This week, editors Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch are joined by Associate Editor Liz Wolfe to discuss California's proposed 5 percent wealth tax on billionaires, which a Hoover Institution study suggests could ultimately cost the state $39 billion in lost revenue. With wealthy residents already leaving California, the panel examines whether the measure will survive next week's vote, why Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it, and how public sector unions have helped fuel the state's spending problems.
The panelists then look to France, where mounting unrest and economic stagnation raise questions about the long-term consequences of high taxes, expansive welfare programs, and pension obligations that increasingly burden younger generations. Next, they discuss Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado returning home after 10 months in exile. Then, with the midterm elections next week, the editors examine whether Trump's tariffs, war with Iran, and mounting allegations of corruption will deliver Democrats control of Congress. Finally, a listener asks whether today's democratic socialist movement will ultimately be remembered like the libertarian and Tea Party movements of the early 2010s.
Matt Welch appears on the left. Liz Wolfe appears on the right. Behind them, an image of Governor Gavin Newsom appears looking concerned in the center. Bold text across the top of the screen reads "TAX THE RICH?"
La Plastic tax e la Sugar tax potrebbero slittare ancora, con un rinvio di sei mesi che sposterebbe la loro entrata in vigore dal 1° gennaio al 1° luglio 2027. L’ipotesi è stata confermata dal vicepremier e ministro degli Affari Esteri Antonio Tajani durante l’assemblea pubblica di Federchimica a Milano, nel quadro delle misure allo studio per la prossima Legge di Bilancio.
Le due imposte, introdotte nel 2020, non sono mai state applicate a causa dei ripetuti rinvii. La nuova proroga, se confermata nel testo definitivo della manovra, rappresenterebbe un ulteriore differimento di sei mesi, mentre resta aperta la possibilità di uno slittamento più lungo.
Che cosa sono la Plastic tax e la Sugar tax
Plastic tax e Sugar tax sono due imposte con finalità ambientali e sanitarie, pensate per orientare le scelte di produzione e consumo verso comportamenti considerati più sostenibili. La Plastic tax è un’imposta sui manufatti in plastica con singolo impiego, comunemente indicati con la sigla MACSI. Rientrano in questa categoria, secondo le caratteristiche previste dalla normativa, prodotti destinati a contenere, proteggere, manipolare o consegnare merci e alimenti, come determinati imballaggi, contenitori e pellicole. L’obiettivo della tassa è ridurre l’utilizzo della plastica monouso e incentivare il ricorso a materiali alternativi o a soluzioni riutilizzabili e riciclabili. La misura mira quindi a rendere meno conveniente, dal punto di vista economico, l’impiego di determinati prodotti in plastica, favorendo una riduzione dei rifiuti e dell’impatto ambientale.
La Sugar tax, invece, riguarda le bevande analcoliche edulcorate, cioè quelle che contengono sostanze utilizzate per conferire un sapore dolce, nei limiti e secondo le condizioni stabilite dalla legge. La misura è stata concepita per disincentivare il consumo di bevande con un elevato contenuto di zuccheri e contribuire alla prevenzione di problemi di salute legati a un’alimentazione eccessivamente ricca di zuccheri, tra cui l’obesità.
A quanto potrebbero ammontare
La normativa originaria prevede per la Plastic tax un’aliquota pari a 0,45 euro per chilogrammo di materia plastica contenuta nei manufatti monouso soggetti all’imposta. Per la Sugar tax, l’importo previsto dalla disciplina istitutiva è invece pari a 10 euro per ettolitro per i prodotti finiti e a 0,25 euro per chilogrammo per i prodotti predisposti a essere utilizzati previa diluizione.
Si tratta degli importi previsti in origine, la cui effettiva applicazione resta subordinata alle disposizioni e alle scadenze vigenti, comprese le eventuali modifiche introdotte dalla Legge di Bilancio.
Plastic e sugar tax: cosa chiedono le imprese
Le associazioni di categoria non considerano sufficiente un ulteriore rinvio di sei mesi. Assobibe, che rappresenta le imprese produttrici e venditrici di bevande analcoliche, e Unionplast, che rappresenta l’industria italiana della trasformazione delle materie plastiche, hanno chiesto lo stralcio definitivo delle due imposte dalla prossima manovra.
Secondo le organizzazioni, una proroga limitata nel tempo non risolve il problema dell’incertezza normativa. Le aziende devono infatti programmare gli investimenti, organizzare la produzione, definire i prezzi e pianificare le strategie commerciali con un orizzonte temporale sufficientemente stabile. Il rischio, secondo le associazioni, è che l’assenza di certezze freni gli investimenti e renda più difficile la gestione delle attività industriali.
California's experiment: Will California's proposed wealth tax, Prop 40, pass next week? And if it gets passed, will it end up actually costing the state money instead of generating revenue?
The basics: The proposal features a one-time 5 percent tax on people with net worths over $1 billion who lived in the state on January 1, 2026 (with the net worth amount calculated as of December 31, 2026). The idea for the snapshot date is presumably to prevent capital flight once the tax passes. The tax's supporters say the tax's revenues will amount to $100 billion and will fund California's health care system, which need to make up for federal Medicaid cuts.
Seven billionaires, representing 30 percent of the total billionaire wealth in the state, left California before January 1, 2026, when news of the possible tax broke. Peter Thiel, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin are among the deserters. The French economist Gabriel Zucman—an intense defender of the wealth tax—seems committed to the idea that this flight won't matter too much. He argues that while removing those seven brings down revenue estimates to $89 billion, adding in less-prominent small-time billionaires raises revenue to $115 billion.
This is silly. As The Washington Post's Megan McArdle points out, there's no reason to believe those less-famous billionaires would stay put. We have a hard time estimating what the total preemptive flight looks like, and how many billionaires have successfully taken up residency elsewhere.
"Either the tax is annual—and in that case it generates revenue annually, and some billionaires leave," claims Zucman. "Or the tax is one-time—in that case it generates revenue in just one year, and there is no incentive to leave. It can't be both at the same time." Zucman doesn't seem to consider that billionaires have already left, as soon as the idea was seriously floated, thus taking early steps to shield their wealth from the state.
Will it pass? "Likely voters are essentially where they were a month ago," reportsPolitico, based on recent polling data, "with 46% in favor of Proposition 40 and 43% opposed—despite a recent push by backers of the measure, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, to rally support." Interestingly, "a strikingly high share of registered voters (84%) said they'd been exposed to advertisements or messages about the tax, but a 45% plurality said the communications had not swayed them, and those whose views had shifted were just as likely to be more opposed as more supportive."
There's another complication: On that very same ballot, voters will decide on Propositions 41 and 42, competing measures that could keep Prop 40 from taking effect. Prop 40 will be nullified if either one gets more votes; but Prop 40 will nullify both of them if it gets more votes. Prop 42 would bar new taxes on personal property such as businesses, investments, retirement accounts, trusts, and art collections—things Prop 40 targets. It also bans retroactive taxes, thus making Prop 40 impossible to pull off.
Back in January, Pirate Wires' Mike Solana spoke with a bunch of billionaires who were worried about the tax and making plans to flee, partially out of distrust that the tax would be one-and-done. "Three men I spoke with in the largest billionaire Signal chat said they ran an informal poll, and seventy percent of the chat (around sixty people, not all of whom were billionaires) indicated they would leave the state if the ballot proposition passes," reports Solana. "According to that same poll, around 15% have already left the state."
"There is now real danger in appearing successful in the state of California," writes Solana, "as the far left, imbued with a great deal of power, and benefiting now from several years of wealth scapegoating throughout the mainstream press, attempts to liquidate its perceived enemies in business."
Scenes from New York: I'm fully aboard this train these days, though open to being convinced why I'm wrong:
If you truly *love* American cities, you MUST support strict enforcement of laws against anti-social behavior. Paying bus fares, red light cameras, camping on sidewalks, smoking on trains, off-leash dogs, etc etc
"Brazilian markets are heading for a major rout when local trading begins after President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pulled off a stunning comeback to defeat Flávio Bolsonaro, the right-wing candidate that many investors preferred," reportsBloomberg. This will be da Silva's fourth term.
Is dynamic pricing on the rise? Customers say yes, but most companies say they're wrong. My thought: Even if it's not currently happening to the degree angry customers claim, it certainly will be big in the future, as online shopping takes over and AI makes implementation easier. Consider the upside, though, noted in this Wall Street Journal piece: "Much current angst is focused on electronic shelf labels, which have replaced the printed labels that dotted shelves at groceries and other stores. Research on digital shelf labels in the U.S. and Europe, where grocers have widely used the technology for more than a decade, found the labels don't lead to surge pricing, in part because price changes are obvious to anyone walking by. Rather, research found, grocers have used the labels to discount goods that are about to expire, reducing food waste."
Great Washington Post headline: "Europe is running out of other people's money."
President Donald Trump claims the ships passing past Cuba on their way home from Iran will just, uh, handle the situation there. Sure.
Interesting:
Striking detail in the big NYT piece on Taiwanese families adjusting to working at the huge new TSMC chip plant in Arizona: their surprise at the lack of rigor in US schools. pic.twitter.com/YkSPzbHCuE
Login
