Destroying the loon.
Credit: Forbes YouTube Screenshot
Visits: 27
How stupid are the Democrats? Using a skier as a climate change witness. You expect to see stupidity like this on obscure websites like NV. But the Democrats outdid themselves. Senator Kennedy destroyed this so called expert.
During a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Wednesday, a woke 23-year-old Olympic skier named Gus Schumacher became his latest victim. As Outkick.com reported, Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) had invited Schumacher to testify as an “expert” on “The Nature of Climate Costs.”
Hamas Progressive Allies Upset With NBC Hiring Ronna. It has been fun to watch the loons on the left crying that MSNBC in a desperate attempt to get out of the basement ratings are being vocal about the latest attempt by NBC to be fair and balanced.
NBC chief political analyst Chuck Todd said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that many journalists at his company were uncomfortable with the hiring of former Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.
Addressing host Kristen Welker, Todd said, “I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation. Because I don’t know what to believe. She is now a paid contributor by NBC news. I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn’t want to mess up her contract. She wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for it. So she has she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who’s paying her? Once at the RNC, she did say that. Hey, I’m speaking for the party. I get that that’s part of the job. So, what about here? I will say this, I think your interview, did a good job of exposing, I think, many of the contradictions.”
How can this be? Voter fraud in Wisconsin. I see and hear about stupid people all the time. But this one takes the cake. Kimberly Zapata, the deputy director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission, was fired for committing election fraud.
Rep. Brandtjen received three authentic military ballots to her home addressed to “Holly,” a woman who has never lived there.
Zapata claimed that she was trying to prove how easy it was to commit voter fraud. But yet her boss who believes her fired her. Well the courts didn’t believe her.
A Milwaukee County jury has reached a verdict in the trial of Kimberly Zapata – and found Zapata guilty on all counts against her.
Zapata is the fired Milwaukee Election Commission deputy director accused of illegally requesting military ballots and sending them to the home of State Rep. Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls).
Zapata did not testify in her own defense. She was charged with election fraud. Prosecutors say in 2022, she ordered military ballots using names she made up. Zapata told investigators she was trying to prove there is fraud in our election system. She said she never intended the ballots to be processed.
However, did you know that you might still be taxed even after you leave the state?
Yep! Thanks to the Californiaexit tax legislation, depending on how much money you get from in-state activities, such as investments in real estate or business operations, you could still be treated like a Californian on your next tax return!
Join us as we walk you through the California wealth and exit tax questions, such as “what is the exit tax in california,” how much it is, who it applies to, and a deeper dive into the CA wealth tax proposal and the Assembly Bill 2088.
So, what is the Californiaexit tax? The Californiaexit tax explained:
The Californiaexit tax is a one-time tax that must be paid by businesses and individuals who relocate outside of California. The tax is based on the value of the business or individual’s assets, including property, stocks, and other investments.
It forms part of the larger Californiawealth tax, whereby the state imposes a tax based on its residents’ wealth.
Those who have lived in the state at any point in time in the past and who earn an annual income greater than $30 million are affected by the wealth tax and would have to pay an annual tax on their wealth for as long as 10 years after they have left the state.
How much is the Californiaexit tax?
The amount of the Californiaexit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, no matter where it’s located—within CA, other states within the US, or overseas. This amount is halved to $15,000,000 if a married taxpayer files a separate return to their spouse.
The one caveat is that there is no California exit tax on real estate (but if the real estate is within state lines, it would still be taxed under California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591).
Who has to pay Californiaexit tax?
The exit tax applies to both businesses and individuals who leave California. This includes businesses that move their operations out of state as well as individuals who relocate to another state. It should be noted that the exit tax only applies if you’re moving to another state, not within California.
Why was the Californiaexit tax of 2020 created?
The exit tax is intended to recoup some of the money that California has invested in these businesses and individuals.
For example, if a business owner has received tax breaks or other financial incentives from the state, the exit tax ensures that they will still contribute some money to California‘s economy even after they leave.
The primary reason for the enactment of the exit tax was to close a loophole that allowed people to avoid paying taxes on their capital gains.
Under federal law, capital gains are only taxed when they are realized. This means that if someone buys a stock for $1,000 and it goes up to $10,000, they don’t have to pay taxes on that $9,000 until they sell the stock.
If that person lived in California and then moved to another state before selling the stock, they would never have to pay taxes on that $9,000 in capital gains.
To close this loophole, the Golden State enacted the California wealth and exit tax. Now, anyone who leaves the state is required to pay taxes on their unrealized capital gains.
It’s been criticized by many people, who argue that it is unfair and punitive. They point out that many people who are leaving California are doing so because they can no longer afford to live there.
By California taxing people who leave even more, they say the state is effectively pushing them out.
What’s more, they argue that the exit tax will make it even harder for these businesses and individuals to get back on their feet financially once they’re in their new location.
The CaliforniaWealth Tax Proposal in a Nutshell
California is in the midst of a major overhaul of its tax code, which could expand the state’s ability to tax non-residents, even if they sever their connections with the state.
The bill that is causing quite a stir among business and property owners is called the Assembly Bill 2088 (AB 2088), which is, effectively, the Californiawealth tax proposal.
AB 2088 was introduced in Sacramento in August of 2020, and it proposes a Californiawealth tax for the first time in the state, affecting individuals who have lived in the state and who make an annual income greater than $30 million.
However, before we delve into the loopholes and exceptions to this ambitious, but potentially consequential, new bill, we must first understand how California’s tax code could impact you, even as a non-resident.
Whether you are a landowner or an entrepreneur with connections to the state, understanding the tax implications is crucial to mitigating the possibility of having to pay some pretty significant taxes.
Starting point: Residency & the Californiaexit tax proposal 2020
First, California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is in charge of setting the requirements for California citizenship, and plays a pivotal part in a California residency audit.
Factors that affect its determination include:
your largest residential property’s location
Residence of your spouse and children
School districts where your children attend
Whether your account statements from your credit cards show your residence in California
Exemptions you may claim as a homeowner in California
Approximately how many days you spend in California each year
Whether your California residence is listed on a federal and local tax return
Where you vote
Where your vehicles are registered
Looking at these factors, you might think that removing yourself physically from the state would result in them no longer applying and saving you a fair amount of money.
There is some truth to this assumption, as the Franchise Tax Board actually cannot base your residence in California if you do not physically reside within your home in California for most of the year.
This is especially convenient for people who frequently travel or, perhaps, own other residential property outside of California.
Still, even if you change addresses, remove California on your tax returns, and move across the country, you could still be impacted by the California tax code when it comes to taxes.
The above factors listed by the FTB are to be used as a guideline; they are certainly not the only things to consider.
A common fallacy: people frequently believe that moving out of California will make them exempt from paying individual income taxes. This is not necessarily the case, and it would be wrong to assume relocation is a blanket solution.
Requirements for the CA exit tax 2020: do they apply to you?
California looks at two major factors when determining whether an individual’s income is taxable and how that then applies to the Californiaexit tax proposal 2020:
Do you generate income from sources within the state? (e.g. real estate investments, business investments in California);
Does your business operate within state lines? (e.g. facilities, employees, etc.)
Let’s look at these two in more detail and how they apply to the “leaving California tax”, as it’s sometimes known…
1. Income-generating sources from within the state
In other words, if you have invested in or own real estate within California, you still need to pay in-state tax on that real estate, even if you technically reside in another state.
This tax code applies even at the time of sale of that real estate, because it falls under the category of “California-source income”—income derived from sources within California state lines.
FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of real estate and property investments that are subject to Californianonresident taxes:
Community property income
For individuals with spouses who are California residents, the spouse’s income is considered community property and is, therefore, split equally by the couple.
The community property share of that income is taxable to each spouse, even if one of the spouses lives outside of California and has never lived in the state before.
Real estate sales
Any gain (or loss) from selling real estate located in the state of Californiais taxable under California’s tax code.
This applies even if the owner is a non-resident who has never lived within the state. The location of the property controls whether the tax applies.
2. Business Operations and Activities in California as a Non-resident
Another situation to be wary of is owning or operating a business within California state lines as a non-resident.
Many business owners falsely believe that because they live outside of California or conduct part of their business operations out-of-state that this exempts them from California taxes.
Under the Constitution, a business’s income may be taxed by the percentage of business activity conducted within a given state.
As applied to California, if a business’s manufacturing facilities are located in Nevada but its workforce, such as remote and/or in-person workers, and corporate offices are in Los Angeles, then that business has demonstrated a sufficient “nexus” or connection with California.
Thus, it is subject to the state’s taxes, and the exit tax in California applies.
If a business demonstrates a sufficient connection or “nexus” to the state of California, it may be subject to the state’s taxes, regardless of whether some of its operations or employees live out of state.
Still, this does not necessarily mean that the California taxes will apply to that business’s total income, especially if only a fraction of the business’s total revenue is derived from California sources.
Say, for example, a business earns $10 million in annual income with 40% from California consumers and 60% from Nevada consumers. California will only be able to tax $4 million of the total $10 million income, because that is the proportion of California-sourced income.
Types of non-resident businesses and the exit tax in California
FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of business activities that are subject to Californianon-resident taxes:
Salary and wages: To non-residents, wages and salaries for services performed in California are taxable, regardless of the location of the employer or employee.
Income from business: Income from a business, trade, or profession conducted in the state may be taxed on non-residents.
Foreseeable Developments to the CaliforniaExit Tax 2020 Proposal—Assembly Bill 2088
In terms of whether the Californiaexit tax 2020 proposal bill will actually stand the test of litigation, the likelihood of courts nullifying the law, should it be enacted, is high.
The exit tax clearly violates the constitutional right to travel, because it burdens individuals from:
Moving to the state of California in fear that the state tax will follow them even after they leave the state, and
Moving out of the state for the similar reason of having to continue to pay California taxes while also navigating the state and local taxes of their new residence.
To provide some context to why courts will likely find the tax unconstitutional, it is important to first understand the levels of “scrutiny” or critical inspection of the law that will be applied.
Since the law affects a fundamental constitutional right—the right to travel—strict scrutiny will apply here.
Strict scrutiny of the “leaving California tax”
Under strict scrutiny, the burden is on the legislature to show that the law was enacted to further a “compelling government interest” and the law is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.
In other words, the question revolves around whether the law is essential or necessary and whether there are alternative, less-intrusive methods of attaining the same result.
The state of California will likely argue that the “compelling” interest is to mitigate economic inequality and the disparity between classes. This is certainly an important and necessary issue to address.
However, coming up with an argument to show that the exit tax is “narrowly tailored” in that no other alternatives for achieving the purpose are available will be an uphill battle.
Overall, because the bill will impact a fundamental constitutional right and there are likely many other ways to go about addressing the compelling interest it aims to address, the likelihood of the exit tax withstanding strict scrutiny is slim.
Nevertheless, litigating the issue will take time, and it’s important to prepare for any impact the bill may have upon being enacted.
Avoiding the California exodus tax: what can you do?
The first step to approaching this California tax for leaving state is to consult a licensed tax attorney and explore your options.
Depending on your situation, taxes may apply to you in ways you might never anticipate.
Further, having a professional explain to you what parts of your income, business operations and activities, and wealth are taxable under California law will help to ensure that you do not suffer from unfortunate surprises on your next tax statement.
Key takeaways on the California wealth and exit tax
The AB 2088 Bill is responsible for the Californiawealth tax over 10 years ruling, whereby if you leave California, the State can tax you for up to 10 years.
As part of this California 10 year tax, the exit tax is 0.4% of an individuals’ net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year, which is halved if you have a spouse filing a separate tax return.
However, this all depends on your residency status, which can be a complicated matter. Get in touch with our team if you need help with residency or anything to do with the Californiaexit tax.
FILE – This combination of 2017-2022 photos shows the logos of Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat on mobile devices. (AP Photo/File)
Visits: 11
Case to watch. Biden social media case heads to Supreme Court. Even MSM has admitted that federal officials in the Biden administration have mettled in social media and how they should ban or delete what they think is misinformation. This from The Hill.
The Biden administration’s legal battle over social media content moderation will reach the Supreme Court on Monday, when the justices are set to hear arguments over whether federal officials violated the First Amendment by urging platforms to remove posts they deemed false or misleading.
Two Republican attorneys general brought the case in a challenge to the administration’s efforts to curb misinformation online — an effort they described as a government “campaign of censorship.” They purported federal officials “coordinated and colluded” with social media platforms to “identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.”
Now the government lost before the 5th Circuit. Found that the White House, FBI and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention crossed the line into coercion. After rehearing the case, the panel ruled that CISA did overstep also.
WOW!.Now we know where all the Adderall went. Joe Biden. You must have heard about the Adderall shortage. Well, a doctor in Beverly Hills explains it.
Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills forensic psychiatrist, suggested that Biden may have been on Adderall or another stimulant during his speech, as reported by The Washington Times. Lieberman said the volume and speed of Biden’s voice and his use of hand gestures were indicative of stimulant use.
Hunter caught lying. Who can forget the press conference outside the Capitol where Hunter demanded a open public hearing? Well he got his wish. Hunter’s former associates Devon Archer, Tony Bobulinski and Jason Galanis were also invited to testify on March 20.
Hunter Biden for months stated he wanted a public hearing, but now that one has been offered alongside his business associates that he worked with for years, he is refusing to come,” the House Oversight Committee said.
“During our deposition and interview phase of our investigation, Hunter Biden confirmed key evidence, including evidence that his father, President Joe Biden, lied to the American people about his family’s business dealings and in fact attended meetings, spoke on speakerphone, and had coffee with his foreign business associates who collectively funneled millions to the Bidens. However, parts of Hunter Biden’s testimony contradict the testimonies of Devon Archer, Jason Galanis, and Tony Bobulinski,” Republicans said.
“Next week’s hearing with Hunter Biden and his associates is moving forward and we fully expect Hunter Biden to participate. The American people demand the truth and accountability for the Bidens’ corruption,” the GOP Oversight said.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom talks to reporters in the spin room at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., on Sept. 27, 2023. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
In his March 11 ruling, a federal judge said that the one-gun-a-month (OGM) law does not adhere to requirements for gun restrictions outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal 2022 decision.
“Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law,” U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes wrote in the decision.
“The court therefore concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”
The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen says that if a law regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment, officials defending the law must show it is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Defendants must provide “historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation,” the high court stated.
Justices instructed lower courts not to “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue” but that “analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”
They also issued guidance for judges to consider “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense” and to examine “whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are central considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.”
The law, signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, barred people who bought a handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle from a dealer from applying to buy another handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle for at least 30 days.
“Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, one that’s been enflamed by the inaction of politicians in Washington,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said at the time.
“While Washington has refused to act on even the most basic gun safety reforms, California is once again leading the nation in passing meaningful gun safety reforms.”
Gun owners and groups sued in 2020, saying the law violated their constitutional rights.
After the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, defendants were ordered to provide historical examples of similar laws.
California officials offered four categories of historical restrictions, including regulations on selling guns to Native Americans and regulations on gunpowder.
Those regulations are not relevant to the law in question, Judge Hayes said.
Differing Objectives
The restrictions on Native Americans, for instance, “do not impose a comparable burden” to the California law, he wrote.
“The identified historical laws targeted only a narrow subset of the population perceived as dangerous, while the OGM law, with limited exceptions, affects all people acquiring handguns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles in California.
“Further, laws restricting the sale of arms to Native Americans impose neither a quantity nor time limitation similar to that of the OGM law.”
The gunpowder regulations were comparable because they “placed limits on the ownership and storage of gunpowder,” but “did not completely prevent people from purchasing gunpowder,” the state argued.
The regulations and the 2019 California law are “comparably justified” because both were imposed to “promote public safety,” the state said.
Judge Hayes, though, noted that officials have said previously that the California law was aimed at reducing firearms trafficking and disarming criminals, while the gunpowder regulations were put in place to prevent fires and explosions.
“Put simply, gunpowder regulations addressed fire-related risks, while the OGM law addresses risks associated with illegal gun trafficking and gun violence. Gunpowder restrictions and the OGM law are therefore not comparably justified,” he said.
Judge Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, entered a stay of the order for 30 days to enable California officials to appeal.
“We are currently evaluating the decision, but it is important to acknowledge that the law limiting firearm purchases to one every thirty days remains in effect at this time,” a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told The Epoch Times via email.
“Another week, another California gun control law declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Cody J. Wisniewski, vice president and general counsel of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. Some of the group’s members are among the plaintiffs.
“California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California residents’ right to acquire arms and has no basis in history,” Mr. Wisniewski said. “Given it seems certain California will refuse to learn its lesson, we look forward to continuing to strike down its gun control regime and to defending this victory.”
“This is a win for gun rights and California gun owners,” Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, another plaintiff, said in a statement. “There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during a one-month period, and Judge Hayes’ ruling clearly points that out.”
University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax alleges that the school is not adhering to free speech standards and is targeting her due to her conservative beliefs.
Wax has made controversial statements over the years, which the university has claimed have created a “hostile campus environment,” and the administration is attempting to sanction her.
“[U]Penn has zero interest in developing and adhering to principles of a consistent position on free expression, zero interest,” Wax told the DCNF.
University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) law professor Amy Wax alleged that the school does not adhere to free speech standards and is targeting the scholar because of her conservative beliefs.
Wax, who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation, has made several controversial statements outside of the classroom, and the university has claimed that her speech created “a hostile campus environment.” Former UPenn President Liz Magill signed off on sanctions against Wax, which Wax said was an attempt to sanction her for extramural speech, which is speech outside the classroom, and said that the school is “flagrantly in violation of the principles of academic freedom.”
“Penn has zero interest in developing and adhering to principles of a consistent position on free expression, zero interest. They can protect the people they basically agree with or favor, like the pro-Palestinians, anti-Israeli, antisemitic, and they can punish people like me. They have never articulated a consistent position,” Wax told the DCNF.
WASHINGTON, DC – DECEMBER 05: (L-R) Dr. Claudine Gay, President of Harvard University, Liz Magill, President of University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Pamela Nadell, Professor of History and Jewish Studies at American University, and Dr. Sally Kornbluth, President of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“Everybody says after October 7, universities are on the run, they’re going to change the way they do things or after the affirmative action case, they’re going to change the way they do things. I don’t see any evidence of that. I hear people doubling down on their conviction that everything they’re doing is right and good,” Wax continued.
Universities are dominated by left-wing professors, with one 2018 review of over 60 top colleges in the U.S. revealing that the professoriate is over ten to one Democratic to Republican. Wax pointed to the left-wing dominance of the universities as a reason she was being targeted for her more conservative speech, while radical left-wing speech had largely gone unquestioned.
As recently as 2015, UPenn awarded Wax with the school’s top teaching prize, the Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching, according to a UPenn news article. “Cancel culture really started accelerating around, I think, around 2015, 2016,” Wax told the DCNF.
The Penn Law Council of Student Representatives held a student body meeting with then-UPenn Law School Dean Theodore Ruger in September 2019 to discuss “issues regarding Professor Amy Wax,” according to an email obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech legal organization.
“The objections to me had nothing really to do with the quality of my teaching. It had to do with my openly expressing views and opinions and discussing facts that were forbidden and deviated from this very narrow catechism,” Wax told the DCNF. Wax said that many of the ideas and thoughts she had expressed were discussed in mainstream conservative circles but are forbidden at universities.
Wax previously made controversial statements, including saying that America should let fewer Asians immigrate to the country due to their “indifference to liberty,” and that different racial “groups have different levels of ability” and that unequal outcomes are “not due to racism,” according to a June 2023 UPenn memo obtained by The Washington Free Beacon. She also said that diversity, equity and inclusion officers “couldn’t be scholars if their life depended on it,” and that they are “true believer bureaucrats.”
“People are afraid now to express a lot of this stuff in public because they will be censured or even lose their job or their livelihood,” Wax told the DCNF. “There is a myth, a fairy tale in the universities that all people are equal in their latent ability, whatever that means, and their achievement, and that is just completely contrary to fact.”
Wax said allegations that she made students uncomfortable in the classroom were unfounded and that Ruger targeted her for extramural speech. She pointed out that the recently leaked memo of the faculty senate didn’t list any speech in the classroom.
The memo recommends that Wax receive a public reprimand from university leadership, a loss of her named chair and a requirement to note when she publicly speaks, she is not speaking for the university. It also recommends a one-year suspension at half pay and a loss of summer pay in perpetuity. The memo claims that Wax’s speech should be treated as “major infractions of University behavioral standards.”
Magill, who signed off on the recommendation to sanction Wax in the leaked memo, argued at a Dec. 5 congressional hearing that the university had been lenient on antisemitic speech due to the school’s adherence to free speech principles. Magill also defended the Palestine Writes Festival at the school, which involved one speaker who likened Zionism to Nazism and one who said “most Jews” are “evil.”
“Liz Magill lied to Congress because it has never adhered to First Amendment standards,” Wax told the DCNF. “But the fact that they’re bringing this case against me is directly contrary to First Amendment standards.”
Free speech issues on college campuses have been a source of fierce debate since the Oct.7 terrorist attacks against Israel. Former Harvard President Claudine Gay wrote that students “had a right to speak” after over 30 student groups signed a letter blaming the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel and also alluded to free speech at the Dec. 5 congressional hearing on antisemitism.
Harvard University previously rescinded an offer to a student in 2019 for alleged racist comments made when he was 16 years old, and disinvited feminist philosopher Devin Buckley from campus in 2022 because of her views on trans issues.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth allegedly told MIT Israel Alliance President Talia Khan that the university could not evenly apply the code of conduct due to fear of possibly “losing faculty support.” MIT previously disinvited speaker Dorian Abbot, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago, due to his criticism of affirmative action.
“The far left holds power in the universities, and they are not about to relinquish it,” Wax told the DCNF.
UPenn did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comments.
65
