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

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#21

Post by amanaplanacanal »

pipes wrote: post #17
nickdurfe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

That was the declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It has no force of law, but is certainly asperational.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#22

Post by object-a »

schacon wrote: post #19
object-a wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gen…

1. The tax is not pegged at the sale price. What prop 13 actually does is limit the amount of appreciation the state can recognize for tax purposes.

2. There are lots of states/cities in the US that do not cap the appreciation of your house for tax purposes, and I don’t think it destroys millions of families. In fact the California cap is generally seen as a terrible policy because it distorts the housing market

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#23

Post by georgeburdell »

schacon wrote: post #19
object-a wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gen…

I wouldn’t call it stupid, but it is a policy choice. On the other side, why should Grandma pay 5% of the property taxes as the new couple next door while receiving the same access to public services, while also pushing another family to live farther away?

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#25

Post by malcolmgreaves »

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.

This is an idiotic take.

The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is basically a billion dollars. At this scale, it’s the same comparison between a billion dollars and a homeless person.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#26

Post by gaiagraphia »

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.

I think I heard that the Carthaginians used to auction off political positions, and the proceeds were effectively the taxes which ran society. While on the surface it sounds like a ridiculous concept, maybe it'd be better if we just cut out all the middlemen. At least policy could be directly connected to the paymasters.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#27

Post by gaiagraphia »

apothegm wrote: post #14
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?

The rich are always going to manipulate politics. Maybe it'd be better for them to directly influence politics with their names and votes attached to policies, as opposed to hiding in the shadows and using representatives as fall guys.

Think we'd all be better off if the whole lobbying caste was dismantled and there were simpler paper trails.

Why not let Bezos, Musk et al spend £1bil/year to sit on the senate?

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#28

Post by nosioptar »

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.

I feel like the first dude is a good argument for taxing billionaires. He's still doing alright at what would be a 100% tax over a billion.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#29

Post by vrganj »

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…

You need to install capital controls first.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#30

Post by AnimalMuppet »

vrganj wrote: post #29
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…

You need to install capital controls first.

California is not a country. States cannot install capital controls.
Post reply on HN