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

491–500 of 734 posts

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

#491

Post by rattray »

runarberg wrote: post #352
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably the stupidest part of it, because then you convince all the people who imagine they're going to be Elon Musk in ten years that they should leave California immediately.

How many people actually believe they will become the next Musk, to an extent that they are willing to move out of state in preparation to maximize their greed in the off chance they will succeed in this impossible task?

Kind of a lot of people in the Gold Rush State. Between the dreamers of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, a lot of folks go there to become wealthy. And even if only a small fraction do, it's still more than almost anywhere else in the world.

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

#492

Post by thebean11 »

paul_f wrote: post #465
thebean11 wrote: post #263

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.

Homelessness is a mental health problem and judges won't allow forced stays in mental institutions.

Yeah, and they shouldn't allow it. Not sure what this has to do with my comment though.

Anyway, saying it's a mental health problem is really reductive. Plenty of people with the same problems aren't homeless; some of these people can potentially dig themselves out if given a chance, most importantly a place to live.

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

#493

Post by notsureaboutpg »

ericd wrote: post #254
bbddg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff Bezos is just one person. Do you really think the US can't afford to cancel everyone's student debt?

Do you think we should? Is it fair to everyone who didn’t go to college because it was too expensive?

I hate the idea of cancelling student loan debt.

Why should people who chose to take on massive debt to go to private colleges get debt relief? Many many people made sensible decisions to go to lower cost schools, in-state schools or community colleges to avoid debt. Then there are people who chose to avoid college altogether to avoid debt. Some people religiously are forbidden from taking on debt and they oblige that by avoiding expensive schooling.

And forgiving student debt is a punch in the face to all those people. If we forgive student loan debt we HAVE TO give the same amount to people who were prudent enough to avoid that debt in the first place or else it's all a sham.

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

#494

Post by tylerhou »

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) For assets hard to value, the owner would have to declare the value of the painting. They would pay taxes on that declared value. To prevent the value from being too low, anyone would also have the ability to purchase that asset at the declared value.

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

#495

Post by raverbashing »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #302
entee wrote: post #272

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…

I think that's why they put in the provision that you have to keep paying the tax for 10 years after you move.

Yeah, I can understand the debate for higher taxes in some cases but 60 days will make you liable for 10 years is a bad joke. This means people from other states won't even risk visiting

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

#496

Post by csomar »

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…

> 1930's-1970's

The difference, however, is that today's rich people can easily move their residence, and with remote-work; maybe their companies.

In the old times, it was not quite easy to move to another country. I can imagine the difficulties (selling your assets, taking your fortune, figuring out the new kingdom, wars and instability, etc...). This is no longer an issue with city-states like Dubai or Panama; and the fact that your wealth is floating online on some stocks, banks, bitcoin, derivatives, or real-estate scattered around the world.

This doesn't concern the average joe, however. Which is why he continues to carry most of the tax bill and is cash-strapped.

California issue, however, is not the rich are greedy; but that its government is corrupt and inefficient. Raising taxes doesn't help but only grow the corrupt bureaucracy.

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

#497

Post by nullc »

Wealth taxes are extremely invasive. Commerce is inherently visible (because it necessarily involves other people). What you own is private.

The cost of even figuring out your net worth is substantial and would still be borne by people nowhere near the threshold... in fact, in the case of this bill everyone is required to report their assets to the state. The aggregate cost just from the reporting would probably dwarf the revenue.

Regardless of your politics or your views on taxation this is plan and simple a bad law.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... (Bill text)

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

#498

Post by oblio »

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!

> arrested for spitting on the sidewalk

Getting arrested is a bit much, but what's the redeeming quality of spitting on the sidewalk?

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

#500

Post by runarberg »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #489
runarberg wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you know many conservatives/Republicans?

I guess socialists crave what conservatives fear. My prediction is that as Texas becomes more democratic (lower case and capital D), the conservative’s fear will be increasingly realized.
Post reply on HN