California Governor Proposes Digital Dividend Aimed At Big Tech (bloomberg.com) 227
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a "digital dividend" that would let consumers share in the billions of dollars made by technology companies in the most populous U.S. state. In his "State of the State" speech on Tuesday, Newsom said California is proud to be home to tech firms. But he said companies that make billions of dollars "collecting, curating and monetizing our personal data have a duty to protect it. Consumers have a right to know and control how their data is being used." He went further by suggesting the companies share some of those profits, joining other politicians calling for higher levies on the wealthy in U.S. society. "California's consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data," Newsom said. "And so I've asked my team to develop a proposal for a new data dividend for Californians, because we recognize that data has value and it belongs to you." Newsom didn't describe what form the dividend might take, although he said "we can do something bold in this space." He also praised a tough California data-privacy law that will kick in next year.
Share (Score:2)
People who use these services for "free" get to do so because of data collection. I'm assuming that California residents also get to use the services for free. Not sure why they are entitled to get money back from these companies as well as free service.
If the subtext to all of this is the affordable housing crisis in California, then build more damn houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say this very thing. However, upon reflection, there certainly are plenty of tech companies that monetize data and offer nothing to the generators of that data in exchange. I'm thinking about large ad-tracking networks, paid app creators who grab unnecessary data, department stores, etc., etc. That said, I'm not sure I agree with governor's proposal. Rather than at a state level, I would prefer if each company that had access to and sold my data: a) requested permission to do so, and b) compens
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't a question of building more damn houses, it is a question of where to build more damn houses. If you can build them just south of East Where-Am-I and it takes two hours to commute to a job, that sort of puts a damper on your plan to build more damn houses.
Re: (Score:2)
A plan for housing is necessary. A lot of housing developers don't give a shit about that, they just want their profits ASAP. So they want to build either more upscale single family homes or upscale multistory condos. That just makes the housing problem worse. We need places for those lower and middle class people to live, and the free market will NOT solve that problem on its own. The land is scarce so developers want to build outwards but that just makes the problems worse. We need high density hous
Re: (Score:2)
The "free services" seem to generate a very healthy profit for the tech giants in California so it stands to reason that the data is worth far more than the services being provided.
Yes, in economics, this is called, "the profit motive" - and it is why people start businesses.
If the service provided were worth the same as benefit for providing it, there would be no point in creating a business as there would be no profit to be made.
Move your brand (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of other great US states have fast internet and low tax.
Low power costs and an educated workforce that's ready.
Escape the trash, waste, crime, new taxes and find a better state.
They will let you keep your employee cafeterias too.
Re:Move your brand (Score:4, Insightful)
To a low tax state that respects your right to innovate.
Lots of other great US states have fast internet and low tax.
Low power costs and an educated workforce that's ready.
I would just mod you up if I had any points, but I don't. One of the great truths in life that I learned a long time ago is that the rich (including corporations) are really good at protecting their money. This is why things like the "Fair Tax" movement in the USA will fail if it ever gets enacted. The rich have ways to buy things in ways that will avoid them paying tax. Similarly, there are limits to how much California can tax their high earning companies unless they are willing to watch them leave.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, technically there is a way but I doubt anyone wants to go down that road.
Re: (Score:3)
The "Fair Tax" would be a dream for the rich, resulting in massive savings for them. It's basically a flat sales tax on every damn thing. The rich spend far less than they make, and only a fraction of their spending is done in the US.
Meanwhile the lower classes would be devastated by the sales taxes since they spend most or all of what they make on the basic necessities of living and participating in the economy, and almost all of that spending is local. You'd soon see them take on the kind of spending patt
Re: (Score:2)
The rich spend far less than they make
One might just assume a causal connection there. You know, if one had any interest in becoming a despicable richer.
Re: (Score:2)
Spending less than you make is only a viable method to getting rich if you already have a very generous income. The rich spend less than they make because they make so much more than they have any need or want to spend.
Re: (Score:3)
Spending less than you make is only a viable method to getting rich if you already have a very generous income.
Proven false by a great many people, including myself when younger. Heck, a buddy of mine was a security guard making $6/hour and saving half his pay (he did work a lot of hours), who inspired me to do the same. It's just a matter of priorities and optimization, assuming you have a full-time job. Not much you can do beyond subsistence if you're stuck with part time work, but that's not most people.
Whether your religion is Rich Dad Poor Dad, or Mr Money Mustache, or one of the many other cults of savings,
Re: (Score:2)
I see you're not familiar with modern median incomes. That was the case in the past, but not these days. Employees are being squeezed much tighter. [epi.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, modern median incomes are plenty to save on. Saving significantly when just at the poverty line is hard mode, but possible. Saving at median income is easy - just live like a student and you can save half your pay.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you suggest a person with a family do this? What about someone paying off college debt? What about someone making minimum wage living paycheck to paycheck.
That's the problem with you all or nothings, you never consider other people, you think eberyone is like you. Hint, we are all different and life all hands us different starting points. We don't get to choose.
All or nothing? All I'm claiming is that most people can save a significant portion of their income, if that's their top priority. Not everyone, as I said: if you're only working part time, you're not going to manage much.
If you have a family, financial responsibility is only more important. Paying off debt is a great way (often the best way) to increase your net worth. Reaching a net worth of 0 can be a triumphant moment for many people (I know it was for me). Living paycheck to paycheck is a conseque
Re: (Score:2)
I've never met a student who was able to save half his pay while making minimum wage or even median wage at that.
Hint:
I'm a professor.
You have students that make median wage? That's an odd sort of class. It's rare that a student is actually working full time - and since you're a professor, I'm sure you can read the post you responded too. Wait, I'm not sure of that at all.
Re: (Score:3)
$130k is rich when you're making $6/hour!
That's a big part of the various savings religions: focus on the cheap things that give you pleasure. The goal is financial independence and comfort, not impressing your neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? We don't tax people on their character or humanity. Neither do we pay them for those things, which is why we have everything from decabillionaire hyper-royalty to actual slaves in the world today. We tax people on things like income, sales, square footage of land, etc, and those are far from equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Sales taxes are inherently regressive. An actual flat tax - all income, dividends, and gains taxed the same, no exceptions - would be not merely fair, but righteous (make it progressive by sending everyone a check every month). It will never happen, of course, as the richest would pay far more, and the politicians couldn't run every election on spending other people's money.
Re: (Score:2)
A tax cannot be both flat and fair IMO - to me, fair is progressive. We may disagree on moral grounds.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fair" is not the word you want. Any rules, no matter how arbitrary or evil, that apply equally to all people without bias are "fair". It's better to be just than to be fair. It's better to be righteous than to be just. Ancient wisdom.
And of course in the very post you responded to I explained how to make it progressive. But even if it weren't it would still be better than sales taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fair" is not the word you want. Any rules, no matter how arbitrary or evil, that apply equally to all people without bias are "fair". It's better to be just than to be fair. It's better to be righteous than to be just. Ancient wisdom.
Good point, I can agree with this.
And of course in the very post you responded to I explained how to make it progressive. But even if it weren't it would still be better than sales taxes.
I agree a mix of income/dividends/gains would be better than sales taxes. Sales taxes are inherently regressive and the worst form of taxation in use today (unless you count illicit 3rd-world bribe-shakedowns).
But if you write *everyone* a check then it's not progressive, it's still flat. If you just write people below a certain income a check, it might just qualify for the most minimal definition of "progressive" but it would be almost flat...I wouldn't be pleased with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at the numbers. Fixed amount - % of earnings = higher effective tax rate the more you make (and negative taxation if you make sufficiently little). It's the same amount as saying the flat rate only applies above a certain income, plus giving money to the poor, but it's much simpler.
Plus, there's no good reason for the government to know how much any citizen gets paid. A payroll tax takes care of taxing all income, without any individual paperwork at all - the average guy never interacts with ta
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at the numbers. Fixed amount - % of earnings = higher effective tax rate the more you make (and negative taxation if you make sufficiently little). It's the same amount as saying the flat rate only applies above a certain income, plus giving money to the poor, but it's much simpler.
Well that's a decent argument for calling it progressive but I'm not sure how many people it would convince. The effect is progressive at mere mortals' incomes, but the numbers are still flat, and the progressiveness would quickly become a rounding error on the silly side of the income scale. The biggest flaw in this system is that it would put the richest people in the lowest tax bracket - the only tax bracket, but still the lowest. With a tax system like that, what rich guy needs loopholes?
Plus, there's no good reason for the government to know how much any citizen gets paid. A payroll tax takes care of taxing all income, without any individual paperwork at all - the average guy never interacts with tax collection.
In terms of pay
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest flaw in this system is that it would put the richest people in the lowest tax bracket - the only tax bracket, but still the lowest. With a tax system like that, what rich guy needs loopholes?
You think the very rich pay income tax today? The top tax brackets have only ever affected those who recently spiked to high income (which is most of the literal 1% - most people only stay there for a year or two). The more you make, the more flexibility you have in when, where, and how you get paid. Any complexity in the tax code can only help you. And if you're multi-generational wealthy, income is secondary and minimized, as you certainly don't work, and already have most everything you need (but tha
Re: (Score:2)
The goal should be to not only fund the government but to keep money from being siphoned out of the economy to various economic oubliettes, otherwise you'll be overtaxing the economy and setting the stage for a future government funding problem. Which is why it's important to make sure CEOs aren't doing that/are being heavily taxed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're worried about money leaving the US, I think you'll find the total money sent back to family by recent immigrants dwarfs total CEO pay (most of which isn't salary to begin with).
Total federal tax revenue is $3.3 T/year. The combined comp of the CEOs of the fortune 500 is, what, a couple billion/year? Just a distraction. They should pay, like everyone else, but they're not important in the scheme of things.
Re: (Score:2)
CEOs in particular may only pay a few billion (5.2 for the Fortune 500) but looking at CEO pay in particular is too small a piece of the puzzle. There's the whole CxO suite and upper management at larger companies makes silly money too. Pro athletes and celebrities all make ridicululous amounts. The top 1%, which even includes engineers and lawyers in more expensive areas, makes around 1/5th of the income, that's very important in the scheme of things. Letting a few people hide their money away could cost h
Re: (Score:2)
The top 1% of income earners [taxfoundation.org] still pay 39.48% of federal income taxes (2x their share of gross income), the top 10% cover 70.88% of them and the top 50% pay 97.25%. So it's not like people with a higher than average income aren't already covering the vast majority of income taxes.
Yeah, there are some super-wealthy who have an ownership model which minimizes their taxes to a certain extent, but when the bottom 50% of income earners only pays 2.75% of the total income taxes, it's going to be tough to make an
Re: (Score:2)
Which taxes? Apply it equally to all income, from wages to capital gains on investments? Or do you mean merely sales tax which already is mostlly a flat tax?
There's an American foible where everyone thinks that someday they will be incredibly wealthy, so that they don't want to tax the wealthy more in case this bites them in the ass in the future. This is bullshit though, when I end up in a higher tax bracket than the previous year because I'm making more money, I say "hurray for me!"
Re: (Score:2)
I had a boss in the 90s who told me that if you actually pay taxes then you're not making enough money yet.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the fact that companies aren't moving out of California means that the market has already spoken, and that making a shitty state low-tax doesn't make up for being a shitty state. Maybe those low-tax states should raise taxes and become better places to live to attract those companies.
It's so strange to assume that really rich companies (or billionaires) care so much about saving 10% off their taxes that they'll take a heavy hit to their quality of life. I mean, they could save more than that by moving from a private jet to first-class or a 250' yacht to a 200' yacht. And they don't.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
This article, taken at face value, suggests otherwise:
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/429623-americans-continue-their-march-to-low-tax-states
Re: (Score:2)
That article's hyperlinked source (from its first line) says different from the article. Or rather, the article cherry-picked data to make its point. The data says after Texas and Florida, California grew the most. That didn't work with the hill's predetermined narrative, so they switched to different, processed, stats that did.
Re: (Score:2)
And none of those people talk about taxes. They talk about housing costs... which are a self-correcting problem.
Also, talk is cheap. I'm considering moving to Paris. I'm also considering doing a lot of things. Let me know when they actually do it, because right now people are moving to California.
Re: (Score:2)
American citizens paying taxes are moving out of CA to other States. Non-citizens and some of those citizens who don't pay taxes are moving into CA. The non-citizen part (H1Bs, illegals, etc...) is the part which is growing CA, which is why CA can grow, but still have a net negative migration compared to the rest of the country. The most productive groups are leaving.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the fact that companies aren't moving out of California means that the market has already spoken, and that making a shitty state low-tax doesn't make up for being a shitty state. Maybe those low-tax states should raise taxes and become better places to live to attract those companies.
It's so strange to assume that really rich companies (or billionaires) care so much about saving 10% off their taxes that they'll take a heavy hit to their quality of life. I mean, they could save more than that by moving from a private jet to first-class or a 250' yacht to a 200' yacht. And they don't.
This, That low tax state is a low tax state because it's shitty already. Moving out to Bumfuck, Montana sounds good for a tax write off but then you realise how much up front you'd need to spend just getting the basics set up like power, internet, water. The capex in moving alone would kill the tax savings for a decade. Then you realise that 80% of your workforce doesn't want to move to the worst performing schools in the country and are looking for jobs at your competitors.. It costs money to hire people, even more money to hire people in places where they don't want to live.
If they could do that they already would have (Score:5, Insightful)
My Kid is finishing up college and wants to move to one of the pricey cities in Colorado. As an old dude that doesn't make sense to me since I don't want to pay $2k/mo for a decent apartment but if I was young I'd want to live in a big, fun city.
For lower tier jobs workers go where the work is. But for the higher tier stuff it's the other way around. See here [youtube.com]
Hahahaha (Score:2)
How about a refund? (Score:2)
So tax them ? (Score:2)
Why the Newspeak ?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the Newspeak ?
One man's dividend . . . is another man's tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he wants to model it after a popular program [wikipedia.org].
But if he thinks that's ... possible, given the vast differences in character, he's stupider than I thought.
State wide Stock Fund? (Score:2)
Obviously he's just going to tax them, I doubt he's suggesting the state should buy a big chunk of stock. But one could just buy stocks and directly enjoy the dividend -- and YOU pay taxes on it.
Either way the government is getting your money.
Re: (Score:3)
The state of California is actually a huge institutional investor, and probably owns billions of dollars of tech stocks.
Californians? (Score:2)
Except that this wealth is not only created by Californians, or even only by Americans. The wealth is created by people all around the world. So that wealth should be split evenly by the number of users in those other countries/states/provinces.
Other people's money (Score:5, Insightful)
There they go again: politicians buying votes with other people's money.
If they have a genuine interest in protecting people's data, all they need is to copy the GDPR. It's one of the few truly good things to come out of the EU parliament: companies must have your explicit permission in order to collect and use your data.
But that's not what this proposal in California is about. This is about sounding good, winning political brownie points by promising to hand out someone else's money.
Just buy their stock (Score:2)
If you want a "dividend", buy their stock low and sell it high.
Re: (Score:3)
What'd I say? (Score:4, Interesting)
Right here? [slashdot.org]
Declare private data to be IP and copyrighted by the entity creating the IP.
Calculate the value of the IP by examining the revenue generated from it.
Pay royalties to the owners of the private IP whenever and wherever the data is used/reused, in perpetuity.
For those who don't wish to sell their IP, allow them to opt out. Any private IP harvested will be theft.
I have to think of everything and stuff.
Makes sense to me (Score:2)
In the "old" days you'd just tax the income of the investors but they're hiding their money, so we have to get creative if we want to have a civilization around these folks. Otherwise they'l
You mean like the stipend Alaskans get for oil? (Score:2)
1. Alaska population is less than 1 million people. California is almost 40 million.
2. You don't think all the big tech companies in California wouldn't push back on this as hard as they can?
Also, even if they went along with it: this 'dividend' wouldn't amount to much per person.
Also it's just going to inflame Republicans and other Conservative types, who will brand it as 'socialism' -- and they're not wrong, it is socialism.
I'm not sure what Newsome is thinking here, other
Re: (Score:2)
My data belongs to me? (Score:2)
If my data really belongs to me, how about letting me control it? I don't want a "dividend" from the money companies make by exploiting my data. I want them to stop exploiting my data. If you really mean what you say about my data belonging to me, I should be able to insist on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Born Parasites (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine a state with clean streets.
Low tax.
Low power bills.
Fast internet.
No strange new city and state laws about how to run a business.
Lower cost housing in nice communities.
A transport network thats well designed and that gets people to work on time.
Low crime and well paid police than enforce the law.
No strange new taxes on wealth, productivity, profits, innovation, investment, creativity.
Workers who can be hired on merit.
College education that produces skilled workers not protesters.
Re:Born Parasites (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you pull all of this off? You want low taxes, but at the same time you want to offer a load of services that would have to be paid for with taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
There's plenty of cities in different states, that have MUCH lower taxation, yet are able to provide plenty of city services (police, fire, schools, etc).
These places also don't tell you how to run your business.
Re:Born Parasites (Score:5, Informative)
Now we're talking. Can you name some of those places, maybe there's something to be learned.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's Oz for one. Though it's taken a bit of a dive after the Wizard left.
Re: (Score:2)
Austin, TX has the distinct advantage of not being geographically constrained, being mostly just hilly (semi-flat) and not on any major fault lines. By contrast, the Bay Area has mountains surrounding it, plus major earthquakes that limit how high you can safely build.
Without compromising safety, IMO, it really doesn't mater how much you deregulate the Bay Area. Unless you go so far as to allow a developer to buy an entire mountain range, nuke it, and push the resulting debris off into the Pacific Ocean a
Re: (Score:3)
How do you pull all of this off? You want low taxes, but at the same time you want to offer a load of services that would have to be paid for with taxes.
Easy, drop all the bullshit entitlement programs and focus on services that benefit productive members of society.
Re: (Score:2)
Except most states enforce non competes, so no, workers can not be hired on merit. And no, you can't run the business how you want, startups are somewhat of a pain if your former employer can lawsuit you out of existence.
And no state has the university system California has. California has 5 different university systems to pull graduates from: Community Colleges, Cal State, UC, private (Stanford, Cal Tech, USC), and private systems (Claremont Colleges, which includes Harvey Mudd). We have more universities
Re: (Score:2)
yes but then hordes of Californians will flock/invade to said state, thus bringing all of their problems with them.
Arizona Bay can't happen soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we're watching with horror in the PNW. :(
My condolences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We already got Toyota and State Farm from the (nastiest) bay area. Both have relatively sane blue collar workers. Don't want a bunch of feely feels tech (wannabe) millionaires coming in here and making even more waves, driving up the cost of living and turning the state even more liberal. If ya wanna be a foam speckled progressive, at least try to stay in Austin.
Austin is the designated Californian Containment Zone in Texas. Please respect our boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has been seriously talking about bringing Socialism to this country, that's either just a scare tactic or someone not knowing what Socialism means. Now we might have socialized services but that is not the same thing at all.
The problem is that we have a few generations who were brought up to learn that unions were a gateway to socialism and socialism was a gateway to communism and communism was a gateway to atheism. So any vague hint of worker's rights or government programs will cause some people
Re: (Score:2)
Man, turn on your TV, you must have missed the two leading poster children for bringing the US to socialism:
Bernie Sanders
AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)
They are both blatant about it....listen to AOC on recent talk shows...openly professing to want "democratic socialism"...which is....socialism.
There are others that are scarily agreeing largely with this, which is amazing, in that only a few short years ago, no one like this wo
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie is not really a Socialist. He's more of a social democrat, which is NOT the same thing. He's not pushing for a system where we have a state controlled economy. We already have some state control of some small factors in the economy (or big ones if you count the military which is essentiallly the biggest jobs program in the country). Expanding to have more socialized medicine, expanding medicare, having more safety nets, or even just higher taxes, is not the same as socialism.
If you don't like thos
Re: (Score:2)
Parasites doing parasitism on more parasites.
Came here to say this. No sympathy. Let the left eat itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Parasites sucking on parasites. That's somewhat funny if you think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a goose laying golden eggs good for if it keeps those golden eggs? I don't get fed by looking at eggs, ya know?
Re:"Share some of those profits" (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get fed by looking at eggs, ya know?
You get fed by owning a share of the goose. Not sitting around waiting to be fed by the egg thief.
Re: (Score:2)
but the big money is from ALL the people around the whole world.
Like CALPERS? Think about this when you try to take profits away from all those 'wealthy' shareholders. The largest class of equity owners are pension funds. You are stealing from the teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Those companies employ a lot of people. How much tax does Cali, with the nations highest tax rate, collect on 100,000 people making over $100,000 a year?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit of a stretch to say California has the highest tax rate in the nation. It has a bottom rate of 1% which is less than many red states, but a top rate of 13.3% for those making more than a million dollars in income. Different charts put California at different slots because it depends upon how you slice the numbers. You can look at the tax Zuckerberg pays, or the average tax, or the median tax. Then you add in property tax, and California starts to look a lot better than places like New York and
Re: (Score:2)
Oh ho! Not 1st but 5th! Glorious! But we're talking about processionals working for big tech companies, it's the low-six-figure tax rate that matters.
I've lived in 3 stares now with no income tax. All had better roads. All had better street lighting. All had more reliable power. All managed not to run out of water. 2 of the 3 managed not to catch fire and burn half the state. California: top 10% in taxes, bottom 10 in infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Tech companies spend way more on payroll than they make in profit. Each of those tech jobs supports 2 more in the wider economy. So the way to "share in the wealth" is to get a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, how much did those big tech companies pay in taxes last year? Oh, yeah. None. All of them together paid less taxes than you or I did.
It's true 'cause I read it online somewhere!
Re: (Score:3)
It is obvious that you, AC, doesn't own or work in a big company. Your comment seems to come from a small (or individually own) company point of view.
It all depends on how deep the big tech companies have their root in where they are. Besides, they will have to look for other locations and that would take some times. I highly doubt it is easy for any big tech companies to simply pack their stuff and go right now. They have to adapt to the situation and may plan to move if necessary, but it wouldn't be in th
Hahaha (Score:2)
Yeah, look at California and Massachusetts. They're shitholes compared to the splendor of hard right leaning places like South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas..
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to see most of their profit and wage go to the gov?
Re:Businesses won't leave... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't follow your logic:
H-1B population, they will go where the jobs are. If major tech companies move to some small rural town in Arkansas, they will move there. Being on a Visa, usually means the Visa holder isn't as settled as citizen are so getting up and moving to where ever the work is, is nearly their lifestyle.
Housing costs is a MAJOR issue in California, such tight control isn't needed in states where you can buy a home with over 2000sq/ft and and acre of land pay less then two thousand dollars a month on a normal 30 year mortgage.
By what other amenities are you talking about? How does this compared to other well populated states, New York, New England states, New Jersey....
New York State, actually has a stricter gun safety law.
California isn't bad, but tech companies are not stuck there, and if California makes life too difficult or unprofitable, companies can move out without major consequences.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think you mean they have more anti-citizen intrusion into your 2A rights.
There's plenty of people that would want to move to more free states where they respect ALL of your rights as a citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Not many states are respecting all rights. Lots of red states are quite happy to restrict or attempt to restrict rights; the right to vote while not being white, the right to due process even if poor, the right to abortion, the right to have an unpopular religion, and so forth. While California has flaws you will not find a flawless place to build a new company. Better to look for the advantages in a location.
And don't forget that California is a huge state. We've got deep blue and deep red and they make
Re: (Score:2)
Err, these are all available in all US states....right to vote is not tied in any way to race, geez, where did you get this from?
You get due process if poor....you just may not get the best lawyer, but that applies to all states.
I will give you that abortions are getting more restricted in a few states, and I disagree with that, however, the ones
Re: (Score:2)
Many states are trying to restrict these. Voter ID laws, disenfranchisement, etc. There are many people who do not want any muslims in the US. I had my mother say "they shouldn't allow those" when we drove past a mosque. Due process in the US is based upon being able to afford a decent lawyer. Black men are more often jailed than white men for the same crime - we give bigger penalties for cheap crack possession than for expensive cocaine possession.
Under your definition, California protects all rights.
Re: (Score:3)
California has a gun homicide rate of 3.3/100k. That is above average, worse than 31 other states.
Gun violence in the USA by state [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure, you, to date, none of my firearms have spontaneously become animated and caused violence against any person, or animal so far.
I"d be open to hunting, but just never have gone....most people I know have not had any problems with their weapons causing problems either.....
And a 30 round magazine for a rifle is a standard ca
Re: (Score:2)
California is too much their lapdog for them to leave. That state has everything a tech giant wants, be it a burgeoning H-1B population, control of housing, amenities that no other state offers, and the best gun safety laws in the US, ensuring children stay safe.
The governor and state congress will go before the tech companies do.
Will that be before or after the san andreas fault opens up and swallows the whole lot?
Re: (Score:2)
Will that be before or after the san andreas fault opens up and swallows the whole lot?
San Andreas is a transform fault [wikipedia.org].
It slides laterally. It does not "open up".
It is actually Washington and Oregon that are in danger of being swallowed up [wikipedia.org]. So sell your Microsoft and Amazon stock.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean west? Because I would imagine that anything close would be gone in a certain radius, but the earth spins east to west. So I would assume that anything west would get the venting and ash and sich.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect he sees the nation from the California perspective. (like we see in Hollywood)
The Standard Good American life, California. (Full House)
The tough inner city life style with oddly very large appartments, New York City (Friends/Sienfield)
Hillbillies, and struggling lower middle class. The rest of America. (Married with Children/Rosane)
Either that his post was meant to be sarcastic to try to show how Liberal California is, because Fox News is based in New York City, so California is the whipping boy
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Friends or Sienfield are tough inner city life... Well. Welcome to the Fabulous Las Vegas!
Re: (Score:2)
Or, even better....make companies ask me to OPT IN if they want to use my data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the government, why buy when you can simply take what you...
No, wait, we're talking about taking something from corporations, not mere humans. Ok, then it ain't that easy.
Re: (Score:2)
As a non-Californian shareholder in a few of these big data companies, I can see numerous lawsuits springing up. The state is producing a new class of 'shareholder' unilaterally that will take a cut of companies revenue before the rest of us get paid. I put shareholder in quotes because I don't see where members of this class will be required to take ownership positions (buy stock) as a condition of receiving the dividend.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. Just be prepared to go back to paying actual money for every phone call, text message, chat app message, web search, and e