Since Gen-Z almost universally doesn't seem to grasp this concept and why it's >an abomination, here's an explainer of California's proposed wealth tax.
You buy a Pok‚mon card for $50.
Someone offers you $500 for it. You say no. You love that card. It makes your >collection complete. You're keeping it.
The government says: "Cool, but that card is worth $500 now. You owe us $100 >in taxes."
YOU: "But... I didn't sell it."
GOVERNMENT: "Don't care. Pay up."
You don't have $100 lying around so you're forced to sell the card you love >just to pay a tax on money you never received. Next month? The value of that >card drops back to $50. That's all they will sell for on eBay. Your card is >gone. Your money is gone. And the government shrugs.
That's a wealth tax on unrealized gains. They don't pay you back the tax when >the thing you had to sell to pay the tax is no longer worth what they said it >was.
Now picture this:
Your mom calls you crying. She has to sell the house she raised you in. Not >because she can't afford it. She's lived there 30 years. It's paid off. But >some website says it's worth more now and the government says she owes $15,000 >she doesn't have. So she sells your childhood home. The kitchen where she made >you breakfast. The doorframe where she marked your height every birthday.
Gone.
To pay a tax on money that was never real.
Now picture the opposite:
Your dad put everything into his small business. For 20 years he built it from >nothing. The government tells him his business is "valued" at $2 million on >paper. He now owes a massive tax bill. He empties his savings. Sells his >truck. Borrows money. But he manages to pay it.
Next year the market crashes. His business is now only "valued" at $200,000. >He lost everything to pay a tax on a made-up number that doesn't even exist >anymore.
Does the government give him his money back? No.
Does the government give him his truck back? No.
Does the government care? No.
They're selling this idea as "taxing billionaires" but billionaires have >armies of lawyers, offshore accounts, and trusts. And when all else fails, >they have the flexibility to just leave the state and move somewhere else. >They'll be fine and they won't be paying this tax even if it passes.
You know who won't be fine? Your mom. Your dad. Your neighbor with a small >business. The farmer down the road who's had the same land for four >generations and now has to sell it because the government said dirt got >expensive.
They're not taxing wealth. They're taxing people for owning things. It's like >getting a parking ticket for a car you might drive somewhere someday. They >want you to own nothing and be happy. And they're doing it to fund the fraud, >waste and abuse of the welfare state they created.
The reptiles in Sacramento say we shouldn't care about this because (1) it's a >one-time tax, and (2) it's only for people with a net worth of a billion >dollars or more so it won't affect us. Well, when the federal income tax was >passed in 1861, it was sold as a temporary tax to help fund the Civil War and >only applied to millionaires. And now look where we are. As Reagan said, >there's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program and taxes >on the rich will inevitably turn into taxes on everyone.
They have enough money already. More tax isn't needed. It's all a lie. But >they're gaslighting people into believing it's a rich vs poor debate.
I hope everyone understands what's at stake.
Since Gen-Z almost universally doesn't seem to grasp this concept and why it's >an abomination, here's an explainer of California's proposed wealth tax.
. . .
The reptiles in Sacramento say we shouldn't care about this because (1) it's a >one-time tax, and (2) it's only for people with a net worth of a billion >dollars or more so it won't affect us. Well, when the federal income tax was >passed in 1861, it was sold as a temporary tax to help fund the Civil War and >only applied to millionaires. And now look where we are. As Reagan said, >there's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program and taxes >on the rich will inevitably turn into taxes on everyone.
They have enough money already. More tax isn't needed. It's all a lie. But >they're gaslighting people into believing it's a rich vs poor debate.
I hope everyone understands what's at stake.
If the elderly woman is out of cash to pay property taxes, my state and >plenty of other states allow the taxes to be deferred till the property
is sold. There is a state fund that receives the tax bill, paying it
when due, and charges interest. There is a lien. She's not forced to
move.
Tue, 17 Feb 2026 02:31:15 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
If the elderly woman is out of cash to pay property taxes, my state and >>plenty of other states allow the taxes to be deferred till the property
is sold. There is a state fund that receives the tax bill, paying it
when due, and charges interest. There is a lien. She's not forced to
move.
British Columbia has had such a tax deferral system aimed at those 55+
for years - I've only opted to do so 4 years ago and our provincial >government (who administers the program) decided to move the interest
rate on the loan from prime - 2% to prime + 2% causing a lot of people >including me to check out paying it off.
At least we're not having to pay property tax based on the assessed
value now that I'm retired - the house I bought 30 years ago at $258k
is now assessed at $ 1.85M which means I won't have to pay as long as
I hold the house though my kids will have a huge tax bill when they >eventually inherit it. (Though the deferred tax will have to be paid
before they sell it)
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 234:25:51 |
| Calls: | 207 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 83,204 |