A new law and a new tax is right up their alley, but this is the thing that got me:
> But they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be applied retroactively for five years — which they call “an alarming precedent” — and could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to point out: As someone else mentioned in another thread on this article, there's an idea of "ex post facto" laws in the US constitution[1]. So considering this "an alarming precedent" when the authors of the constitution already knew of such a thing and prohibited it is a statement about our generation.
The applicability of ex post facto constitutionality to taxes aside, the effective radius of the US Constitution appears to sometimes fall just short of the California legislature[1].
> The ex post facto provision is normally interpreted to apply only to criminal laws, not to civil penalties or taxes.
FWIW, the precedent distinguishing prohibited ex post facto laws from permitted retrospective laws was established by the Supreme Court when ink on the Constitution was practically still wet, in Calder v. Bull (1798).
It has also been rolled back. I do not remember the specific case, but it dealt with the SOR requirements being extended on people long after they has been convicted and sentenced due to a change in SOR laws. The courts ruled that it did not violate ex post facto. If that doesn't violate it, then taxes definitely wouldn't either.
I think there is an applicable quote about defending scoundrels that would apply here.
An interesting side note is that many state courts have continued to strike down similar provisions, and some Federal courts have apparently also concluded that certain rules about sex offenders are "punitive" and so constitutionally invalid as outside of the Smith v. Doe rule. So this example is hard to summarize in a simple way, not least because many other courts have been trying to narrow this rule.
They'd never be that specific. If the warnings were that specific they'd actually be useful. Instead there are warnings saying an entire building contains some unknown chemicals that will have an unknown chance of giving you an unknown type of cancer.
But is it? This is probably going to be on that "Included Government Taxes and Regulatory Fees" section of your cell phone bill that has no explanation whatsoever.
I've had those everywhere I've lived in the country.
California neoliberals and their regressive tax proposals ensure the cost of social programs fall on the shoulders of everyone, ensuring the uber-wealthy are burdened to the same degree as the day laborer.
The state has a property tax freeze on its hands that charges private country clubs pennies to the dollar on what should be their fair share.[1]
