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

#471

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #391

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.

Good luck with that. I bet there is majority support already for similar tax measures in Seattle, Austin and Singapore. That leaves only Miami, which is going to be underwater in a few decades. So you are better of just staying and paying your extremely modest fair share

Support for that in Austin? I doubt it. Not enough support that it has any chance of passing, anyway.

(I say this as someone who doesn't live in Texas, and doesn't actually know. It's just my impression from afar. Add the appropriate amount of salt...)

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

#472

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

Metus wrote: post #90

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.

And the Swiss ask for 0.13% and 1.01% depending on the Canton, pension funds are exempt.

I believe switzerland has no capital gains tax though. I did some napkin math a few weeks ago with a buddy who was considering moving there and we found that there are some situations where you would actually pay less tax vs US capital gains.

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

#473

Post by danenania » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

jboydyhacker wrote: post #347

fdr wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> San Francisco spends $50k per homeless person. A commonly repeated falsehood. Is totally incorrect. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...

If you read that article it talks about how some of that money is spent on prevention so it's a bit unfair to just use existing homeless as the denominator- it's still an obscene amount of money per person. So saying it's "totally incorrect" is a bit of a stretch. San Francisco absolutely has a Homeless industrial complex that isn't trying to solve the problem but just keep their cash flowing.

The article calculates that the actual amount spent per "visible homeless person" was ~$3800 per year in 2018. The majority was spent on prevention.

It seems pretty fair to say that being off by 10x is "totally incorrect".

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

#474

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

Kinrany wrote: post #332

cperciva wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't that priced into the cost of wealth already through insurance?

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

#475

Post by mdtusz » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

Kinrany wrote: post #332

cperciva wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is typically a function of sale price.

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

#476

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

nfiedel wrote: post #436

tasubotadas wrote: post #14

>Taxing someone who spends only 60 days in the state in any single year—and extending that tax over an ensuing decade—would be something new under the sun. Wow. That's nuts.

The tax is proportional to the number of days in California, and is only on wealth above $30M (married) or $15M (single). How many people do you think have $30M and spend >= 60 days a year in California, that do not benefit from business/property/services/educated employees in California? Very, very few.

but do people who spent >= 60 days in california one time continue to accrue benefits from their visit over the next decade? that's the egregious part.

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

#477

Post by NoRagrets » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #112

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 see it the opposite way around. We should only have a wealth tax and no income taxes. Capitalism means capital that earns for you while you sleep. Those who benefit the most from the system should pay for it. With only a wealth tax more people would have the means to amass wealth and there would be a greater incentive to spend rather than sit on money which would be good for the health and dynamism of the economy.

capitalism means creation of capital.

[..]In economics, capital consists of human-created assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work. For example, a stone arrowhead is capital for a hunter-gatherer who can use it as a hunting instrument; similarly, roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. Capital is distinct from land and other non-renewable resources in that it can be increased by human labor, and does not include certain durable goods like homes and personal automobiles that are not used in the production of saleable goods and services. Adam Smith defined capital as "that part of man's stock which he expects to afford him revenue". In economic models, capital is an input in the production function. [..]

i think you misunderstand what capital really means..

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

#478

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

sdfin wrote: post #375

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

2 is what happens in Argentina.

In Brazil the government just inflates the values away, and keeps the levels the same :)

Anyway, I am very friendly to the idea of a wealth tax. At a minimum it's more progressive than an income one.

What I don't like is all the attrition that comes from the government having to put price on things, and mandating liquidity. I also dislike government initiatives that increase the fragility of a society.

So, if one gets a proposal that doesn't suffer from those problems, I'm all for it. Until there I do think it's a great academic subject, but not viable on practice.

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

#479

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #229

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.

Income taxation creates a bureaucratic burden with no discernible benefit. We also disproportionately tax the poor via point of sale taxes which is just mind boggling stupid.

in a state like california, the poor already enjoy negative income tax. they derive more than they contribute in terms of services and infrastructure.

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

#480

Post by noetic_techy » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

60 days, wow the level of stupidity. Once again another case of good intentions, bad outcomes.

I'm a lead for a company that sends engineering teams into CA for probably 3-4 months total spread out over a year. Now we would have to totally reconsider how that will go. God forbid one of the team got sick for an extended hospital stay. Their travel costs are reimbursed, but what if they accidentally fall victim to the wealth tax (more like wealth trap), would the company be liable to cover it for a decade? How absurd does that sound.

Anecdotal story: I was born and raised in CA up to 2005 when I left for college, so was my father and mother. My entire immediate family has since left for either CO, FL or TX, and more extended family are following. We were all high net worth and have small business's or well paid STEM jobs. My uncle is about to move his entire business out of the state because the level of regulation and taxation is getting ridiculous. The other week he visited my parents in TX and marveled at how well maintained the roads were and how cheap the gas was, with no shanty towns along the freeways. The mismanagement of CA is out of control. Everyone I know that has left is so glad to have left at this point and hasn't looked back. The exodus of high net worth individuals to other states who don't think they are evil money hoarders will simply keep occurring until CA wakes with no money and a federal government refusing to bail them out.

You can't vote NO on proposition bankruptcy.