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

311–320 of 734 posts

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

#311

Post by patcon »

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…

Is this also your perspective on something like unit testing when your first regression slips through?

No, you fix it. Law is code, and needs tuning.

When people as so inclined to give up on first failing, then I feel it says more about their underlying worldview than it does about what's possible in the world.

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

#313

Post by [deleted] »

nondeveloper wrote: post #293
doggydogs94 wrote: post #285

The biggest attraction to California is the fantastic climate. At some point (higher tax levels) though, even the climate cannot hold you.

The climate is great. The parks and wilderness areas are great. But you know what? This a beautiful country and it would be shame to limit yourself to one place.

[deleted]

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

#314

Post by sojournerc »

graeme wrote: post #142
elhudy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason people resist such a tax is because there is no transparency into where the money is going. If there was traceability into putting that money towards positive social programs, for example, there might be less opposition. I couldn't find what the tax was supposed to go towards but I also didn't make it beyond the paywall.

All taxes go into general revenues. Governments don’t operate by taxing one thing and spending it specifically on another. Gas tax is the most cited counterexample, but even there roads get money from general revenues.

Another counterexample is recreational cannabis sales tax. In Colorado they are earmarked for education and arts afaik.

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

#315

Post by cronix »

thebean11 wrote: post #263
gfxgirl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They just aren't using it correctly. If there was a way to just give homeless people the 50k in a UBI esque way things would drastically improve. Unfortunately I don't believe something like that is practical unless it's done on a national level.

If the majority of them weren't addicted to hardcore drugs and could make intelligent, rational decisions, I might agree that giving them money directly could be a good thing. Drug addicts tend to not make good monetary choices.

See this recent documentary by KOMO News in Seattle about their problems, which are pretty similar to Portland's, SF's, LA's and a lot of other major cities with larger homeless populations. Crime is soaring. Most are homeless due to drug addiction. Until that part is solved and they can think clearly and rationalize normally again, giving them cash will likely only fuel the problem and keep them right where they're at. And with everyone walking around with $50k cash in their pocket, because they don't have bank accounts, crime would be even more rampant as they steal it from each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WijoL3Hy_Bw

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

#316

Post by Spooky23 »

nthj wrote: post #199
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.

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…

California’s governance with respect to property taxes is horrific and inequitable to the point that it should be illegal in many ways it has distorted the national economy in good and bad ways as folks sitting on property have turned into the 21st century version of a French aristocrat by sitting in their 50s ranch.

That cohort of Californian is dying off now, and it may be better for all involved if companies pull out and disrupt the status quo. California’s incompetence shouldn’t drag down everything.

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

#317

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#318

Post by jhfdbkofdcho »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #81
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…

IIRC that's true up to a certain $ limit. (Maybe around $120k of income?) After that it's double taxed (I think )

Right this is where it gets complicated, especially by the fact that the US has country specific tax treaty agreements lots of places.

https://www.taxesforexpats.com/expat-tax-advice/us-tax-treat...

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

#319

Post by elhudy »

graeme wrote: post #142
elhudy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason people resist such a tax is because there is no transparency into where the money is going. If there was traceability into putting that money towards positive social programs, for example, there might be less opposition. I couldn't find what the tax was supposed to go towards but I also didn't make it beyond the paywall.

All taxes go into general revenues. Governments don’t operate by taxing one thing and spending it specifically on another. Gas tax is the most cited counterexample, but even there roads get money from general revenues.

I understand that's how things currently are, but I don't believe it's how things need to be.

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

#320

Post by Straw »

tacitusarc wrote: post #248
Straw wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You kept the house and the land- probably by far the most valuable assets. Without enforcement of property rights, what stops me from coming in with a bigger gun and just taking the land?

Of course, there are limits to the protection they provide- you can always buy more.

Post reply on HN