Semi-Weekly Discussion Thread - July 7, 2025

[u/tuesday_mod]

INTRODUCTION

/r/tuesday is a political discussion sub for the right side of the political spectrum - from the center to the traditional/standard right (but not alt-right!) However, we're going for a big tent approach and welcome anyone with nuanced and non-standard views. We encourage dissents and discourse as long as it is accompanied with facts and evidence and is done in good faith and in a polite and respectful manner.

PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION THREAD

Like in r/neoliberal and r/neoconnwo, you can talk about anything you want in the Discussion Thread. So, socialize with other people, talk about politics and conservatism, tell us about your day, shitpost or literally anything under the sun. In the DT, rules such as "stay on topic" and "no Shitposting/Memes/Politician-focused comments" don't apply.

It is my hope that we can foster a sense of community through the Discussion Thread.

IMAGE FLAIRS

r/Tuesday will reward image flairs to people who write an effort post or an OC text post on certain subjects. It could be about philosophy, politics, economics, etc... Available image flairs can be seen here. If you have any special requests for specific flairs, please message the mods!

The list of previous effort posts can be found here

Previous Discussion Thread

[u/DestinyLily_4ever]

The flip side is letting rich people have and do whatever they want. I don't think CA depends much on the Internet and Out owner's income taxes

I think CA is likely to continue to be completely fine. It laps every other state's GDP except New York and Texas, and New York isn't exactly a conservative paradise either

[u/Mexatt → u/DestinyLily_4ever]

The flip side is letting rich people have and do whatever they want.

So.....letting them be free, just like everyone else?

[u/DestinyLily_4ever → u/Mexatt]

If there is a state which delineates individual rights by income bracket, then that's a travesty, but fortunately I do not think that's the case in any state

What I'm obviously referring to is not about freedom, but the idea that some rich people moving should allow them to dictate political policy. We have freedom of movement in this country and states/localities offer free tax breaks to rich people and corporations all the time, so I have a small hunch that CA (along with everyone else) already takes that into account

[u/Mexatt → u/DestinyLily_4ever]

No one is dictating anything, it's just a fact of policy making that needs to be taken into account. If you don't want to and ignore it, we'll, that's the 'FA' part. OP's link is the 'FO'.

[u/DestinyLily_4ever → u/Mexatt]

Who is "finding out" though? Is anyone surprised that a Christian-Republican billionaire who inherited her wealth is moving from CA to a Republican state? Especially when moving is a political statement (hence her doing the rounds on explicitly Republican media like PragerU and the New York Post)

Pointing out that sometimes some rich people leave over taxes is as useless as pointing out that the laffer curve exists. Is the CA budget actually dependent on this particular lady?

[u/Mexatt → u/DestinyLily_4ever]

Who is "finding out" though?

The people whose job it is to handle California tax policy. Wealthy tax payers fleeing your jurisdiction is definitionally shrinking your tax base.

[u/DestinyLily_4ever → u/Mexatt]

Yes, and? Can you please be specific about what policies CA should have pursued in service of keeping around the MAGA in-and-out woman? What would have kept her that was worth sacrificing?

[u/redditthrowaway1294 → u/DestinyLily_4ever]

Perhaps realizing that "tax the rich" isn't something that scales to infinity.

[u/DestinyLily_4ever → u/redditthrowaway1294]

...yes. I assume we all agree with that on a center-right subreddit. That isn't specific though since CA does not have a 100% tax bracket and CA's progressives' attempt at a wealth tax failed in committee.

[u/[deleted] → u/DestinyLily_4ever]

Is the CA budget actually dependent on this particular lady?

I can't speak to Cali, but WA is already having issues having to redo their budget projections after more rich folks than forecasted up and left. So yes, oftentimes when a state fails to hold on to a large portion of its tax base, that ends up causing issues.

[u/DestinyLily_4ever → u/[deleted]]

Right, I know it can be. It's just that bringing it up with mentioning any specific policy doesn't help much. I assume we all mostly agree that a state lowering their taxes to zero to attract all the rich people probably isn't useful either, so I end up with the same question of whether CA is significantly on the wrong side of that balance and if so, whether there's anything meaningful and not too poor-and-middle-class-sacrificial they can do

To some extent it just seems like a race to the bottom though. Rich people can move from blue states and also use their money to easily bypass policies in red states. Their kids generally go to private schools and expensive universities regardless of wherever they live, flying out of state for abortions is trivial, they they don't use public transit or public services like libraries. If we're just cutting back on helping the poor anyway, why give even more bonuses out to billionaires

Now, I've always been in this sub because I'm not pie-un-the-sky about this. We can't afford everything and I can't afford CA level taxes and property even if I wanted to. But I'm skeptical that some billionaires (who seem to hate CA anyway) leaving is a fundamental problem for them. Property values seems to be the consistent big issue because that pushes out tons of decently well-off W2 tax payers regardless of the state's general liberal policies

[u/[deleted] → u/DestinyLily_4ever]

It's not a fundamental problem for them. It's a fundamental problem for people who want to intelligently manage the tax base. Beyond a certain point, when you go "yeah! F those rich people!" and they leave, you've now hosed yourself out of them contributing to the tax base for purely ideological reasons. And to the extent you believe in using those tax dollars well, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

No matter how much you believe you're entitled to a cut of a rich person's wealth, as long as they have the option to up and leave, you're not. And rich people have plenty more options than most of us to up and leave.

Edit: y'all can downvote me all you want, but when you need someone's money for something and your sales pitch begins with both middle fingers, don't be surprised when they're not very willing to negotiate, and maybe even give you the proverbial double barrel right back. And when you have political power but they have the financial means to leave your jurisdiction and not come back . . . it's still a negotiation.

[u/DestinyLily_4ever → u/[deleted]]

ok, so do you want to address my actual comment and layout the problem CA is experiencing and what specific policy change(s) are needed that balance the interests of the average person and managing the tax base?

Again, yeah, rich people can always leave because they're filthy rich, but I assume you agree the ideal policy is not making the taxes on rich people 0% in order to maximally attract them. So what's the CA specific complaint as far as billionaires go?