this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
419 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

85567 readers
3772 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] webkitten@piefed.social 1 points 20 minutes ago

*Opposition from tech moguls and the current governor and current Democratic governor candidate

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 hour ago

For California's next trick, I'd like to put the abolishment of tech moguls on the ballot.

If this is too extreme, then I'm okay with bringing back "the stocks", so long as we get to throw tomatoes at them.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 22 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Oh no, but the billionaires might leave the state! That would be a shame, not to have them assfucking our politicians. A damn shame.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Every state where, "the money goblins will leave if X!!!" is threatened, that state ends up having more millionaire/billionaires after X happens.

And when they "leave" they don't leave, they buy another vacation home, their business interests stay put.

And of course, wherever they are, they aren't paying taxes. And you are paying their energy /water bills.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 minutes ago

You know it. And I do.

[–] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 10 points 1 hour ago

They would still assfuck your politicians. Elon Musk spent $90 million on a judge race in Wisconsin.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 hours ago

They seem to be moving to the Midwest lately anyway. To states where they can fuck over the environment with their data centers. But if they think they will move the entire business, including employees, there, I’m not so sure that will work out. The local yokels are fucked from decades of poor education, so they don’t have the tech skills. They will have a hard time importing brown people on H1B visas, because everyone in these states is racist as fuck (which is also why they moved there to begin with.) So that leaves US citizens with those skill sets, but they mostly live in blue areas and are not going to want to move to these places that won’t align with their lifestyle. So they’ll still have to have remote employees, or they think they can get rid of most of their employees and replace them all with their AI jizz fest. Which will be funny when it fails.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 hours ago

Why would the billionaires pay 5% when they can spend less then 1% flooding the tvs and mailboxes of Californiana with ads that this will destroy the economy?

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 100 points 8 hours ago (6 children)

One time 5%, that's like a bandaid on a severed artery

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Should be national. Statewide doesn’t make any sense

[–] Trilogy3452@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

I think it sets a precedent

[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 78 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Tax the ever living fuck out of them like they did pre-Reagan.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 46 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Yeah, a 95% marginal tax rate and both a massive inheritance and transfer of assets while alive (not sure how it's called) taxes would solve most of the problem.

[–] nullspace@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

taxing inheritence and transfer of assets

Wouldn't happen in CA. As blue as they seem, prop 13 makes them basically a feudal society with actual landed gentry. I'm not making that up.

[–] Ithral@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

(not sure how it's called)

I think you are looking for "wealth tax"

Also the US has inheritance tax that kicks in once an estate exceeds 5million dollars. The problem is that you can bypass that limit by establishing a trust that holds all your assets. If before your death you put everything over 5million in a trust (baisically a legal contract that acts like a container for assets that a lawyer oversees to make sure the contract is executed) then it stops being your wealth and starts being the trust's wealth. A trust can have any arbitrary set of rules, for example it could be as simple as: wisely invest my assets and pay out an income to my surviving decendants from the intrest and their decendants. Or ot could be: while i live pay me out, on my death distribute everything left to charities my children are ungreatful brats and don't get anything. Really it can be anything.

Those are really useful if for example you have 3 unmarried adults who want to share property and make sure property rights transfer between them until everyone is dead then the trust is disolved and the property goes to: favorite niece or something. It can also be useful to allow joint ownership of regulated items that otherwise can't be jointly owned (e.g. machine guns) they are also more powerful than a will if for example you want to make sure your grandkids get college money, or dont get any money until 25, while their parents get nothing and so on... anything you can put on a contract can rule the trusts assets.

So realistically the solution here is to cap how much value can be in a trust, say 5million dollars, and limit how many trusts an individual can be a benneficiary of, lets say 3 trusts at a time.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 6 points 6 hours ago

Thanks for the explanation !

[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 5 points 8 hours ago

Hell yeah! Let’s make it happen!

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It almost looks like it‘s designed to fail. Probably all of those billionaires will be richer by the end of the year this tax comes into effect. Meanwhile the money raised from it won‘t be enough to solve all that many issues. It‘s not really supposed to but billionaires and their outlets will keep telling us how „taxing the rich was tried and failed!!!“ Mark my words.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 4 points 7 hours ago

They would never do that, right ? Right?

[–] Waterpumpee@lemmus.org 6 points 8 hours ago

I was going to answer how taxing income instead of assets is more effective because it emphasizes reinvesting and creating jobs. But billionaires shouldnt exist. Its just too much accumulated in one person.

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That is why it needs to be a 1% annual tax.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

At the very minimum, a 2% worldwide annual tax to prevent some tax evasion.

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world -2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

At 2% it would hurt those who hold bonds at 3.9% (and below) and when there is a planned 2% inflation rate. (The economy is usually better for the working class when bonds average between 2-5% returns).

But I agree that it should be global.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Motherfucker they take 35% of what we make.

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Or more.

But you do realize that the billionaires are going to try to poison pill any such legislation by making it apply to everyone.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yes, I am well aware that the only path forward is playing mario brothers multiplayer, we can do it.

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

It would be easier if the location of bowser was tracked on some map (ideally realtime) so that players could speedrun to their boss fight.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The 2% would be applied to households worth 100 million dollars or more, I'm pretty sure they could spare the change without much impact on their lifestyles.

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Why not make it go, 1%, 2%,4%,8%,16%,32%,64% based on how much they had? Hurting the trillionaire and the centibillionaires the hardest

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 1 points 4 hours ago

The goal is to have it low enough so that every single country in the world agrees to set it up, even tax havens like Bermuda, Luxembourg or Monaco. But high enough to be effective. Then, once it's agreed upon, we can make it better and more progressive.

[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 25 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You still have that population who believe they'll become millionaires some day if they work hard so 5% is small enough that they might actually vote in favor

[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This only impacts people with a net worth of at least 1 billion USD.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Id guess those same ppl think they could possibly become a billionaire too. If youre going to be delusional you might as well cross the line into stupidity