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

641–650 of 734 posts

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

#641

Post by throwaway2245 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #590
tylerhou wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You clearly haven’t thought through the implications of that policy. It is literally forcing the owner to write a call option against their asset that anyone can exercise and without the owner receiving a risk premium. Speculators and arbitrageurs would make a fortune acquiring these assets if the call option was written at fair market value. It would be like r/wallstreetbets but with everyone’s private property. Tha…

> if the call option was written at fair market value.

There are several solutions to this hypothetical problem.

The parent said the owner decides the value of their premium item. The owner is claiming indifference as to whether it is sold at their chosen value or not.

If that's only fair market value (in the rest of the market), the owner is indifferent to owning the asset at all and is just inadvertently hoarding it. The economy works better for everyone if the owner is encouraged to sell to whoever values it most highly.

If the call option is called in (above the owner's valuation plus costs), an auction could be triggered, avoiding the arbitrage of first dibs.

Overall, this is a hair on the back of a nit. The law should be that you pay tax on your global wealth - avoiding and evading tax is already a choice that people make. It's nothing new.

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

#642

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Pfhreak wrote: post #636
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: do you really expect people to live in penury or ignore their ‘immediates’ to deliver more taxes to a govt that has proven itself to be inept again and again and again showing no transparency, accountability or efficiency. That’s just daft. Who really dumps their money voluntarily to the taxman when your family..your friends..your neighbors needs and suffering can be alleviated with immediate results. I literal…

> Who really dumps their money voluntarily to the taxman when your family..your friends..your neighbors needs and suffering can be alleviated with immediate results. The question I think you are asking is, "If you give your money to the government, you don't know where it goes. Perhaps it is wasted. If you give it to people you know need it locally, you can have immediate results. Why push for the former?" If I've un…

You could organize those who want to contribute voluntarily. A tax is mandatory.

Example: We have a homelessness industrial complex in California. Our taxes go more towards paying activists and those who work with the homeless rather than building homes. The only way to get rid of homelessness is to build homes. It’s not like you can talk your way out of street living with talk therapy. While a portion need help..all of them need to be off of the streets. When California shows some results, I will consider supporting more taxation.

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

#643

Post by justinzollars »

asdff wrote: post #574
justinzollars wrote: post #309

The tax rate will never be high enough for the California Government. It is so mismanaged the only plausible solution is a default on its endless obligations. California should eliminate its income tax through ballot initiative. Moving it, from the highest in the nation to zero. Thats right. Zero. Can you imagine how awesome California would become with no income tax? Everyone would instantly get a 10% raise. The qua…

CA needs income tax because the property tax situation has hobbled the government for the past five decades. AS mismanaged it may be, Newsom did inherit a budget surplus and if it weren't for the pandemic things would be relatively stable.

> CA needs income tax because the property tax situation has hobbled the government for the past five decades.

How do you explain a state like Florida?

  Property taxes: 2.74%
  Incomes taxes: 0%
  Sales and excise taxes: 3.82%

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

#644

Post by Zak »

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…

Self defense with a firearm can be part of a plan to avoid being the victim of violence, but it works a lot better in a society where crime is rare, serious crimes are likely to be punished, and the probability of profiting from major crimes is low. When skilled and motivated criminals attack unsuspecting victims, they tend to be successful even if the victims are armed.

Case in point, in 1986, Michael Lee Platt and William Russel Matix went on a crime spree in the Miami area. They started by murdering a man at a shooting range to steal his firearm and car. They then tried and failed to rob an armored car, murdering an armed guard in the process. Next, they robbed a bank. After a couple months off, they robbed another armored car, during which they stole a guard's rifle and murdered him with it. A couple months after that, they robbed and attempted to kill another man at a shooting range, using his stolen car in a bank robbery a week later.

All of the victims these criminals shot were armed, which did not dissuade them from initiating attacks. The armored truck guards were presumably trained, but not sufficiently to defend against attackers whose opening move was gunfire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

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

#645

Post by tertius »

RestlessMind wrote: post #601
tertius wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

Police. Judiciary. Military. It takes a lot of infrastructure to defend property and property rights.

I see. Sorry I didn't complete the idea when "owning wealth" was used. I own money in a bank account. But I see now what he/she meant.

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

#646

Post by Zak »

tylerhou wrote: post #494
mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe where schemes along those lines have actually been implemented, only the government has the option to purchase the asset at the declared value. That has less potential for abuse, I think.

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

#647

Post by antisthenes »

mgolawala wrote: post #417
antisthenes wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When he dies, his wealth should return to the society from which it came. Sorry, but this stance is outright ignorant. What do you mean return to society ? His wealth is Amazon, the company, dozens of warehouses and an incredible logistics chain. His wealth currently provides a pretty damn good service to society, in the form of being able to get items delivered fairly quickly and contact-less in the time of a pand…

It is unfortunate that you consider the stance to be "outright ignorance", when what you are really questioning is how would such a thing be implemented. That is not an easy question to answer. The approach you suggested is certainly one that could be considered. You mention that most people would sell those shares for cash.. well that is cash in their hands then. That is money they didn't have before that they now h…

> You mention that most people would sell those shares for cash.. well that is cash in their hands then. That is money they didn't have before that they now have, that they can then spend on goods and services correct?

Because if sold quickly, it will crash the price of shares. So instead of a share being worth $3000 like it is now, it could cause a short term event where the people that need cash the most would only be able to get $100 for a share, which will get swooped by people who have disposable income to blow on investments.

It would just re-consolidate the wealth in the hands of wealthy people.

Sure, that's probably somewhat better than having it in the hands of 1 person, e.g Bezos, but is it better than other alternatives? Like just giving people stimulus checks in cash?

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

#648

Post by [deleted] »

atomi wrote: post #340
ip26 wrote: post #327

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?

Honestly, I fantasize about a California with population levels pre-Gold-Rush, pre-Dust-Bowl and pre-Silicon-Valley.

[deleted]

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

#649

Post by fuzzfactor »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #410
mgolawala wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. It's called boiling the frog. I am not totally against wealth taxes, however I disagree with the approach. What I do not understand is why not just implement a more aggressive estate tax on people and close the "trust" and "foundation" loopholes for avoiding the estate tax. Let's take Jeff Bezos as an extreme example (who isn't even a California Resident). At least until we figure out immortality, Jeff Bezos wil…

indians dont believe in death as the final destination. we believe in reincarnation. why should my wealth go to some random person when it can help my family, friends or those that i deem valuable? the kind of A type personality who is a wealth creator..by luck or intent..is likely uber A type that will not submit to dictatorship by legislation. if Jack Dorsey was forced to pay more taxes, he'd probably leave CA for…

>i have seen beggars in india with one limb and living in a shack with three children boiling pebbles for soup who are happier than millionaires in california.

We've got yachting communities in the US where some of the natives are surviving off of food banks and charity too because of high taxes, and they're still happy compared to the perceived grumpiness of California billionaires.

So i guess it's all relative, extreme inequality can be so unfair.

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

#650

Post by confidantlake »

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…

Why should you be taxed when you do things? That seems arbitrary.
Post reply on HN