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

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

#301

Post by fdr » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

gfxgirl wrote: post #206

carlio wrote: post #181

Earlier 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

> San Francisco spends $50k per homeless person.

A commonly repeated falsehood. Is totally incorrect. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...

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

#302

Post by daveFNbuck » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

entee wrote: post #272

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…

Thing is we’ve done the experiment and it doesn’t work. France had a wealth tax (called the ISF, impôt sur la fortune) and it never actually garnered the expected revenues. This is because wealthy French people moved to Brussels, where you still have a pretty nice city and you can still speak French. Macron got rid of it and there was a mini-crash in Brussels real estate as people move back. There’s nothing stopping…

I think that's why they put in the provision that you have to keep paying the tax for 10 years after you move.

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

#303

Post by cperciva » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

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…

Personally, I disagree with the whole ideas of both wealth and income taxes. You should be taxed for consuming things, since that's the point where you're actually imposing a burden on the rest of society.

(Note that this includes consumption of housing, and VAT + imputed rent is basically a property tax.)

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

#304

Post by runamok » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

qznc wrote: post #250

sharpneli wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's probably this you are thinking of:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-rent/palo-alto...

It sounds dumb but IIRC it's an attempt to have teachers and police and city employees able to live there...

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

#305

Post by T-hawk » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

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 you're going to move where you live or significantly alter where you spend you time because of 0.4% of things above 30M, that's a real sign of just how far American greed has gone.

I would say this isn't any different than any other greed at any other place or time. It's simply a cost-benefit tradeoff decision. If people perceive that being in California makes more money than the wealth tax costs, they will stay. If not, they will leave. There doesn't have to be any moral or principled component to this, just simple self-interest.

Also don't overlook the deterrence factor. The wealthy currently in CA may stay there if moving represents a greater overall cost. But anyone not currently in CA would have a great disincentive to never move there.

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

#306

Post by Meekro » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

762236 wrote: post #167

This is unenforceable. California has no Texas Rangers that can hunt you down in other states. California has no standing in another state's courts for collecting this tax. And that's a good thing too. Consider child-support payments --- they require states to cooperate. But you may never be able to enter California again.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. California (and every other state's) law already says that their taxman need not go through the courts to seize assets but can do so directly. If their tax collector contacts you and you ignore them because you don't live there, they'll just seize the money from your bank account (no matter where you are) and you'll be stuck litigating in California tax courts to try and get it back.

This already happens routinely-- look up the various cases of people who left California, and then the state came after them under the theory that they never really left. Here's a case[1] where they spent 25 years harassing a guy who moved out.

Even if you leave the country, you can be extradited since failure to pay tax is a felony. Unless you went to Russia, which doesn't extradite.

[1] https://reason.com/video/2017/10/23/gilbert-hyatts-25-year-b...

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

#307

Post by CerealFounder » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #253

gfxgirl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco spends $50k per homeless person. The problem doesn't seem like it's money

Individual cities can’t solve national problems. Due to migration there are no great solutions at the individual city level, other than being “blessed” with an inhospitable area.

There is pretty powerful statistical evidence that when Regan moved homeless services from the federal level to a state responsibility it cratered the numbers of beds (especially in small towns) and created an unsolvable situation in that when you're struggling in your small town who has zero homeless support, you make a move to some place else, somewhere where being homeless is not has bad weather wise and has a bit of infrastructure. So now you have all of the struggling people from "Mainstreet usa" moving toward the main cities all at once (over a couple decades) an essentially a burden on them to deal with EVERYONES homeless problem instead of historically their own.

This problem was working much better in the 70s and 80s when their was a national framework for it. While SF and LA's government is flawed, this blame state/city is like blaming the individual ushers when the fans run on the field after a football upset. It was more of a structural failure than a local.

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

#308

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

daveFNbuck wrote: post #302

entee wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is we’ve done the experiment and it doesn’t work. France had a wealth tax (called the ISF, impôt sur la fortune) and it never actually garnered the expected revenues. This is because wealthy French people moved to Brussels, where you still have a pretty nice city and you can still speak French. Macron got rid of it and there was a mini-crash in Brussels real estate as people move back. There’s nothing stopping…

I think that's why they put in the provision that you have to keep paying the tax for 10 years after you move.

That's probably the stupidest part of it, because then you convince all the people who imagine they're going to be Elon Musk in ten years that they should leave California immediately.

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

#309

Post by justinzollars » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

The tax rate will never be high enough for the California Government. It is so mismanaged the only plausible solution is a default on its endless obligations.

California should eliminate its income tax through ballot initiative. Moving it, from the highest in the nation to zero. Thats right. Zero.

Can you imagine how awesome California would become with no income tax? Everyone would instantly get a 10% raise. The quality of everything would go up and the cost of everything would go down. Standards of living would instantly go up.

Other states provide a much higher standard of living with zero tax. California can do it too.

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

#310

Post by wincy » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

daveFNbuck wrote: post #302

entee wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is we’ve done the experiment and it doesn’t work. France had a wealth tax (called the ISF, impôt sur la fortune) and it never actually garnered the expected revenues. This is because wealthy French people moved to Brussels, where you still have a pretty nice city and you can still speak French. Macron got rid of it and there was a mini-crash in Brussels real estate as people move back. There’s nothing stopping…

I think that's why they put in the provision that you have to keep paying the tax for 10 years after you move.

That’s why if the tax gets implemented they’re gonna move away before the tax is implemented. Imagine being a slave to a state you don’t even live in for ten years. What a load of garbage, I’ll bet any other state will refuse to enforce it.