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

331–340 of 734 posts

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

#331

Post by zepto »

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.

Gas tax isn’t a counter example since the earmarks have exceptions that allow the money to be used for arbitrary other purposes, which in practice is the case.

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

#332

Post by Kinrany »

cperciva wrote: post #303
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…

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.)

Owning wealth imposes a burden on the society to the degree that it needs to be protected.

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

#333

Post by vondur »

admiralspoo wrote: post #210
adjkant wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a percentage will, but I think when people are trying to guess and assume what these people will do as "rational economic agents", they miss the human factors. No one is going to pick where they go to college based on the taxes on the ultra-rich unless they are obsessed with money. Once rich, are you going to uproot yourself entirely from any family, friends, and connections in the US? You have to consider that…

Plenty already have. Eric Schmidt, for example, is now a citizen of Cyprus https://www.seattletimes.com/business/rich-americans-increas...

Not to mention Elon Musk, Joe Rogan. I’ve also seen a few high profile YouTuber’s leave recently too. The amount of people fleeing to Idaho from California is causing housing issues there.

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

#334

Post by xtian »

Pfhreak wrote: post #132
emteycz wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. How else would it get to his bank account? If he didn't create it, why people sent it to him? He stole it?

Profits are just unpaid wages. He bought labor for less than it was worth and pocketed the excess.

Not quite - he paid a wage to labor based on the current competition in the labor market and the cost of a worker to provide for his/her necessities. Then he sold the end product of the workers' collective labor for its value, determined by the sum of the value of all the labor that went into producing it. He pocketed the difference between the former and the latter. That's where profit comes from.

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

#335

Post by leetcrew »

adjkant wrote: post #111
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.

Maybe a percentage will, but I think when people are trying to guess and assume what these people will do as "rational economic agents", they miss the human factors. No one is going to pick where they go to college based on the taxes on the ultra-rich unless they are obsessed with money. Once rich, are you going to uproot yourself entirely from any family, friends, and connections in the US? You have to consider that…

> Maybe a percentage will, but I think when people are trying to guess and assume what these people will do as "rational economic agents", they miss the human factors. No one is going to pick where they go to college based on the taxes on the ultra-rich unless they are obsessed with money. Once rich, are you going to uproot yourself entirely from any family, friends, and connections in the US? You have to consider that rational economic behavior still has to consider what the point of it all is, and money for the sake of money doesn't tend to be the answer even among the hyper-rich.

I think this is probably true once someone has a career and a family, but the college part doesn't pass the sniff test for me. the "just graduated college" group is probably the most mobile slice of the overall population. especially if you chose a college away from your hometown, you are pretty likely to either move back home or pursue a career somewhere else entirely at the end. I think other folks are also more mobile than you give them credit for. unless they currently have children in school, I find people are pretty likely to move if they see an opportunity for a significantly better combo of salary/COL/taxes.

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

#337

Post by jelliclesfarm »

It might not affect a lot of people and it won’t make a dent for the high net worth folks, but on principle, I oppose it.

A better option for California would be to make it a tax free haven. And institute a flat consumption tax.

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

#338

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ip26 wrote: post #327
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The interesting part is the next question you have to ask yourself- could Elon have built what he did somewhere else?

But that has a related cause and effect. The reason these things have happened in California isn't the geography. If you drive a large fraction of the same people out and into places like Austin through excessive housing costs and high taxes, then the next Elon Musk can build it there instead. Because it's the people, not the place.

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

#339

Post by sambull »

We really need a way to better tax institutional owners over a certain size that inflate our real-restate market. No more Invitation Homes moving into a areas buying all the 'entry level' homes jacking rent by 30%+ in months and... rinse repeat. Owning tens of thousands of properties shouldn't be a thing that is incentivized in a country full of homeless where most people can only dream to ever own a house.

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

#340

Post by atomi »

ip26 wrote: post #327
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The interesting part is the next question you have to ask yourself- could Elon have built what he did somewhere else?

Honestly, I fantasize about a California with population levels pre-Gold-Rush, pre-Dust-Bowl and pre-Silicon-Valley.
Post reply on HN