Connect with us


California Dems want to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut



In a recent article published by the Orange County Register, they reported that:

California Democrats are toying with a brash scheme to skirt a new federal cap on state and local tax deductions: Instead of paying taxes to the Golden State, Californians would be allowed to donate the money to the state’s coffers — and deduct the entire sum from their federal taxes.

California lawmakers are considering a tax credit of 100 percent for the proposal — essentially allowing people to replace their tax payments with donations to a state fund.

The average state and local tax deduction for California filers — including income and property taxes — was $22,000, according to the state Department of Finance. The new federal law caps that deduction at $10,000, less than half of that amount.

Even though Democrats like Senate leader Kevin de León, also a candidate for U.S. Senate against fellow Democrat Dianne Feinstein, wants to portray himself as a champion of the people and the tip of the spear of the California anti-Trump resistance movement. In reality, his true intentions are to give a massive tax loophole for millionaires and billionaires.

Here is the truth. For most middle-class families they will not see their taxes go up. With increases in the child tax credit and the standardized deduction, many will benefit from the GOP tax plan; even in California.

Protecting the 1%

So who are the Dems and Kevin de León trying to protect? It’s the millionaire and billionaire class.

Do you think everyday middle-class families have their CPA or tax consultant continually running numbers and doing their accounting to make sure they donate the proper amount on or before December 31st?

Of course, they are not. You can’t go to your tax professional at your local H&R Block on April 15th and “supposedly donate” for the prior year. It doesn’t work that way. This plan is to protect as Bernie Sanders likes to say, the 1%.

The average family, Kevin de León is saying he wants to protect is a lie. They can’t afford the supposed tax hike, but can all of a sudden afford to pre-pay tens of thousands of dollars before the year-end to avoid paying higher federal taxes.

This is political grandstanding at its finest by Kevin de León. He wants to deceive voters into a narrative that he is a champion of the people and the leader of #Resist. Unfortunately for him, we know he is the same champion of the people that raised taxes on poor and working-class families in California with his gas and car registration tax hike.

So sorry Kevin, whatever you’re selling, we ain’t buying.

The Truth

Here’s the truth. California is highly dependent upon high-wage earners. Especially those millionaires and billionaires who invest in the stock market and have to pay hefty capital gains taxes. It might seem that these millionaires and billionaires would prefer to go to a state like Texas.  Since they are so successful and business savvy, why pay higher taxes in California?

Well, the truth is, they are going to have to pay high taxes anywhere they go. They can go to a place like Texas and pay less to the state and more to the federal government or live in the Golden State and pay that money to the state instead of the federal government. You’re paying that money in taxes anyway, do you really care which government agency it goes to?

Even though it might be cheaper with the cost of living and purchasing power between a state like Texas and California, to live in Texas over California, but for many, it is worth it to live in one of the most desirable places in the world and pay a bit more.

Remember these people are not living paycheck-to-paycheck, unlike many struggling families in California. They can afford it.

I understand this as a California resident that happens to live in a more affluent area. I pay a premium to live where I live, but it is worth it to me. I don’t want to move or live in another state or for the most part another region of the state. I love where I live.

But the thing is I’m not a 1%er, and it isn’t for lack of trying; it’s just reality. I’m single with no dependents, and I am in the upper-middle class, so I have a higher amount of disposable income that makes it possible to live in California. I don’t have to deal with the realities of struggling working-class families.

The Reality

So even though the GOP tax plan will benefit the majority of California families., the reality is for the 1% the GOP tax plan will hurt those high-wage earners living in a high-taxed state like California. The extra tax liability to these taxpayers could be in the millions.

You see, the 1% might be okay with spending tens of thousands of dollars more to live in California but what do you think will happen when their CPA comes back and says, Mr. & Mrs. 1% you owe an extra $10 million in taxes this year because you live in California.

You might get, let’s buy a house in Florida or Texas and live there for six months and one day and then the rest of the time in California and save $10 million a year. Or let’s just leave California altogether.

You see California Democrats don’t like the new tax policy because now they will have to compete with other states. You see California Democrats like Kevin de León knew they could kick the can down the road with their terrible policies and get away with high taxes, reckless spending, taxpayer handouts to their corporate and union contributors under the old tax code.

Now that the gig is up, you see Democrats trying to give these millionaires and billionaires a massive tax cut loophole in the hopes of keeping them in California.

California Democrats need to realize that this scheme will not work and with a tax deduction over a tax credit on the federal side, which will be the feds countermeasure, or not recognizing it as a charitable deduction, it will still be economically advantageous for millionaires and billionaires to move. Just like it has been for the tens of thousands of working-class families that have left the state because of reckless economic policies.

If we don’t seriously address the high tax and reckless spending policies of the state, we will see a steady if not a rapid decline in California’s general fund and thus result in even higher state taxes and deeper cuts in services. Along with accelerating our looming pension crisis.

We have serious problems in California and we need serious people to fix these problems, instead of political grandstanders.

If California, wants to be competitive it needs to embrace fiscal responsibility. No other scheme or ploy will do.

Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook as well.

Mr. Roditis a candidate for California State Controller. He is an entrepreneur and owns several companies. He graduated from UCSD with a B.A. in Political Science/International Relations. He's a former City Commissioner with the City of Anaheim, CA. He's a Conservative Constitutional Federalist. Follow him on Twitter @KonRoditis

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?




In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty (gun) control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?


Continue Reading


Rick Saccone or Blue Wave. That’s the lesson?



By this time Conor Lamb has not officially been declared the winner, but in all likelihood, unless Rick Saccone wins a supermarjority of the absentee ballots, most of which come from Lamb’s friendliest county, Rick Saccone will walk away from this one tail between the legs. However, the specific outcome of this race does not dwarf the fact that Saccone had no business pursuing a higher office. Earlier in this election cycle, I wrote a piece called Blue wave looking weak in Pennsylvania special election. I mistakenly made, based off the actions of the Democrats, that this race was Saccone’s for the grabbing. At the time polling showed Saccone winning and Democrats appeared to be consolidating their funds elsewhere. What I remain well-foresighted on was my critique of Rick Saccone and Conor Lamb as well. Saccone’s background served as little justification for a State Rep seeking a promotion.

The House of Representatives would be a promotion for the current State Rep. However, Rick Saccone hardly has an active record in the PA legislature. For the most part, Saccone has a record of sponsoring lighthearted, if not outright nonsensical bills, such as a resolution appreciating Heinz Ward and Juneteenth. In the legislature, he has a record of voting in favor of guns and unborn. However, Rick Saccone is not a limited government conservative on a local level. In the past he has voted for tax increases.

I briefly summarized Saccone in my previous article stating:

Rick Saccone will in my mind comes away as the winner on March 13th. However, he is not nearly suitable for the job as he should be. He legislative record is one of recognizing days of the year as special for a person or group. He does not have a record of sponsoring serious conservative legislation. Though he does have a record of voting conservative, he isn’t a leader on the issues he is campaigning on. The GOP is right to break the bank for his campaign as they aren’t short on cash in this moment. Saccone isn’t a strong candidate in my opinion, but, with some bankroll, he is.

Blue Wave?

So the disastrous election day for Saccone isn’t terrible surprising, nor are we lack for a clear explanation. Connor Lamb, as I noted in the article, was a good candidate. He had experience he could leverage in order to convince voters to vote for him. A good military background and experience as a US Attorney out-qualified the placeholding State Representative. But Democrats are rushed to assume Rick Saccone’s shortcomings are a setback on the Trump administration. I believe that campaigning is a skill, and some people really suck at it: Mitt Romney. Conor Lamb is good while Saccone blew a double digit lead [insert Warriors or Falcons meme here] that Trump won the district with in the 2016 Election. Such a swing could indicate that leftism is on the rebound one year following Trumpism in power. But this would only be true if indeed Conor Lamb campaigned as a leftist. Alas, leftists should halt their celebration of a Blue Wave, for Conor Lamb ran more as a Dan Lipinski than a Marrie Newman.

The Lesson

While Democrats might be ever so inclined to believe that leftism has an appeal among the common folks, Conor Lamb ran as a complete moderate. Rick Saccone relied on tribalism, the premise of any Democrat being worse than any Republican. Democrats ought to learn that foregoing elitist leftist ideals will better serve their 2018 chances. But they won’t. We shall see just how well the Blue Wave fairs for all the leftist senators campaigning in states Trump won. Republicans are like to take this race as a wake-up call to defend that which they have spent years trying to gain. But every race is, in moderate or large degree, independent of up or down the ballots. Conor Lamb winning shows that Rick Saccone had no business running. Candidates matter is a lesson we should all learn. Rick Saccone was the regrettable choice for Republicans.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.