Inside tech elites’ madcap war against the California billionaire tax

sfstandard.com

7 points·thm··6 comments

> What if the group simply bought the signature-collecting company the union was using, then prohibited it from collecting more signatures?

I understand someone not wanting to pay more tax but this is straight up villainous.

Yep. And then you start asking questions such as are we actually living in a democracy anymore...

I'm not from the US but I would think something like this would go directly against the 1st amendment?

Also in general if you're on the losing end of a "fair" vote I assume a decent person would look within themselves to see why they lost, instead of creating a false alternative reality.

I'm not from the US either, and can't say if it's against the 1st amendment or not. But I'm also considering if the constitution matters there anymore, or will it be bent for the billionaires to keep their power.

Yes, a decent person would definitely look within themselves. I'm not sure are these billionaires decent people...

The First Amendment covers government censorship. There's nothing about this that would violate the first amendment.

"Looking within oneself" might make you a better person, but you don't get to be a billionaire by wanting to be a better person. If your choices are "losing" and "creating a false reality in which you win", the choice is pretty simple.

If the Act was named properly would it garner so much popular support?

Imaginary wealth tax Unrealized capital gains tax Stocks now houses later tax

Reply on news.ycombinator.com