*Want more of Tim’s great reporting? Subscribe to his exclusive weekly Agenda newsletter to support independent media and get the inside scoop on City Hall, election news, and more.**
I just got a message from some of the richest people in California telling me my (modest) 401(k) plan is at risk.
It’s a stunning lie, and so far, the news media in the state are ignoring it.
If that continues, we may see a measure on the November ballot that would not only undermine the billionaire tax—it would ban any future taxes on massive wealth.
The letter from “Californians to Protect Retirement and Life Savings” was part of a campaign funded by the likes of Google billionaire Sergei Brin, who has put up $45 million so far to trick people into thinking that a tax on wealth of more than $1 billion might impact their far more modest life savings. The main donor to that PAC is something called “Building a Better California.” State records show that PAC is funded almost entirely by billionaires, including $25 million from Brin. Michael Mortiz, who founded and controls the SF Standard, gave $2 million.
The mailing apparently went to people who are over 65; my kids didn’t get one.
Here’s the line, carefully poll and focus-group tested:
Sacramento politicians and special interests are pushing new ways to collect more from taxpayers. Some are now proposing new taxes on personal property, and even retirement and savings accounts. We can’t afford more taxes! … Politicians should not be allowed to change the rules and tax what you have worked a lifetime to earn.
Sacramento politicians are not behind the billionaire tax. That would be a health-care workers union. Most “Sacramento politicians,” including the governor, oppose the measure.
Sponsored link
More important—far more important—the billionaire tax will not impact the retirement accounts or life savings of anyone other than a tiny, tiny number of Californians. Fewer than 250 people in this state have wealth of more than $1 billion; that’s such a small percentage of the 40 million residents that you can’t even measure it.
I am reminded of the 2020 measure to reform Prop. 13. That measure would have allowed property tax increases on commercial, not residential, property. And yet, I was on KPFA radio talking about the reform, and a small landlord from Berkeley called and said she was afraid she would lose her home if her property taxes went up. Not true: The Prop. 13 reform measure would never have changed the taxes on any residential property. And yet, the big commercial landlords ran a campaign of lies that scared people into voting against the measure.
Same thing here.
In a world where news media did their jobs, the Chron, the SF Standard, the Sf Examiner, the Sacramento Bee, the LA Times, the TV stations, every major outlet in the state would be reporting on this massive billionaire lie. In a world where advocacy groups were doing their jobs, the American Association of Retired Persons would send a letter to every member in California (that’s 3.2 million people) saying that a tax on billionaires is not going to impact your 401(k) or your life savings. In a world where the people we elect to represent us were representing us, and not the billionaires, the governor, the state treasurer, the state controller, and the 120 members of the Legislature would be holding press conferences to say that what people over 65 got in the mail this week is a massive fraud.
In this world? Not happening.
If the billionaire-sponsored measure gets on the ballot, and wins, it will be impossible to tax wealth. Not this time, not in the future. Since wealth taxes are really the only way to save modern civilization, that’s a pretty serious problem.
Is anyone paying attention?
Mayor Daniel Lurie is trying to change the City Charter in a way that would limit civilian oversight of the Police Department and the Sheriff’s Department. Five supervisors are pushing back with a resolution that would put the board of record supporting the current system of oversight:
Among the proposed changes are transferring exclusive authority to appoint and remove the Chief of Police to the Mayor, relocating primary disciplinary authority over sworn officers to the Chief, allowing removal of commissioners by elected officials, and limiting the Commission’s role in confirming mayoral appointments … Concentrating authority over leadership and discipline within a single executive office would fundamentally change the current model of shared governance and civilian review … Independent civilian oversight in San Francisco has often been strengthened in response to critical incidents involving loss of life caused by law enforcement and community demands for accountability;
The resolution mentions the San Francisco police shooting deaths of Alex Nieto, Amilcar Perez Lopez, Mario Woods, and Luis Gongora Pat.
It notes:
Government efficiency, while important, must not come at the expense of public trust, constitutional safeguards, or community participation in matters of public safety.
It calls for the supes to affirm
The importance of maintaining a structurally independent Police Commission with meaningful authority over policy, leadership oversight, and disciplinary review; and states that Board of Supervisors opposes any proposal that would substantially curtail the Police Commission’s autonomy or transfer its core oversight functions in a manner that undermines civilian accountability.
Shamann Walton, Jackie Fielder, Cheyanne Chen, Connie Chan, and Myrna Melgar support the measure. If the rest of the supes oppose it, they will be on record opposing police oversight.
Is San Francisco a “Liberal Oligarchy?” ShapingSF holds a forum Thursday/16 that asks:
New tech oligarchs have thrown their money around to shape city politics for the past decade. We now have a billionaire bluejeans heir for mayor. We explore how organized money and corporate power managed to steer San Francisco going back through the post-WWII cold war, the long decline of Catholic morality, and the explosion of social movements and the sexual revolution the city is known for. Join historian Lincoln Mitchell, former supervisor and Mayoral candidate Tom Ammiano, and neighborhood activist and writer Romalyn Schmaltz for a spirited romp through the tangled and conflicted histories of the past few decades.
That starts at 7:30 pm, 518 Valencia, Free (donations accepted).
And if you’re on the other side of town Thursday/16, I will be moderating an Indivisible SF forum for District 4 supe candidates. That starts at 6pm at the Irish Cultural Center, 2700 45th Avenue. Also free.
