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

Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

sos.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#11

Post by iamkeithmccoy »

telesilla wrote: post #6

Azim Premji donates every dollar he makes over 1 billion for the last 20 years. Mckenzie Scott is working through donating her share. Same for Melinda Gates, Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna. Warren Buffet plans to donate the larger part to charity. Let's keep building the good examples so the alternative (power consolidation across generations) is unthinkable for future generations.

Good examples are great. But it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to fix this busted economy where inequality is increasing and few, wealthy individuals are gaining insane amounts of political power through spending is systemic change in the structure of our tax base.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#12

Post by telesilla »

iamkeithmccoy wrote: post #11
telesilla wrote: post #6

Azim Premji donates every dollar he makes over 1 billion for the last 20 years. Mckenzie Scott is working through donating her share. Same for Melinda Gates, Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna. Warren Buffet plans to donate the larger part to charity. Let's keep building the good examples so the alternative (power consolidation across generations) is unthinkable for future generations.

Good examples are great. But it doesn't solve the problem. The only way to fix this busted economy where inequality is increasing and few, wealthy individuals are gaining insane amounts of political power through spending is systemic change in the structure of our tax base.

Agreed. We could posit that the biggest impact a billionaire could have to improve the world would be to lobby for increased taxes.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#13

Post by nickdurfe »

whateveracct wrote: post #10
nickdurfe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

41 of the 56 men who signed the document containing that statement were slave owners.

and yet now the constitution bans slavery i find the "but the founding fathers had slaves" to just be nihilistic nonsense the united states was a manifestation of enlightenment philosophy that persists to this day (despite attacks on it)

"and yet now the constitution bans slavery"

Unless you're a prisoner convicted of a crime. Stating that the founders of the United States owned slaves is not "nihilistic nonsense", it's an important distinction to note that they sought political power for themselves, and no one else. The phrase "all men are created equal" should be interpreted as "all white land-owning men are created equal"

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#14

Post by apothegm »

hsnewman wrote: post #3

In the USA "all men are created equal". Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money. Companies/institutions should not be allowed to spend money on politics, and a flat tax would solve this.

> Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money.

Fine, I’ll bite: Why?

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#15

Post by Catloafdev »

hsnewman wrote: post #3

In the USA "all men are created equal". Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money. Companies/institutions should not be allowed to spend money on politics, and a flat tax would solve this.

> Owning money should allow you more representation than not owning money

The capitalist's manifesto

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#16

Post by schacon »

Love it.

In fact, we should have expanded it to be a "millionaire tax" where everyone who has a home worth more than $1M needs to pay a one time $50k+ tax to the highly efficient state government. I'm sure they can easily figure out how to sell a small fraction of their home to cover it.

If there is one thing that history has proven, I think it's how valuable dry taxation is for everyone in the long term.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#17

Post by pipes »

nickdurfe wrote: post #13
whateveracct wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and yet now the constitution bans slavery i find the "but the founding fathers had slaves" to just be nihilistic nonsense the united states was a manifestation of enlightenment philosophy that persists to this day (despite attacks on it)

"and yet now the constitution bans slavery" Unless you're a prisoner convicted of a crime. Stating that the founders of the United States owned slaves is not "nihilistic nonsense", it's an important distinction to note that they sought political power for themselves, and no one else. The phrase "all men are created equal" should be interpreted as "all white land-owning men are created equal"

But the constitution doesn't say: "all white land-owning men are created equal"

It said "all men are created equal". It took a long time to get to this point in human history and it's worth defending.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#18

Post by object-a »

schacon wrote: post #16

Love it. In fact, we should have expanded it to be a "millionaire tax" where everyone who has a home worth more than $1M needs to pay a one time $50k+ tax to the highly efficient state government. I'm sure they can easily figure out how to sell a small fraction of their home to cover it. If there is one thing that history has proven, I think it's how valuable dry taxation is for everyone in the long term.

I mean, people already do pay property taxes on homes? So this isn’t a very good retort.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#19

Post by schacon »

object-a wrote: post #18
schacon wrote: post #16

Love it. In fact, we should have expanded it to be a "millionaire tax" where everyone who has a home worth more than $1M needs to pay a one time $50k+ tax to the highly efficient state government. I'm sure they can easily figure out how to sell a small fraction of their home to cover it. If there is one thing that history has proven, I think it's how valuable dry taxation is for everyone in the long term.

I mean, people already do pay property taxes on homes? So this isn’t a very good retort.

In California, it's capped at a knowable amount when you buy the home and pegged at the sale price. You know what it is and what it always will be when the transaction happens. The people whom have owned a house now worth a million for 30 years probably pay a few grand a year and always have. Dry taxing the technical value of their assets today would destroy millions of families. The point is that dry taxation is generally pretty stupid.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#20

Post by onemoresoop »

0xy wrote: post #4

Even if it fails, California has taken a multi billion dollar tax hit from all of the wealth flight as a result of this. Not to mention that those people may take jobs with them, straight to Florida or Texas or other friendlier states. These taxes are an abject disaster everywhere they're tried. France tried it and it was extremely bad for them. The cash raised from the tax is dwarfed by the wealth flight, every time…

If you think a few billionaires moving to other states would take the Silicon Valley with them and it would be easy then let's see it play out.
Post reply on HN