511–520 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way. Singapore gets a footing in the world not because it is a city state but because it's Singapore.
i agree. what i meant was how singapore's structure is different from the rest of nation states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do know you can voluntarily pay more in taxes today, right now... Giving money to government is not compasssion, Helping people get food, shelter, healthcare,etc yourself is compassion. Voting for government to use guns to force people to pay what you have perceived as "their fair share" in order to provide those things to people is not compassion, it is self-righteous bullying.
I can. I do give to charities. But me giving had a much, much smaller impact than me pushing for everyone to give. It's not just about their fair share. Income inequality is a feedback loop that has a predictable and quite unpleasant outcome. I'd much rather introduce mechanisms to slow that feedback loop down. The parent poster argued that "don't the wealthy know they'll get taxed more?" I'd propose that "don't the…
The problem here is the fact you are not pushing for everyone to "give", giving is a voluntary act, taxation is compulsory done under the explicit threat of violence. It is not an act of "giving" it is an act of taking.
>"don't the bottom 95% know they'll experience a steady decline of income and purchasing power if we don't tax the wealthy more?"
History does not show this to be the case at all, The World is becoming a better place for everyone [1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interesting part is the next question you have to ask yourself- could Elon have built what he did somewhere else?
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment#Jobs_and_gro...
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…
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...
You're mixing up to whom it's meaningful. Rich individuals will be unaffected, but it will benefit the state as the tax is collected from more than one person.
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…
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...
Well they aren't collecting it from just one person, so the number's really big on one side (in aggregate) and it's really small on the other side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you drive a large fraction of those people out, they don't all go to Austin. Austin therefore winds up with a lower concentration of those people than Silicon Valley had. By doing this, you can kill SV without creating a new one.
That depends on how much concentration you actually need. You could kill SV and create five more.
The most likely thing isn't five more valleys, it's that the valley gets { Texas, Boston, Utah, Minnesota, DC Metro, ..}-ized and there is nothing like it again.
* (I _hate_ "entrepreneur"; I've founded and exited a company but as a term it is not in-line at all with the freewheeling, let's-do-this, let's-do-it-better-than-anyone way people who drove the valley in the 70s and 80s thought of themselves. The rise of "entrepreneur" as the way of thinking about founders correlates well, imho, with the decline of the valley as the center of technology.)
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…
What? Y-combinator takes in lots of people for more than 60 days and they're on track to make a lot of money given the success rate of YC startups.
>> When people are getting 5-6% returns on investments (minimum), 0.4% is still not even stopping the rich get richer effect.
How is that relevant to taxing people who dont live there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isnt the us taxing basically everyone even if they moved somewhere else years ago?
As a rough approximation, if you’re a US citizen, then You must file a US income tax return. The US taxes your worldwide income regardless of where it’s earned. BUT under most circumstances you would get a credit against what you owe the US for what you pay the country in which you earned the money and also wanted to tax you (no double taxation in theory) It’s kind of a pain for someone living in say Kenya which does…
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Hu...
> Article 15
> 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
> 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
The US is one of the few countries in the world taxjng non resident citizens.
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.
So if one year I spend 60 days in California, I owe the tax for the next 10 years? That seems indefensible. In fact, if they implement this, I'm pretty sure there's going to be a Supreme Court case, and IANAL, but I suspect California will lose.
- Cali has concentrates most of the entrepreneurship... of the entire world for the next century, so a bit of decentralization would be a trickle-down equivalent,
- There is already an exode to Texas,
- This rule will make people move,
- And also cancel all their meetings in Cali, to avoid reaching anywhere close to the 2 months per year threshold.