Views: 26
California stories that are being ignored.
Stories that need to be covered by the MSM.
77
Views: 27
Proof that California is out of touch with the rest of the world.
So here’s a small sample of what the crazy’s are looking to pass. You tell me if this is not out of some reality tv show.
1. AB 1825 – Protect Inappropriate Books Law
So called Freedom to Read Act. The bill seeks to remove the authority of public libraries to remove or deny access to certain books. (b) (1) The governing board of a public library shall not proscribe or prohibit the circulation or procurement of any book, audio, film, instructional material, or other resource in a public library because of the topic addressed by the materials or because of the views, ideas, or opinions contained in those materials.
(2) The discretion to determine the content of materials in public libraries shall not be exercised in a manner that discriminates against or excludes materials based on race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, political affiliation, or socioeconomic status, on the basis that the materials under consideration contain inclusive and diverse perspectives, or on the basis that the materials may include sexual content, unless that content qualifies as obscene under United States Supreme Court precedent. Provides a cause of action by patrons.
2. AB 1840 – Home Subsidies for Illegal Immigrants
Extends the California Dream for All program eligibility to illegal aliens. This program provides for an interest free loan for first-time homebuyers for the down payment.
3. AB 2216 – Force Landlords to Take Pets
This legislation will prohibit landlords from deciding how many pets to allow, what the pet deposit should be, and how much extra monies to charge for pet rent. Violates Limited Government and Free Enterprise. Does not promote a free market system, does not protect private property, and interferes with the terms of voluntary contracts.
4. AB 2319 Men Can Give Birth Law
The bill would require hospitals that provide perinatal or prenatal care to conduct initial training for all current and new health care providers on implicit bias that includes recognition of nonbinary persons and persons of transgender experience, i.e., all birthing people. Administrative penalties assessed by the department for non-compliance.
5. AB 2498 Illegal Immigrant Rental Subsidies
This bill would create a pilot grant program to provide rental subsidies for qualifying low-income individuals in six counties to reduce housing insecurity. The bill’s definition of “eligible population” include low-income individuals (who may be undocumented) with any of the following characteristics:
A former foster youth who qualifies for the Independent Living Program; an older adult, 55 years of age or older; an adult with disabilities; a person experiencing unemployment; an incarcerated person with a scheduled release date within 60 to 180 days and who is likely to experience homelessness upon release; a person experiencing homelessness; or a veteran.
The program would allow for counties or grantees to provide a subsidy to any eligible individuals in an amount necessary to cover the portion of the person’s rent to prevent them from falling into homelessness, not to exceed either $2,000 as a one-time subsidy or $2,000 per month for the duration of the pilot, or two years, whichever is longer.
6. ACA 10 – Socialized Housing for All
Right to housing. ”The state hereby recognizes the fundamental human right to adequate housing for everyone in California. It is the shared obligation of state and local jurisdictions to respect, protect, and fulfill this right, on a non-discriminatory and equitable basis, with a view to progressively achieve the full realization of the right, by all appropriate means, including the adoption and amendment of legislative measures, to the maximum of available resources.”
7. SB 1174 – Voter ID Ban
Prohibits local governments from enacting voter identification laws.
8. SB 957 – Who Are You Sleeping With Law
This bill REQUIRES the California State Department of Public Health to collect from health care providers, state agencies, schools and third parties information that was provided regarding voluntary self-identification of sexual orientation and gender identity.
9. SB 961 – Government as Your Backseat Driver Law
By 2029, 50% of vehicles must be equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system and mandatory for all vehicles by 2032. The system would give a brief, one-time, visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time the speed of the vehicle is more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit.
10. ACA 7 – Affirmative Action/Legalized Discrimination
This measure would repeal Prop 209 and would therefore reinstate affirmative action. Californians for Equal Rights Foundation wrote in opposition that “advocating for race/sex-based preferences distorts the principle of equal opportunity into an illiberal, social-engineering tool of equal outcome. Instead of focusing on tribal divisions and political favoritism, we should help all disadvantaged individuals regardless of race or gender. We should also make sure that every individual has equal access to public resources, and that our government provide institutional support that encourages American virtues of hard-work, initiative, self-discipline, and individual merit.
11. ACA 8 – Don’t Put Prisoners to Work
The California Constitution currently states “Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.” This amendment would remove the phrase “except to punish crime”. This is the second time around for this amendment as it did not pass in the 2021-2023 session.
The Anti-Recidivism Coalition, a co-sponsor of this bill, wrote in support that, “Despite the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude…” That letter deceptively left off in the actual Thirteenth Amendment’s phrase “except for the punishment of a crime”, which is the crux of the matter. By removing that same phrase from the California Constitution, inmates confined in any in-state institution could not be required to perform daily chores without falling under the state’s labor laws.
According to “the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the ongoing costs to the state in increased wages for inmate labor. In 2021, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation…reported it had nearly 65,000 work assignments for incarcerated persons…. If required to pay a minimum wage for inmate work, costs to pay inmates a minimum wage could be in the billions of dollars annually.” Cost to counties would also run in the millions of dollars.
The ultimate goal of propositions such as this was posted on the Communist Party USA website (since removed). It is to form labor unions within prisons, and as we see in ACA 4, for convicted felons to be given the right to vote. Also, labor unions are formed to negotiate for working conditions and wages. How much do we want to pay inmates to make their beds, cook, clean their rooms, and do their laundry?
12. SCA 2 – Create More Orphan Ballots Law
In addition to expanding their voter base by allowing incarcerated felons to vote via ACA 4, which is likely dead, this bill which is very much alive and would extend the right to vote to 17-year-olds. Now that the public education system has indoctrinated most students to a Marxist agenda, the Democratic Party wants to make certain they vote earlier than the current age 18.
HONORABLE MENTION
13. SCA 1 – Protect Politicians from Recalls Law
This bill would redefine a recall election of statewide officials to NOT include alternative candidates. Lt. Gov would serve until the next election.
No doubt polling has shown that Democrats being recalled would fare better if the voting public were not given the option of a more desirable Republican opponent.
96
Views: 25
Stupid is as stupid does. California is finally set to ban oil and gas fracking. Ever since Newsom came to power he said that fracking must be stopped. Who cares if it’s paying the bills.
Three years after Gov. Gavin Newsom directed it, California’s oil and gas industry regulator kickstarted a process to outright ban hydraulic fracturing, the fossil fuel extraction method known as ‘fracking.’
Now they haven’t issued any new permits and have been going gun ho with wind and solar. So have the the utility costs gone down? Nope.
Three years ago, after Newsom directed CalGEM to cease issuing fracking permits and set a 2024 deadline to legally end the practice, the state denied a string of at least 100 fracking permit applications.
Sadly wind and solar has not been the new Messiah. And the recent change in electric rates will cause usage to go up, less solar panels, and more so called pollution. You go California.
148
Views: 11
Not making this up. San Francisco gets a $1.7 million dollar toilet for $200,000. Where else but California.
A San Francisco restroom once estimated to cost $1.7 million is now up and running for the public after the city received criticism, jokes and a generous donation.
San Francisco Recreation and Parks opened the single public restroom in the Noe Valley neighborhood after receiving a donation that cut the city’s cost to under $200,000, Daniel Montes, the city agency’s communication manager, told USA TODAY in an email.
89
Views: 37
California here we come. Undocumented giving progressives their wish. Let’s see how the loons handle this sudden turn from Texas to California by the undocumented.
Let’s see if shitholes like San Francisco and Sacramento (especially ghetto section east) welcome them with open arms. or will they cry that their isn’t enough freebies for all. I’m sure San Diego will send them northward.
Texas has seen a decrease, while a good majority of these illegal aliens are crossing in the San Diego sector. The statistics show about 1,500 illegal crossings 2 days in a row in just that sector!
137
Views: 17
I told you so. California Unions demands $20.00 an hour for all folks on the bottom.
They didn’t even wait for the ink to dry. So now the Unions are demanding that everyone gets paid a minimum of $$20.00 an hour. So, a person who gets hired tomorrow gets $20. A person who has been an employee for say 2 years, they get $20.
Across California, labor groups are calling for a $20 minimum wage for all workers. Ahead of the law coming into effect, restaurant owners and other industry insiders warned that the law would be detrimental to small businesses and consumers. Told you so.
So what does the loon say who supports this madness? “Frankly, inflation has already happened, and many prices have already gone up. Grocery store prices have already gone up. And so, it’s not a matter of we can’t raise wages anymore because prices might go up,” she said.
“Prices have already gone up. If we don’t keep wages in step with the rising cost of living, either workers will leave the state or these other horrible things happen.”
134
Views: 13
When you can’t win legally do what California does. Gerrymander. No state does it better. Their legislatur used to do it, but the voters changed the system. They created a phony California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
So this so called Commission redrew the districts. They took six Republican districts that were about 5% more Republican, and added more Democrat voters. Now the Democrats have a chance to flip these districts. Below are the six.
Young Kim, 40th District
Michelle Steel, 45th District
Mike Garcia, 27th District
Ken Calvert, 41st District
John Duarte, 13th District
David Valadao, 22nd District
108
Views: 10
For those who think it’s so great, think about what it would cost you to live in California..
PAY 8.2% MORE FOR RESTAURANTS
FLORIDA | CALIFORNIA | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic meal with drink at inexpensive restaurant | $19.03 | $19.70 | |
| Fast food combo meal McDonalds, or similar | $9.60 | $10.02 | |
| Bottle of Coca-Cola (11 fl. oz) | $2.25 | $2.59 | |
| Bottle of water (11 fl. oz) | $1.84 | $2.01 | |
PAY 3.6% MORE FOR GROCERIES
FLORIDA | CALIFORNIA | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Bread 1 loaf | $3.21 | $3.79 | |
| Local cheese (8 oz) | $6.22 | $6.34 | |
| Milk (1 gallon) | $4.26 | $4.47 | |
| Eggs 1 dozen | $4.01 | $4.63 | |
| Boneless chicken breast (1 lb) | $5.09 | $6.05 | |
| Apples (1 lb) | $2.33 | $2.14 | |
| Bananas (1 lb) | $0.76 | $0.86 | |
| Oranges (1 lb) | $1.97 | $1.77 | |
| Tomatoes (1 lb) | $2.20 | $2.23 | |
| Potatoes (1 lb) | $1.43 | $1.42 | |
| Onions (1 lb) | $1.46 | $1.24 | |
PAY 22.6% MORE FOR TRANSPORTATION
FLORIDA | CALIFORNIA | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gasoline (1 gallon) | $3.44 | $4.89 | |
| Monthly public transit pass | $52.60 | $68.08 | |
| New Volkswagen Golf 1.4 (standard edition) | $24,899.31 | $25,571.45 | |
| Taxi trip in downtown area (5 miles) | $15.08 | $17.49 | |
PAY 17.8% MORE FOR HOUSING
FLORIDA | CALIFORNIA | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Internet connection 50 mbps or faster, cable/dsl | $69.94 | $70.94 | |
| 1-Bedroom apartment in downtown area | $1,757.68 | $2,161.66 | |
| 1-Bedroom apartment outside city center | $1,518.55 | $1,891.75 | |
| Utilities for two (700 sq ft apartment) including electric, gas, water, heating | $124.44 | $151.84 | |
PAY 37.9% MORE FOR CHILDCARE
FLORIDA | CALIFORNIA | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Private preschool for 1 child, monthly | $960.80 | $1,413.75 | |
| Middle school for 1 child, two semesters | $14,658.88 | $18,865.17 | |
PAY 23.8% MORE FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS
FLORIDA | CALIFORNIA | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Domestic/local beer (1 pint) | $4.81 | $6.51 | |
| Cappuccino in mid-range area | $4.36 | $4.78 | |
| Pack of cigarettes Marlboro or similar | $7.52 | $9.86 | |
| Monthly membership at local gym | $39.38 | $52.94 | |
| Movie ticket to theater/cinema | $12.34 | $13.37 | |
PAY 6.4% MORE FOR CLOTHING
FLORIDA | CALIFORNIA | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Regular jeans Levi’s brand | $44.23 | $49.43 | |
| Regular dress from H&M or similar store | $35.60 | $38.84 | |
| Running shoes Nike or Adidas | $82.15 | $81.58 |
111
Views: 7
The Illinois-based insurance giant, which accounts for a fifth of the California home insurance market and is the largest property and auto insurer in the U.S., cited rising costs, increasing catastrophe risk and outdated regulations in declaring it won’t renew California policies for 30,000 homes and 42,000 apartments.
“This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General’s financial health,” the company said in a March 20 statement. “State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws. It is necessary to take these actions now.”
The announcement comes less than a year after State Farm announced it would not issue new policies in California, citing similar concerns. And it comes as the state’s elected insurance commissioner embarks on a yearlong overhaul of home insurance regulations aimed at calming California’s imploding market by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums while extracting commitments from them to extend coverage in fire-risk areas.
“One of our roles as the insurance regulator is to hold insurance companies accountable for their words and deeds,” said Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller. “State Farm General’s decision today raises serious questions about its financial situation — questions the company must answer to regulators. … We need to be confident in State Farm’s strategy moving forward to live up to its obligations to its California customers.” But it was unclear whether the department would launch an investigation into State Farm’s move.
Harvey Rosenfield, the Consumer Watchdog founder who authored the state’s insurance regulation system approved by voters in 1988’s Proposition 103, said the company’s announcement comes just after the state Department of Insurance approved a 20% premium increase for the company. That approval was based on State Farm’s existing number of policy holders, and he said the state should take another look at the rate hike considering the new cancellations.
123
Views: 28
California is known for having some of the most significant in-state taxes in the country with a 13.3% annual income tax rate. You can checkout anytime you want, but you can never leave.
However, did you know that you might still be taxed even after you leave the state?
Yep! Thanks to the California exit 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.
The California exit 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 California wealth 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.
The amount of the California exit 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).
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.
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.
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 California wealth tax proposal.
AB 2088 was introduced in Sacramento in August of 2020, and it proposes a California wealth 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.
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:
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.
Check Out Our Complete Residency Audit Guide for More Help
California looks at two major factors when determining whether an individual’s income is taxable and how that then applies to the California exit tax proposal 2020:
Let’s look at these two in more detail and how they apply to the “leaving California tax”, as it’s sometimes known…
According to the California Revenue and Tax Code § 17591, any financial ties you have to California follow you to your new state of residence.
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 California nonresident taxes:
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.
Any gain (or loss) from selling real estate located in the state of California is 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.
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.
FTB Publication 1031 elaborates further on the types of business activities that are subject to California non-resident taxes:
Unsure How This Applies To You? Give Us A Call
In terms of whether the California exit 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:
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.
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.
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.
Still Need Assistance? Give Us A Call
The AB 2088 Bill is responsible for the California wealth 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 California exit tax.
106
