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

651–660 of 734 posts

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

#651

Post by monocularvision »

Maarten88 wrote: post #236
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…

> If I start a company and it gets valued at 30 million dollars, why should the government be allowed to force me to sell my company to pay their wealth tax? I don't know the specifics of this proposal. But I live in a country that has a similar wealth tax, and it doesn't work that way here. When you found a company, its shares remain valued at nominal value for tax purposes, until you sell or transfer them. Only aft…

That is capital gains tax. Not a wealth tax.

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

#652

Post by RestlessMind »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #460
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…

i disagree with all forms of tax. we should only be taxed for consumption. it would raise the cost of living but it would also create ways to govern ourselves better, improve quality of life and take care of those who cant through charity rather than punitive forced taxation. it's charity because someone has to take care of your financial needs because you are incapable of managing it yourself. someone has to take ov…

Well, everyone consumes public infrastructure directly (driving on roads, suing someone, calling police) or indirectly (be assured of a safe investment environment for wealth building in the US vs Syria/Zimbabwe). How will you measure and tax this consumption to pay for the underlying infrastructure and labor?

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

#653

Post by Can_Not »

emteycz wrote: post #107
tsimionescu wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most important point of taxing the top ~1% is to simply bring their wealth more in line with their contributions, and to reduce their outsized power on the political system. Jeff Bezos isn't "worth" a million times more than his warehouse workers, and he shouldn't have that kind of money either as a matter of principle, or as a matter of democratic power. It's not a matter of punishment, but a matter of ensuring…

He as a human is worth exactly the same as the workers, of course. But that changes nothing about his right to the wealth he created. The others could create their own wealth, Bezos wasn't in a privileged position when he started. If his money gives him political power, the solution is to fix the political system, not steal his money.

> Bezos wasn't in a privileged position when he started.

According to wikipedia:

> He accepted an estimated $300,000 from his parents and invested in Amazon.

I know literally zero people whose parents could afforded to have given this type of loan, let alone willing to.

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

#654

Post by fuzzfactor »

RestlessMind wrote: post #652
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i disagree with all forms of tax. we should only be taxed for consumption. it would raise the cost of living but it would also create ways to govern ourselves better, improve quality of life and take care of those who cant through charity rather than punitive forced taxation. it's charity because someone has to take care of your financial needs because you are incapable of managing it yourself. someone has to take ov…

Well, everyone consumes public infrastructure directly (driving on roads, suing someone, calling police) or indirectly (be assured of a safe investment environment for wealth building in the US vs Syria/Zimbabwe). How will you measure and tax this consumption to pay for the underlying infrastructure and labor?

All taxes are parasitic on the prosperity of the subjects.

The least parasitic is taxing commerce.

Anything else is stupid, like taxing people or property where the parasitic effect grows to be unbearable even when rates remain constant.

You can't fix stupid but it can get elected to decision-making positions and leverage the foolishness.

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

#655

Post by syshum »

_qwfv wrote: post #633
syshum wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 consen…

> 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. IMO, this is a false equivalence -- governments are uniquely different from other entities. > This is false thinking, given your clear bias to socialism I can understand why you think that but it never the less false I don't see how you can say that this is objectively fals…

>>IMO, this is a false equivalence -- governments are uniquely different from other entities.

This is another difference on our world view. I do not believe they should be. The foundation of the American style of governance is "For the people by the people".

The government is the common organization of individual natural rights. Any legitimate force the government has comes from the common organization of the natural and individual right of self defense. We the people ordain and establish governments to protect our individual rights. As such the common force is to only do what the individuals have the natural and lawful right to do, to protect our rights.

So if it would be unlawful or unethical for me to enter your property, mow your yard and take our car as compensation it should also be unlawful / unethical for the government to do the same

Granting government special powers is how government abuse occurs. Just look at all the police abuse, this occurs because we have given the police immunities, protections and powers not afforded to the general public. This power will, is, and always will be abused by those that hold it

This was the fundamental problem with the Monarch system we revolted from over 250 years ago, and as we granted the government ever increasing levels of power far above what a normal citizen could ever dream of the resulting problems are clear, evident and predictable. Including the resulting Wealth inequality which I can and have made a case is cause by government regulations not by capitalism or lack of regulations

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

#656

Post by confidantlake »

antisthenes wrote: post #647
mgolawala wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That would not happen, assuming it is not massively overvalued before the sale.

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

#657

Post by Pfhreak »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #642
Pfhreak wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You and I agree here. Build homes. Use tax money to build and operate housing. (Don't do the shitty American thing where you spend on the capital budget but not the operational budget.)

We also need crisis intervention, counseling, drug programs, and support.

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

#658

Post by confidantlake »

NiceWayToDoIT wrote: post #594
yhoneycomb wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>but what constitutes as rich

Well according to this proposed law it is over $30 million in wealth.

>How do you grantee that tomorrow they will not tax every IT worker who is staying bit longer in California?

There is no way to guarantee that a hypothetical won't happen.

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

#659

Post by Can_Not »

ericd wrote: post #254
bbddg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff Bezos is just one person. Do you really think the US can't afford to cancel everyone's student debt?

Do you think we should? Is it fair to everyone who didn’t go to college because it was too expensive?

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. There are people tied to tracks as far as you can see. You can pull the lever at any time to stop the trolley from killing people, but that would not be fair to everyone who has already been ran over by the trolley. Which is the right thing to do?

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

#660

Post by confidantlake »

fortran77 wrote: post #3

> Today, California’s wealthiest 1% pay approximately 46% of total state income taxes. Adding the wealth tax to individual taxes and including those taxpayers who have abandoned California, the combination of the two proposals would have 1% of the state’s population paying about 53% of individual taxes. This is insane. That 1% will simply pick up and leave and the state will end up in a long expensive legal battle to…

The person with $30 million will pick up and leave over $4000? His moving costs alone are going to be greater than that.
Post reply on HN