O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas

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

1. You know your taxes are too high when George Clooney moves to France.

   1. Italy I think. Point stands.

      1. France, which already has a wealth tax. They even changed their citizenship. Wonder if he has dual.

         https://fortune.com/2025/12/30/george-clooney-becomes-french-citizen-american-dream-hollywood/

         Clooney has been unusually explicit about why he no longer wants to raise his family in Los Angeles. “I was worried about raising our kids in L.A., in the culture of Hollywood,” he told Esquire recently, adding that he felt they were “never going to get a fair shake at life” there. He further explained that “France—they kind of don’t give a s— about fame,” and emphasized that he does not want his children “walking around worried about paparazzi” or “being compared to somebody else’s famous kids.”

         I think the above is a smoke screen. My translation: Hollywood is dying.

         1. France has a law regarding unwanted photography I believe, an “anti-paparazzi” law?

            1. Why would a movie star not want publicity?

         2. He won’t give up his American Citizenship, because that process involves tax consequences similar to dying in Canada.

2. These guys have supported insane Democrat policies their whole lives, so what gives? Hypocrites.

   1. True, they should just pay it and tell all the other billionaires to pony up

   2. They have FUNDED and SUPPORTED this confiscatory impulse by the NEW residents of CA. They have IMPORTED these NEW communist residents of this State from the 4-corners of the planet. Congrats to them for escaping with their $Billions.

      Now watch just how FAST this “Billionaire” wealth tax becomes the “Millionaire” wealth tax … now that the Billionaires are all gone … and everyone who owns a home in CA owes $Hundreds of thousands in “wealth” tax.

3. ?
   well here wea re again.
   legit posting claiming ‘duplicate’ where there is none.
   good riddance smallverydeadwebsite

   1. Are you still using Windows XP?

4. When you see the words “…liberally construed” used together in the same sentence with respect to tax policy – run, don’t walk.
   Which of course is what “Larry and Sergey” will do – and most likely vote for the same Democrat bullsh** in whatever red state they move to.

5. My sympathy lies in-between shit and syphilis.

6. But what’s the point of it? They must realize it’s driving away the wealthy taxpayers, so who’s going to fund the next high speed railroad to nowhere?

7. The Dems are driving wealthy Dems to other states, where said wealthy Dems will repeat California’s policies.

   It’s deliberate.

   1. Yep. Every member of California’s oligarchy knew what the bite would be and they went ahead and did it because poorer people are easier to control than wealthier people.
      California is a metastasizing cancer that needs aggressive intervention.

8. I’m sure some in the state government think this will slow down the exodus of businesses from California. There are looking only one move down the chessboard.

   People are reluctant to enter a building they can’t easily leave. This gives entrepreneurs an excellent reason to avoid California like the plague. In the long run, California will be much poorer.

9. I’ve never been a fan of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Even at a young age, I could see it was unworkable. But she nailed her depictions of government kleptocracies.

   1. So you’re saying human nature is unworkable? That’s all “objectivism” is at its core. It’s acknowledging that humans are selfish creatures driven by self interest. Why? Because it’s our SURVIVAL instinct. We all inherently know that if we don’t take care of ourselves, then no one else will.

      Having said that … anyone who follows a PURE unaltered version of ANY philosophy is doomed. Because there are gray areas and exceptions to every rule. For example, we sacrifice for our families … as a small collective group … because it’s in our own self interest to care for others in our family. An extended, tight knit family will care for each other. Carry the weak members when strong, and be cared-for when weak.

      Humans do not do well in large, anonymous, groups and “communities”. There is no loyalty or sense of obligation in those large forced collectives.

      1. I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

         This is unworkable. As soon as you have a family, you have committed to living for the sake of others. Further, mankind is an inherently social animal whose surival depends on allyships. And allyships are reinforced through friendships and unselfish acts.

         You might argue, or course, that many (or all) apparently unselfish acts are actually self serving. The adherents of Objectivism tied themselves into knots trying to figure out what “living for the sake of another man” truly meant.

10. I was listening to the Jesse Kelly radio show recently and he was talking about this. He had a novel solution (jokingly) . He suggested that your voting record would indicate if you were eligible to move to another state to escape the turmoil you caused personally by voting for politicians that initiated certain policies into law.

    For example, if you voted for Gavin Newsom, and he signed this nonsense into law, then you couldn’t move to Florida to avoid the consequences when it enacted until Newsom left office. Obviously, it’s not a realistic way to address the matter. But, it was entertaining.

11. In the calculation, did he bother to take into account that if those 2 start dumping shares to pay that tax it’ll tank the share price, and they’ll have to sell more?

12. They voted for it.
    They funded it.
    Shouldn’t they stay and take their punishment?