Live data from Hacker News

California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

wsj.com

91–100 of 734 posts

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#91

> Today, California’s wealthiest 1% pay approximately 46% of total state income taxes. Adding the wealth tax to individual taxes and including those taxpayers who have abandoned California, the combination of the two proposals would have 1% of the state’s population paying about 53% of individual taxes. This is insane. That 1% will simply pick up and leave and the state will end up in a long expensive legal battle to…

[deleted]

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#92

This proposal is 0.4% tax on wealth above $30m. The Dutch equivalent is 1.6% tax on wealth above €1m. The number of Ultra High Net Worth Individuals in the Netherlands is still increasing.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2 if I understand them correctly

CA is imposing a tax on the TOTAL wealth of a person over the limits and excluding real property.

The Dutch impose a tax on the increased value of the wealth in the year, even if it was not "realized", which is more like our Capital Gains.

So an example, if you had Stocks worth 100 million, and they increased in value to 108 million in 2020

Dutch: 108-100: 8 million taxable, you owe $128,000

CA: 108 Million, you owe $432,000

Pretty large difference

and the Dutch Model is better in some ways when your assets DROP in value, which does happen,

so if we are in recession your stocks go from 100 million to 90 million, under the Dutch Model you would not owe taxes, under the CA model you still would

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#93
post #46
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal government does something worse, you pay federal income tax on all income no matter where it is made and what country you are living in (with the exception of some deductions for income taxes paid to other countries one is living in). Other countries only make you pay taxes for income generated there. Even if you give up US citizenship, which requires something like paying taxes on all unrealized gains an…

Benefits of being the only global superpower. Believe me, other countries would gladly do the same, they just lack the aircraft carrier fleet to support such policy.

I don't think military power is the key here. I think having so much of international banking tied to the U.S. may be the relevant lever.

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#94

Great way to help further diversify the Texas economy. I want to thank the Californians who voted in these politicians.

You may regret that. The problem with Californians emigrating elsewhere is that they don’t stop voting like Californians.

Under the assumption that the policies they pursue are damaging, as implied above, would that make Californians essentially a virus?

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#95
post #68

Well I guess I'll take the apparently bold stance here that this isn't the end of Silicon Valley or California and yes this is fair and further, good. When people are getting 5-6% returns on investments (minimum), 0.4% is still not even stopping the rich get richer effect. Not to mention that it's almost certain no one here will ever be touched by this tax. If you're going to move where you live or significantly alte…

I think your premise that they will experience French Revolution like consequences is overlooking the fact that unlike the 1700s. Up and taking your money to another country that still likes you is the click of a mouse and a private jet flight out. So no they won’t capitulate to higher taxes of earlier times. They will just leave. Like they already are at the threat of it.

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#96
Personally I disagree with the whole idea of wealth taxes, you should be taxed when you do things, not taxed just because you own something worth money. I should be able to go live in the woods alone and not have the government take some percent of my net worth just because I exist.

I mean I don't have a tonne of sympathy for people with tens of millions of net worth, but it just seems wrong in principle. If I start a company and it gets valued at 30 million dollars, why should the government be allowed to force me to sell my company to pay their wealth tax? Seems wrong to me, if you own something you should be allowed to keep it indefinitely. Property taxes are a bit of a grey area, but they make more sense because of all the infrastructure required for a house to be accessible.

Or another example, I own a piece of art or a car passed down through my family that is worth 30 million dollars (maybe it's a mclaren f1 or something). Now the government is going to force me to sell my car? I disagree with that, obviously that's an extreme case, but laws should still handle cases like that.

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#97

I'm not sure what the problem is. When Democrat supporters demand more more more via the politicians who promise more more more, where did they think the money would come from? Believe it or not, the bottom ~50% don't have enough money to tax. The next 30-40% have some but not enough to raise enough money to help. The taxes have to be focused on the top 10% and more likely the top 1-3% to raise enough to meet these d…

> where did they think the money would come from? There’s a growing misconception that everything can be paid for by simply taxing the wealthy a tiny bit more. Several prominent activist politicians have built their platforms on the idea that billionaires are an infinite source of consequence-free tax revenue. These ideas are especially popular among the college students and new college grads I mentor. It usually fal…

The most important point of taxing the top ~1% is to simply bring their wealth more in line with their contributions, and to reduce their outsized power on the political system. Jeff Bezos isn't "worth" a million times more than his warehouse workers, and he shouldn't have that kind of money either as a matter of principle, or as a matter of democratic power. It's not a matter of punishment, but a matter of ensuring a more just/meritocratic and free society.

The fact that the state can also use some of this money to help with the funding of social programs is a secondary benefit.

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I benefit from a country while not being in it?

The right to return and still be eligible for things like Social Security and Medicare.

Your social security benefits are derived, in part, from how much you paid in on your top earning years. Thus, if you didn't pay in you would have very very very little social security (which is already too small of a benefit to live off of). Thus, I don't think there is a moral hazard of social security that would cause people to return to the US for those benefits. They could amend the law (not sure if it's specifics) that you have to pay in a minimum amount if you want to be paid out while living in another country. Simple fix to remove any poorly aligned incentive.

Medicare is much trickier as every American over 65 is entitled to it, but I'm not sure how that coverage works if you live outside the US.

Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state

#100

I'm not sure what the problem is. When Democrat supporters demand more more more via the politicians who promise more more more, where did they think the money would come from? Believe it or not, the bottom ~50% don't have enough money to tax. The next 30-40% have some but not enough to raise enough money to help. The taxes have to be focused on the top 10% and more likely the top 1-3% to raise enough to meet these d…

The adjective is Democratic.
Post reply on HN