Yeah,

we have to deal with leap years, but 183 days you reside in the state of California.

The income tax system says, hey, you're going to you're going to pay it.

You're going to be a resident, full time resident.

OK.

But you realize income when you earn and then you have also income that's realized when you sell.

And now it wants to apply that definition of residency, which has a specific meaning in income tax case law, to one day in time.

parts here.

Yeah,

we have to deal with leap years, but 183 days you reside in the state of California.

The income tax system says, hey, you're going to you're going to pay it.

You're going to be a resident, full time resident.

OK.

But you realize income when you earn and then you have also income that's realized when you sell.

And now it wants to apply that definition of residency, which has a specific meaning in income tax case law, to one day in time.

parts here.

Right.

So the, the cut's going into effect.

The state now has to take the extra step to, to fund that population anyway.

So a good, uh, a question would be, are they actually going to do that? They're running deficits anyways, so we'll leave that there.

The second thing that you just talked about, Will, is something called provider tax limitations.

So the last 60 billion or so of the $156 billion is from provider tax limitations, which most people's eyes glaze over when they hear about this.

Uh, but it's really important we talk about this as a country.

Can you say that again? Since what year?

Is it as bad as I have described?

Well, it's not great, John.

uh the main there's uh between the filing date by the proponents and the snapshot date of who would be due for the tax that was when an initial 500 ish billion dollars left the state so that would be you know headlined by sergey brand larry page peter teal among others and then shortly after that mark zuckerberg left in february adding another nearly $200 billion plus to the total there.

And there are plenty of other stealth departures that get you close to your number there.

Those tech innovators are the backbone of the state's economy and who they employ.

And I don't need to remind you, John, or maybe many of your listeners, but that the state of California already taxes the top quite a bit.

And in the last Since 2000, the state has lost about $500 billion and about $5 billion in tax revenue.

I just don't know how you can intellectually make that argument if you're going to actually campaign up and down the state against this initiative? Like who's going to take you seriously if you're saying no at the state level, but yes, at the federal level.