State’s governor looks to thwart US president’s plan to divert money to allies, including January 6 rioters
California governor Gavin Newsom is looking to thwart Donald Trump’s $1.776bn “anti-weaponization fund” by imposing a 100% tax on any payout received by state residents.
In May, the Department of Justice (DoJ) announced a fund to compensate alleged “victims of lawfare and weaponization”. It’s unclear who qualifies under this category.
The fund was the product of a settlement reached between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – the agency the president sued over his leaked tax returns.
Critics, including Newsom, have slammed the fund as a “boondoggle” designed to divert money to Trump’s allies. Speculation has swirled that its benefactors could include the individuals who were arrested in the 6 January 2021 siege of the US Capitol. The Trump administration has described the rioters as patriots and since pardoned many who were charged in relation to the attack.
Make it 101%. Or 200%.
1776%
How every democrat should respond to Republican aggression.
Make that 150%.
I like Newsom’s energy in getting attention to another of the administration’s illegal actions
…. But can this actually happen or is it just noise?
The police can take money from citizens on suspicion but no evidence of criminal activity.
Why wouldn’t California be able to take money given to criminals by criminals that was fraudulently taken from the IRS in the first place?
- states do not have jurisdiction over irs, no “standing”
- the new crime was not perpetrated by the defendant. Trump illegally taking money from IRS as a slush fund to criminals who forward hi s desires is his crime
I think you’d need to make the argument that a slush fund payout is directly profiting from your crime but you’d have to argue that
States have the right to levy taxes. This is a special income tax, not a fine. The state isn’t suing anyone, they are just defining a form of income having a certain tax rate.
Why wouldn’t California be able to take money given to criminals by criminals that was fraudulently taken from the IRS in the first place?
Would the Supremacy Clause apply here? Genuinely not sure, because it’s not California superseding federal law per se (as preventing the payments entirely would likely be), it’s just them doing something after-the-fact which is contrary to the goals of the federal government.
The recipients are secret, but at least they’ll be committing crimes when they don’t declare the income on their taxes.
I love this idea so much.
LOL!
Proceeds of crime, people. It’s not a tax: it’s simple confiscation.
Newsom: *moves up 1 in the 2028 standings*
Lemmyleft: *rends garment*
Crazy their state constitution allows the governor to just unilaterally impose taxes like this, I would have thought that would be something their legislature has to do
I’m pretty sure he’s not imposing it unilaterally, but sending a bill to the Democrat-controlled California legislature, where it will easily pass. He’s also in good company, with several other governors introducing similar legislation in their own states:
Ah, so he’s not actually doing anything anyone else couldn’t do, he’s just asking other people to do something. That makes more sense but I would not have gotten that out of this headline.
That’s because both he and the people who hate him get a benefit out of pitting him against Trump. So they’ll get more ad revenue with that headline.
But an average person trying to get this bill through the legislature committees, and both chambers, and signed by the governor, would face a much longer process. Whereas it’s fast-tracked by being pre-approved by Newsom and written up by a legal team with a proven record.
I do think it’s an excellent idea, for as long as Trump is in charge of who’s getting money. If sanity ever returns to the White House and deserving people like E. Jean Carroll start to be eligible, the percentage could be adjusted.
