Lol, no they won't. Some will claim to be unhappy with Trump, then will go to the polls and vote straight R.

Donald Trump wasn't kidding when he said he could kill a man in the middle of 5th Avenue and not face any consequences.

He's a well documented pedo, and may have even been involved in the murder of an infant he conceived on a child, and Republicans are still bending over backwards to make sure he's free to trample on the US Constitution.

When was this? This is absolutely not the norm today. On the east coast We typically start at 1.2 to 1.5x the appraised value, and go up significantly more based on how much legal fight and public outrage is created.

I've been involved twice in my career (for around 140 properties total), with the backing of the Federal government, the FHWA in both cases in my experience, the land is the property of the state as soon as the papers are filled (referred to as 'quicktake', not something a state government can do without federal authority), but the legal proceedings for the total compensation can go on for 10+ years if you have the money to fight it. Total comp is often 5-20x what the property is worth plus all of the legal fees.

The only way I can possibly think of your grand parents farm being taken without them being more than well compensated, is if it happened under Eisenhower.

Again, that's not how this works.

California can't just seize corporate assets owned by multiple interested parties in order extract funds from one individual.

That's the whole issue with this toothless law, California can't enforce it. Even if they're able to seize a couple residences, the property in them, some vehicles, etc. There will be decades long court battles over those assets, and they still won't add up to the hundreds of millions of dollars that a multi-billionaire would be responsible for under this tax.

That is definitely not the point of eminent domain laws, and it certainly is not that easy.

Even if California won an eminent domain case like that (which would be extremely unlikely), they'd still have to pay through the nose for the property they took.

"Oh well the State has plans for this property, so take a hike. Eminent domain, bitches."

You have no business being in this conversation if that's your understanding of ED cases in the US, let alone in California.

Truly one of the most uniformed takes I've ever heard.

But CA wouldn't have grounds to seize land from a corporation, nor could they garnish corporate profits (particularly ones that are most likely based in Delaware), in order to extract funds from one person. The corporations of billionaires are still owned by shareholders, and again, you are getting into Federal Interstate Commerce laws.

Hell even the personal residences are probably not 'owned' by the Billionaire.

Billionaires don't become billionaires without access to US financial institutions.

Let alone the amount of assets and intellectual property that the US can seize and nationalize when someone does try to flee.

It may not seem like it under Trump, but the US is still a global superpower. If the US actually decided to hurt those who flee to tax havens, it would change the world, every other country to tried to implement a wealth tax and failed could now do so. Billionaires who fled could be locked out of the western world.

It sends a clear message: If you won't pay your share, we don't want you here.

Once everyone collectively agrees that billionaires should pay their share, there will be nowhere left for them to run. It has to start somewhere.

Republican states will never do that. They Iove billionaire boots. For many of them, being a tax haven is the only thing of benefit they can provide.

Unless we overhaul the Interstate commerce act (an article I power... So unlikely) to limit their ability to do business or ship product to/from/through Blue states, we will lose in Federal Courts every single time.

I'm not claiming it will. I'm claiming that California has no means to enforce it.

or raise the same objection just saying it will drive businesses overseas and hold out for a global wealth tax.

That one is much easier to give teeth to though. Any individual or corporation who flees to an international tax haven will be barred from entering the US, doing business in the US, or participating in US markets.

Any assets in the US will be seized, any US protected intellectual property will be made public domain, etc.

How will California enforce theirs?

A state tax like this has absolutely no teeth. It's ridiculous to think that any Billionaire would stick around and donate 5% of their net worth to California.

Unless California also includes a provision that any Billionaire who's found to have fled this tax will be arrested and charged with something that carries a significant mandatory minimum prison sentence, this law will just be theater.

Newsom's a tool, but it's very obvious why this is the line he's walking. And it's not to pull one over on his constituents.

He's pushing for a Federal tax over a state one is because a state one will just push billionaires to other states. Billionaires are certainly not stopped by a state line, a law without teeth is just theater.

We absolutely need a federal wealth tax, along with consequences for individuals and corporations that flee to international tax havens.