with a wealth tax but that is still not going to be enough so what’s next.

I have some experience here as I am Cuban by birth and have studied the history of Cuba including how the “revolution” started by promises to the workers and in particular to the young minds. Socialists are fond of saying that socialism has not failed because real socialism has never been tried. In the eyes of today’s democratic socialists, the earlier socialist leaders failed because they were “authoritarian socialists” who believed in a strictly hierarchical, top-down bureaucracy and “perverted” socialism’s noble ideals, instead, if our socialist government is led by public-spirited people whose beliefs are rooted in democratic principles, then we will achieve real socialism and all will be well. The problem, they argue, has never been the socialism itself, but the socialist leaders that led it astray.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. When today’s socialists talk about building a non-authoritarian socialist government rooted in democratic and humanitarian principles, they are far from original. In fact, that has always been what the earlier socialists said they would achieve. Aimed at improving the lot of the common people and creating a more egalitarian society, the early socialist movements emerged primarily as a reaction to the inhumane working conditions and large wealth disparities in industrialized Europe. Empowering working-class people, dismantling societal hierarchies, and ensuring a more equitable distribution of goods and services have always been among the many honorable objectives of socialist leaders. Socialist regimes have all ended in varying degrees of totalitarianism, to be sure, but there is no denying that earlier socialist leaders, just like today’s, generally started with good intentions.

But as history has clearly show good intentions do indeed get perverted and the end result is far from the promise.

But in western and northern europe for example, social democracy won over the revolutionary socialists, social democratic parties are still a major political power and seen as centre-left rather than holding some far-left position. The needle can be threaded, so to speak.

To tell you the truth I mainly objected to your formulation about Sweden, since it implied some thing questionable factuality. It is perfectly ok to be against a wealth tax, personally I'm more in favor of a more progressive income and capital gains tax if there is need for extra revenue.

Always in His Presence · Tuesday at 10:06 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
The Communist Party of China describes itself, its policies and the country as socialist.

hogwash - they are communist - they call themselves communist -

GoldenBoy89 said:
You seem to have missed (or are deliberately overlooking) the point that they’re not a failed state like Venezuela.

I'm not addressing the point - because - ready------- They are Communist - not socialist.

GoldenBoy89 · Tuesday at 10:45 AM

Always in His Presence said:
hogwash - they are communist

You sure of that huh?

You probably think North Korea is democratic too

Mind you, this makes my point even more that they’re an example of a successful communist country.

Hentenza · Tuesday at 12:35 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
But in western and northern europe for example, social democracy won over the revolutionary socialists, social democratic parties are still a major political power and seen as centre-left rather than holding some far-left position. The needle can be threaded, so to speak.

I agree with you here. In fact I wish the US politicians would stopped kicking the health care can around and come up with a workable solution. But I digress.

Stopped_lurking said:
To tell you the truth I mainly objected to your formulation about Sweden, since it implied some thing questionable factuality. It is perfectly ok to be against a wealth tax, personally I'm more in favor of a more progressive income and capital gains tax if there is need for extra revenue.

Those would certainly be options. What I would want to avoid are business taxes that would be passed on to the consumer.

A2SG · Tuesday at 10:37 PM

Hentenza said:
We have discussed that having a wealth tax on its own does not reflect a socialist government, however, in the context of a free market economy it would be quite the departure. This type of programs hints at a change of direction and the slippery slope of government intervention where there should not be. Why do I worry? Look at the 2019 gallop poll where almost 49% of millennials and Gen z view socialism positively. So we start with a wealth tax but that is still not going to be enough so what’s next.

I have some experience here as I am Cuban by birth and have studied the history of Cuba including how the “revolution” started by promises to the workers and in particular to the young minds. Socialists are fond of saying that socialism has not failed because real socialism has never been tried. In the eyes of today’s democratic socialists, the earlier socialist leaders failed because they were “authoritarian socialists” who believed in a strictly hierarchical, top-down bureaucracy and “perverted” socialism’s noble ideals, instead, if our socialist government is led by public-spirited people whose beliefs are rooted in democratic principles, then we will achieve real socialism and all will be well. The problem, they argue, has never been the socialism itself, but the socialist leaders that led it astray.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. When today’s socialists talk about building a non-authoritarian socialist government rooted in democratic and humanitarian principles, they are far from original. In fact, that has always been what the earlier socialists said they would achieve. Aimed at improving the lot of the common people and creating a more egalitarian society, the early socialist movements emerged primarily as a reaction to the inhumane working conditions and large wealth disparities in industrialized Europe. Empowering working-class people, dismantling societal hierarchies, and ensuring a more equitable distribution of goods and services have always been among the many honorable objectives of socialist leaders. Socialist regimes have all ended in varying degrees of totalitarianism, to be sure, but there is no denying that earlier socialist leaders, just like today’s, generally started with good intentions.

But as history has clearly show good intentions do indeed get perverted and the end result is far from the promise.

It seems we in the US currently have an administration bent on authoritarianism that is going out of its way to dismantle as many socialistic and progressive programs as possible.

Is that somehow better?

-- A2SG, not sure I see the upside....

eclipsenow · Wednesday at 2:41 AM

Isn't this actually a meme Republicans trot out every few years about New York? They were so right about that, the way New York's whole city budget collapsed after all the millionaires and then billionaire's fled the city and it went totally Mad Max.
....Oh wait!

Hentenza · Wednesday at 8:28 AM

A2SG said:
It seems we in the US currently have an administration bent on authoritarianism that is going out of its way to dismantle as many socialistic and progressive programs as possible.

Is that somehow better?

-- A2SG, not sure I see the upside....

Since I’m not a republican Im not sure who your sarcasm is addressed to. However, I don’t like socialistic or progressive programs as you can tell from the post that you quoted but did not address. :wave:

A2SG · Wednesday at 9:02 AM

Hentenza said:
Since I’m not a republican Im not sure who your sarcasm is addressed to. However, I don’t like socialistic or progressive programs as you can tell from the post that you quoted but did not address.

Well, you did mention authoritarian leaders within socialistic systems, I simply remarked on how we currently seem to have the former without the latter. If, as you say, you don't like socialism or progressivism, is this a system you prefer?

-- A2SG, leaving aside, for the moment, how un-American that is....

Hentenza · Wednesday at 10:13 AM

A2SG said:
Well, you did mention authoritarian leaders within socialistic systems, I simply remarked on how we currently seem to have the former without the latter. If, as you say, you don't like socialism or progressivism, is this a system you prefer?

-- A2SG, leaving aside, for the moment, how un-American that is....

What I want is a democratic, free market economy system that works. We went from a guy that just needed an ice cream cone and would get lost in the rose garden to an idiot that thinks he owns the world. As a historian I could draw quite the comparison between the decline of the Roman Empire in the west to the decline of the US. We keep electing the wrong people to positions of power. I’m sure it will continue.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Abraham Lincoln

A2SG · Wednesday at 10:35 PM

Hentenza said:
What I want is a democratic, free market economy system that works.

Good luck with that. The free market is a good idea, in principle, but the fact is, greed will always triumph over the invisible hand. Which is why a free market requires guardrails, and because people will inevitably fall between the cracks (the invisible hand doesn't care about individuals), we need safety net programs.

We need a little of both free market capitalism and socialism to make things actually work. What we definitely do not need, however, is authoritarianism, no matter what our economic model is.

Hentenza said:
We went from a guy that just needed an ice cream cone and would get lost in the rose garden to an idiot that thinks he owns the world. As a historian I could draw quite the comparison between the decline of the Roman Empire in the west to the decline of the US. We keep electing the wrong people to positions of power. I’m sure it will continue.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Abraham Lincoln

I've no doubt it will continue...but I'm still hopeful. Well, I hope I'm hopeful, I guess.

Thing is, as bad for the country as Trump has been, and will undoubtedly continue to be, he simply cannot stay in power forever. He may think otherwise, but the Constitution is pretty well set up, and there are enough people here willing to stand up for it and defend it that no amount of sycophants Trump hires in key positions of power can change that.

-- A2SG, I hope, anyway.....

eclipsenow · 2026-01-22T04:28:40-0600

A2SG said:
He may think otherwise, but the Constitution is pretty well set up, and there are enough people here willing to stand up for it and defend it that no amount of sycophants Trump hires in key positions of power can change that.

-- A2SG, I hope, anyway.....

Great post. As an Ordo-Liberal myself, I agree with the way you summarised economics.

And on this last bit? The way he eats and neglects exercise and basically denies modern medicine is a thing, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a sudden health issue that forced him out of office.

The way he's threatening to destroy NATO, I wouldn't be surprised if something else happened as well. I'm not recommending or endorsing this particular something else. I'm just recognising human nature.

A2SG · 2026-01-22T04:50:46-0600

eclipsenow said:
Great post. As an Ordo-Liberal myself, I agree with the way you summarised economics.

Thanks.

eclipsenow said:
And on this last bit? The way he eats and neglects exercise and basically denies modern medicine is a thing, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a sudden health issue that forced him out of office.

The way he's threatening to destroy NATO, I wouldn't be surprised if something else happened as well. I'm not recommending or endorsing this particular something else. I'm just recognising human nature.

Regardless of anything else, Trump will no longer be in office as of noon on January 20, 2029, no matter what delusions he tells himself.

-- A2SG, sometimes, that thought is all that keeps me going.....

eclipsenow · 2026-01-22T16:59:46-0600

Anyway, back to the subject of this post.

If the USA taxed the rich the way they used to back in the 50's and before, maybe America would not have the debt it has? But hey, billionaire bro's gotta cut those unfair taxes on the super-rich, while basically kicking the poor in the guts - and off healthcare to pay for it.

Always in His Presence · 2026-01-22T17:37:09-0600

GoldenBoy89 said:
You sure of that huh?

Short answer: China is ruled by a Communist Party, but its system is not purely communist in practice.

Here’s the clear breakdown:

️ Political system

China is governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The CCP is the only ruling party; there are no competitive national elections.
The party controls the military, courts, media, and major political decisions.
➡️ Politically, China is communist/authoritarian.

Yup sure am -

CCP stands for Chinese Communist Party.

GoldenBoy89 · 2026-01-22T17:47:16-0600

Always in His Presence said:
Short answer: China is ruled by a Communist Party, but its system is not purely communist in practice.

Here’s the clear breakdown:

️ Political system

China is governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The CCP is the only ruling party; there are no competitive national elections.

The party controls the military, courts, media, and major political decisions.
➡️ Politically, China is communist/authoritarian.

Yup sure am -

CCP stands for Chinese Communist Party.

Lol. Here, we’ll let our AIs argue with each other:

Is China a socialist country?

Yes, China officially identifies as a socialist country, specifically practicing "
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," a unique system blending Communist Party rule with significant market-based, capitalist-style economic activity, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and a focus on "common prosperity" under a socialist framework. While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains tight political control and aims for eventual communism as a long-term goal, its current economic model is often described as a "socialist market economy"
.

Key Aspects of China's System:

Political Control: The CCP holds a monopoly on power, suppressing opposition and controlling state institutions, though some local elections occur.
Economic Model: China embraces market mechanisms, private enterprise, and foreign investment (a "socialist market economy") but with strong state guidance and significant SOEs dominating key sectors.
Ideology: Leaders use the term "socialism with Chinese characteristics" to justify integrating market elements while maintaining socialist goals, emphasizing national rejuvenation and stability.
"Socialist" vs. "Communist": China's leaders view communism as a future aspiration, with the current phase being socialism; they reject Western classifications of their system as purely communist.

In essence, China is a one-party state with socialist aims that utilizes capitalist tools to achieve its development, making its classification complex and debated, but officially, it remains socialist.

All of this is just quibbling. China being ruled by the communist party does not mean they aren’t socialist. You only further make my original point by saying they’re an example of a successful communist country. I think we can all agree they aren’t a failed state like Venezuela or Cuba or the USSR.

Oompa Loompa · 2026-01-22T18:04:51-0600

eclipsenow said:
Anyway, back to the subject of this post.

If the USA taxed the rich the way they used to back in the 50's and before, maybe America would not have the debt it has? But hey, billionaire bro's gotta cut those unfair taxes on the super-rich, while basically kicking the poor in the guts - and off healthcare to pay for it.

We also weren't propping up NATO countries in the 50s either.

Always in His Presence · 2026-01-22T19:40:14-0600

GoldenBoy89 said:
Lol. Here, we’ll let our AIs argue with each other:

Is China a socialist country?

Yes, China officially identifies as a socialist country, specifically practicing "
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," a unique system blending Communist Party rule with significant market-based, capitalist-style economic activity, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and a focus on "common prosperity" under a socialist framework. While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains tight political control and aims for eventual communism as a long-term goal, its current economic model is often described as a "socialist market economy"
.

Key Aspects of China's System:

Political Control: The CCP holds a monopoly on power, suppressing opposition and controlling state institutions, though some local elections occur.

Economic Model: China embraces market mechanisms, private enterprise, and foreign investment (a "socialist market economy") but with strong state guidance and significant SOEs dominating key sectors.

Ideology: Leaders use the term "socialism with Chinese characteristics" to justify integrating market elements while maintaining socialist goals, emphasizing national rejuvenation and stability.

"Socialist" vs. "Communist": China's leaders view communism as a future aspiration, with the current phase being socialism; they reject Western classifications of their system as purely communist.

In essence, China is a one-party state with socialist aims that utilizes capitalist tools to achieve its development, making its classification complex and debated, but officially, it remains socialist.

All of this is just quibbling. China being ruled by the communist party does not mean they aren’t socialist. You only further make my original point by saying they’re an example of a successful communist country. I think we can all agree they aren’t a failed state like Venezuela or Cuba or the USSR.

What does CCP stand for?

Hentenza · 2026-01-22T20:03:30-0600

A2SG said:
Good luck with that. The free market is a good idea, in principle, but the fact is, greed will always triumph over the invisible hand. Which is why a free market requires guardrails, and because people will inevitably fall between the cracks (the invisible hand doesn't care about individuals), we need safety net programs.

We need a little of both free market capitalism and socialism to make things actually work. What we definitely do not need, however, is authoritarianism, no matter what our economic model is.

I think that greed and corruption can be had with either capitalism and socialism but, historically, much more with socialism as the common result has been totalitarianism rather than democracy.

A2SG said:
I've no doubt it will continue...but I'm still hopeful. Well, I hope I'm hopeful, I guess.

Thing is, as bad for the country as Trump has been, and will undoubtedly continue to be, he simply cannot stay in power forever. He may think otherwise, but the Constitution is pretty well set up, and there are enough people here willing to stand up for it and defend it that no amount of sycophants Trump hires in key positions of power can change that.

-- A2SG, I hope, anyway.....

Trump is done after this term as long as a mini me doesn’t get elected for the next term. But the Democratic Party has as many problems as the republicans do and as long as democrats continue to promote socialism and progressive ideas it seems I’m going to have to continue throwing my vote away for a third party candidate.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

California Billionaires Are Leaving the State in Response to Proposed Wealth Tax

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

We're Still Here

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Gumby

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Gumby

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Gumby

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Gumby

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Jesus is the only Way

️ Political system​

We're Still Here

️ Political system​

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Similar threads

️ Political system

️ Political system