Recently I’ve been having a discussion — loosely speaking — with a poster named Spectrum.
He is another of these nutcases that swear there have been military tribunes held and prominent Democrats hanged. Oh, and Jim Carrey has been playing Biden.
Here are some of his posts and my replies( I apologize for the formatting):
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 āHolly,ā 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 ā and found Zapata guilty on all counts against her.
Zapata is the firedĀ MilwaukeeĀ 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.
The full article can be found here.
One Law. One Page. Part 9. No new laws, executive orders, etc., during the last nine months of an election year. Except for a national emergency. Seems like an outgoing administration tends to make all these crazy laws, executive orders, and the list goes on.
Look at the EPA, Homeland Security, DOJ, ETC. All are rushing to get crazy laws and policies passed. My law would stop the last minute rush. Below is a perfect example.
TheĀ BidenĀ administration on Wednesday published a rule thatās expected to drive a significant shift from gas-powered to electric vehicle (EV) sales.
Biden has mentioned several other new executive orders he has planned over the next few months. If an emergency arises, then any new laws would be allowed.
CaliforniaĀ is known for having some of the most significant in-state taxesĀ in the country with a 13.3% annualĀ incomeĀ taxĀ rate. You can checkout anytime you want, but you can never leave.
However,Ā did you know that you might still be taxed even after you leave the state?
Yep! Thanks to theĀ CaliforniaĀ exitĀ taxĀ legislation, depending on how much money you get from in-state activities, such as investments inĀ real estateĀ or business operations,Ā you could still be treated like aĀ CalifornianĀ on your nextĀ tax return!
Join us as we walk you through theĀ CaliforniaĀ wealthĀ andĀ exit taxĀ questions, such as āwhat is theĀ exit taxĀ inĀ california,ā how much it is, who it applies to, and a deeper dive into the CAĀ wealth taxĀ proposal and the Assembly Bill 2088.
TheĀ CaliforniaĀ exitĀ taxĀ is aĀ one-time tax that must be paid by businesses and individuals who relocate outside ofĀ California.Ā The tax isĀ based on the value of the business or individual’s assets, including property, stocks, and other investments.
It forms part of the largerĀ CaliforniaĀ wealthĀ tax, whereby the state imposes a tax based on its residentsā wealth.
Those who have lived in the state at any point in time in the past andĀ who earn an annual income greater than $30 millionĀ are affected by theĀ wealth taxĀ and would have to pay anĀ annual taxĀ on their wealthĀ for as long as 10 years after they have left the state.
The amount of theĀ CaliforniaĀ exitĀ taxĀ isĀ 0.4% of an individualsāĀ net worthĀ over $30,000,000 in a tax year, no matter where itās locatedāwithin CA, other states within the US, or overseas. This amount is halved to $15,000,000 if a marriedĀ taxpayerĀ files a separate return to their spouse.
The one caveat is thatĀ there is no California exit tax on real estateĀ (but if theĀ real estateĀ is within state lines, it would still be taxed underĀ CaliforniaĀ Revenue and Tax Code Ā§ 17591).
TheĀ exit taxĀ applies to bothĀ businesses and individuals who leaveĀ California.Ā This includes businesses that move their operationsĀ out of stateĀ as well as individuals who relocate to another state. It should be noted that theĀ exit taxĀ only applies if you’re moving to another state, not withinĀ California.
TheĀ exit taxĀ is intended toĀ recoup some of the money thatĀ CaliforniaĀ has invested in these businesses and individuals.
For example, if a business owner has received tax breaks or other financial incentives from the state, theĀ exit taxĀ ensures that they will still contribute some money toĀ California‘s economy even after they leave.
The primary reason for the enactment of theĀ exit taxĀ was toĀ close a loophole that allowed people to avoid paying taxes on theirĀ capital gains.
Under federal law,Ā capital gainsĀ areĀ only taxed when they are realized.Ā 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 inĀ CaliforniaĀ and then moved to another state before selling the stock, they would never have to pay taxes on that $9,000 inĀ 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.
Itās been criticized by many people, who argue that it isĀ unfair and punitive.Ā They point out that many people who are leavingĀ CaliforniaĀ are doing so because they can no longer afford to live there.
ByĀ CaliforniaĀ taxing people who leave even more, they say the state is effectively pushing them out.
What’s more, they argue that theĀ exit taxĀ willĀ make it even harder for these businesses and individuals to get back on their feetĀ financially once they’re in their new location.
CaliforniaĀ is in the midst of a major overhaul of its tax code, which could expand the stateās ability to taxĀ non-residents,Ā even if they sever their connections with the state.
The bill that is causing quite a stir among business and property owners is called theĀ Assembly Bill 2088 (AB 2088),Ā which is, effectively, theĀ CaliforniaĀ wealthĀ taxĀ proposal.
AB 2088 was introduced inĀ SacramentoĀ in August of 2020, and it proposes aĀ CaliforniaĀ wealthĀ taxĀ for the first time in the state, affecting individuals who have lived in the state andĀ 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 understandĀ howĀ Californiaās taxĀ code could impact you, even as aĀ 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.
First,Ā CaliforniaāsĀ Franchise Tax BoardĀ (FTB) is in charge of setting the requirements forĀ CaliforniaĀ citizenship, and plays a pivotal part in aĀ CaliforniaĀ residencyĀ audit.
Factors that affect its determination include:
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 isĀ someĀ 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 ofĀ California.
Still, even if you change addresses, removeĀ CaliforniaĀ on yourĀ tax returns, and move across the country, you could still be impacted by theĀ CaliforniaĀ taxĀ code when it comes to taxes.
The above factors listed by theĀ FTBĀ are to be used as a guideline;Ā they are certainly not the only things to consider.
A common fallacy:Ā 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.
Check Out Our Complete Residency Audit Guide for More Help
CaliforniaĀ looks atĀ two major factorsĀ when determining whether an individualās income is taxable and how that then applies to theĀ CaliforniaĀ exitĀ taxĀ proposal 2020:
Letās look at these two in more detail and how they apply to the āleavingĀ CaliforniaĀ taxā, as itās sometimes known…
According to theĀ CaliforniaĀ Revenue and Tax Code Ā§ 17591,Ā any financial ties you have toĀ CaliforniaĀ follow you to your new state of residence.
In other words, if you have invested in or ownĀ real estateĀ withinĀ California, you still need to pay in-state taxĀ on thatĀ real estate, even if you technically reside in another state.
This tax code applies even at the time of sale of thatĀ real estate, because it falls under the category ofĀ āCalifornia-source incomeāāincome derived from sources withinĀ CaliforniaĀ state lines.Ā
FTBĀ Publication 1031Ā elaborates further on the types ofĀ real estateĀ and property investments that are subject toĀ CaliforniaĀ nonresidentĀ taxes:
For individuals with spouses who areĀ CaliforniaĀ residents, the spouseās income is considered community property and is, therefore,Ā 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 ofĀ CaliforniaĀ and has never lived in the state before.
Any gain (or loss) from sellingĀ real estateĀ located in theĀ state ofĀ CaliforniaĀ is taxable underĀ Californiaās taxĀ code.
This applies even if the owner is aĀ non-residentĀ who has never lived within the state. The location of the property controls whether the tax applies.
Another situation to be wary of is owning or operating a business withinĀ CaliforniaĀ state lines as aĀ non-resident.
Many business owners falsely believe that because they live outside ofĀ CaliforniaĀ or conduct part of their business operationsĀ out-of-stateĀ that this exempts them fromĀ CaliforniaĀ taxes.
Under the Constitution, a businessās income may be taxed by the percentage of business activity conducted within a given state.
As applied toĀ California, if a businessās manufacturing facilities are located inĀ NevadaĀ 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 ānexusā or connection withĀ California.
Thus, it is subject to the stateās taxes, and theĀ exit taxĀ inĀ CaliforniaĀ applies.
If a business demonstrates a sufficient connection or ānexusā to the state of California, it may be subject to the stateās taxes, regardless of whether some of its operations or employees live out of state.
Still, this does not necessarily mean that theĀ CaliforniaĀ taxesĀ will apply to that businessās total income, especially ifĀ only a fractionĀ of the businessās total revenue is derived fromĀ CaliforniaĀ sources.
Say, for example, a business earns $10 million in annual income with 40% fromĀ CaliforniaĀ consumers and 60% fromĀ NevadaĀ consumers.Ā CaliforniaĀ will only be able to tax $4 million of the total $10 million income,Ā because that is the proportion of California-sourced income.
FTBĀ Publication 1031Ā elaborates further on the types of business activities that are subject toĀ CaliforniaĀ non-residentĀ taxes:
Unsure How This Applies To You? Give Us A Call
In terms of whether theĀ CaliforniaĀ exitĀ taxĀ 2020 proposal bill will actually stand the test of litigation, the likelihood of courts nullifying the law, should it be enacted, is high.
TheĀ exit taxĀ clearly violates the constitutional right to travel, because it burdens individuals from:
To provide some context to why courts will likely find the tax unconstitutional, it is important to firstĀ understand the levels of āscrutinyā or critical inspectionĀ of the law that will be applied.
Since the law affects a fundamental constitutional rightāthe right to travelāstrict scrutiny will apply here.
UnderĀ strict scrutiny,Ā the burden is on the legislature to show that the law was enacted to further a ācompelling government interestā and the law is ānarrowly tailoredā 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.
TheĀ state ofĀ CaliforniaĀ will likely argue that the ācompellingā 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 theĀ exit taxĀ is ānarrowly tailoredā in that no other alternatives for achieving the purpose are availableĀ will be an uphill battle.
Overall, becauseĀ the bill will impact a fundamental constitutional rightĀ and there are likely many other ways to go about addressing the compelling interest it aims to address,Ā the likelihood of theĀ exit taxĀ withstanding strict scrutiny is slim.
Nevertheless, litigating the issue will take time, and itās important to prepare for any impact the bill may have upon being enacted.
The first step to approaching thisĀ CaliforniaĀ taxĀ for leaving state is toĀ consult a licensed tax attorneyĀ and explore your options.
Depending on your situation, taxes may apply to you in ways you might never anticipate.
Further,Ā having a professional explain to you what parts of your income, business operations and activities, and wealth are taxableĀ underĀ CaliforniaĀ law will help to ensure that you do not suffer from unfortunate surprises on your next tax statement.
Still Need Assistance? Give Us A Call
The AB 2088 Bill is responsible for theĀ CaliforniaĀ wealthĀ taxĀ over 10 years ruling, wherebyĀ if you leave California, the State can tax you for up to 10 years.
As part of thisĀ CaliforniaĀ 10 year tax, theĀ exit taxĀ isĀ 0.4% of an individualsā net worth over $30,000,000 in a tax year,Ā which is halved if you have a spouse filing a separateĀ tax return.
However, this allĀ 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 theĀ CaliforniaĀ exitĀ tax.
Will the Supreme Court step in Trumps NY Case based on the eighth? They have in the past. Below is what happened.
Ginsburg delivered the high court’s opinion in Timbs v. Indiana on Feb. 20, 2019, in which she laid out how the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states as well as the federal government.
In that case, Indiana police had seized Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover SUV, which he had purchased for $42,000 with money he received from a life insurance policy when his father died. After Timbs pleaded guilty to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft, he was fined $10,000 and the state sought civil forfeiture of the vehicle. The judge ruled that taking the vehicle was an excessive fine because it was worth four times the penalty and excessive fines are prohibited by the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.
The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals, but the Indiana Supreme Court overturned it on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines only applies to the federal government and not to the states.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it does, in fact, bind the states as well.
Biden continues to lie. Now claims that the man who was a crusader against the undocumented got him involved in politics. Biden now claims that Cesar Chavez got him involved in politics.
He has previously claimed he got involved in politics because of civil rights, voting, the environment, Vietnam, redlining, white supremacists, a highway, being a public defender, Bull Connorās dogs, and much more.
Interesting that now Ceaser Chavez is why he got involved. What do we know about him?
Beginning in the spring of 1974 Chavez led a systematic attack on undocumented workers coining his crusade as the āCampaign Against Illegals.ā Chavezās UFW campaign circulated a petition calling for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and INS to enforce immigration laws and to āremove the thousands of illegal aliens now working in the fields.ā Frustrated with the INSās lack of action, the UFW had volunteers that tracked down illegals and informed the INS of their places of unemployment and homes. By the summer of 1974 the UFW had reported more than 5,000 undocumented workers to the INS. Despite the UFWās efforts the Border Patrol reported the arrest and removal of only 195 āillegals.
Furthermore, the UFW formed a militia coined as the āWet Lineā to guard the Arizona-Mexico border with a few hundred goons in which they claimed to have semi-succeeded in policing several miles. The militia was headed by Chavezās own unscrupulous cousin Manuel Chavez.Ā The Wet Line lasted until at least 1975 where the militia men roamed freely intercepting undocumented immigrants and beating them. Chavez did everything in his power to hold back the mighty wave of undocumented immigrants from Mexico because as the Fresno Bee reported.
Supreme Court for now tells Texas to do the job the feds refuse to do. Arrest the undocumented. Looks as if the Democrats will have to figure out another way to get the undocumented to vote.
Supreme Court lifts stay on Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants at border.
A 6-3 Supreme Court decision on Tuesday lifted a stay on a Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally while a legal battle over immigration authority plays out.
The law allows police in counties bordering Mexico to make arrests if they see someone crossing illegally. Ā It could also be enforced elsewhere in Texas if someone is arrested on suspicion of another violation and a fingerprint taken during jail booking links them to a suspected re-entry violation. It likely would not come into play during a routine traffic stop, he said.
Biden with the man who made him rich and will create a bloodbath on our auto industry. It’s a known fact that China is building factories in Mexico. Factories to build Electric cars. What do you think happens next? Let the Chinese tell you.
Xiaopeng in a letter to XPeng employees obtained by CNBC last month. Xiaopeng suggested that āa bloodbathā is coming for the American auto industry this year.
China seeks to deliver a ābrutal knockout roundā against its Western competitors, including the U.S., in the global EV market,Ā Xiaopeng said.
CNBCĀ reported:
āThis year also marks the beginning of aĀ fierce competition that may end in a ābloodbathā (or as I prefer to call it, the brutal āknockout roundā).
Now maybe you understand what Trump meant about a bloodbath.
Winning. For now. Court halts SEC climate disclosure rule. The Biden Administration has been using the SEC and other government agencies from moving forward with exploration, drilling, etc. All in the name of the phony climate change. Well the 5th Circuit stepped in.
A federal court on Friday halted a new federal rule that would require publicly traded companies to reveal climate change-related information.
A panel of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judges issued an order that pauses the rule as litigation against it plays out. Vote was 3-0.
The rule in question, from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), requires companies to disclose what risks,Ā if any, the changing climate poses for their business.
It also requires some large and mid-sized companies to disclose how much carbon dioxide they are directly emitting and how much comes from their energy use.
