Which would be hilarious if it weren’t so infuriating.

All they can talk about is how they’re all going to leave the state if it happens, but then are more than willing to try to spend more stopping it than they would just contributing their fair share in taxes.

Don’t like it? Great, leave - but stop trying to buy elections.

▲

CuriouslyC 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

YC is always talking about how important SF is (due to hand waiving reasons like "innovation environment," I would find it highly ironic if a wealth tax was all it took to get top YC people to abandon the state.

▲

kadabra9 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Everyone loves deciding what their "fair share" of other people's net worth (not even income!) is.

Sorry, but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness, and rightfully opens up questions about slippery slope, how "temporary" they claim this to be, and so on.

It's not surprising they are leaving the state or using their resources to try to stop it.

▲

bhouston 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Your statement is ignoring the systematic growing inequality in the US between the ultra wealthy and everyone else. And the use of those funds to influence politics (because of Citizens United, etc) to create polices that benefit themselves - it is for the ultra wealthy a virtuous circle:

https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

This is not a normal state of affairs.

▲

kadabra9 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This tax would do effectively nothing to address growing inequality between billionaires and everyone else.

▲

mjamesaustin an hour ago | parent [-]

I see, so you're suggesting 5% is not enough? I'm listening...

	▲	kadabra9 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year. It is and always will be a government spending issue, the government can’t help itself but to just steal more from the taxpayers to support their bloat.