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

381–390 of 734 posts

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

#381

Post by ishjoh »

ip26 wrote: post #327
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably the stupidest part of it, because then you convince all the people who imagine they're going to be Elon Musk in ten years that they should leave California immediately.

The interesting part is the next question you have to ask yourself- could Elon have built what he did somewhere else?

VCs prefer investing in companies in NYC and the Valley. So Paypal would have probably had to be built in one of those two markets. Once he had a successful company, I suspect he could have gone elsewhere and still received investment and convinced enough talented people to come join his projects. So I think for Elon in particular the answer is yes, but there might have only been a single other place he could have started in the USA, and we're specifically talking about Elon.

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

#382

Post by throwaway13337 »

nradov wrote: post #127
eatbitseveryday wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I benefit from a country while not being in it?

In theory if you get kidnapped by terrorists or something then the US government might try to rescue you.

Kidnapped Americans have much worse outcomes on average than other country citizens.

This is because the US makes it illegal for families to pay ransoms.

As with most things international, not being American is an asset in such a situation.

https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/policy-pap...

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

#383

Post by disown »

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…

> 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 used to as well, but now I flipped. I don't think you should be taxed for doing things, I think you should be taxed for wealth. I think there should be no tax for working ( income ), buying things ( sales tax ), etc. Activity which promotes economic growth shouldn't be taxed. But wealth should be taxed. House/assets/etc should be taxed.

It's insane that you get taxed at 39% for work ( income ) but someone letting his money "do the work" gets taxed at 20% ( long term capital gains tax ).

> 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.

But the government protects your ability to do so. So no. Though I'd be in favor of governments setting aside land internationally where people are allowed to live "in a state of nature". They are not allowed to form tribes/governments, but are allowed to live "free" as they wish untaxed without the help of society.

> 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?

Cause the company exists in a society governed/protected/etc by the government? It's the beneficiary of the environment.

> Now the government is going to force me to sell my car?

Nope. You could always go out and work to earn money to pay the wealth tax too and keep your car.

I'd be in favor of removing all taxes for one wealth tax.

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

#384

Post by nitrogen »

ip26 wrote: post #373
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that has a related cause and effect. The reason these things have happened in California isn't the geography. If you drive a large fraction of the same people out and into places like Austin through excessive housing costs and high taxes, then the next Elon Musk can build it there instead. Because it's the people, not the place.

You can see why that's obviously a chicken-and-egg circumstance though.

Texas Instruments was probably not founded in California, so the center of mass could easily shift again.

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

#385

Post by throwawaysea »

Wealth taxes are immoral and should be illegal. Someone can play by the rules, pay all the taxes as they go, and then suddenly have what they’ve already earned confiscated under threat of government force? I feel like that’s normalizing a world without private ownership of anything. After all, a wealth tax would mean that the government can change its mind and seize what you own retroactively at any time. What separates such a “free” society from China? Property taxes are similarly immoral because they undermine private ownership.

Not to mention, with the government’s famous lack of efficiency and accountability, all the stolen wealth wouldn’t accomplish much. California already has an enormous public bureaucracy and has nothing to show for it. There isn’t a single public amenity or service that is any better in California than states that have lower taxes, smaller governments, and higher efficiency. Washington is a great historical comparison point for this (although the politics of WA have changed significantly in the last decade and it is turning into CA).

I’m also concerned that this is going to reduce the attractiveness of CA as well as the US more broadly for economic activity and innovation. Why would the next wave of builders trust in an environment and government that could take away what they’ve worked hard to build and earn?

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

#386

Post by imoverclocked »

ashconnor wrote: post #183
Trisell wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your premise that they will experience French Revolution like consequences is overlooking the fact that unlike the 1700s. Up and taking your money to another country that still likes you is the click of a mouse and a private jet flight out. So no they won’t capitulate to higher taxes of earlier times. They will just leave. Like they already are at the threat of it.

Begs the question why haven't they left already. Is there some sweet spot of taxation before the majority the people being taxed resort to capital flight?

How many people do you know that have left all of their bad relationships on day 1?

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

#387

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

runarberg wrote: post #352
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably the stupidest part of it, because then you convince all the people who imagine they're going to be Elon Musk in ten years that they should leave California immediately.

How many people actually believe they will become the next Musk, to an extent that they are willing to move out of state in preparation to maximize their greed in the off chance they will succeed in this impossible task?

Yeah this is a "don't live here if you plan to ever be rich" law. Fortunately that part of the law is unlikely to be constitutional.

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

#388

Post by nec4b »

mattmanser wrote: post #370
entee wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is we’ve done the experiment and it doesn’t work. France had a wealth tax (called the ISF, impôt sur la fortune) and it never actually garnered the expected revenues. This is because wealthy French people moved to Brussels, where you still have a pretty nice city and you can still speak French. Macron got rid of it and there was a mini-crash in Brussels real estate as people move back. There’s nothing stopping…

Genuine question, as that doesn't sound like a a fair experiment. Couldn't they just limit the amount you can emigrate from the country with. So if you emigrate, you can only take a maximum of, say, €10 mill. i.e. earn it in France, using French laws, a French education and French infrastructure, it stays in France. Obviously it clashes with EU free movement, but basically the problem seems to be we can't tax the ric…

You mean something like a Berlin wall to stop the people leaving the paradise or a new kind of serfdom, where one should be tied to the land in which he was born?

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

#389

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Spooky23 wrote: post #316
nthj wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument seems to make sense on the surface, but California already has some of the highest income taxes in the country. To make an appeal to extremes, if California had a 40% income tax they wanted to raise to 45% asking, “show me how you have demonstrated good stewardship in what you are already taking” would be, I imagine, somewhat common. Reasonable people can of course debate that percentage, and can do so…

California’s governance with respect to property taxes is horrific and inequitable to the point that it should be illegal in many ways it has distorted the national economy in good and bad ways as folks sitting on property have turned into the 21st century version of a French aristocrat by sitting in their 50s ranch. That cohort of Californian is dying off now, and it may be better for all involved if companies pull…

the property tax rate is fair. unless there is a cap on speculative activity on real estate with a real interest and initiative in keeping housing prices stable, prop 13 is the untouchable third rail.

just stopping foreign investment in california real estate will make an enormous difference. removing the prop 13 waiver for those who inherit property with the old tax rate will also help. with older people on the clock to die sometime within the next decade, ca will see a flood of plumped up property taxes when the homes change hands. but just the two measures is a good short term relief. million dollar homes are bought sight unseen and then flipped for 40-60% markup by foreign investors and people who dont even reside in california. making it a speculative rodeo circus. let the Gov. fix THAT first.

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

#390

Post by markus_zhang »

mattmanser wrote: post #370
entee wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is we’ve done the experiment and it doesn’t work. France had a wealth tax (called the ISF, impôt sur la fortune) and it never actually garnered the expected revenues. This is because wealthy French people moved to Brussels, where you still have a pretty nice city and you can still speak French. Macron got rid of it and there was a mini-crash in Brussels real estate as people move back. There’s nothing stopping…

Genuine question, as that doesn't sound like a a fair experiment. Couldn't they just limit the amount you can emigrate from the country with. So if you emigrate, you can only take a maximum of, say, €10 mill. i.e. earn it in France, using French laws, a French education and French infrastructure, it stays in France. Obviously it clashes with EU free movement, but basically the problem seems to be we can't tax the ric…

They have great influences among the lawmakers. Rich people won't get themselves taxed(in general)
Post reply on HN