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

461–470 of 734 posts

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

#461

Post by absolutelyrad »

mgolawala wrote: post #280
annexrichmond wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the infrastructure is in place to assess this kind of tax, it'll be a matter of time before it starts applying to those with >10M wealth, then >1M, etc

Yup. It's called boiling the frog. I am not totally against wealth taxes, however I disagree with the approach. What I do not understand is why not just implement a more aggressive estate tax on people and close the "trust" and "foundation" loopholes for avoiding the estate tax. Let's take Jeff Bezos as an extreme example (who isn't even a California Resident). At least until we figure out immortality, Jeff Bezos wil…

> "equality of opportunity" for future generations.

What a bullshit idea. Different people start with different advantages in life. Some with wealth, some with looks, some with none. In your bid to make an equal society, will you throw acid on attractive people so they become less attractive?

Attractive people, men and women have a significantly higher advantage in life, maybe call it an asset. Looks are an asset.

Wealth tax is a tax on your fucking assets. You gonna tax looks too?

If I consume less, I should pay less tax. A tax on wealth is a tax on hardwork and savings. People should be rewarded for spending wisely, not penalized.

Once you have a solution for other inherent advantages in life apart from money, and how to account for them, come back.

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

#462

Post by paul_f »

tyg13 wrote: post #372
thrill wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So some dude in Montana should pay for cleaning the streets in San Francisco?

States like Montana receive far more in federal tax dollars than states like California. If you think Montanans are going to be subsidized Californians and not the way around, I have a bridge in Montana I've got to sell you.

Oftentimes when this sort of stat is quoted, it is because of social security payments to retired people - for example, Florida

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

#463

Post by runarberg »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #437
runarberg wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t be surprised if Texas (in particular Austin) adopts similar tax measures. I bet there is just as much public support for it—if not even more—then in California.

If Austin adopted it, people would just move two miles outside the city limits. And the state of Texas as a whole is not going to do that.

> The state of Texas as a whole is not going to do that.

What makes you so sure of that? Texas has a huge middle and working class. If asked I bet majority of Texans wouldn’t mind taxing their upper class. I think it is only a matter of time before politician is able to win over this vote share by targeting the state’s richest for taxation.

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

#464

Post by medium_burrito »

chaostheory wrote: post #439
ip26 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You only need a state with an Austin adopt a ban on noncompetes, or a state that currently bans noncompetes that miraculously develops an Austin. Once either happens then it’s game over for CA. The end of Silicon Valley’s dominance could have come much sooner had China continued its trend of opening up pre-Winnie the Poo’s reign, but that threat is gone for now. China is crippled under a dictator again

Strongly agreed on all points. If WA, TX or NC ban noncompetes its basically over for CA. All of these areas have some great universities, major airports and a solid tech base already.

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

#465

Post by paul_f »

thebean11 wrote: post #263
gfxgirl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco spends $50k per homeless person. The problem doesn't seem like it's money

They just aren't using it correctly. If there was a way to just give homeless people the 50k in a UBI esque way things would drastically improve. Unfortunately I don't believe something like that is practical unless it's done on a national level.

Homelessness is a mental health problem and judges won't allow forced stays in mental institutions.

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

#466

Post by steffenfrost »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #443
wincy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why if the tax gets implemented they’re gonna move away before the tax is implemented. Imagine being a slave to a state you don’t even live in for ten years. What a load of garbage, I’ll bet any other state will refuse to enforce it.

While I'm dubious about both the legality and wisdom of this proposed tax, I confess I'm having trouble seeing "paying a 0.4% tax on wealth over $30M" as being "slave to a state." Yes, metaphor, but it's a metaphor of "reducing my $50M estate to $49.92M might as well be forced servitude," and, uh, no. C'mon. Put that $50M somewhere that averages even a modest 4% annual return and you could pay the tax, draw out $600K…

This is the camel's nose in the tent. If this is adopted, the threshold will move down and the percentage will move up and eventually will touch everyone.

Liberal politics turn everyplace into a disaster. CA was at a high bar so it is taking a little longer.

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

#467

Post by medium_burrito »

chiph wrote: post #423
ericmay wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore is a weird one to throw in there with the others in that list. Could you elaborate?

Likely for people with Chinese heritage or relatives. It's clean, orderly, and it's super easy to start a business there.

Like Switzerland, but for Chinese people (and tropical, friendlier, flatter and grimier).

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

#468

Post by jelliclesfarm »

sdenton4 wrote: post #126
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 figure if we allow passive income, we should allow passive taxes...

passive income is taxed.

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

#469

Post by medium_burrito »

volkfish55 wrote: post #195
WillPostForFood wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It's a city with enough stuff to do for a weekend. Haw Par villa, the gardens and parks, etc.

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

#470

Post by ustolemyname »

wincy wrote: post #310
daveFNbuck wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s why if the tax gets implemented they’re gonna move away before the tax is implemented. Imagine being a slave to a state you don’t even live in for ten years. What a load of garbage, I’ll bet any other state will refuse to enforce it.

Well, the US federal government thinks this is fine. Citizens still have to file, and often pay taxes if they move out of the country. If one renounces their citizenship they are liable for up to 10 years of exit taxes.
Post reply on HN