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

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#51

Post by canucker2016 »

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.

HN just had a post about the craigslist founder donating over half billion dollars to charity. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48588216

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#52

Post by JKCalhoun »

object-a wrote: post #22
schacon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Any why should Prop 13 apply to commercial real estate?

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#53

Post by JKCalhoun »

gaiagraphia wrote: post #27
apothegm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

"The rich are always going to manipulate politics."

It's why many are suggesting billionaires not exist at all.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#54

Post by whateveracct »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #21
pipes wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the declaration of independence has some weight in the common law

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#55

Post by whateveracct »

watwut wrote: post #33
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)

It took literal war to get there.

it also took a war to reify enlightenment philosophy as our government

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#56

Post by halJordan »

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.

What do you mean "let's" like we're the billionaires? The ultra wealthy have had over a century (in only this country!) to read The Gospel of Wealth. They're not going to do it. And it's fine to admit that.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#57

Post by bakies »

0xy wrote: post #48
onemoresoop wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thousand…

You ought to link those things together a little better. The CTA propped up by a single finance firm???? Cmon

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#58

Post by gamblor956 »

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…

Florida has never had an income tax. With few exceptions, most of its wealthy are retirees or heirs, who don't have much income anyway.

Texas does not have an income tax. Despite its century of oil wealth, it has fewer billionaires than CA or NY.

These states don't have income taxes because they're unpleasant places to live at the best of times and nobody would choose to live their if they had to pay income taxes.

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#59

Post by dh2022 »

0xy wrote: post #47
dh2022 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Starbucks HQ moving to Tennessee is not caused by WA state millionaire tax - Burito Boy was hired on August 2024 well before the millionaire tax was even envisioned. Part of his compensation is predicated on these costs savings - and these were part of Burrito Boy’s negotiations before he even signed up his employment contract. So this move has nothing to do with the millionaire tax.

And just to let you know- Starbucks is not that popular in Seattle. They have been closing stores right and left in Seattle to the point where I only know store that is open. Seattle is not missing them that much.

[edit some typos]

Re: Billionaire Tax Officially Heads to Nov. 3 Ballot

#60

Post by telesilla »

halJordan wrote: post #56
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.

What do you mean "let's" like we're the billionaires? The ultra wealthy have had over a century (in only this country!) to read The Gospel of Wealth. They're not going to do it. And it's fine to admit that.

>The Gospel of Wealth

The book from anti-union Carnegie, which recommended to his fellow wealthy that they uplift society while actively undermining the efforts of workers to improve their own lives?

By "let's" I mean us, as voters, as citizens.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." (Edmund Burke)

Post reply on HN