David Friedberg

And here's the other important point about property tax, it's uniform.

Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county.

This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax.

Meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals.

In this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars.

And then they can go and take assets from only that group.

That is non-uniform taxation.

It means that for the first time, we're saying based on the demographics of a person, meaning whatever you want to use to define that person,

in this case, their wealth, you are going to be treated differently.

And that is different than an income tax.

Because remember, when you have graduated income tax rates, and you say high earners tax more, what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual, you're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy, all you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in.

And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect

people from being demographically discriminated against.

And you may roll your hand and be like, oh, who cares about the billionaires?

Eat the rich.

That's great.

But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to, in the future, take any demographic definition they want

and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you.

That is why this is so troubling.

And we can harp all day long about eat the rich, and obviously this group is biased, but the general population should be very much aware of the fact that as soon as you give a legislature the ability to discriminate a group and take whatever percentage they want.