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

191–200 of 734 posts

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

#191

Post by purple_ferret »

OminousWeapons wrote: post #124
tsimionescu wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compensat…

Jeff Bezos's net worth is almost entirely in Amazon's stock value. He isn't being compensated by some objective analysis of his worth. Amazon, the company, might be, at which point, he's benefiting as the largest shareholder.

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

#193

Post by da_big_ghey »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #8
fortran77 wrote: post #3

> 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…

>California’s wealthiest 1% pay approximately 46% of total state income taxes > That 1% (which, unfortunately, I am in) This illustrates to me that the 1st percentile receives vastly more net income than the 2nd highest percentile (and that the stats should subdivide the 1st percentile further). Is this really unfortunate for you? I don't think so.

California has progressive tax rates, so this is not entirely accurate.

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

#194

Post by blovescoffee »

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…

There are of course exceptions but in most cases that $30 million+ could only have been made because of the system that exists within California/USA. Paying taxes on that $30 million is just a way to support the stability of such a system that allowed an individual to make that much money. How many people with very little wealth actually inherit a $30 million car? Probably few enough that it would be more constructive to focus on the scenario most extremely wealthy people inhabit.

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

#195

Post by volkfish55 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #157
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…

because of 0.4% If California was well run, clean, and had otherwise lower tax, then .4% might be easy to ignore. But if you’re already on the fence, and not happy with things, and have been talking to real estate agents in Seattle, Austin, Miami, or Singapore, then this just the kick in the butt you might need to go through with leaving.

I would be curious to know what's interesting in Singapore?

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

#196

Post by hnburnsy »

zbrozek wrote: post #28

Does anyone know the mechanism by which they can possibly make the out of state tax stick? If it doesn't, I'd probably move to the Midwest. If it does, there are other citizenships.

California is seizing bank accounts of Arizona companies that have any interest in a California company without any hearing or notice. The CA FTB is asking for a minimum $800.

"That point was echoed in a brief by the National Taxpayers Union, which pointed to California’s threats to seize bank accounts of out-of-state companies that do not pay the tax."

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2020/02/2...

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

#197

Post by da_big_ghey »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #66
post_break wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem most Texans see is they flea California, realize it’s different, and vote for the same stuff they had there. A lot of Texans do not want California transplants. Just like how Montana doesn’t want Texans.

I’m sure there are some people who think like that, but is it really “most”? I don’t remember any prominent groups saying that Elon Musk’s move is bad for Texas, for example. Any policies that Texans love are going to be safe, because even if migration became so large that California transplants made up 5% of the population, they wouldn’t be able to flip votes on anything 60%+ of Texans agree on.

Texas is actually heading towards turning blue due to demographic changes (hispanics overtaking whites as the majority) and this might hasten it by a few years, depending on who moves from California.

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

#198

Post by [deleted] »

caymanjim wrote: post #135
Trisell wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While this proposed California law is unlikely to be Constitutional, there are federal laws that prevent people from simply leaving the country and taking all their money with them to avoid taxes. You can try, and with good lawyers and accountants, you can certainly shelter a lot of it, but in the end you can't avoid tax liability just by leaving. Plenty of uberrich get away with it, but it's still not legal. You can…

[deleted]

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

#199

Post by nthj »

carlio wrote: post #181
WillPostForFood wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because of 0.4% If California was well run, clean, and had otherwise lower tax, then .4% might be easy to ignore. But if you’re already on the fence, and not happy with things, and have been talking to real estate agents in Seattle, Austin, Miami, or Singapore, then this just the kick in the butt you might need to go through with leaving.

Local governance running well, public services like cleaning, helping homeless etc, all require tax dollars. Saying "I'd pay tax if they had enough money they get from tax to fix the problems that cause me not to want to pay tax" seems like it's a bit of a chicken-egg problem.

This argument seems to make sense on the surface, but California already has some of the highest income taxes in the country. To make an appeal to extremes, if California had a 40% income tax they wanted to raise to 45% asking, “show me how you have demonstrated good stewardship in what you are already taking” would be, I imagine, somewhat common. Reasonable people can of course debate that percentage, and can do so today based on California already having high income taxes.

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

#200

Post by AsyncAwait »

api wrote: post #177
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…

If California were well run, sure. Do something about the housing and homeless crisis and we’ll talk. California doesn’t have a money problem. They have a lack of political will problem and an incompetence (or corruption) problem. The state is held hostage by NIMBYs and is chronically unable to build infrastructure. Look at the high speed train disaster for an example of the latter. NIMBYs ensure that any money or ef…

> Do something about the housing and homeless crisis and we’ll talk

You do realize a wealth tax is one way to bring in income to try to fix these problems right? You guys don't even have universal healthcare in the middle of a global pandemic. Laughably sad.

Post reply on HN