He is referring to it as an "asset seizure" because he already paid incomes taxes on this amount. Prop 30 was passed late in the year, after most of this income was made. If we classify this as a tax, then all true asset seizures could be reclassified as such if we just apply tax rules to earlier and earlier tax years.

Remember, the constitutional prohibition against "Ex Post Facto" laws doesn't apply here.

The issue is that it's retroactive. That income had become an asset to suddenly be considered as income again. The retroactive nature of the proposition was not in any of the official summary documentation for the election either.

That's not what happened, the tax law was found to be invalid by a court, so all taxes paid under the law had to revert to the rate paid under the previous law.

Stupid question, but once your income has been taxed and you turn the net into an asset, and then the state comes back in and tell you that the money you used to buy this asset really belonged to the state, isn't that asset seizing?

Edit 1: SP

Stupid question, but how did you pay 2012 taxes before 2012 was over?

well i didn't! hypothetically, we'd be talking about my 2011 earnings, already taxed, being retroactivity taxed (again) in fiscal year 2012.

well, that definitely is hypothetical, because that's not what happened

"This despite the fact that I already paid my 2012 taxes back in September." fiscal year does not necessarily equals calendar year, how do you know for a fact that's not what happened?

Prop 30 raised personal income tax (and sales tax, a separate point), which is based on calendar years.

i totally agree that it's a tax, not an asset seizure, but i was trying to remain neutral; since he referred to it as an asset forfeiture and CA referred to it as a tax I just put both and left it up to the reader to decide which it was.