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

241–250 of 734 posts

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

#241

Post by iaHN »

ellyagg wrote: post #227
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…

Ah, yes, threatening to murder people you're jealous of. This is the content I come to Hacker News for!

The underlying counterargument is that tax dodging is a form of violence against the poor.

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

#242

Post by AsyncAwait »

cltby wrote: post #223
AsyncAwait wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There’s plenty of tax revenue to fund nearly all such priorities. It’s sadly squandered, in large part because voters have ideological commitments to confiscation, and no such commitments to effective government.

> in large part because voters have ideological commitments to confiscation, and no such commitments to effective government.

I highly doubt it's that rather than the fact special interest are prioritized over 'effective government' in large parts due to some conservatives and neoliberals promoting the idea of corruption == freedom. When there's a thousand ways to legally bribe politicians, of course there's no incentive for effective government.

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

#243

Post by ur-whale »

I find the idea lovely for the following reason: I am a great believer in the idea of competition, especially between nation states, and in the US, between states.

If California were to ever make such a dumb move (I'm 99% sure they wont'), they are going to create tons of opportunities for nearby states as all the rich folks will move elsewhere with their capital.

Please, California, keep on taxing the goose with the golden eggs.

Politicians should be playing more Sim City.

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

#244

Post by apta »

Straw wrote: post #204
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 income taxes. You should be taxed for owning things, because the government enforces your property rights, not just for labor, for which the government doesn't directly contribute at all. I should be able to earn money for my labor without the government taking a fraction every time it moves around. Even if you move to the woods, you're still taking military protection fr…

Exactly. Islam took a similar route with Zakat (a form of "charity tax" if you will, over 1400 years ago, and it's proven to work. When you look at history, there was a period of time, when everyone paid their share of Zakat, and when there were no poor people left to take it!

It's not that much either, only 2.5% for currencies like gold and silver over a minimum threshold (so the poor/lower class are exempted anyway).

However, as I explain in my other post, there is no forcing to liquidate a fixed portion of any holdings you have. For example, if you own property and rent it out, the property value itself is not taxed, only the money you make out of rent if you hold on to it for over a year (and it's above a minimum threshold). Similarly if you owe shares in a company, the taxation is not a direct percentage of that ownership, it depends on things like debt and the amount of produce or products the company owns each year.

Income tax is unethical and predatory as far as I'm concerned, not to mention continues to fail even at absurdly high taxation rates.

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

#245

Post by Reedx »

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.

SF doubled their budget over the past 10 years, while virtually every problem has gotten worse.

More money isn't always the answer. Maybe the answer lies elsewhere...

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

#246

Post by cltby »

iaHN wrote: post #241
ellyagg wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, threatening to murder people you're jealous of. This is the content I come to Hacker News for!

The underlying counterargument is that tax dodging is a form of violence against the poor.

Rich guy: “Mind keeping your hands off my stuff?”

Confiscationist: “he’s attacking me!”

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

#247

Post by throwaway2245 »

da_big_ghey wrote: post #193
throwaway2245 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

California also has marginal tax rates, so what I said is accurate. Could you offer a counter-example?

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

#248

Post by tacitusarc »

Straw wrote: post #204
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 income taxes. You should be taxed for owning things, because the government enforces your property rights, not just for labor, for which the government doesn't directly contribute at all. I should be able to earn money for my labor without the government taking a fraction every time it moves around. Even if you move to the woods, you're still taking military protection fr…

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has had his house smashed into an all of his stuff stolen, none of which was recovered and no meaningful attempt to do so was made, I don't particularly buy the argument that government enforces property rights. In certain cases, maybe. But mostly property rights exist because we all kind of agree they exist, and we generally don't go burglarizing each other.

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

#249

Post by enahs-sf »

sharpneli wrote: post #237
gfxgirl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

a Rube Goldberg machine of non-profits and inefficient, non-transparent spending leaving little to help the plight of the less fortunate.

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

#250

Post by qznc »

sharpneli wrote: post #237
gfxgirl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I remember an article from somewhere in the valley that they considered to support families in need with some money for housing. Family in need was defined as yearly household income below $250,000.
Post reply on HN