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

391–400 of 734 posts

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

#391

Post by runarberg »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #157
adjkant wrote: post #68

Well I guess I'll take the apparently bold stance here that this isn't the end of Silicon Valley or California and yes this is fair and further, good. When people are getting 5-6% returns on investments (minimum), 0.4% is still not even stopping the rich get richer effect. Not to mention that it's almost certain no one here will ever be touched by this tax. If you're going to move where you live or significantly alte…

because of 0.4% If California was well run, clean, and had otherwise lower tax, then .4% might be easy to ignore. But if you’re already on the fence, and not happy with things, and have been talking to real estate agents in Seattle, Austin, Miami, or Singapore, then this just the kick in the butt you might need to go through with leaving.

Good luck with that. I bet there is majority support already for similar tax measures in Seattle, Austin and Singapore. That leaves only Miami, which is going to be underwater in a few decades. So you are better of just staying and paying your extremely modest fair share

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

#392

Post by alibarber »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #302
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…

I think that's why they put in the provision that you have to keep paying the tax for 10 years after you move.

Would it not make more sense if the law was, move _back_ within 10 years and you need to pay the whole lot? I've seen that sort of thing in a lot of places before.

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

#393

Post by sdfin »

Pfhreak wrote: post #132
emteycz wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. How else would it get to his bank account? If he didn't create it, why people sent it to him? He stole it?

Profits are just unpaid wages. He bought labor for less than it was worth and pocketed the excess.

Profit is the wage of the investor that assumes risk in his enterprise. No profit, no investment.

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

#394

Post by 762236 »

Meekro wrote: post #306
762236 wrote: post #167

This is unenforceable. California has no Texas Rangers that can hunt you down in other states. California has no standing in another state's courts for collecting this tax. And that's a good thing too. Consider child-support payments --- they require states to cooperate. But you may never be able to enter California again.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. California (and every other state's) law already says that their taxman need not go through the courts to seize assets but can do so directly. If their tax collector contacts you and you ignore them because you don't live there, they'll just seize the money from your bank account (no matter where you are) and you'll be stuck litigating in California tax courts to try and get it bac…

That's bad.

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

#395

Post by lotsofpulp »

true_religion wrote: post #265
adjkant wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a percentage will, but I think when people are trying to guess and assume what these people will do as "rational economic agents", they miss the human factors. No one is going to pick where they go to college based on the taxes on the ultra-rich unless they are obsessed with money. Once rich, are you going to uproot yourself entirely from any family, friends, and connections in the US? You have to consider that…

You don't have to leave the US, just move back to the sanity that is called the "eastern seaboard". If we're comparing high-tax states, I think NY is better run, and more interesting overall than California. The only think Cali has going for it is tech (relatively unimportant to the super rich), and warm weather.

WA is way better than any eastern state for taxes.

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

#396

Post by Privacy846 »

caseysoftware wrote: post #26

I'm not sure what the problem is. When Democrat supporters demand more more more via the politicians who promise more more more, where did they think the money would come from? Believe it or not, the bottom ~50% don't have enough money to tax. The next 30-40% have some but not enough to raise enough money to help. The taxes have to be focused on the top 10% and more likely the top 1-3% to raise enough to meet these d…

> I'm not sure what the problem is. When Democrat supporters demand more more more via the politicians who promise more more more, where did they think the money would come from?

Who are you addressing? The Democrats who “demand more more more” are likely to be the same people who are fine with taxing the rich more.

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

#397

Post by markus_zhang »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #376
volkfish55 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be curious to know what's interesting in Singapore?

city-state. the future. city states are like sleek yachts while nations are like ferry shuttles.

No way. Singapore gets a footing in the world not because it is a city state but because it's Singapore.

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

#398

Post by sdfin »

jamiltron wrote: post #297
emteycz wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single worker with a wage is more privileged than me - I had zero, no job, no house, and debt. Them not being able to take risks is just bullshit, they're simply afraid or don't even want to - and that is alright, people like me will happily employ them - unless employing or being in the state becomes too risky.

And I'm glad you're privileged enough to be here posting today, boasting of the wealth your workers generate for you :-)

How do you define "privilege"? Isn't it another way of saying "wealth"?

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

#399

Post by throwawaysea »

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…

> the problem seems to be we can't tax the rich because they take advantage of globalism to move their money around

The problem is that different places have different values and policies and compete with each other? The problem is that people have the audacity to disagree with governments and seek out different ways of living? Sorry but any proposal that disincentivizes or punishes free movement is atrocious and totalitarian. And I mean that literally.

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

#400

Post by Privacy846 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #97
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where did they think the money would come from? There’s a growing misconception that everything can be paid for by simply taxing the wealthy a tiny bit more. Several prominent activist politicians have built their platforms on the idea that billionaires are an infinite source of consequence-free tax revenue. These ideas are especially popular among the college students and new college grads I mentor. It usually fal…

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…

The concept of meritocracy was born as satire, is currently a farce, and will likely never be realized as a genuine phenomenom.
Post reply on HN