Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

What's happening in DeSantistan 2.0

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_lawyer, Jun 9, 2023.

  1. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,426
    12,042
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    what does that chart look like with respect to dollars paid? does it matter?
     
  2. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    16,983
    5,818
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,426
    12,042
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    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.
     
  4. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    16,983
    5,818
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    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.
     
  5. BigCypressGator1981

    BigCypressGator1981 GC Hall of Fame

    6,707
    1,374
    3,103
    Oct 11, 2011
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Funny Funny x 2
  6. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,561
    2,791
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Hold the presses - Eleventh Circuit surprises. My phone is blowing up. Details to follow.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,561
    2,791
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Decision - wow. Just scanned

     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    16,983
    5,818
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,561
    2,791
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Equally shocked, including the language, on brief glance
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  10. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    16,983
    5,818
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
  11. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,561
    2,791
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Wow - I missed that. The "woke" in quotes is a shot.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,426
    12,042
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    restores my faith a little bit. needed that
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  13. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,426
    12,042
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,561
    2,791
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    I had not even thought about the Disney angle but you are exactly right
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  15. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,426
    12,042
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    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(?)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  16. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    16,983
    5,818
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
  17. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,561
    2,791
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  18. ajoseph

    ajoseph Premium Member

    6,977
    2,571
    2,998
    Jan 15, 2008
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,561
    2,791
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,426
    12,042
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    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?