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

411–420 of 734 posts

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

#411

Post by throwawaysea »

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

That’s just the city’s spending. Once you consider other sources, including private ones (nonprofits), it is much higher. The Seattle area was spending $1B a year on homelessness as of a few years ago, which is nearly $100K/year per homeless person (https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness).

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

#412

Post by [deleted] »

volkfish55 wrote: post #195
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.

I would be curious to know what's interesting in Singapore?

[deleted]

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

#413

Post by ulfw »

afpx wrote: post #186
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…

There's always going to be a demand for California. It's a unique country - the vibe, the culture, the creativity, the beauty. It's one of the best places in the world to start a creative business because of the raw talent that's available. People will continue to flock there, regardless of the taxes, especially in a post-scarcity world. It's good for Californians to enforce their values. They'll keep their country u…

It is not a country. As much as you like it to be one.

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

#414

Post by leetcrew »

sacred_numbers wrote: post #291
granzymes wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism means capital that earns for you while you sleep. If it earns for you while you sleep then it is also taxed while you sleep. Income is income: the tax man doesn’t care where it comes from.

That's kind of true, but also not quite true either. If you earn income from capital you are only taxed when you sell that capital. Theoretically this means that if you want to spend money on living expenses or luxuries you have to sell capital to fund your lifestyle. However the super rich can borrow money at extremely low rates with their assets as collateral, bypassing taxes and allowing their capital to keep earn…

> Honestly, my major problem with wealth inequality is not that rich people get to have money; it's that wealth concentration leads to power concentration. That's not healthy for democracy. This is probably extremely controversial, but I say go ahead and collect a wealth tax and then burn everything you collect. It's not about the budget, it's about limiting the power of billionaires and the corporations they control. There are probably better ways to accomplish that goal, but a wealth tax is at least a start in the right direction.

I'm not totally convinced by this. in fact, I'd argue the opposite: wealth is the result of power, not the cause. consider jeff bezos; I'm sure we would all consider him a powerful man. is he powerful because the shares he holds are worth $200 billion (on paper), or is he powerful because he controls one of the largest companies in the world?

here's a thought experiment. suppose there was an asymptotic tax that limited net worth to a maximum of $1 billion, so jeff bezos would only have 0.5% of his current assets. how much would his power be diminished? I tend to think his status as the founder and CEO of amazon would put him in a pretty similar position.

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

#415

Post by chance_state »

bradleyjg wrote: post #100
caseysoftware wrote: post #26

I'm not sure what the problem is. When Democrat supporters demand more more more via the politicians who promise more more more, where did they think the money would come from? Believe it or not, the bottom ~50% don't have enough money to tax. The next 30-40% have some but not enough to raise enough money to help. The taxes have to be focused on the top 10% and more likely the top 1-3% to raise enough to meet these d…

The adjective is Democratic.

But "Democrat supporters" sounds worse, which is why they use that word instead.

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

#416

Post by chance_state »

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…

"Cut taxes and everything will magically get better."

Can't believe people still buy this bullshit.

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

#417

Post by mgolawala »

antisthenes wrote: post #403
mgolawala wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. It's called boiling the frog. I am not totally against wealth taxes, however I disagree with the approach. What I do not understand is why not just implement a more aggressive estate tax on people and close the "trust" and "foundation" loopholes for avoiding the estate tax. Let's take Jeff Bezos as an extreme example (who isn't even a California Resident). At least until we figure out immortality, Jeff Bezos wil…

> When he dies, his wealth should return to the society from which it came. Sorry, but this stance is outright ignorant. What do you mean return to society ? His wealth is Amazon, the company, dozens of warehouses and an incredible logistics chain. His wealth currently provides a pretty damn good service to society, in the form of being able to get items delivered fairly quickly and contact-less in the time of a pand…

It is unfortunate that you consider the stance to be "outright ignorance", when what you are really questioning is how would such a thing be implemented.

That is not an easy question to answer. The approach you suggested is certainly one that could be considered. You mention that most people would sell those shares for cash.. well that is cash in their hands then. That is money they didn't have before that they now have, that they can then spend on goods and services correct? Is it not redistribution of the wealth of the deceased within society?

It sounds like you agree with the principle, but are worried about the implementation. I would likely consider myself to be in the same boat. However, I am not even seeing any public conversation about it, or an attempt to move in that direction. I think the conversation should be

"This is what we want to do, this is fair wealth redistribution.. now let us come up with ideas on how we can make this work".

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

#418

Post by ulfw »

herbst wrote: post #49
caseysoftware wrote: post #26

I'm not sure what the problem is. When Democrat supporters demand more more more via the politicians who promise more more more, where did they think the money would come from? Believe it or not, the bottom ~50% don't have enough money to tax. The next 30-40% have some but not enough to raise enough money to help. The taxes have to be focused on the top 10% and more likely the top 1-3% to raise enough to meet these d…

Isnt the us taxing basically everyone even if they moved somewhere else years ago?

It's even more absurd. They force Green Card holders to pay taxes too.

I lived and worked in country A, have citizenship with country B and the most amount of money when I worked in A was sent to the US, where I have no rights, no one would come for me to 'save me' when I'm held hostage or whatnot. Nothing. But I paid more taxes to the US than to country A (and nothing to my home country).

I relinquished my Green Card two years later.

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

#419

Post by runarberg »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #338
ip26 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don’t be surprised if Texas (in particular Austin) adopts similar tax measures. I bet there is just as much public support for it—if not even more—then in California.

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

#420

Post by jelliclesfarm »

adjkant wrote: post #350
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!

I can't say I have much time to engage today, but since this seems to have some support and a fundamental misunderstanding, I want to address this one. Hatred towards the ultra-rich is not based in jealousy but in a moral stance. The argument is not "I want your 30M" it is that "people having this much wealth is bad for all of society". See: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/opinion/abolish-billionai... There's much…

>Hatred towards the ultra-rich is not based in jealousy but in a moral stance.

there is nothing 'moral' about hatred. or covetousness.

one wealthy person has created more jobs and taxes and created benefits for society in goods and services than the 99% that already benefit from them.

see that smart phone in your hand? the blazing internet speeds? the nice roads? the electric car rebate you get. the cheap cheap food we enjoy. thats what we get from wealthy people. if you had money after killing the golden geese and noone motivated to create this paradise we live in, we'd move elsewhere.

20 years ago..and i am old enough to remember it...life was so much different. maybe segregation is the answer. ghettos and mansions.

eta: is america the land where children are not taught to take things that dont belong to them? its not your wealth. you didnt create it. you cant take it. move on. make your own money. happiness is free.

do men go to a woman and grab her breasts because she has them and they dont. they want it and she doesnt? same thing. you cant touch without consent. i wouldnt go as far as to say that taxation is rape..but it is theft and punitive. best to measure the inherent power of taxation and only use it sparingly and prudently. other's wealth is not for the govt's to distribute. are we going to start forcing everyone to study, educate themselves and work next? i didnt think so.

Post reply on HN