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

#451

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #367

emteycz wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

nah, if you make $100k (especially if it's straight W-2 income) you have basically just entered the range where you have enough disposable cash to be worth taking but not enough to do anything about it. no one will say so explicitly, but this group is the prime target for taxation.

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

#452

Post by em500 » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #211

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…

I've got several concerns with wealth taxes in general too: 1) They are difficult to enforce. How to measure the value of a famous painting? What if the value does down? Is there a refund of wealth taxes? 2) They are an entirely new class of taxes that will give politicians the ability to increase the overall tax burden over time. At first, they will only impact the very wealthy, but it is much easier to adjust the t…

> 1) They are difficult to enforce. How to measure the value of a famous painting? What if the value does down? Is there a refund of wealth taxes?

The Netherlands has had a general wealth tax since 2001 and there have not been many practical issues AFAIK. There are separate regimes for (1) primary residence (which get yearly assessments based on comparable sales/house price indices), (2) significant (>5%) business ownership (businesses need balance sheets/valuations anyway) and (3) all other assets taxed at around 1.2% of net asset value, first 30k exempt. There are no capital gains taxes. The value is assessed on 1 Jan every year. Whatever happens during the year is ignored.

For bucket (3) the vast majority are in practice held in financial assets (stocks, bonds, savings, loans) and non-primary residence) real estate, most of these are pretty straightforward to value. There are explicit exemptions for art and science artifacts, pension investments (401k), movable property for personal use (cars, furniture) [1].

There's a good degree of pragmatism is most of this. The tax authorities realize that trying to squeeze some drops of people with Picasso's in their basements is largely a waste of time and effort. Rich people typically don't hold a large part of their wealth in illiquid, difficult-to-appraise assets for obvious reasons.

[1] Here's a list in Dutch: https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/...

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

#453

Post by xhkkffbf » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #443

wincy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I'm dubious about both the legality and wisdom of this proposed tax, I confess I'm having trouble seeing "paying a 0.4% tax on wealth over $30M" as being "slave to a state." Yes, metaphor, but it's a metaphor of "reducing my $50M estate to $49.92M might as well be forced servitude," and, uh, no. C'mon. Put that $50M somewhere that averages even a modest 4% annual return and you could pay the tax, draw out $600K…

$50m * 0.004 = $200,000.

You might be interested in this nice lottery the state also offers. Some call it a tax for those who are bad at math.

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

#454

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

frogblast wrote: post #190

This is fearmongering. The bill was introduced a year ago, went nowhere, and is now dead. This WSJ article was published a month after the bill was officially killed… The broader legislature has no interest in such a tax. This is the bill in question: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xht... Edit: also note that this article is on the WSJ opinion page, and didn’t come from the news desk.

thanks for pointing this out.

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

#455

Post by blululu » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

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 also has one of the lowest property taxes in the country. Income tax is high and so is sales tax but to look at a single form of taxation and conclude that taxes are high in general is a non sequitur. Texas, for instance, has high property tax but it would not be considered a high tax state for this reason alone. At the end of the day it costs a certain amount to run a modern government, the question is simply a matter of what taxes are the most fair way to finance it.

Note: California’s government probably could be leaner, but there is also broad bipartisan support for more prisons, police and firefighters. The California republican party’s focus on cutting spending overlooks the deeper problem that we aren’t getting good value on a lot of the spending and budget cuts only exasperate the problem. More meaningful institutional reforms are needed.

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

#456

Post by cbozeman » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #369

Trias11 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+ 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…

Good comment... you've made it clear with these two statements:

> On the one hand, the people who live there are genuinely horrible.

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

No, we don't. Please stay the fuck out of Texas. Its clear that what you really mean is, "These people don't share my radical political and social viewpoints, so they're bad."

Don't come anywhere close to our state. Californians are already fucking up Texas, starting with Austin. I've only met one California couple that were likable, and he grew up in a desert city of 317 and she grew up in Northern California.

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

#457

Post by scrollaway » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

xhkkffbf wrote: post #453

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm dubious about both the legality and wisdom of this proposed tax, I confess I'm having trouble seeing "paying a 0.4% tax on wealth over $30M" as being "slave to a state." Yes, metaphor, but it's a metaphor of "reducing my $50M estate to $49.92M might as well be forced servitude," and, uh, no. C'mon. Put that $50M somewhere that averages even a modest 4% annual return and you could pay the tax, draw out $600K…

$50m * 0.004 = $200,000. You might be interested in this nice lottery the state also offers. Some call it a tax for those who are bad at math.

20m * 0.004 = 80k. GP isn't bad at math, you just fail to understand how these types of taxes work.

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

#458

Post by 1123581321 » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #443

wincy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I'm dubious about both the legality and wisdom of this proposed tax, I confess I'm having trouble seeing "paying a 0.4% tax on wealth over $30M" as being "slave to a state." Yes, metaphor, but it's a metaphor of "reducing my $50M estate to $49.92M might as well be forced servitude," and, uh, no. C'mon. Put that $50M somewhere that averages even a modest 4% annual return and you could pay the tax, draw out $600K…

If it’s so small as to not be meaningful, why collect it? How could it benefit the state to have so little money? If the state professes a genuine need for such a small marginal increase in its revenue, then shouldn’t the individuals being taxed be able to make a similar case?

This is like the conversation over signing NDAs, where one party pressures the other by saying it doesn’t matter...

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

#459

Post by throwaway316943 » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

carlio wrote: post #181

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.

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.

That’s not the argument. Many people are willing to pay tax if they see evidence that it is being wisely managed and is improving the quality of life. If the money is disappearing into a vacuum of corruption and inefficiency then people will wisely avoid contributing to such a needless waste.

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

#460

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:43 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…

i disagree with all forms of tax. we should only be taxed for consumption. it would raise the cost of living but it would also create ways to govern ourselves better, improve quality of life and take care of those who cant through charity rather than punitive forced taxation.

it's charity because someone has to take care of your financial needs because you are incapable of managing it yourself. someone has to take over another in need and take responsibility out of the kindness of their heart. it cant be demanded. the notion that we deserve a portion of another person's hard word makes a mockery of their hard work and dedication.

assets become valuable over time and the value of some assets is completely relative. if jeff bezos sold all his wealth in amazon shares, first, it wouldnt be the billions it is now..(even if he could sell it..), secondly, it would take it with it millions of dollars of income for hundreds of thousands of people. the notion of 'wealth' is a man made construct. wealth is what we consume. everything else is a resource. you cant tax resources. it is an asset that hasnt been realised yet.