Undoubtedly, if you look at dollars paid, it's going to be the opposite. But it doesn't make much sense to me to evaluate tax burdens based on dollars paid over percentage of taxable income. If a person who made $100 million was taxed at 0.1% and a person who made $40,000 was taxed at 98%, the rich person would still be paying more in terms of dollars paid, but I doubt anybody would consider that to be fair.
do you support this proposed wealth tax? California’s Wealth Tax Arrives (msn.com) The bill would impose an annual excise tax of 1.5% on the worldwide net worth of every full- and part-year California resident that exceeds $1 billion, starting this tax year. Come Jan. 1, 2026, the state would tax wealth that exceeds $50 million at a rate of 1% each year, with an additional 0.5% tax on assets valued at more than $1 billion. Part-time residents would be taxed on a pro rata share of their wealth based on the number of days they spend annually in California. The tax would also apply to nonresidents who have recently left the state. You can check out of the state, but you would still have to pay California’s wealth tax if you do. The wealth tax would apply to nearly all assets, including shares in a partnership, private-equity interests, artwork and financial assets held offshore. California’s Franchise Tax Board would value assets that aren’t publicly traded. That means private businesses located outside the state could be examined by the board’s auditors and appraisers.
As a matter of policy, I'm not big on wealth taxes. That said, I feel no sympathy for billionaires. If social media has blessed us with anything, it's the knowledge of just how many billionaires are narcissistic, societally harmful d-bags. So meh.
Florida school district removes dictionaries from libraries, citing law championed by DeSantis I just can't...
I am shocked. That's a great panel, but Newsom concurring is the best possible news. This is another example of why he's the best Trump appointee on the Eleventh Circuit.
This (from Judge Newsom's concurrence) feels like a shot across the bow at Ron DeSantis: The First Amendment is an inconvenient thing. It protects expression that some find wrongheaded, or offensive, or even ridiculous. But for the same reason that the government can’t muzzle so-called "conservative" speech under the guise of preventing on-campus “harassment,” see Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright, 32 F.4th 1110 (11th Cir. 2022), the state can’t exercise its coercive power to censor so-called "woke" speech with which it disagrees. What’s good for mine is (whether I like it or not) good for thine.
disney has to be writing that into their briefs already...is that strong enough to open a case on New College and dismantle the damage done there? restore dei offices?
imo, it is a real shot at the Anit-woke doctrine and everything it has yielded from disney, drag shows, library books....is an opinion/position from that court like that strong enough to influence trial judges at the lower level in similar cases, ie the orlando sheriff(?)
No. The damage he did at New College was legal. (Blame bad constitutional/statutory design in Florida for that.) Some of the things his political hacks have done since taking over haven't been legal, but most of the harm they're doing is within their power and perfectly legal, unfortunately. As for DEI offices in higher education (S.B. 266), the government has a lot of power over that issue because they're government employees and government funded. You'd have to unwind the entire law by showing it was passed for a racially discriminatory purpose, which is nearly impossible to do successfully in the Eleventh Circuit (for the reasons I discussed in the voting thread). It is possible, however, to limit S.B. 266's extraordinarily broad sweep since it affects far more than just DEI offices.
It is awesome to have you as a source on these issues. I don't know if the non-lawyers on the board appreciate how much of this stuff is not just something lawyers know, but highly specialized and complex.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjpk-27ztODAxV-kIQIHVrnAX8QFnoECBcQAQ&url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4400667-appeals-court-hope-florida-prosecutor-suspended-desantis/&usg=AOvVaw04uoWuPGjb4wqDd8_jvP9N&opi=89978449 The 11th Circuit reversed the trial court’s refusal to reinstate Warren, the State Attorney filed by DeSantis for political speech. The court remanded the case for a determination on whether Warren was fired for grounds wholly independent from political speech.
is there any way that he will not be reinstated? what is the time frame? odds that Orlando sheriff and maybe some school board members can ride the coattails?
