Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#231

Post by CalRobert »

londons_explore wrote: post #107

There are a few countries who compete for residents. For example, The Netherlands has a 30% tax advantage for all immigrants, for 5 years. Thats huuuuuge . [1]: https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/live-work-study/living/officia...

It also has among the happiest children in the world, which is why we're investigating moving there (happy for any advice or leads!)

Interestingly you can apparently, if you're careful about it, register your own foreign company there and avail of the 30% ruling so long as you register your company before you move. I have an Irish limited company and am working on figuring out how to do that so I can move to NL and avail of this tax benefit.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#232

Post by slg »

gretch wrote: post #218
ikiris wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... so why do you live there? You choose it same as everyone else that's there now. Sounds like they compete well enough for you?

People often live here _despite_ the government, not because of it. Great weather. 4 hours away from skiing. 1 hour away from the beach. These things aren't attributable to the quality of the govt (except I will say that govt does do a decent job of preserving natural ecosystems)

>Great weather. 4 hours away from skiing. 1 hour away from the beach.

Why not move to Los Angeles, better weather, closer to skiing, and closer to the beach? Seems to me that there is still something the government is doing to keep you in the Bay Area.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#233

Post by tracker1 »

tclancy wrote: post #206
hermannj314 wrote: post #16

I've owned houses in two cities in my life. One called itself "A developer-friendly community" and the other "A healthy community" The cities were organized around their taglines. One was 300 years old and focused on parks, trails, conservancy, and community centers. The other a younger city focused on growth and sprawl, tax abatements, and new businesses. You should live where the government aligns with your phase o…

>entitled to change a municpal culture simply because you got older I get what you probably meant, but this is a really strong statement. Our town is struggling with spiraling property taxes and it is forcing long-term residents out. I really feel for older people who've had decades of a social circle, have people to help them with things they can no longer do, etc. You can't move somewhere else and replicate that.

Yeah... I hate property taxes as a concept. That you can lose your property due to simply living another year is kind of messed up. At least, it should be locked to value at purchase adding only inflation. My house (according to the city/county) is worth 3x what I bought it at 5 years ago... If it goes up this much again, taxes will likely reach close to the mortgage payment. It's simply not right.

I'd be happy to move right now, but interest rates effectively prohibit that as if I had the same amount burrowed my mortgage payment would be over twice what it is now.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#234

Post by hikawaii »

CalRobert wrote: post #228
hintymad wrote: post #189

How does Bay Area fit in the narrative? From my personal point of view, Bay Area, where I live, offers very little to its residents: public schools have super low standards and low teaching qualities. Many of the schools use seemingly run-down portables while public schools in other states, such as WA, have amazing buildings and facilities. More than 1/3 of the families in the Bay Area choose private schools, the hig…

If you're in one of the older areas (SF, Berkeley, Oakland) it's one of the few places on the west coast you can live an urban lifestyle in a walkable city.

This is just patently false. There are lots of major metros in the US that are plenty urban and walkable. SFBA is desirable because Google is there and willing to pay any amount of money for real estate.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#235

Post by tracker1 »

gnopgnip wrote: post #223
hintymad wrote: post #189

How does Bay Area fit in the narrative? From my personal point of view, Bay Area, where I live, offers very little to its residents: public schools have super low standards and low teaching qualities. Many of the schools use seemingly run-down portables while public schools in other states, such as WA, have amazing buildings and facilities. More than 1/3 of the families in the Bay Area choose private schools, the hig…

>California also has the higher tax for income and business than most of the other states. Is this a bad thing? It is true that California has high marginal rates, but for most people that isn't what matters. The progressive rates are more favorable, and from a policy perspective this creates more economic opportunity. For instance a married couple making $125k a year(bay area median) would have $4300 less in take ho…

If you don't mind living in a studio apartment for 2-3x the cost of a house rental in Oregon.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#236

Post by wyager »

tracker1 wrote: post #233
tclancy wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>entitled to change a municpal culture simply because you got older I get what you probably meant, but this is a really strong statement. Our town is struggling with spiraling property taxes and it is forcing long-term residents out. I really feel for older people who've had decades of a social circle, have people to help them with things they can no longer do, etc. You can't move somewhere else and replicate that.

Yeah... I hate property taxes as a concept. That you can lose your property due to simply living another year is kind of messed up. At least, it should be locked to value at purchase adding only inflation. My house (according to the city/county) is worth 3x what I bought it at 5 years ago... If it goes up this much again, taxes will likely reach close to the mortgage payment. It's simply not right. I'd be happy to mo…

> At least, it should be locked to value at purchase adding only inflation

This completely eliminates the social upside of property taxes compared to other forms of taxes

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#237

Post by tracker1 »

lolinder wrote: post #162
nhchris wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments don't come from the geography, but the people. Living in a small country myself, a place such as China, India, Indonesia, or Nigeria could send (and they would gladly come) enough people to outvote us on any issue 3x over, without even noticing they're missing anyone. We would simply cease to exist first as a sovereign people, and soon after as a distinct people at all, without any territory to call our o…

This is a perspective that's really hard for someone in the US to understand. When people here make the exact same arguments that you're making, it sounds xenophobic and dangerous. It's the stuff of Trumpism and MAGA. However, in the context of a true nation state, the exact same words can mean something very different. When we in the United States try to claim that immigration would hurt our sovereignty as a people,…

For me, the biggest concern with unchecked immigration is logistics. But I'd just assume having work Visa applications mostly based on having a job and place to live worked out before being able to come in. I'd also like to see pay floors as a scale from minimum wage for Visa employers to favor existing citizens first. Along with SSI style tax that doesn't go to the Visa worker.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#238

Post by maxsilver »

hermannj314 wrote: post #16

I've owned houses in two cities in my life. One called itself "A developer-friendly community" and the other "A healthy community" The cities were organized around their taglines. One was 300 years old and focused on parks, trails, conservancy, and community centers. The other a younger city focused on growth and sprawl, tax abatements, and new businesses. You should live where the government aligns with your phase o…

> You should live where the government aligns with your phase of life and personal goals and be free to choose a new government later.

It should be noted that while this is good advice, this is a big luxury to have, and not something that is broadly applicable to most people. If you don't have the money, if your career is tied to a specific industry, if you have children from any past-and-now-divorced marriage, or a handful of other reasons, you may be locked to specific areas for a really long time.

Yes, move somewhere new if you can and you feel the grass is greener. But municipal government absolutely owe it to their residents and community to support the people they have, not just the people they wish they had.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#239

Post by nobody9999 »

nhchris wrote: post #132
shkkmo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> persist in the systems that are causing those falling birthrates Care to specify which systems are causing the falling birthrates?

"Systems" as in those countries' social and economical systems. I don't know exactly what about those systems kills birthrates, but they are doubtless to blame, as other countries, and even those same countries some time in the past, had higher birthrates. Those systems caused that change.

>"Systems" as in those countries' social and economical systems. I don't know exactly what about those systems kills birthrates, but they are doubtless to blame, as other countries, and even those same countries some time in the past, had higher birthrates. Those systems caused that change.

I'd say that falling birthrates have much more to do with modern medicine (antibiotics and effective contraception anyone?) and better sanitation systems, as well as industrialization, than with government policies (China's failed "one child" policy notwithstanding).

If you're a farmer, more kids means more (relatively free) help on the farm. When almost half[0] of the children born died before the age of five, more kids were conceived, since many wouldn't survive to adulthood.

That's not government policy, that's technology.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041693/united-states-al...

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#240

Post by tracker1 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #178
bigger_inside wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the term "coincidence" is weird. I read it as somehow relying on the idea that first, there is a person (like a soul?), and then, that soul is "coincidentally" put somewhere. Correct me if you think that's strange, but the idea of "coincidence" to me only seems to make sense if the person somehow predates the location of birth. But if that's not the case, as I would guess most of us believe, then there is no coincide…

I did not read it all as you did. “Coincidence” in welshwelsh’s comment was used to indicate who is deserving of the benefits of living in place X rather than place Y, where it can be reasonably concluded that X is overall better to live in than Y. I disagree with nhchris’s response of > It is their inheritance, their birthright, the fruit of their ancestors' labors. Because there is no natural law that something is…

I would say that if ownership of land and property are indeed a right... then being able to give that property to your descendants (or anyone else) is also a right.
Post reply on HN