California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state • Hacker News Board

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

#591

Post by Apocryphon » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

tacitusarc wrote: post #550

topher515 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made above about property rights is much bigger than “does my local police do a good job finding burglars?”. The point is that the government maintains an entire system for tracking, resolving disputes, and enforcing ownership. Think about who has the final say in a dispute over whether you own your car or your house or your company. The government adjudicates ownership disputes and then enforces that…

Or, alternatively, you'd need to buy a gun and defend your property yourself. Which many people do, and has become even more prevalent with the spate of looting in major cities with no police response last summer. You seem to be approaching this from a highly theoretical and ideological position, but that ignores the reality of the current situation, and the fact that the proposed law does not exist in some hypotheti…

Home defense doesn’t exist in a Hobbesian void of law. You’re still expecting the law to clean up after the fact, either to dispense justice against the invaders, or for the insurance payout, or whatever.

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

#592

Post by Spooky23 » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #389

Spooky23 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California’s governance with respect to property taxes is horrific and inequitable to the point that it should be illegal in many ways it has distorted the national economy in good and bad ways as folks sitting on property have turned into the 21st century version of a French aristocrat by sitting in their 50s ranch. That cohort of Californian is dying off now, and it may be better for all involved if companies pull…

the property tax rate is fair. unless there is a cap on speculative activity on real estate with a real interest and initiative in keeping housing prices stable, prop 13 is the untouchable third rail. just stopping foreign investment in california real estate will make an enormous difference. removing the prop 13 waiver for those who inherit property with the old tax rate will also help. with older people on the cloc…

Valuation based assessment is a core principle of property taxes. The prop 13 stuff is gross and I’m always surprised that it was never shot down in the Supreme Court.

California can be California, but the problem is more than some junk ranch house is selling for $3M. It’s bullshit that the whole country is essentially held hostage by “too big to fail” California mortgages that homeowners cab just walk away from.

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

#593

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #592

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the property tax rate is fair. unless there is a cap on speculative activity on real estate with a real interest and initiative in keeping housing prices stable, prop 13 is the untouchable third rail. just stopping foreign investment in california real estate will make an enormous difference. removing the prop 13 waiver for those who inherit property with the old tax rate will also help. with older people on the cloc…

Valuation based assessment is a core principle of property taxes. The prop 13 stuff is gross and I’m always surprised that it was never shot down in the Supreme Court. California can be California, but the problem is more than some junk ranch house is selling for $3M. It’s bullshit that the whole country is essentially held hostage by “too big to fail” California mortgages that homeowners cab just walk away from.

Actually property taxes are ad valorem. [..] An ad valorem tax is a tax whose amount is based on the value of a transaction or of property. It is typically imposed at the time of a transaction, as in the case of a sales tax or value-added tax. - Wikipedia[..]

Property taxes are paid EVERY year. What asset do you own that you keep on paying sales tax on?

The real estate market should be stable and for free market forces to aid that, we have to make many more fundamental changes before even touching prop 13.

1. Starting with children and grandchildren who inherit property not benefiting from the prop 13.

2. Secondly, a moratorium on all foreign investments in the real estate market in California.

3. A tiered tax rate for homes left empty while enjoying prop 13 benefits. Additionally, the primary home can also be entirely tax free wrt recurring annual taxes.

California’s problem is not low taxation. Our problem is our state budget and gross mismanagement of our tax dollars by our elected representatives.

I would like to see how they manage our current levies and with more transparency before we hand over a bigger portion of our pay check. If people don’t have disposable income to spend, the economy will crumble and collapse.

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

#594

Post by NiceWayToDoIT » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

yhoneycomb wrote: post #148

NiceWayToDoIT wrote: post #75

Is it me or things are getting crazier every single day, why not planetary tax, air tax, water tax, volume occupation tax, tax on tax?

A wealth tax isn't crazy. What's crazy is NOT having a wealth tax and instead more heavily taxing people who are actually working for a living.

It is not crazy to tax rich I agree, but what constitutes as rich? How do you grantee that tomorrow they will not tax every IT worker who is staying bit longer in California?

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

#595

Post by syshum » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #573

syshum wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WOW, where to even begin. Money is not a resource like water, money is a medium of value exchange. In the case of income money is the medium where I exchange my Time, Knowledge, and labor for a given quantity of money which I then use for trade to obtain things others have used their time, money and knowledge to create It is a simpler and more abstract instead of me having to grow wheat to exchange with a baker for b…

Sure, and you are given the amount you negotiate with your employer, less any taxes. Which is the amount you are compensated for the value of your labor. The amount your government retains is not a total loss for you either. > Given this, I do 100% believe I am entitled to 100% of my Labor, time and knowledge. If you produce a profit for your employer, you are not earning 100% of your labor, time, and knowledge. Real…

>>The amount your government retains is not a total loss for you either.

I assume here you are implying I get something of value from my tax dollars, but this does not make it any less of a theft. If I come to your home, mow your grass then "tax" your car from you as payment for my services you would still call that theft. and rightly so.

Simply because the government "gave" me services I neither asked for nor consented to does not mean their taking of my labor / money is ceases to be theft

>If you produce a profit for your employer, you are not earning 100% of your labor, time, and knowledge.

This is false thinking, given your clear bias to socialism I can understand why you think that but it never the less false

My employer accepts my labor (at the agreed rate), then combines my labor with the labor of others, and their own capital investment / or other assets (like a brand) where by that is repackaged by them to be sold as goods and services on the market.

True the total value of the end product sold has to be greater than their purchase cost, that is how businesses work, and how a Value Add economy functions, that however does not mean I did not get 100% of the value of my labor, on the contrary.

I will ignore the attempt the slide in the government as a valid and ethical actor in the transaction, they are not. A market transaction consists of the buyer and seller that is all, the government is an unethical 3rd party leech on the system

Keep in mind I am not opposed to all government finance, at the end of the day I would even support a UBI, in fact I would support a UBI over all other forms of welfare. I however would implement such a system using Georgism Single Tax model on natural resources, not on income, wealth or labor.

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

#596

Post by Hnrobert42 » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #17

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is insane. It is also insane that the system is so rigged in favor of wealth accumulation. An insane solution to an insane problem. I pay a lot in taxes, and I am good with that. I also give a fair bit away. The truth is I should make less, as should you.

but living expenses are also very high, as is student loan debt and other recurring expenses

What? I wasn’t advocating for people to make less than basic living expenses or to pay for education.

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

#597

Post by Hnrobert42 » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #25

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is insane. It is also insane that the system is so rigged in favor of wealth accumulation. An insane solution to an insane problem. I pay a lot in taxes, and I am good with that. I also give a fair bit away. The truth is I should make less, as should you.

> The truth is I should make less, as should you. That some people make a lot of money is a good thing. The bad thing is those who make too too little money.

I agree with your bad thing. I disagree with your good thing.

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

#598

Post by endtime » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

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?

Do you know what the "ycombinator" in this site's URL is a reference to?

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

#599

Post by Apocryphon » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

foobiekr wrote: post #517

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on how much concentration you actually need. You could kill SV and create five more.

It's easier to destroy the Valley than to create a timeline where a new Valley evolves. It really isn't an inevitability that anything like SV exist, and in fact, there are tons of reasons why it's unlikely a new one would evolve, chief among them the hostility to individual entrepreneurs* like regulatory capture, enforceable non-competes, and so on, as well a lot of the margin and efficiencies have been driven out o…

There should be efforts to to build new Silicon Valley’s. Putting all of tech’s eggs on one metro located near massive faultlines is just poor planning. There ought to be multiple redundancies.

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

#600

Post by runarberg » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

therealdrag0 wrote: post #549

runarberg wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah could be. I just disputed your other comment that lots of middle class people wouldn't mind taxing the rich. Whereas most of the conservatives I know are ardently against tax increases by principle even if the tax wouldn't affect them. But sure if Tx changes politically then ya.

I guess your right, I’m sort of ignoring the existence of the conservative middle class (which I believe is kind of big in Texas). However I wouldn’t be surprised if we were to witness the political left winning over this vote share in less then a generation by targeting the wealthy elite. And I think this is even more likely to happen in Texas then say California.