this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
185 points (98.4% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

3411 readers
628 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.

Introduction to Socialism (external links)

Wiki

Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is considering a run for president as he approaches the end of his term, called for a national “billionaires’ tax” on Friday even as he fights another proposal targeting the wealthy in his home state.

Newsom also said the U.S. government should own a stake in artificial intelligence companies. His proposals, outlined in a Substack post, aligns him with the Democratic Party’s populist left, and he argued that urgent changes are needed to prevent the elite concentration of wealth and power from undermining democracy.

“It’s time for an economic reset for America,” Newsom wrote.

The governor announced his agenda a day after an influential health care union in California pledged to go forward with a ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 33 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Guy who knows it won't happen nationally until he potentially can block it there wants it to be talked about nationally to avoid it happening locally.

Hope California pulls a New York soon.

Hope California pulls a New York soon.

Agreed. A New York City, though, not NYS.

Hochul sucks nearly half as much as Governor Goodhair.

[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Sadly it ain't looking that way. We're stuck with Baccera and he's just another Newsom......sigh

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

“Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes. The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

Newsom said the solution is a new national tax policy, rather than a state-by-state system. He proposed a minimum tax on anyone with a net worth above $100 million. He also wants to make it illegal for the wealthy to borrow against their stock portfolios to fund their luxury lifestyles tax free.

Newsom said there should be new rules for inheritance taxes, warning that “the transfer of wealth among the ultra-wealthy will lock in a permanent American aristocracy of inherited wealth.”

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago

He also wants to make it illegal for the wealthy to borrow against their stock portfolios to fund their luxury lifestyles tax free.

This shit right here needs to go. Obviously everything else there would be great too, but fuck these people for already being stupidly wealthy and then having this tax free loophole while we all get taxed on our incomes...

[–] makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Newsome is a slime ball but he's not wrong here. There's a reason thousands of corporations are registered in one random building in Delaware. Likewise there's US Senators who don't even live/vote in the state they're supposed to represent. A national tax is a much better option than individual states. It's really easy to avoid the consequences of living in a specific state if you're rich

That being said, there's no fucking chance that's going to happen any time in the near future. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If there's anywhere that has a chance of wringing some money out of the ultra-wealthy California is the place to do it

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 6 points 3 days ago

I don't see why you can't have both. Both the Feds and the States should impose a 20% tax on all estates over $100 million.

The states that don't impose a wealth tax will get all the rich people moving there, and the States will come to regret it greatly. Everything will be unaffordable, everybody will be suing each other, and workers won't be able to afford to work or live there.

Meanwhile, the states with a proper tax balance will be affordable, and livable.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's questionable whether he's sincere, but this is at least a coherent position, that wealth taxes can only be effectively done where you can impose meaningful costs on avoiding them.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago

Greasy Gavin doing typical Greasy Gavin things.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Same guy who campaigned on M4A and then vetoed it when the state legislature passed it.

He's about as trustworthy as the average Republican and as chummy with billionaires, corporate industry groups, and Israel too.

IOW: He can NOT be allowed anywhere near the nomination if you want anything significant to change.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

Classic liberal deflection. This is no different than promising a "public option" instead of actual universal healthcare. They know it will never work, and that's the point.

[–] disorderly@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

This brilliant idea strikes him just as the law he has so vocally opposed lands on the ballot. Right.

He probably thinks this is very clever, but I think voters will smell blood in the water.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My worry is that he will use this idea and other left of center talking points to look good to the younger voters and then water down or just ignore any implementation of the idea because of Reasons. He has always come across as a used car salesmen to me.

[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

The grease in his hair comes from his blood

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

He wants the national story to overshadow the state story so goldfish memory liberals forget he's a slimy worm that can't be trusted

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If we elect this Oligarch-sucking DINO as president, we might as well just give Trump a third time. This liar used to be married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, Don Jr's Ex. That's all I need to know about any of them. He's just the same as them.

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Jesus. Imagine your gf telling you she used to date a trump! Id probably push her down the stairs.

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago

The timeline is the opposite. Newsome was so bad that she decided to date a trump.

[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

Soooo, my high school gf was a trump supporter BEFORE that was a thing. This was like 2013 and she really wanted him to run for president. This was the first I heard of him so I looked at his 2013 wikipedia page and concluded he was evil and told her such back then. She did not like me saying this evil man was evil.

[–] _druid@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

Facta non verba, you fucking windsock.

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 4 points 3 days ago

Newsom ~~DID~~ SAID! Golly NOW I want to Vote for Him!

-The DNC!

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

¿Por qué no los dos?

[–] Aceofspades@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Currently ~~reading~~ listening to

The Blind Spot How Oligarchs Dominate Our Democracies by Jeffrey Winters

It's interesting how the current system of wealth protection has evolved over decades.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the book rec!

From where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear why the Dems and Republicans want us laser-focused on culture wars to the detriment of everything else.

[–] Aceofspades@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Yep. Left and right are just labels so we have the illusion of picking a side. We need to get past that and realize that the real battle is between the population at large and those trying to milk us for every penny.

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's hard for me to imagine that a wealth tax will make the super wealthy not want to live in Southern California and move to dumb-fuckistan. Most of the wealthy are fundamentally liberal and want access to a nice climate and culture.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

They can claim Texas residency just by stating their intention to eventually move there.

CA loses out on all state taxes from broligarch, broligarch still lives in CA, lose-lose. A federal tax avoids this kind of shell game.

[–] MyOpinion@lemmy.today 2 points 3 days ago

Sorry Newsom I am voting for it.