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

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#41

Post by tychez »

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"

This is such an embarrassingly childish viewpoint.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#42

Post by dh2022 »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #5

All of the wealth has been taxed before, often multiple times. Adding another layer sure seems like overkill.

The wealth has barely been taxed at all. Wealth comes from holding assets not from labor, and asset ownership is barely taxed:

1. stocks and commercial real estate are allowed to appreciate without taxation (unlike personal residences outside Cali),

2. multinationals wrote for themselves obscure tax rules so they end up paying almost no tax,

3. interest expense for companies and ultra high net worth individuals is subtracted from taxable income (for personal mortgages the interest expense deduction is capped)

4. Rich people organize their assets so estate taxes do not tax their estates when they die and thus their wealth goes to their children.

As you can see wealth is barely taxed.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#43

Post by dh2022 »

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…

I actually think billionaire flight is a good thing. Billionaires do not contribute to their community. Sure some tax accountant and some security people will lose their jobs, but this not matter for regular folk.

If nothing else, billionaires flight is a positive thing.

I am hoping all the billionaires leave my Washington state as a result of the millionaire tax - it may become a normal state like Oregon.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#44

Post by _DeadFred_ »

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.

No billionaire owns a single physical house that is their entire worth and that is also their sole form of shelter.

Now if you are proposing a tax on all secondary homes worth $1M or more... I'm listening.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#45

Post by _DeadFred_ »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #5

All of the wealth has been taxed before, often multiple times. Adding another layer sure seems like overkill.

Um no.

"The income tax base captures 60 % of economic income of the top 1 % of wealth-holders."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#46

Post by 0xy »

marcinpieczka wrote: post #31
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 won't do anything about the wealth, the top 1%, or top 0.1% will own more and more, until they own everything. Literally. There is no other outcome possible

Over the last 100 years the wealthy have expanded their gap between themselves and everyone else AND poverty rates have become the lowest at any time in history.

Seems to me that the status quo is allowing billions of the poorest people to afford food, shelter and more.

When you contextualize it that way, your argument looks like jealousy. For your argument to make logical sense, you must show that the poor are worse off than they were 100 years ago. But that's completely false. Extreme poverty was almost eradicated completely in that time.

You've got the 2nd wealthiest man in the world who created a company that sells essential goods at margins between 0 and 5%, far lower than typical 30% margins in retail. The poor have benefited profoundly from this, as their buying power has never been better (not to mention the lifts in living standards, wages, etc).

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#47

Post by 0xy »

dh2022 wrote: post #43
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…

I actually think billionaire flight is a good thing. Billionaires do not contribute to their community. Sure some tax accountant and some security people will lose their jobs, but this not matter for regular folk. If nothing else, billionaires flight is a positive thing. I am hoping all the billionaires leave my Washington state as a result of the millionaire tax - it may become a normal state like Oregon.

And what about the jobs they take with them? Starbucks shifting corporate jobs to Tennessee is a pretty local and recent example.

The average Starbucks corporate worker is squarely middle class. Their job is leaving as a result of this rhetoric.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#48

Post by 0xy »

onemoresoop wrote: post #20
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.

Starbucks is shifting corporate jobs from Washington state to Tennessee as a result of this rhetoric. Chicago's financial industry was famously carved out due to the same kind of rhetoric, with Citadel moving to Florida, causing massive damage to the city and a huge financial hole (the city can barely fund the CTA, and it nearly collapsed in 2025).

You sure showed those billionaires by destroying the jobs of thousands of middle class workers and losing out on the tax revenue that was funding public transit and critical infrastructure. Nice!

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#49

Post by JKCalhoun »

nosioptar wrote: post #28
iamkeithmccoy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Never mind that when we tax billionaires, we (the people) decide what to spend it on.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#50

Post by _DeadFred_ »

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…

'Trickle down economics will start working any day now, do you really want to miss out on our billionaire trickle?'

Leaving California means stepping away from the highest concentration of billion-dollar outcome creation in the U.S. Over the past ~40 years, California has produced on the order of ~120–200 billionaire-producing startups, versus ~15–35 in Texas and ~10–25 in Florida, depending on how you define origin.

Using standard venture-style risk and reward thinking, the data favors staying. The distribution of extreme upside outcomes remains heavily concentrated in California. Now if your a done/finished investor/creator or you have to be cost conscious it makes sense to leave the dream state and move to the retirement home states that cater to the has been class versus the creator class. No shame in having to be cost conscious or being ready to give up and fade into the retirement home of states lifestyle.

Post reply on HN