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

501–510 of 734 posts

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

#501

Post by namesbc »

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

You got fed some right-wing propaganda, and bought it without doing your own research since it matched your priors.

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

#502

Post by sdenton4 »

sologoub wrote: post #238
sdenton4 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/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 figure if we allow passive income, we should allow passive taxes...

There is no such thing as truly passive - the assets in this case are being used by providing capital to the markets and holding shares of companies that may or may not succeed. That’s “doing something” with these assets. The family heirloom that could bring you over the threshold? It’s collecting dust. The stock investments incidentally ARE already taxed, whether you are actively managing them or if someone else is…

By the same tack, is there any such thing as 'passive' wealth, then? Some things like cars depreciate, and others (like gold and real estate) appreciate. Why should it be off limit to tax these things?

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

#503

Post by ur-whale »

1024core wrote: post #488
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.

> Imagine being a slave to a state you don’t even live in for ten years. What a load of garbage 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 c…

There was another country that has the same dumb policy of taxing their citizen's passport.

Libya I think. Nope, sorry, even worse: Eritrea [1]

[1] https://www.taxesforexpats.com/expat-tax-advice/Citizenship-...

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

#504

Post by jlarocco »

nitrogen wrote: post #409
tyg13 wrote: post #372

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?

Here: https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Bala...

Or, the same data with a very hard to read circular bar graph visualization:

https://howmuch.net/articles/federal-budget-receipts-and-exp...

The numbers are actually pretty straightforward. "Expenditures is a broad category and covers a variety of things, including direct payments to people like Social Security, contracts for local governments, wages for federal workers and sub-contracting work."

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

#505

Post by csomar »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #77
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…

> 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…

This is the problem with representative democracy when the average IQ is below 80. Candidates do this because it sells, and they are running like business except they get paid in votes instead of dollars.

When they are in office, they try to string along as long as they can. Like this bill will probably not pass, but some damage could be done and the next time they have to give more ridiculous promises.

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

#506

Post by namesbc »

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.

If you use the term "Homeless industrial complex" then it is immediately obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

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

#507

Post by kraf »

wincy wrote: post #310
daveFNbuck wrote: post #302

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.

> Do I still need to file a U.S. tax return? Yes, if you are a U.S. citizen or a resident alien living outside the United States, your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you live.

This is taken from www.irs.gov

This kind of thing just looks american to me.

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

#508

Post by nullc »

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…

> When people are getting 5-6% returns on investments (minimum)

The 99th percentile wealth vs 99th percentile taxable income suggests that many very wealthy people are making lower returns in fact.

If people are generating those returns, however, there is no need for a wealth tax: the returns are already taxed (and could be taxed at a higher rate without a whole new invasive tax regime).

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

#509

Post by oblio »

ellyagg wrote: post #227
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…

Ah, yes, threatening to murder people you're jealous of. This is the content I come to Hacker News for!

Where is he threatening to kill anyone?

He's just highlighting a fact of life.

You can't have people starving next to people having 7 course meals.

I can't complain about my financial situation and this is precisely why I would support a fairer redistribution. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit so that others have a decent life, too. Because otherwise you can step on others only for so much, and at some point losing your possessions is the least of your concerns.

If you're a true conservative (not in the US sense of the term), you should understand this. Heck, Bismark, the grandfather of conservatives understood this.

Post reply on HN