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

361–370 of 734 posts

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

#361

Post by thatfrenchguy »

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…

> This is because wealthy French people moved to Brussels, where you still have a pretty nice city and you can still speak French

Meh, as a French person, the number of people who did this is pretty low. People hid their assets sure, but the FTB is a bit better at this than the fisc is ;-)

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

#362

Post by meowster »

defterGoose wrote: post #353
flyinglizard wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Yes, if you like the plebs getting arrested for spitting on the sidewalk or executed for shooting up, Singapore is the place for you!

40% of the people that live in Singapore are immigrants from different countries. They apparently value the trade-off.

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

#363

Post by acover »

tsimionescu wrote: post #266
OminousWeapons wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worth asking why compensation is the way it is. If we assume that people's compensation is based on the value they generate for an organization, then what you are asking is basically "can a million warehouse workers together in a collective be as effective as Jeff Bezos at producing value for Amazon?" Alternatively, you could ask "can a given warehouse worker given one million times his current compensat…

Yes, I do believe that the amount of wealth people get from a company should be proportional to their contributions to that company. Of course, this is very hard to give a clear number to. Still, one way to go about this is to assume that workers and employers are rational economic agents and look at their incentives and bargaining power. Obviously, an employer will never employ anyone for more money than they believ…

I don't think marginal benefit of Jeff Bezos is what you are trying to measure. Consider, if a light bulb is broken having one Jeff Bezos replace it is hugely valuable. Adding a second Jeff Bezos to the situation doesn't help.

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

#364

Post by api »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #295
woah wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not possible to build any new housing in California. The vast majority of projects are blocked by the powerful landowner lobby. Throwing money at the homeless problem doesn’t help the homeless much and just pushes property values higher. The government and tax system of California is a perfectly designed instrument to transfer wealth from newcomers to homeowners.

Change the law. Can anyone remind me what the rich when ending this racket is on the ballot?

Homeowners are benefiting from these policies, at least in the short term, and statistically homeowners vote a lot more than renters or more transient residents.

At some point the most rational thing becomes to leave California if you are not a homeowner, or to never go there in the first place, and to geographically diversify the industries that are located there. All these things seem to be happening already. Ship may have sailed.

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

#365

Post by Thlom »

beagle3 wrote: post #123
throwaway2245 wrote: post #32

This proposal is 0.4% tax on wealth above $30m. The Dutch equivalent is 1.6% tax on wealth above €1m. The number of Ultra High Net Worth Individuals in the Netherlands is still increasing.

The Dutch tax from cursory reading is not comparable - apparently, if you pay wealth tax, you are exempt from capital gains tax; also, if your wealth is real estate outside of the Netherlands, it is not taxed. It may be more comparable to Norway’s wealth tax, which is 0.85% of everything above 200K€ (With some provisions for primary residence and illiquid shares IIUC, discounting these somewhat) A Norwegian tax profe…

Norwegian here. Some filthy rich are moving their assets or even themselves to tax havens. F.ex. Norways richest man, the oil and shipping millionaire John Fredriksen made himself a Cypriot a few years ago. Some other are transferring their assets to their children who live in f.ex. Switzerland. But overall I don't think capital flight is a huge issue.

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

#366

Post by ashconnor »

justinzollars wrote: post #309

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 qua…

Other states raise revenue by other means. Look at Texas property taxes. Also Oregon Income Taxes are about 3.5% different than California. Is it really that different?

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

#367

Post by Pfhreak »

emteycz wrote: post #216
jamiltron wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what that means at all. Founding a business requires a significant investment of capital.

It doesn't necessarily require the founder investing large amounts, Bezos began with a small investment - and a lot of ingenuity. My own business began this year with $0 and I'm way past $100k. I had to live in my car for two months, absolutely worth it though, it helped me focus like never before. I created excellent product and then spent a lot of time both online and offline finding customers. And now imagine you…

Bezos started with hundreds of thousands of dollars and a secure living arrangement, from what I understand.

And if you are making $100k, you aren't the target of anyone's tax plans.

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

#368

Post by jseliger »

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…

California will do absolutely anything to raise revenue except repeal Prop 13.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-will-do-anything-to-en...

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

#369

Post by ianai »

Trias11 wrote: post #348
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.

+ Nevada too

As someone who lived in Nv for 10 years - I'm 50/50 on suggesting further people move there. On the one hand, the people who live there are genuinely horrible. Maybe an influx of new people will help the culture. Especially if they bring new industry with them. That said, the local industry pushes anything not-gambling or hospitality out. I suspect it'd just become more densely populated and even more hostile/violent.

So move to Texas or the south east. They clearly need an influx of ... something.

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

#370

Post by mattmanser »

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…

Genuine question, as that doesn't sound like a a fair experiment.

Couldn't they just limit the amount you can emigrate from the country with.

So if you emigrate, you can only take a maximum of, say, €10 mill.

i.e. earn it in France, using French laws, a French education and French infrastructure, it stays in France.

Obviously it clashes with EU free movement, but basically the problem seems to be we can't tax the rich because they take advantage of globalism to move their money around.

Isn't the solution to stop them moving it, rather than giving up?

Post reply on HN