正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

🚨BREAKING: Democrat-controlled Senate passes multi-billion-dollar Millionaires’ Tax With a vote of 27-22, the Washington State Senate on Monday passed Senate Bill 6346, a proposal to impose a 9.9% tax on individuals earning more than $1 million annually. Three Democrat lawmakers—Sens. Adrien Cortes (D-Battle Ground), Deb Krishnadasen (D-Gig Harbor) and...

LynnwoodTimes's profile picture

Lynnwood Times

6,309 subscribers

52,440 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

A concern many voters have about voting yes on initiative i2109 is the misleading description put on the ballot measure that gives voters the impression that if the capital gains tax is repealed it would reduce funding to Washington's education system and early childcare programs. This wording was written by a partisan office that opposes the initiative and has an obvious conflict of interest in providing Washingtonians with the truth. Chris Corry is the ranking member of the House Appropriations committee and has deep knowledge of Washington's budget. In this video he explains why Washington already has adequate funding for its education system and that the highly volatile revenue from the capital gains tax was unnecessary to fund programs. The truth is that proponents of the capital gains tax had spent years trying to find a way to introduce an income tax into Washington. By creating a capital gains tax and cynically telling Washington voters that "if you don't support it, our kids education will be harmed" they managed to open the door to a broad-based income tax. Within a year of creating the capital gains tax, which they marketed as only applying to the rich, they introduced legislation to lower the threshold at which it applies dramatically so the tax would apply to the vast majority of people in Washington who own stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies or other assets. Real-estate and retirement funds are exempt for now, but given Olympia's proclivity for increasing and expanding taxes, this will not last long. Listen to Representative Corry's explanation for why the wording on the ballot measure is so misleading and vote Yes on i2109 to repeal Washington's backdoor income tax. Vote yes, pay less.
2:16

A concern many voters have about voting yes on initiative i2109 is the misleading description put on the ballot measure that gives voters the impression that if the capital gains tax is repealed it would reduce funding to Washington's education system and early childcare programs. This wording was written by a partisan office that opposes the initiative and has an obvious conflict of interest in providing Washingtonians with the truth. Chris Corry is the ranking member of the House Appropriations committee and has deep knowledge of Washington's budget. In this video he explains why Washington already has adequate funding for its education system and that the highly volatile revenue from the capital gains tax was unnecessary to fund programs. The truth is that proponents of the capital gains tax had spent years trying to find a way to introduce an income tax into Washington. By creating a capital gains tax and cynically telling Washington voters that "if you don't support it, our kids education will be harmed" they managed to open the door to a broad-based income tax. Within a year of creating the capital gains tax, which they marketed as only applying to the rich, they introduced legislation to lower the threshold at which it applies dramatically so the tax would apply to the vast majority of people in Washington who own stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies or other assets. Real-estate and retirement funds are exempt for now, but given Olympia's proclivity for increasing and expanding taxes, this will not last long. Listen to Representative Corry's explanation for why the wording on the ballot measure is so misleading and vote Yes on i2109 to repeal Washington's backdoor income tax. Vote yes, pay less.

VijayInWA

13,966 次观看 • 1 年前

Seattle business leaders are reacting to Washington's new "Millionaires Tax" bill that passed the state house Tuesday. The Washington State Budget and Policy Center estimates it would hit as many as 30,000 Washington households to bring in about $4 billion per year for the General Fund. Under the plan, people making more than $1 million per year would pay a 9.9% tax on income above that threshold starting in 2029. #komo #komo4 #komonews #seattle #washington #millionaire #tax #incometax
1:35

Seattle business leaders are reacting to Washington's new "Millionaires Tax" bill that passed the state house Tuesday. The Washington State Budget and Policy Center estimates it would hit as many as 30,000 Washington households to bring in about $4 billion per year for the General Fund. Under the plan, people making more than $1 million per year would pay a 9.9% tax on income above that threshold starting in 2029. #komo #komo4 #komonews #seattle #washington #millionaire #tax #incometax

KOMO News

20,592 次观看 • 4 个月前

Yesterday, Governor Bob Ferguson signed Washington state’s first income tax into law. Voters rejected an income tax as recently as 2010. In 2024 they went further — passing Initiative 2111, which explicitly banned the state from enacting one. Democrats amended that ban and passed it anyway. 51-46 in the House. 27-22 in the Senate. Senate Bill 6346 imposes a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million. The bill includes a “necessity clause” that blocks a public referendum. Opponents cannot put repeal to a vote. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in 1933 that income is property and must be taxed uniformly. That precedent has stood for 93 years. Democrats didn’t pursue a constitutional amendment. Instead they redefined the tax as a levy on the “receipt” of income — not income itself — and are relying on a current court to accept the distinction. A lawsuit was filed the same day Ferguson signed it. Washington was already ranked 45th in state tax competitiveness. New Jersey introduced its income tax in 1976 with a 2.5% top rate. It is now 10.75%. Two years ago voters banned the income tax. Democrats wrote an exception into that ban, shielded it from referendum, and signed it anyway.
2:09

Yesterday, Governor Bob Ferguson signed Washington state’s first income tax into law. Voters rejected an income tax as recently as 2010. In 2024 they went further — passing Initiative 2111, which explicitly banned the state from enacting one. Democrats amended that ban and passed it anyway. 51-46 in the House. 27-22 in the Senate. Senate Bill 6346 imposes a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million. The bill includes a “necessity clause” that blocks a public referendum. Opponents cannot put repeal to a vote. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in 1933 that income is property and must be taxed uniformly. That precedent has stood for 93 years. Democrats didn’t pursue a constitutional amendment. Instead they redefined the tax as a levy on the “receipt” of income — not income itself — and are relying on a current court to accept the distinction. A lawsuit was filed the same day Ferguson signed it. Washington was already ranked 45th in state tax competitiveness. New Jersey introduced its income tax in 1976 with a 2.5% top rate. It is now 10.75%. Two years ago voters banned the income tax. Democrats wrote an exception into that ban, shielded it from referendum, and signed it anyway.

Jake

209,451 次观看 • 3 个月前

In addition to the New Income Tax Bill, we are bringing certain amendments in the Income Tax Act of 1961. Major amendments are: - Give tax exemption on dividend, interest, and long-term capital gains to sovereign wealth funds and pension funds investing in infrastructure between 01.04.2020 and 31.03.2030, subject to notification. The Public Investment Fund (PIF) and its wholly owned subsidiaries will be named directly in the section for exemption. - Abatement of all assessments for block periods in search cases until block assessment order. It will be a major reform for Ease of Doing Business. - Providing clarity for the new Income Tax regime, where standard deduction of Rs. 75,000 will be clarified for salaried individuals. - Fourth is related to Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) to clear the confusion on deduction, and bring parity with NPS. The above 4 changes are for the Income Tax Act 1961, but these have also been incorporated in the New Income Tax Bill. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.
3:03

In addition to the New Income Tax Bill, we are bringing certain amendments in the Income Tax Act of 1961. Major amendments are: - Give tax exemption on dividend, interest, and long-term capital gains to sovereign wealth funds and pension funds investing in infrastructure between 01.04.2020 and 31.03.2030, subject to notification. The Public Investment Fund (PIF) and its wholly owned subsidiaries will be named directly in the section for exemption. - Abatement of all assessments for block periods in search cases until block assessment order. It will be a major reform for Ease of Doing Business. - Providing clarity for the new Income Tax regime, where standard deduction of Rs. 75,000 will be clarified for salaried individuals. - Fourth is related to Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) to clear the confusion on deduction, and bring parity with NPS. The above 4 changes are for the Income Tax Act 1961, but these have also been incorporated in the New Income Tax Bill. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.

Nirmala Sitharaman Office

15,718 次观看 • 11 个月前

Washington state has one of the most vibrant tech communities in the world, but it's under threat from the new anti-tech, anti-innovation, capital gains tax, passed in 2021. I was curious how tech workers felt about this tax so I visited Microsoft and Amazon (see video below). What I learned shocked me. Many employees of these companies (who receive a large portion of them compensation in the form of stock) were not even aware that Washington's legislature had passed a capital gains tax that would affect them. This was not by accident. Politicians in Olympia designed the tax to initially apply to a fairly small set of people (the threshold at which it applies is $250,000). For years they had attempted to create a widespread income tax in WA by initiative, but they were repeatedly voted down by Washingtonians. But once they found a way to open the door to this new capital gains tax (by absurdly claiming it's not an income tax, but an excise tax), they immediately set to work on making it more widespread. Bill 5335 has been introduced to modify the capital gains tax so that the threshold at which applies will drop to $15,000 (a 94% drop, massively expanding the net of people it applies to), while increasing the rate from 7% to 8.5%. The increase in rate would mean that Washingtonians would see a greater than 50% increase in their tax burden on capital gains (sale of stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies and other assets such as small businesses). When I explained these facts to the tech employees I met at Microsoft and Amazon most of them supported a repeal of the capital gains tax. We have one chance to get Washington back to its long tradition of not punishing success and welcoming the world's best and brightest to our state. This election, please vote Yes on initiative I-2109. Vote yes, Pay less.
1:31

Washington state has one of the most vibrant tech communities in the world, but it's under threat from the new anti-tech, anti-innovation, capital gains tax, passed in 2021. I was curious how tech workers felt about this tax so I visited Microsoft and Amazon (see video below). What I learned shocked me. Many employees of these companies (who receive a large portion of them compensation in the form of stock) were not even aware that Washington's legislature had passed a capital gains tax that would affect them. This was not by accident. Politicians in Olympia designed the tax to initially apply to a fairly small set of people (the threshold at which it applies is $250,000). For years they had attempted to create a widespread income tax in WA by initiative, but they were repeatedly voted down by Washingtonians. But once they found a way to open the door to this new capital gains tax (by absurdly claiming it's not an income tax, but an excise tax), they immediately set to work on making it more widespread. Bill 5335 has been introduced to modify the capital gains tax so that the threshold at which applies will drop to $15,000 (a 94% drop, massively expanding the net of people it applies to), while increasing the rate from 7% to 8.5%. The increase in rate would mean that Washingtonians would see a greater than 50% increase in their tax burden on capital gains (sale of stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies and other assets such as small businesses). When I explained these facts to the tech employees I met at Microsoft and Amazon most of them supported a repeal of the capital gains tax. We have one chance to get Washington back to its long tradition of not punishing success and welcoming the world's best and brightest to our state. This election, please vote Yes on initiative I-2109. Vote yes, Pay less.

Vijay

63,045 次观看 • 1 年前

Democrats independence a bill to abolish the income tax on lower income Americans, but increase the income tax on high earners “Under the bill, any income up to $46,000 for individuals, or $92,000 for couples would not be subject to enter any federal income taxes” “Now, to fund it taxpayers making more than a million dollars a year would get a progressive tax hike - Those making between $1 and 2 million would pay an extra 5% for a total top rate of 42% (current federal) - Those making more than $5 million a year would have a top federal rate of 59% So what does that mean? Well, someone here in New York City making more than $5 million a year, their combined state, city, and federal rate would be over 73%. For New Jersey taxpayers making more than million a year, the combined state and federal rate would be over 69%”
1:25

Democrats independence a bill to abolish the income tax on lower income Americans, but increase the income tax on high earners “Under the bill, any income up to $46,000 for individuals, or $92,000 for couples would not be subject to enter any federal income taxes” “Now, to fund it taxpayers making more than a million dollars a year would get a progressive tax hike - Those making between $1 and 2 million would pay an extra 5% for a total top rate of 42% (current federal) - Those making more than $5 million a year would have a top federal rate of 59% So what does that mean? Well, someone here in New York City making more than $5 million a year, their combined state, city, and federal rate would be over 73%. For New Jersey taxpayers making more than million a year, the combined state and federal rate would be over 69%”

Wall Street Apes

96,079 次观看 • 4 个月前

Washington State Democrats lied. Their new income tax on millionaires isn’t just for people making over $1 per year “It’s not just the millionaires who are gonna face this tax. In fact, couples whose combined income is a million dollars or more will also be taxed. Tax experts call it the marriage penalty. So if you have two individuals who each make $600,000, neither would pay the state income tax if they filed as individuals, but if they are married and they file jointly, they would owe a tax of about $20,000” And so it begins… next they’ll start lowering the threshold and it’ll soon apply to everyone
1:24

Washington State Democrats lied. Their new income tax on millionaires isn’t just for people making over $1 per year “It’s not just the millionaires who are gonna face this tax. In fact, couples whose combined income is a million dollars or more will also be taxed. Tax experts call it the marriage penalty. So if you have two individuals who each make $600,000, neither would pay the state income tax if they filed as individuals, but if they are married and they file jointly, they would owe a tax of about $20,000” And so it begins… next they’ll start lowering the threshold and it’ll soon apply to everyone

Wall Street Apes

213,613 次观看 • 3 个月前

Zack Polanski, "A wealth tax won't fix everything but it would be a very good place to start" "1% on £10 million, and 2% on £1 billion, would raise around £15 billion a year" "A clear message that those who have accumulated the most money will pay a little bit more" "For a truly progressive government a wealth tax needs to be a day one priority" "And to get our economy moving we much look at all the levers we can pull" "That must include equalising capital gains tax with income tax" "Close down tax avoidance loopholes" "And to expand National Insurance to cover income from investment as well as earned income"
0:57

Zack Polanski, "A wealth tax won't fix everything but it would be a very good place to start" "1% on £10 million, and 2% on £1 billion, would raise around £15 billion a year" "A clear message that those who have accumulated the most money will pay a little bit more" "For a truly progressive government a wealth tax needs to be a day one priority" "And to get our economy moving we much look at all the levers we can pull" "That must include equalising capital gains tax with income tax" "Close down tax avoidance loopholes" "And to expand National Insurance to cover income from investment as well as earned income"

Farrukh

345,400 次观看 • 4 个月前

Democratic Socialist Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson is getting a BRUTAL REALITY check after laughing off the idea of millionaires fleeing her city — just as a new survey reveals that 44% of Washington business leaders are now considering moving their personal residences out of the state. Mayor Katie Wilson: “I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are like super overblown, and if the ones that leave — bye.” NOTE: Washington state passed the Millionaires Tax in March 2026, that will impose a 9.9% tax on income over $1M per household that takes effect on January 1, 2028. It combines with the state’s new 9.9% capital gains tax on gains above $1M that went into effect last year.
1:56

Democratic Socialist Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson is getting a BRUTAL REALITY check after laughing off the idea of millionaires fleeing her city — just as a new survey reveals that 44% of Washington business leaders are now considering moving their personal residences out of the state. Mayor Katie Wilson: “I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are like super overblown, and if the ones that leave — bye.” NOTE: Washington state passed the Millionaires Tax in March 2026, that will impose a 9.9% tax on income over $1M per household that takes effect on January 1, 2028. It combines with the state’s new 9.9% capital gains tax on gains above $1M that went into effect last year.

RedWave Press

165,299 次观看 • 1 个月前

In Part 2 of Hana Kim's (glorious) interview of state Senate Majority Leader and income tax architect Jamie Pedersen... ✅Pedersen is in denial that his tax is causing upset saying "I don't have any evidence that millionaires or business leaders are leaving as result of this income tax". ✅After being asked directly, Pedersen finally goes on the record that his goal is an income tax for all Washingtonians. ✅Pedersen attempts to lie about a future legislature's ability to lower the income level threshold down from $1 Million, and then gets defensive when Hana Kim calls him on it. This is certainly an interview for the history books. Hana Kim | FOX 13 Seattle 'Part 2: Architect of millionaire tax defends new law'
3:50

In Part 2 of Hana Kim's (glorious) interview of state Senate Majority Leader and income tax architect Jamie Pedersen... ✅Pedersen is in denial that his tax is causing upset saying "I don't have any evidence that millionaires or business leaders are leaving as result of this income tax". ✅After being asked directly, Pedersen finally goes on the record that his goal is an income tax for all Washingtonians. ✅Pedersen attempts to lie about a future legislature's ability to lower the income level threshold down from $1 Million, and then gets defensive when Hana Kim calls him on it. This is certainly an interview for the history books. Hana Kim | FOX 13 Seattle 'Part 2: Architect of millionaire tax defends new law'

Future 42

19,707 次观看 • 2 个月前

On 4th of July Independence Day, you should know the Income Tax was deemed Unconstitutional “There's no income tax in America until the Civil War. An emergency one Lincoln pushed after the Civil War, it's repealed 1892. They tried to have a peacetime income tax, it’s declared unconstitutional Woodrow Wilson pushes through the income tax, the 16th Amendment in 1913. It's a 1% tax on the top 1% richest people in the country. It's not to tax the people, it’s to go after those robber barons. The Rockefellers, Carnegies, J. Paul Getty's, the Astors. It would be sort of like today that only Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and George Soros, that's what the tax is for. And so you have Taft, pushing through a corporate income tax. And only the extreme wealthy owned corporate stock, so it was a backdoor way to get at them. Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for inheritance tax, because only the extreme wealthy had an inheritance worth leaving. But finally, Woodrow Wilson pushes through the income tax, which is the 1% tax on the top 1% richest people.” And today this is all applied to everyone Let me clearly break down the order of events: During the Civil War era (1861–1872) The first federal income tax was enacted during the Civil War under Lincoln. It was a temporary wartime measure. It was repealed in 1872, The Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional in Springer v. United States In 1894 there was another peacetime attempt at an income tax. Congress passed a 2% tax on incomes over $4,000 as part of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act. The Supreme Court struck it down in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. They again said it was unconstitutional So next in 1913 Congress forces an income tax on us with the 16th Amendment But what else happened in 1913? The federal reserve was established We had a central banking takeover and that same year they passed the income tax to steal from all of us This should have never been allowed to happened, the income tax was ruled unconstitutional It’s time to set Americans free and abolish the income tax
1:52

On 4th of July Independence Day, you should know the Income Tax was deemed Unconstitutional “There's no income tax in America until the Civil War. An emergency one Lincoln pushed after the Civil War, it's repealed 1892. They tried to have a peacetime income tax, it’s declared unconstitutional Woodrow Wilson pushes through the income tax, the 16th Amendment in 1913. It's a 1% tax on the top 1% richest people in the country. It's not to tax the people, it’s to go after those robber barons. The Rockefellers, Carnegies, J. Paul Getty's, the Astors. It would be sort of like today that only Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and George Soros, that's what the tax is for. And so you have Taft, pushing through a corporate income tax. And only the extreme wealthy owned corporate stock, so it was a backdoor way to get at them. Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for inheritance tax, because only the extreme wealthy had an inheritance worth leaving. But finally, Woodrow Wilson pushes through the income tax, which is the 1% tax on the top 1% richest people.” And today this is all applied to everyone Let me clearly break down the order of events: During the Civil War era (1861–1872) The first federal income tax was enacted during the Civil War under Lincoln. It was a temporary wartime measure. It was repealed in 1872, The Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional in Springer v. United States In 1894 there was another peacetime attempt at an income tax. Congress passed a 2% tax on incomes over $4,000 as part of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act. The Supreme Court struck it down in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. They again said it was unconstitutional So next in 1913 Congress forces an income tax on us with the 16th Amendment But what else happened in 1913? The federal reserve was established We had a central banking takeover and that same year they passed the income tax to steal from all of us This should have never been allowed to happened, the income tax was ruled unconstitutional It’s time to set Americans free and abolish the income tax

Wall Street Apes

160,199 次观看 • 12 天前

Why is Mr. Lakshmi Mittal and thousands of other millionaires leaving UK this year? Last year over 250k British nationals left the UK... and in the current year, almost 16k millionaires are expected the have left the UK... It's because of a major law that is proposed to be passed in the UK Parliament that none of the wealthy people like... To understand this, let's first understand why the Global Wealthy were in the UK to begin with... The Global Wealthy would go to the UK because the country had a Non-Dom Regime... which basically meant that all the incomes earned by UK residents in other parts of the world and all such capital gains would not be taxed... For example, in India, your global incomes are taxed if you are an Indian tax resident... Now there are three major changes that have happened that made millionaires pulled the trigger... 1/ In Oct 2024, the capital gains tax was increased from 20% to 24% 2/ In April 2025, UK abolished the Non Dom regime by which global incomes become taxable in the UK... and more importantly 40% inheritance tax becomes payable even on assets outside of the UK. 3/ And now the third issue... where the Govt is now proposing to levy a 20% exit tax on unrealised gains on these assets, which are not even sold, but only appreciated in value Now where are all these people going? Most of these people are now going to Dubai... No personal income tax, no wealth tax, no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax, no dividend tax... Absolute safety - no crime... and corporate tax is just 9% while you get all the first world facilities while being close to Asia as well as Europe. If you have to move somewhere globally, the best bet right now is the UAE.
1:36

Why is Mr. Lakshmi Mittal and thousands of other millionaires leaving UK this year? Last year over 250k British nationals left the UK... and in the current year, almost 16k millionaires are expected the have left the UK... It's because of a major law that is proposed to be passed in the UK Parliament that none of the wealthy people like... To understand this, let's first understand why the Global Wealthy were in the UK to begin with... The Global Wealthy would go to the UK because the country had a Non-Dom Regime... which basically meant that all the incomes earned by UK residents in other parts of the world and all such capital gains would not be taxed... For example, in India, your global incomes are taxed if you are an Indian tax resident... Now there are three major changes that have happened that made millionaires pulled the trigger... 1/ In Oct 2024, the capital gains tax was increased from 20% to 24% 2/ In April 2025, UK abolished the Non Dom regime by which global incomes become taxable in the UK... and more importantly 40% inheritance tax becomes payable even on assets outside of the UK. 3/ And now the third issue... where the Govt is now proposing to levy a 20% exit tax on unrealised gains on these assets, which are not even sold, but only appreciated in value Now where are all these people going? Most of these people are now going to Dubai... No personal income tax, no wealth tax, no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax, no dividend tax... Absolute safety - no crime... and corporate tax is just 9% while you get all the first world facilities while being close to Asia as well as Europe. If you have to move somewhere globally, the best bet right now is the UAE.

JIX5A

57,632 次观看 • 7 个月前

Victoria Derbyshire, "You want to spend a lot of public services and welfare, is the wealth tax a panacea, is that fair?" Zack Polanski, "I don't present it as a panacea. It's not close to a panacea, it's just the start of the things we need to do" "We need to bring Capital Gains Tax in line with Income Tax" "Right now, if you're a cleaner, you could be paying more than than the person who owns the building you're working in" "We need to tax unearned wealth as much as we tax earned income" Victoria Derbyshire, "When you look at other countries around Europe who spend more on public services and have better public services as a result, they tend to tax the income of everyone, including lower and middle income earners. Maybe you have to say to people we all have to pay for this" Zack Polanski, "It's right that we start our focus on the super wealthy. Once we start to move to a better footing as a society where we have better infrastructure and services, it is legitimate to say paying tax is patriotic" "We should be proud of contributing to this country. making sure we have an NHS that works. Public transport that works" "Yes, everyone will have to pay for that, but ultimately this is about where is the biggest burden, and that should be on the people with the broadest shoulders"
1:17

Victoria Derbyshire, "You want to spend a lot of public services and welfare, is the wealth tax a panacea, is that fair?" Zack Polanski, "I don't present it as a panacea. It's not close to a panacea, it's just the start of the things we need to do" "We need to bring Capital Gains Tax in line with Income Tax" "Right now, if you're a cleaner, you could be paying more than than the person who owns the building you're working in" "We need to tax unearned wealth as much as we tax earned income" Victoria Derbyshire, "When you look at other countries around Europe who spend more on public services and have better public services as a result, they tend to tax the income of everyone, including lower and middle income earners. Maybe you have to say to people we all have to pay for this" Zack Polanski, "It's right that we start our focus on the super wealthy. Once we start to move to a better footing as a society where we have better infrastructure and services, it is legitimate to say paying tax is patriotic" "We should be proud of contributing to this country. making sure we have an NHS that works. Public transport that works" "Yes, everyone will have to pay for that, but ultimately this is about where is the biggest burden, and that should be on the people with the broadest shoulders"

Farrukh

80,309 次观看 • 9 个月前

These are the 5 worst states for retirees financially: - Number 5, California, they tax your entire 401k withdrawal, $100,000 in distributions, $8,000 bucks straight to Sacramento. And if you own a home at the median price, which is now above $900,000 bucks, property tax is nearly $9,000. On top of that, not to mention it's the only state to fully tax military retirement benefits. - Number 4, New York, they give a $40,000 exclusion for married couples. Sounds decent, but — the other$60 grand gets taxed, add on 8.25% sales tax. And if you live in the city, add an additional extra city income tax because why not - Number 3, Jersey highest property tax in the country with the average bill just hitting $10,000. But they do offer retirement income exclusion up to a $100,000. The only catch total income has to stay below $150 grand, cross that threshold by even a dollar and say hello to $6,500 bucks of new taxes - Number 2, Connecticut property taxes. Third highest nationally at $7,700 a year on a $400,000 home, but they are phasing in full retirement income exemption. That hits a hundred percent in 2026. They're the only state on this list actually getting better. They're not there yet, and I blame Greenwich - Number 1, Illinois. Yes, they exempt all retirement income, zero state tax on your 401k. but property tax is second highest nationally and in Chicago the sales tax is 10.25%
1:42

These are the 5 worst states for retirees financially: - Number 5, California, they tax your entire 401k withdrawal, $100,000 in distributions, $8,000 bucks straight to Sacramento. And if you own a home at the median price, which is now above $900,000 bucks, property tax is nearly $9,000. On top of that, not to mention it's the only state to fully tax military retirement benefits. - Number 4, New York, they give a $40,000 exclusion for married couples. Sounds decent, but — the other$60 grand gets taxed, add on 8.25% sales tax. And if you live in the city, add an additional extra city income tax because why not - Number 3, Jersey highest property tax in the country with the average bill just hitting $10,000. But they do offer retirement income exclusion up to a $100,000. The only catch total income has to stay below $150 grand, cross that threshold by even a dollar and say hello to $6,500 bucks of new taxes - Number 2, Connecticut property taxes. Third highest nationally at $7,700 a year on a $400,000 home, but they are phasing in full retirement income exemption. That hits a hundred percent in 2026. They're the only state on this list actually getting better. They're not there yet, and I blame Greenwich - Number 1, Illinois. Yes, they exempt all retirement income, zero state tax on your 401k. but property tax is second highest nationally and in Chicago the sales tax is 10.25%

Wall Street Apes

206,331 次观看 • 4 个月前

Press Release MLA Dallas Brodie Tables Tariff Defence Bill with Largest Tax Cuts in Two Decades April 10, 2025 Victoria, B.C. – Independent MLA Dallas Brodie tabled a private member’s bill today with the largest provincial income tax relief in the last two decades. The Tax Relief and Tarriff Defence Act would lower provincial income tax by 50 percent for every British Columbian earning $100,000 or less. Provincial income tax would be lowered by 25 percent for all individuals earning over $100,000 and for all corporate income taxpayers. This would be the most significant tax relief in British Columbia since the Gordon Campbell tax cuts in 2001. MLA Brodie’s bill would grant Cabinet some of the broad powers Premier Eby had sought in Bill 7—but use of the powers would only be permitted to “eliminate procedural obstacles to the development of natural resources, the building of public infrastructure, and economic advancement of British Columbia”. Cabinet would be empowered to eliminate or modify environmental regulations, consultation processes, and other “undue” procedural barriers. “British Columbians are struggling. We are threatened by many great perils, including tariffs and trade disputes with China and the United States, not to mention the self-inflicted wounds caused by excessive taxation and bureaucracy. This bill will help every single British Columbian. It is time for us to unite to defend this province and our great nation from the extraordinary threats we face,” said MLA Brodie. "This private member's bill leads the way in showing what British Columbia needs to do to make its economy thrive again. The Legislature would be wise to adopt the measures laid out in this bill. Tax reduction and simplification of regulations for resource development are exactly what are needed in today's economic environment,” said Tom Flanagan, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, The University of Calgary. “The last major income and corporate tax cut in British Columbia occurred over two decades ago. Cutting income taxes encourages saving, investment, and productivity. A broad tax cut is a bold move that can help attract needed capital and talent to the province,” said Mark Goodman, one of Canada’s leading commercial real estate brokers, with over 4 billion dollars in sales. “Our high income tax rates have been choking our economy for years, making us exposed and vulnerable to tariffs and other economic disruptions. Substantially reducing the tax burden on British Columbians is a logical response to the tariff threat. Doing so does not invite further tariff escalation and sets us on a long-term economic growth path that makes us resilient to any future disruptions,” said Andrey Pavlov, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, where he is professor of finance. Independent MLAs Tara Armstrong of Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream and Jordan Kealy from Peace River North have each voiced support for the bill. If anyone in the legislature is serious about defending British Columbians they need to vote for this large tax reduction on all BC taxpayers and businesses as well as expediting of resource projects. The current NDP government and previous Liberal governments have been forcing British Columbians to compete on the world stage with one arm tied behind their back, and this bill is rectifying that problem,” said MLA Armstrong. “I despise tariffs, taxes, and red tape! This bill defends British Columbians from all three. I’m proud to support it. Every true conservative in British Columbia should be lining up to support this bill too,” said MLA Kealy. -30- Media Contact: Tim Thielmann – tim4victoria@outlook.com Tim Thielmann
1:44

Press Release MLA Dallas Brodie Tables Tariff Defence Bill with Largest Tax Cuts in Two Decades April 10, 2025 Victoria, B.C. – Independent MLA Dallas Brodie tabled a private member’s bill today with the largest provincial income tax relief in the last two decades. The Tax Relief and Tarriff Defence Act would lower provincial income tax by 50 percent for every British Columbian earning $100,000 or less. Provincial income tax would be lowered by 25 percent for all individuals earning over $100,000 and for all corporate income taxpayers. This would be the most significant tax relief in British Columbia since the Gordon Campbell tax cuts in 2001. MLA Brodie’s bill would grant Cabinet some of the broad powers Premier Eby had sought in Bill 7—but use of the powers would only be permitted to “eliminate procedural obstacles to the development of natural resources, the building of public infrastructure, and economic advancement of British Columbia”. Cabinet would be empowered to eliminate or modify environmental regulations, consultation processes, and other “undue” procedural barriers. “British Columbians are struggling. We are threatened by many great perils, including tariffs and trade disputes with China and the United States, not to mention the self-inflicted wounds caused by excessive taxation and bureaucracy. This bill will help every single British Columbian. It is time for us to unite to defend this province and our great nation from the extraordinary threats we face,” said MLA Brodie. "This private member's bill leads the way in showing what British Columbia needs to do to make its economy thrive again. The Legislature would be wise to adopt the measures laid out in this bill. Tax reduction and simplification of regulations for resource development are exactly what are needed in today's economic environment,” said Tom Flanagan, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, The University of Calgary. “The last major income and corporate tax cut in British Columbia occurred over two decades ago. Cutting income taxes encourages saving, investment, and productivity. A broad tax cut is a bold move that can help attract needed capital and talent to the province,” said Mark Goodman, one of Canada’s leading commercial real estate brokers, with over 4 billion dollars in sales. “Our high income tax rates have been choking our economy for years, making us exposed and vulnerable to tariffs and other economic disruptions. Substantially reducing the tax burden on British Columbians is a logical response to the tariff threat. Doing so does not invite further tariff escalation and sets us on a long-term economic growth path that makes us resilient to any future disruptions,” said Andrey Pavlov, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, where he is professor of finance. Independent MLAs Tara Armstrong of Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream and Jordan Kealy from Peace River North have each voiced support for the bill. If anyone in the legislature is serious about defending British Columbians they need to vote for this large tax reduction on all BC taxpayers and businesses as well as expediting of resource projects. The current NDP government and previous Liberal governments have been forcing British Columbians to compete on the world stage with one arm tied behind their back, and this bill is rectifying that problem,” said MLA Armstrong. “I despise tariffs, taxes, and red tape! This bill defends British Columbians from all three. I’m proud to support it. Every true conservative in British Columbia should be lining up to support this bill too,” said MLA Kealy. -30- Media Contact: Tim Thielmann – [email protected] Tim Thielmann

Dallas Brodie

20,303 次观看 • 1 年前

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast
2:35

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 次观看 • 6 个月前

Tax, tax, tax. It’s all Labour know, it’s all Labour do. Now we potentially have 2 more, 1 for sure. There will be a 22% across the board tax on an interest earned from cash in stocks & shares ISA’s. Bear in mind this is money you have invested that you already paid income tax on and put into an ISA because you were told it was tax free. Then there is a strong suggestion that when Burnham comes in he will immediately put up Capital Gains Tax to match income tax. Thus killing any incentive or motivation to invest in or grow your assets. Tax is there for one reason only. To make the country function well and better people’s lives. We have the highest taxes ever now….but look around you. I defy you to find a single solitary piece of your life or this country that those taxes have improved!!! My advice is….find legal ways to pay as little as you possibly can!!
4:58

Tax, tax, tax. It’s all Labour know, it’s all Labour do. Now we potentially have 2 more, 1 for sure. There will be a 22% across the board tax on an interest earned from cash in stocks & shares ISA’s. Bear in mind this is money you have invested that you already paid income tax on and put into an ISA because you were told it was tax free. Then there is a strong suggestion that when Burnham comes in he will immediately put up Capital Gains Tax to match income tax. Thus killing any incentive or motivation to invest in or grow your assets. Tax is there for one reason only. To make the country function well and better people’s lives. We have the highest taxes ever now….but look around you. I defy you to find a single solitary piece of your life or this country that those taxes have improved!!! My advice is….find legal ways to pay as little as you possibly can!!

John Hannam

46,485 次观看 • 22 天前

🗣️ Just saw this on .FOX Business “EXIT TAX” 😳plastered over a mountain of cash. The caption says it all: “They’re gonna tax you with a knife in your back when you leave, too.” 😱 And it’s not just talk. Across the country, at least 10 states are now exploring or have already pushed wealth taxes and “exit taxes” to punish residents who dare to flee their high-tax, high-spending disasters for lower-tax states like Florida, Texas, or Tennessee. Leading the pack: 1. California — “Billionaire Tax Act” (5% one-time hit on net worth over $1 billion) 2. New York Wealth and high-income tax proposals, plus aggressive residency audits on departing residents. 3. Washington Recently passed 9.9% tax on incomes over $1M; earlier capital gains tax. 4. Michigan Ballot proposal for 5%+ tax on high earners (over $500K); constitutional amendment efforts. 5.Massachusetts Millionaire surtax already in place; additional wealth/exit ideas under discussion. 6. Connecticut Wealth tax proposals and high-income surcharges. 7. Illinois — Debating 3% tax on income over $1M. 8. New Jersey — Has existing withholding rules on real estate sales for former residents (often called an exit mechanism). 9. Maryland — High-income and capital gains adjustments; history of targeting departing wealthy residents. 10. Hawaii or others in the broader group — Part of earlier coordinated wealth tax pushes (some reports fold in states like these for ongoing discussions). ✅ …plus others quietly lining up. Some proposals include “look-back” rules so they can keep taxing your worldwide assets even after you move out. This isn’t about “fairness.” It’s about governments that refuse to cut wasteful spending, so instead they try to trap the golden geese who actually pay the bills.
0:43

🗣️ Just saw this on .FOX Business “EXIT TAX” 😳plastered over a mountain of cash. The caption says it all: “They’re gonna tax you with a knife in your back when you leave, too.” 😱 And it’s not just talk. Across the country, at least 10 states are now exploring or have already pushed wealth taxes and “exit taxes” to punish residents who dare to flee their high-tax, high-spending disasters for lower-tax states like Florida, Texas, or Tennessee. Leading the pack: 1. California — “Billionaire Tax Act” (5% one-time hit on net worth over $1 billion) 2. New York Wealth and high-income tax proposals, plus aggressive residency audits on departing residents. 3. Washington Recently passed 9.9% tax on incomes over $1M; earlier capital gains tax. 4. Michigan Ballot proposal for 5%+ tax on high earners (over $500K); constitutional amendment efforts. 5.Massachusetts Millionaire surtax already in place; additional wealth/exit ideas under discussion. 6. Connecticut Wealth tax proposals and high-income surcharges. 7. Illinois — Debating 3% tax on income over $1M. 8. New Jersey — Has existing withholding rules on real estate sales for former residents (often called an exit mechanism). 9. Maryland — High-income and capital gains adjustments; history of targeting departing wealthy residents. 10. Hawaii or others in the broader group — Part of earlier coordinated wealth tax pushes (some reports fold in states like these for ongoing discussions). ✅ …plus others quietly lining up. Some proposals include “look-back” rules so they can keep taxing your worldwide assets even after you move out. This isn’t about “fairness.” It’s about governments that refuse to cut wasteful spending, so instead they try to trap the golden geese who actually pay the bills.

🦅 Eagle Wings 🦅

20,383 次观看 • 3 个月前