One more financial reason to move to Austin I guess. As if there weren’t enough already: https://www.thriftythoughts.io/silicon-hills/
California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
231–240 of 734 posts
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#232Earlier 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.
I would be curious to know what's interesting in Singapore?
Well run, pro-capital and stable come to mind. I’d go the other way and ask what’s interesting in Miami... (I spent my share of time in Miami, thank you)
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
The state that voted for Trump with a 5.5% margin? Dems will lose the entire midwest before Texas flips.
Demographics are trending towards Democrats in Texas though that doesn't mean it will necessarily happen.
False. If demographic trends (how Texas hispanics shifted to the GOP from 2016) are extrapolated, Texas is actually trending towards the GOP.
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#234I'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…
> For many, this is more about punishing their bad guys than generating tax revenue to accomplish something.
That’s basically the point of wealth taxes, explicitly. Advocates of a stronger wealth task believe billionaires should not exist on principle, that centralization of wealth and power is wrong it itself. And they’re right.
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
False. If demographic trends (how Texas hispanics shifted to the GOP from 2016) are extrapolated, Texas is actually trending towards the GOP.
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#236Personally 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?
I don't know the specifics of this proposal. But I live in a country that has a similar wealth tax, and it doesn't work that way here. When you found a company, its shares remain valued at nominal value for tax purposes, until you sell or transfer them. Only after that they'll be taxed as wealth.
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
San Francisco spends $50k per homeless person. The problem doesn't seem like it's money
Really? That’s more money than we use for the unemployed here in Finland. And they get healthcare, food and house.
SF is expensive for sure, but that expensive? Where is the money going to?
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#238Personally 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...
There is no such thing as truly passive - the assets in this case are being used by providing capital to the markets and holding shares of companies that may or may not succeed. That’s “doing something” with these assets. The family heirloom that could bring you over the threshold? It’s collecting dust.
The stock investments incidentally ARE already taxed, whether you are actively managing them or if someone else is doing it for you and collecting a fee in the process.
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#239Personally 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…
The problems here are fairness, but also time. Wealth tax gathers funds from past and future actions, income tax only from future actions.
If you believe laws were totally fair in the past, then a wealth tax should be unfair now. Is that your stance? Has taxation been fair?
My stance is that the notion of private property is ingrained, we went to civil war due to private property of slaves, the french revolution was fomented due to financial problems due to untaxed private holdings of the church and wealthy people. Does having private property from the past mean it's ours and no one can touch it?
History has shown that oligarchies and massive wealth disparities lead to negative societal outcomes. IMO, Taxes should generate revenue for public works and lower negative societal outcomes due to negative externalities, therefore wealth tax is fine with me in principle.
Re: California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state
#240Earlier 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.
But it seems like local governance doesn't work especially well for the state as a whole. I get the impression that the state has systemic problems that no tax will fix. Local governance is a problem in the state because all the wealthy cities do everything they can and use all their tax dollars to protect their own interests, often at the expense of everyone else. Needless to say it's a very complex problem and it's unclear that just throwing more tax dollars at everything will fix every problem every time.