San Francisco proposes to force retailers to operate at a loss

[PurpnGold]

@EternalVigilance

Since California effectively legalized shoplifting

The dollar threshold for felon shoplifting in Texas is almost triple what it is in California.

[Oldandtired]

They are no longer hiding the fact they are fascist. They believe the fix is in and that they will never lose power again.

[EternalVigilance]

@PurpnGold

The dollar threshold for felon shoplifting in Texas is almost triple what it is in California.

Difference being that shoplifting is usually prosecuted in Texas, while California prefers to go after retailers.

[PurpnGold]

@EternalVigilance

@PurpnGold

The dollar threshold for felon shoplifting in Texas is almost triple what it is in California.

Difference being that shoplifting is usually prosecuted in Texas, while California prefers to go after retailers.

You have no evidence to back that claim up.

Texas felony threshold for shoplifting is $2500
California’s threshold for felony shoplifting is $950

[EternalVigilance]

@PurpnGold

You have no evidence to back that claim up.

Sure I do. There’s no mass exodus of retailers, pharmacies, and grocery stores when compared to the California standard. Cali progressives choose to be economic illiterates and don’t believe in law enforcement, which is why they’re crafting legislation to force businesses to run at a loss.

[TheRedComet]

Morale will be improved! No matter how many people have to get shot in the head over it.

[e7alr]

We don’t just prosecute felonies here in Texas.

[e7alr]

@PurpnGold

@EternalVigilance

@PurpnGold

The dollar threshold for felon shoplifting in Texas is almost triple what it is in California.

Difference being that shoplifting is usually prosecuted in Texas, while California prefers to go after retailers.

You have no evidence to back that claim up.

Texas felony threshold for shoplifting is $2500
California’s threshold for felony shoplifting is $950

With no prosecution for $949 and below. Here in Texas we prosecute damn near everything. You can’t wrack up repeated minor shoplifting offenses here without a judge deciding to get your attention.

[gooddad409]

@EternalVigilance

@Guvnah

And then, of course, Calif is pushing the idea of taxing people and companies that leave the state. An exit tax of sorts. People say, “If you don’t like it, then leave…” But now Calif wants to penalize you for leaving. One last spear-thrust before you can escape.

The Democrats that own California would have to admit that progressive policies are failing to fix this, but they won’t. As far as I’m concerned, Californians love these policies, or they wouldn’t keep voting the fringe left into power. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if a ballot proposition passed that called for the construction of a wall to keep residents from leaving.

They had a state rep one time ask why not pass a law prohibitting people from leaving.

[SixFoot]

Everyone is leaving because of the Calitranny ■■■■ hole’s self-inflicted wounds… bUt LoOk aT TeXAs!!1!

[Rodeo]

@EternalVigilance

Difference being that shoplifting is usually prosecuted in Texas, while California prefers to go after retailers.

But they told us crime is down…

I’m so confused!

[Rodeo]

@SixFoot

Everyone is leaving because of the Calitranny ■■■■ hole’s self-inflicted wounds… bUt LoOk aT TeXAs!!1!

I sincerely wonder if we aren’t headed toward a dynamic in America where places like California and New York aren’t just nothing but kook fringe leftists because all the common sense conservatives have escaped…

[SixFoot]

I hope so! Put all those retards in a zoo for passerby’s to point at and take pics on their way past.

[LeroyBrown]

No point in reading the whole article…

The rule wouldn’t preclude closures due to a store being unprofitable.

Of course, suppose a grocery store is foolish enough to open in San Francisco. In that case, the owner must evaluate whether or not they can handle the huge loss in shoplifting and any potential penalty for failing to comply with this rule.

Just open somewhere business-friendly.

[e7alr]

Exactly, the stores will still close and the rule will discourage any rational corporate management from seeking to replace the store that leaves. But I can predict the solution that California will come up with, massive taxpayer subsidizes to cover the shrink losses.

[Guvnah]

@e7alr

massive taxpayer subsidizes to cover the shrink losses.

Here in Colorado they have reintroduced wolves, and ranchers were concerned that wolves would kill their livestock. Solution: A fund to reimburse ranchers who lost livestock to wolves. (And those incidences have started happening.)

You’re right that Calif might institute the same for losses from their own “wolves”.

[e7alr]

@Guvnah

@e7alr

massive taxpayer subsidizes to cover the shrink losses.

Here in Colorado they have reintroduced wolves, and ranchers were concerned that wolves would kill their livestock. Solution: A fund to reimburse ranchers who lost livestock to wolves. (And those incidences have started happening.)

You’re right that Calif might institute the same for losses from their own “wolves”.

The two legged urban wolves will continue to lurk the streets and stores and liberal government will spend funds that should have went to wolf management on anything but managing the problem.

[WorldWatcher]

@W_and_C

How’s that even legal ?

I don’t know.

Seems like they are using the model adopted by Texas.

The government isn’t enforcing anything.

They allow the public to pursue civil compensation via the courts.

WW

[EternalVigilance]

@Rodeo

But they told us crime is down…

It’s absolutely down if you refuse to prosecute it. We all know that’s epidemic in blue areas.

[PurpnGold]

@EternalVigilance

@Rodeo

But they told us crime is down…

It’s absolutely down if you refuse to prosecute it. We all know that’s epidemic in blue areas.

This is a silly point.

Crime stats are simply reporting on the crimes themselves. They have nothing to do with whether or not they were prosecuted. That would be a different data set.