481–490 of 734 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
States like Montana receive far more in federal tax dollars than states like California. If you think Montanans are going to be subsidized Californians and not the way around, I have a bridge in Montana I've got to sell you.
This will need a number to back that up. I've seen claims in both directions here on HN. It's also a number that's easy to distort to say whatever you want. Are people employed by the IRS being "subsidized"? Civilian logistics coordinators working for the DOD? Are you talking per capita, per square mile, or gross?
From an accounting standpoint, gross money in be money out is what matters. Per capita makes sense to compare relative benefit, but realistically Montana is small potatoes on the Federal Balance sheet. Measuring per sq mile seems like some ludicrous ploy by Alaska’s senator to screw over New Jersey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While yes, at 100K you can probably afford to pay some taxes, it's not where we should be looking to solve any real meaty problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just aren't using it correctly. If there was a way to just give homeless people the 50k in a UBI esque way things would drastically improve. Unfortunately I don't believe something like that is practical unless it's done on a national level.
If the majority of them weren't addicted to hardcore drugs and could make intelligent, rational decisions, I might agree that giving them money directly could be a good thing. Drug addicts tend to not make good monetary choices. See this recent documentary by KOMO News in Seattle about their problems, which are pretty similar to Portland's, SF's, LA's and a lot of other major cities with larger homeless populations.…
I don't really buy that money would fuel the problem, is there any study that indicates that? They'd still be drug addicts, but they'd be more comfortable, well fed drug addicts which makes things better for everyone.
If anything I think money for a place, clean clothes, and food would make it much easier to get off drugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ric…
Is a tiny distillation of one of the most difficult problems facing legislators intending to mitigate wealth inequality across their society: if the rich get upset, they can just take their toys and leave.
This is, from the perspective of legislative generations, a very new problem that has crystallized in the past 40 years with the expansion and standardization of international trade law.
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…
But the best way to describe CA is mismanaged. Accidentally giving out $2 billion to fraudulent unemployment claimants? Spending more money on social issues like drug abuse and homelessness only to have record after record smashed in levels of both.
It's sad, but I really wonder if the compassionate thing is to resist the policies that sound compassionate because clearly, visibly they don't work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where did they think the money would come from? There’s a growing misconception that everything can be paid for by simply taxing the wealthy a tiny bit more. Several prominent activist politicians have built their platforms on the idea that billionaires are an infinite source of consequence-free tax revenue. These ideas are especially popular among the college students and new college grads I mentor. It usually fal…
The most important point of taxing the top ~1% is to simply bring their wealth more in line with their contributions, and to reduce their outsized power on the political system. Jeff Bezos isn't "worth" a million times more than his warehouse workers, and he shouldn't have that kind of money either as a matter of principle, or as a matter of democratic power. It's not a matter of punishment, but a matter of ensuring…
that amazon doesnt give out as much dividends and ploughs back all the profits to create new companies and new jobs shows that jeff bezos is more socialist than any self declared socialist. its going to back as wages! and benefits of society are for everyone. if this isnt more than fair, i dont know what is...if the wealth redistribution people ever lived in any other country other than california(i wouldnt include the rest of the usa), they would realise how socially responsible and beneficial ca's billionaires have been to california by contributing to not just california but to the rest of the world. if anyone is 45 or above, they'd know how it was in the 80s and early 90s. if anyone has lived anywhere else and shelled out double digit VAT, they'd know that the europeon mixed economies and social welfare states place a higher tax burden on the middle class for far lesser quality of life materially than in california.
i wish i can air drop the proponents of 'eat the rich' into any one of the dozen countries..not even third world countries..for about 3 months. they'd realise how good we have it here in CA. or rather..how good we have had it...all that is going to go.
it's ironic that the same people crying for blood and redistribution are the ones fleeing to tax free or low tax states. thanks for nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's why they put in the provision that you have to keep paying the tax for 10 years after you move.
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.
You do know that the US taxes its citizens living abroad, right? I know someone who was born in the US, moved back to their home country at the ripe old age of 1, and chose to keep his citizenship when he turned 18, thinking that an additional passport won't hurt. Whoops! When he started making money, suddenly the taxman came calling! Even though he had not set foot in the US for 20 years!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Hardly a comparison. Can't do an easy commute to the office with that. Most people with that wealth won't burn the money on uprooting their companies.