27 Replies to “O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas”

  1. The Eagles had it right:

    “You can check out any time you like
    But you can never leave.”

    Never mind that the proposal will play havoc with all sorts of residency laws.

    For example, I’m still settling my father’s estate. The house is in B. C. and I pay property tax there, but Victoria doesn’t consider me a resident. That means that I can’t register my truck in that province but I’m still subject to certain municipal bylaws.

    Isn’t the law wonderful?

  4. So the state administration feels entitled to your wealth that you earned in the state before you left.
    Ok so then are they forgetting about all the taxes collected while those folks lived in the state?
    This could be fun.
    Business pulls up stakes and moves to friendlier jurisdiction.
    Sacramento sends them a bill the next year for the wealth the earned while still in California.
    Individual sends a copy of the receipt for all the taxes they paid in previous years.
    I get a feeling the commerce clause may make this move by Sacramento unconstitutional.
    But I could be wrong.

  5. A huge problem for tyrannical states is keeping the inmates in the prison. People have feet, and given the chance they’ll use them. East Germany built the Berlin, and shot anyone trying to go over it. California is trying to build an economic wall.

    But is it constitutional or enforceable? Can states create permanent or semi-permanent obligations on people that persist long after they’ve left the state? What if other states and the federal government refuse to co-operate in enforcing California’s law? What’s California going to do, invade?

    At any rate, people don’t like to enter buildings they can’t easily exit. At first the new law will bring in revenue, but over the long run wealthy people will be hesitant to move there, and the tax might actually reduce revenue.

  6. If they don’t utilise the recall legislation or vote the idiots out, they’re going to get the government they asked for good and hard.

  7. Just how the hell are they going to enforce that? I have been avoiding taxes for decades and CA cannot ever collect taxes from the places I have a wee bit of money. That would apply to anyone, anywhere. CA is not a country and has no [power beyond that of the the U.S. as a state.

      1. The rioters will be sent out to find you. What do you think those mindless thugs are going to do in a Biden government … turn in their black outfits and go get a job at Starbucks?

  8. Sadly … Chief Justice Roberts believes ‘The State’ can tax anyone for anything … whenever it wants. Never mind the restraint of Freedom of Movement imposed by such a tax. CJ Roberts believes taxing power is absolute, and abridges all other Constitutional Rights. Where he got that notion? IDK … maybe from the UN Charter?

    1. Be patient, Grasshopper. After President Trump’s reelection, they will discover that RBG had been mummified for months and he will appoint another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh to replace her, and that would be the end of any influence of Roberts. I think Roberts is feeling the power of the swing vote, and it’s true, many cases go 5/4 one way or another depending on his whim. When he no longer has that power, maybe he would see the power of voting with the majority, if he cares about his “legacy”, and not be a chief justice who cannot lead, but always dissents. Or maybe not, we won’t care. 5/4 is as good as 6/3. But Thomas has to hold on until after Breyer and/or Sotomayor is gone.

      1. Thank you, Master Po … for talking me off the ledge. Your wisdom always calms my spirit. Now, I can have a restful weekend. Thomas, the quiet one, is the closest thing we have to Antonin Scalia left on the court. The new boys appear to be solid constitutionalists and not activists, so when PDJT wins a landslide reelection … and RBG’s remains are ‘suddenly’ found … Gavin Newsom’s wealth tax will be disposed of in the rubbish bin. I like the math.

        I still cannot snatch the pebbles from your hand …

        PS … Liverpool will be looking at some STRONGER opponents next year … when Messi arrives at City … and a quickly strengthened Chelsea lineup (OK … so they picked up a 35yo defender … more of a player-coach, I’d wager). It will be a tough repeat …

        1. Did you read my posts elsewhere on the NBA and MLB “protest”? And on Naomi Osaka?
          Onto EPL, whose politics are too distant to really bother me, except that through Nike, it seems like Liverpool is really aligning with LeBron James. That may be the last straw to make me forego all sports. I am seriously considering giving up all my UCLA season tickets.
          I don’t understand Chelsea. They had plenty of offense (3rd in EPL), their weakness was defense (tied 11th). Well, a distant third yes, but given how young their forwards are, I thought they had a lot of potential. But they went out and got Werner and Ziyech, and are rumored to sign Harvetz. With Abraham, Pulisic, and Giroud (the latter two did really well after restart), and not even counting Mount, that’s SIX players all accustomed to be regular starters. Will they have a 3-2-5 formation or what? In the meantime, they haven’t addressed their weakness. I guess they just plan on outscoring the other team. It would make for entertaining, exciting soccer. Maybe 5-3 would be a normal score.
          What does Messi add to City? They scored 102 goals in the season just concluded! City’s defense actually only gave up 2 more goals than Liverpool. Their problem last season was they can go on 5-nil or whatever rampages, but when they give up 2 goals they invariably dropped points. That says they have no heart, and there are keys to beating them. A good defensive club with quick counter strikes. City was weak in front of the keeper against the counter. Last season they did not have one decent defensive back, with Laporte out. Now Laporte is healthy again. I was really worried with the rumor they were going to get Koulibaly. I guess that was just a false rumor, thank goodness. Koulibaly and Laporte would have really tightened their middle. But they are at least better than last year, and would give Liverpool a battle if they can keep some of those dropped points. I tell you what they don’t need is a 34 year old who has trouble getting back. Did you see that CL game against Bayern Munich? Messi was as guilty as anyone. He wasn’t a factor at all. And he was one of two players who shot off their mouths saying how much better LaLiga was than Bundesliga. Don’t think that wasn’t an incentive for Bayern.
          Honestly, without changing personnel, I believe Liverpool can be better. I thought their forwards did not finish as well as in years past, even though they had more chances. My own peculiar twist is I thought Liverpool played some of their best soccer when Fabinho was out and Henderson played center midfield, an essential defensive slot in the Liverpool scheme. That was when Liverpool got their long string of clean sheets. Do you know Wijnaldum is one of two primary scorers for a very strong Dutch national team? Keita also knows where the goal is. They are just a little kept back in the Liverpool scheme. But if they are given more freedom forward (with a better trust in the iron triangle defense), and with perhaps a little better finishing touch from the forwards, Liverpool can improve on their goal production to approach City.

          1. Sorry, forgot about Chillwell. That was a good get for Chelsea. But I don’t think he’ll fix Chelsea’s defensive problems by himself.

  9. Its not “Oh sweet Saint of San Andreas”. It is “Oh sweet San Andreas”.

    You could say “Oh sweet Saint of San Andreas fault” if you want to specifically refer to the tectonic fault line.

    1. Thank you. That’s been bugging me for a while. (I’m an editor; can’t help it.) San = saint, so using both is redundant.

  10. To follow someone around to rob him used to be called ‘stalking’. Now it’s called creative taxation.

  11. Besides being unenforceable and creating a predictable net reduction in taxes collected, it amounts to “taxation without representation” as one cannot vote on state issues when one has left the state. Taken to the Supreme Court, it would be quashed as unconstitutional or there would be another Tea Party in San Fransisco Bay and an accompanying war. And the people that would be affected have the means to buy a mercenary force to take out Gruesome Gavin (who hasn’t paid his property taxes in three years, and has not taken the promised reduction in pay in solidarity with his fellow civil servants).

  12. This should apply against them as well. “I came from an open carry state. Since I just moved here last week, that means I get to open-carry, and practice castle defense laws, for 10 years. Your prosecution of people leaving the state gives me a legal precedent to bring my rules and laws with me.”

    1. But remember… In the first year you’ll only get to shoot 90% of thugs and home invaders. In the second year only 80% and so on. Think of it a a declining bag limit.

      1. Good point. So you need let everyone know your goods are worth trying to steal so as to ensure you’re home invaded by 10 low-lives in the first year, 9 in the second year, and so on.

        Or would that qualify as using bait, and therefore being illegal?

  14. I see a lot of lawyer pay checks sky rocketing, as law suits against this stupidity will surely happen

  15. Ha ha.

    All the people whose posts I have read here, saying things like “we are working on getting ready to start thinking about maybe starting to think about leaving California”.

    Well, it’s too late now.

    There comes a point, where you can choose to simply abandon whatever is holding you down. Or you don’t.

    In Minneapolis, they should just take the loss; default on the taxes, abandon ship. In Minneapolis, they still have time to make this choice.

    In California, it’s too late. No one is going to buy your house, so you have nothing. No one is going to move there, because no one likes quicksand. You can stay, and keep paying taxes on what is effectively worthless, or you can just walk away, change your identity, leave it all behind.

  16. As it happens, I left California more than ten years ago. It also happens that my net worth is, uh,
    considerably less than the $30 million threshold for the tax. Having been educated as an accountant,
    though, I did wonder whether withdrawals from my IRA (for the benefit of those who aren’t familiar
    with the USA’s tax law, “IRA” stands for “individual retirement account”; the taxpayer gets to deduct
    annual contributions from taxable income, but must pay tax on withdrawals) which I had made while
    living and working in California would be taxed by California when I withdrew them. This was a concern
    because California state income taxes are considerably higher than Iowa’s (the actual rate isn’t a whole
    lot higher, but Iowa, unlike the majority of states, allows taxpayers to deduct federal income taxes paid),
    It turns out that, during the Clinton administration, Congress passed a law stating that IRA withdrawals
    would be taxed by the state in which the taxpayer lives when the withdrawal is made, not where he/she/it
    lived when the contributions were made. That doesn’t mean that California can’t do what it’s proposing
    (I think that there are other things that prevent that), but it does indicate how a court might rule on the
    legality of this.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation