Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 734 posts

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

#121

Post by syshum »

est31 wrote: post #104
syshum wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So your money just made you 8 million USD and you had to pay 432k in taxes. Compare that to someone who makes 8 million USD cash through labour. They have to pay way more in taxes, around 1 million according to this calculator: https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator Edit: just found out that in California capital gains are regarded as normal income. So you'd have to pay that 1 million already, but now…

So what about if your Stocks lost value in the year?

Same scenario, 100million in stocks but due to a bad economy you they are now worth 95 million

Do you believe CA should collect $380,000 from someone that already lost 5 million that year?

There is always risks in investments, it is not always gains. CA does not properly account for that IMO

Further you will not get me support income based taxation either, I find income based taxation to be more immoral and unethical than wealth based taxation. It is literally stealing a persons labor

I am a proponent of Henry George's Single-Tax System

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

#122

Post by DuskStar »

tsimionescu wrote: post #106
GhostVII wrote: post #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…

> 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? How is the government forcing you to sell your company? They're forcing you to pay 0.4% of the money you own over those 30M dollars in tax, but that's it. Do you truly believe that there are people who make less than 0.4% per year profit on their >30M assets?

This is startup land, where billion dollar companies lose money... So yes.

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

#123

Post by beagle3 »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #32

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.

The Dutch tax from cursory reading is not comparable - apparently, if you pay wealth tax, you are exempt from capital gains tax; also, if your wealth is real estate outside of the Netherlands, it is not taxed.

It may be more comparable to Norway’s wealth tax, which is 0.85% of everything above 200K€ (With some provisions for primary residence and illiquid shares IIUC, discounting these somewhat)

A Norwegian tax professional I had a chance to talk to a few months ago claimed that wealthy people were leaving Norway because of the wealth tax. Are there any Norwegians in the forum that can say more about this?

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

#124

Post by OminousWeapons »

tsimionescu wrote: post #97
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think it's worth asking why compensation is the way it is. If we assume that people's compensation is based on the value they generate for an organization, then what you are asking is basically "can a million warehouse workers together in a collective be as effective as Jeff Bezos at producing value for Amazon?" Alternatively, you could ask "can a given warehouse worker given one million times his current compensation add as much value to Amazon as Jeff Bezos can?" It's quite possible that the answer to both of those questions is no, and if Jeff Bezos is generating a million times more value than the average warehouse worker for Amazon with his decision making and actions then it is not an issue that he is being paid a million times more than a warehouse worker.

I'm not saying that what warehouse workers are being paid now is "fair" or "reasonable", but I do think that trying to establish some fixed ratio between what a warehouse worker makes and what Jeff Bezos makes is sort of a silly exercise. Additionally, if you think that comp shouldn't reflect value added to an organization, then I would be interested in hearing what you think it should be based on.

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

#125

Post by tryptophan »

sys_64738 wrote: post #98
ryanmarsh wrote: post #15

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

Not long until TX is flipped to the Democrats. It's coming.

The state that voted for Trump with a 5.5% margin? Dems will lose the entire midwest before Texas flips.

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

#126

Post by sdenton4 »

GhostVII wrote: post #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…

/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 figure if we allow passive income, we should allow passive taxes...

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

#127

Post by nradov »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #70
jhfdbkofdcho wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a rough approximation, if you’re a US citizen, then You must file a US income tax return. The US taxes your worldwide income regardless of where it’s earned. BUT under most circumstances you would get a credit against what you owe the US for what you pay the country in which you earned the money and also wanted to tax you (no double taxation in theory) It’s kind of a pain for someone living in say Kenya which does…

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

In theory if you get kidnapped by terrorists or something then the US government might try to rescue you.

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

#128

Post by emteycz »

fattire wrote: post #117
emteycz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He as a human is worth exactly the same as the workers, of course. But that changes nothing about his right to the wealth he created. The others could create their own wealth, Bezos wasn't in a privileged position when he started. If his money gives him political power, the solution is to fix the political system, not steal his money.

"wealth he created"

Exactly. How else would it get to his bank account? If he didn't create it, why people sent it to him? He stole it?

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

#129

Post by WealthVsSurvive »

Trisell wrote: post #95
adjkant wrote: 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.

And when those countries do the same and desperate people follow them for vengeance the world over, where will they go then?

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

#130

Post by minitoar »

DuskStar wrote: post #122
tsimionescu wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? How is the government forcing you to sell your company? They're forcing you to pay 0.4% of the money you own over those 30M dollars in tax, but that's it. Do you truly believe that there are people who make less than 0.4% per year profit on their >30M assets?

This is startup land, where billion dollar companies lose money... So yes.

How real are those billion dollar valuations? Seems to me like it’s primarily a bunch of VCs in a term sheet circle jerk.
Post reply on HN