I love this idea so much.
LOL!
this post was submitted on 28 May 2026
476 points (99.6% liked)
politics
29902 readers
2261 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is the correct thing to do.
The only change that I would make would be to earmark the taxed money to be given out to genuine victims of the Regime: those raped by Trump, police officers assaulted on January 6th, unlawfully fired Federal government workers, lawfare defense, and people accosted by ICE.
Make that 150%.
I like the energy here but... I dont think much of this money is destined for Jan 6 idiots. Surely their usefulness to Trump is finished.
It doesn't say they would only tax jan 6ers, it says any state residents who receive a payout
Yes, but the types of people Trump needs a slush fund to pay, are the types of people that can arrange to receive the money in the most advantageous jurisdiction.
Well Newsom is just the governor of California, so not like he has ultimate power. He's also problematic in a lot of ways, but this one seems like a good move as far as it goes.
Yeah but the issue is that wealthy people don't follow the same rules. They'll create a company or something out of state to funnel that money to their pockets without Cali ever knowing.
It's only the poor people who get fucked.
oh it’s just manufactured midterm consent. the money is advertising more than anything else.
The money is to whoever trump wants to give it to for whatever reason with zero accountability. It doesn't matter whether any Jan 6ers get any of it, it's 100% illegal theft of taxpayer money by trump.
i also assume so. and in the case these assholes would receive something, i assume they would just move after this pr stunt?
Having them move away would be a net benefit to the state, so win-win.
Make it 101%. Or 200%.
Now now, I think you're being very unfair. He should make it a progressive amount. Lets be nice and start it at, say 1% on the first $100, then 2% on the second $100, 4% on the next $100, 8% on the next, and so on.
Confused by the downvotes on your comment. Is it just people that hate math?
This quickly becomes an essentially infinite tax. That's the joke.
If they got $1100 dollars. The tax on just that last $100 of the $1100 would be 1024% or $1,024
Tax on $100 increment n is given by 2ⁿ . So the tax on $900 is the negative break point.
9
∑ 2ⁿ = $1275
n=1
You pay $1275 in total for receiving $900.
This explodes after that. At $2000 dollars received you owe over $2,000,000. At $30,000 received you owe more dollars than there are atoms in the entire universe.
Edit: Typing math on my phone. Could have gotten a number wrong. But the trend is the point.
Also, explaining math jokes is always hilarious.
Hey kids, don't do math for fun. You'll get hooked and then look at what you will become.
I'm not hooked, I can stop any time I want... but maybe just one more exponential function before I head out...
1776%
I like Newsom’s energy in getting attention to another of the administration’s illegal actions
…. But can this actually happen or is it just noise?
The police can take money from citizens on suspicion but no evidence of criminal activity.
Why wouldn't California be able to take money given to criminals by criminals that was fraudulently taken from the IRS in the first place?
Because all persons are created equal, but corporate persons are more equal than others.
- states do not have jurisdiction over irs, no “standing”
- the new crime was not perpetrated by the defendant. Trump illegally taking money from IRS as a slush fund to criminals who forward hi s desires is his crime
I think you’d need to make the argument that a slush fund payout is directly profiting from your crime but you’d have to argue that
States have the right to levy taxes. This is a special income tax, not a fine. The state isn't suing anyone, they are just defining a form of income having a certain tax rate.
Why wouldn’t California be able to take money given to criminals by criminals that was fraudulently taken from the IRS in the first place?
Would the Supremacy Clause apply here? Genuinely not sure, because it's not California superseding federal law per se (as preventing the payments entirely would likely be), it's just them doing something after-the-fact which is contrary to the goals of the federal government.
The recipients are secret, but at least they'll be committing crimes when they don't declare the income on their taxes.
How every democrat should respond to Republican aggression.
Trump is just going to keep it all.
Trump might use it to pay warriors for the 2028 election. He's going to need people who will fight viciously to keep him in the White House, and now he can sweeten the deal with more than a pardon.
Maybe, but he may use it to pay and arm his private army of goons in 2028. For a billion dollars, he could contract with 20,000 goons for three months, at $50K each, plus weapons, to create chaos before during and after the election, and use it to remain in power.
Can someone explain this to me… Because the lawsuit was filed in federal court and had a judge working the case, the judge has to approve the settlement. But Trump came to this agreement with the DOJ and withdrew the case in a way that wouldn’t require the judge to approve it. But doesn’t that mean that this agreement is technically not a settlement to the case, and therefore it is meaningless?
No. In civil cases you can settle outside of court without the judge being involved. It's a settlement but not a legal one that has much of a chance of standing up in court.
My ~~neighbor~~ Fox news told me ~~coyotes~~ Democrats keep ~~eating~~ stealing his ~~outdoor cats~~ tax breaks so I asked how many ~~cats~~ tax breaks he has and he said he just goes to the ~~shelter~~ Treasury and gets a new ~~cat~~ tax break afterwards so I said it sounds like he’s just feeding ~~shelter cats~~ tax breaks to ~~coyotes~~ Democrats and then his ~~daughter~~ president started crying
Edit: edited in a rush, need better words than tax break
Proceeds of crime, people. It's not a tax: it's simple confiscation.
Newsom: *moves up 1 in the 2028 standings*
Lemmyleft: *rends garment*
I like the clap backing Newsom does but he's a shit politician who is only slightly less right than Fetterman.
Yeah, I'm glad he's needling Trump and MAGA, but I'm not voting for him. He sucks Oligarch cock.
I know little about him, as I expect most of the country does other than he seems ready willing and able to take the piss out of the demented rapist, and that’s such a rare commodity, somehow, that it’s worth political capital.
His state has a lot of electoral votes, he’s a white male, and would likely attract big money to run. Strictly speaking, it seems likely he’ll be a frontrunner, but I expect we’ll be right back to arguing the Dems need to lose again and go through all this *gestures* again.
He is particularly harsh on telling law enforcement to break up homeless camps regularly, shows no concern to the growing amount in his state, he holds conservative beliefs on trans rights. https://abcnews.com/Politics/california-gov-gavin-newsom-breaks-party-transgender-athletes/story?id=119559011
https://www.pacificresearch.org/newsom-has-failed-on-homelessness-and-it-shouldnt-be-hard-so-hard-to-spot/
Don't forget that he vetoed unemployment pay for striking workers, vetoed decriminalization of psychedelics (in other words, the aspiring future leader of "my body my choice" party wants to put people in prison for what they do with their bodies), and frequently flaunted COVID restrictions which he put in place.
He also did nothing about corporations stealing (and now ruining) the legal cannabis industry. Voters who voted to pass cannabis legalization did so under the context of an acreage cap: no corporation could own more than... 2 acres? I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but the idea was, it's small enough to keep corporations from dominating but big enough to allow them decent operating room.
Lawmakers went behind the electorate's back and removed the acreage cap. Newsom did nothing, and was buddy-buddy with corporate cannabis people like Big Mike, so why would he? This resulted in corporate cannabis, including professional boof cultivators like Glass House Farms (owned by a MAGA-supporting cop), dominating the legal industry. Their weed is garbage, which is why ~75% of cannabis sales in California occur in the legacy market ("illegal" under bullshit laws that everyone should ignore).
He also hosts conservative shitstains on his podcast, though if he was actually ideologically righteous, I could potentially excuse that as genuine outreach. But he's not, so I don't.
He was doing homeless sweeps and talking about his undying support for Pissrael when Republicans were on the up-trend. Now everyone hates Republicans, so suddenly Newsom is refusing money from AIPAC and doesn't talk so much about the problem of having to witness poors in the street. He stands for nothing but his own gain.
Here's a photo op he did of him throwing away, potentially, the only worldly possessions of homeless people. He presumably retreated to his Napa Valley winery after this. Fucking parasite.
Thank you, I'm not entirely in the news cycle about him but knew he was just a conservative shitbag.
Yeah that pretty much covers it lol, conservative shitbag and hypocrite