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

561–570 of 734 posts

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

#561

Post by rufus_foreman »

Pfhreak wrote: post #351
syshum wrote: post #150

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…

>> I can. I do give to charities.

I don't think that's what syshum is talking about. You said, "Send the tax man to my house and all my peers. We can afford it just fine".

There is no need for the tax man to come to your house. Go to https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html. There's a link there, you can even use PayPal if you want. Figure out what the additional amount is that you think you should be paying in tax, and make the payment. You can do it this very minute.

Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

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

#562

Post by tertius »

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.

How so?

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

#563

Post by truckerbill »

sdenton4 wrote: post #540
da_big_ghey wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital gains taxes are already a thing. You just pay on liquidation instead of having to come up with cash every year.

First, let's recognize that this is a completely made-up criteria for when to apply the tax, then: there's no "natural" ethical principle for why it's ok to tax at liquidation vs tax continuously. The question, then, is whether one method is actually better than another under some set of criteria. The original comment's 'I don't feel like it' is insufficient in my mind. The reality of the current system is that we ha…

This is the only clear reasoning in the entire thread chain.

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

#564

Post by notacoward »

steffenfrost wrote: post #466
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #443

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…

This is the camel's nose in the tent. If this is adopted, the threshold will move down and the percentage will move up and eventually will touch everyone. Liberal politics turn everyplace into a disaster. CA was at a high bar so it is taking a little longer.

> camel's nose in the tent

a.k.a. the Slippery Slope.

https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/slippery-slope/

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

#565

Post by damnyou »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #559
damnyou wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share your concerns about centralized management, which is why the money should be redistributed in the form of a UBI to enable decentralized decision-making.

The decision about how much UBI is enough and from whom it is drawn and by how much is the critical part of the equation, and that is necessarily centralized.

Indeed, only the state can succeed at decentralization. That's why we need some amount of centralized, democratic decision-making as well. But redistributing wealth as UBI is a good way to redistribute power across society (an unalloyed good -- power should be broadly distributed) while avoiding most of the worst parts of central planning.

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

#566

Post by rufus_foreman »

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…

>> You do know that the US taxes its citizens living abroad, right?

Federal tax. US citizens living abroad can still vote in federal elections. People who haven't lived in California for ten years can not vote in California elections.

This would be taxation without representation. If you're an American, you probably were educated on the proper procedure for dealing with that.

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

#567

Post by rufus_foreman »

sharpneli wrote: post #237
gfxgirl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco spends $50k per homeless person. The problem doesn't seem like it's money

Really? That’s more money than we use for the unemployed here in Finland. And they get healthcare, food and house. SF is expensive for sure, but that expensive? Where is the money going to?

Follow the drugs.

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

#568

Post by throwaway2245 »

syshum wrote: post #523
throwaway2245 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - the Dutch tax is a fixed amount based on your total holding on January 1st. Your taxable amount on €100,000,000 is (approximately) 1.6% of the total, not of the gain. You would pay €1,600,000. This does replace capital gains (I'm not sure to what extent): it is presented as an assumption that you will gain a fixed amount of [edited: 5.28%].

Do you have a source showing how that is what happens? This site[1] seems to refute your assertion [1] https://firetheboss.eu/personal-finance/dutch-wealth-tax/

I think the site agrees with me but you are misreading it, maybe? Could you be more specific?

For example, the main table has a column "Tax as % of Wealth"

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

#569

Post by AnimalMuppet »

laurent92 wrote: post #520
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The best bet of each other state is NOT to send this to SCOTUS, because then they will all benefit from an accelerated exode: - 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 rea…

It doesn't have to be the states filing suit. It can be the rich taxed individuals. They can buy the kind of lawyers it would take to effectively run that lawsuit.

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

#570

Post by asdff »

tacitusarc wrote: post #248
Straw wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I disagree with the whole idea of income taxes. You should be taxed for owning things, because the government enforces your property rights, not just for labor, for which the government doesn't directly contribute at all. I should be able to earn money for my labor without the government taking a fraction every time it moves around. Even if you move to the woods, you're still taking military protection fr…

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has had his house smashed into an all of his stuff stolen, none of which was recovered and no meaningful attempt to do so was made, I don't particularly buy the argument that government enforces property rights. In certain cases, maybe. But mostly property rights exist because we all kind of agree they exist, and we generally don't go burglarizing each other.

Property rights are typically enforced if you are rich. It's pretty evident even just by looking out your car window at the condition of a place how the level of enforcement and tolerance for certain things changes the minute you drive from Los Angeles into other cities like Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Pasadena, or Culver City, for example.

The classic example of this differential response was in 1992, when the LAPD staked out defensive positions to protect the mansions owned by wealthy white political donors in Hancock Park, while Koreatown burned with immigrant shopkeepers left to fend for themselves by forming armed vigilante militias until the national guard was deployed and restored order.

Post reply on HN