California plan for wealth tax on anyone who spends 60 days a year in the state • Hacker News Board

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

#551

Post by nullc » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #502

sologoub wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as truly passive - the assets in this case are being used by providing capital to the markets and holding shares of companies that may or may not succeed. That’s “doing something” with these assets. The family heirloom that could bring you over the threshold? It’s collecting dust. The stock investments incidentally ARE already taxed, whether you are actively managing them or if someone else is…

By the same tack, is there any such thing as 'passive' wealth, then? Some things like cars depreciate, and others (like gold and real estate) appreciate. Why should it be off limit to tax these things?

Their appreciation is useless (and speculative!) until you sell them. When you sell them the gains are taxed.

California doesn't even tax gains at a lower rate than ordinary income...

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

#552

Post by woah » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #445

woah wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not possible to build any new housing in California. The vast majority of projects are blocked by the powerful landowner lobby. Throwing money at the homeless problem doesn’t help the homeless much and just pushes property values higher. The government and tax system of California is a perfectly designed instrument to transfer wealth from newcomers to homeowners.

you can build new housing in california. its just difficult to build affordable housing apartment complexes in the bay area and other affluent zipcodes. california is huge. if they fixed transport problem(HST failed), we have plenty of space to build homes. its not like we are the australian bush or something..these are perfectly buildable areas..its just not san francisco or the bay area or wherever there is high de…

Is this satire? The current situation is the direct result of what you are recommending. California has tried to suburban sprawl our way out of our problems for 80 years. We have service workers commuting 4 hours a day, freeways at a standstill, and all those “buildable areas” that they have to bulldoze forests for get burned down every year.

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

#553

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #110

syshum wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find it ironic when Silicon Valley Software devs talk about how the "evil rich" should "pay more" in taxes to support the poor, never having the understanding that they likely are the "evil rich" the tax man will be coming for.... if you are a Software Dev for a FANG or FANG like company guess what you are in the top 10%.....

I make roughly half a million a year. I'm very aware that my tax rate would increase if we started taxing the wealthy more. Please tax the wealthy more. Send the tax man to my house and all my peers. We can afford it just fine.

you are the problem. please set up a charity. feel free to part from your money. there are many of us who cant...unlike some americans, some of us have responsibilities..aged parents living overseas, children, relatives..i would rather use my wealth to make sure that my parents and in laws and aunts and uncles live well before they die. what i am is because of the people who raised me and i owe them a debt before i owe some random homeless person on the street shooting up.

please be generous. the world needs more people than you. immigrants have a different mentality when it comes to familial responsibilites. i have two sets of grandparents and three dozen aunts. and i dont even know how we are related. extended families are really really really extended. and i derive so much pleasure in making their lives better and happier. why should i trade my pleasure for your philanthropy disguised as milking me for tax dollars.

hundred dollars fed half a dozen people in my indian home state for a month. californians complained that $1200/month isnt sufficient. i know where i want to send my money. i feel like what i do is real redistribution of wealth. so..no to your idea.

if you really want to help people, reach out to me..i know where you can send your extra dollars to other parts of the world where people have no job, no means of feeding themselves and their families and their govts are too powerless to take care of all their millions.

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

#554

Post by klipt » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

tacitusarc wrote: post #550

topher515 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made above about property rights is much bigger than “does my local police do a good job finding burglars?”. The point is that the government maintains an entire system for tracking, resolving disputes, and enforcing ownership. Think about who has the final say in a dispute over whether you own your car or your house or your company. The government adjudicates ownership disputes and then enforces that…

Or, alternatively, you'd need to buy a gun and defend your property yourself. Which many people do, and has become even more prevalent with the spate of looting in major cities with no police response last summer. You seem to be approaching this from a highly theoretical and ideological position, but that ignores the reality of the current situation, and the fact that the proposed law does not exist in some hypotheti…

But you're still relying on the US military to protect you from foreign nation states. Your little gun wouldn't do anything against a tank or fighter plane.

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

#555

Post by rufus_foreman » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

tangjurine wrote: post #354

amscanne wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. It hasn’t magically solved the wealth gap. Many people just want to punish the ultra wealthy, but it also won’t help. If it’s actually about raising revenue, you will need to actually look lower, to the top 10% and broader middle class. But this isn’t nearly as compelling as a populist message to fund the various proposed unicorns...

Really? The average income of someone in the top 1 percent is around 1 million, and the average income of the average person in the US is around 50k. So the top 1 percent have 20 percent of the income, so a 10 percent tax increase on the top 1 percent corresponds to a total increase of 2 percent, which isn't a small amount.

Am I reading this right, you think that if you increase the tax rate on high income people by 10%, you will get 10% more taxes from them?

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

#556

Post by annexrichmond » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:16 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #521

annexrichmond wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a logo at the top that says WSJ OPINION and it says "OPINION COMMENTARY" above the headline. Maybe it's easy to miss for someone's first time on the site, but I've personally never had any issue. Also when WSJ posts to social media they prefix the headline with "Opinion"

It’s in squished, gray hard to read type, and not in the bounding box formed by the article title and the story. I’m sure an eye tracker study would show that few people read that part of the page.

There is a sticky header with the WSJ OPINION logo as your scroll down the article [1]

What more do you want?

[1] https://imgur.com/a/7uN5UUX

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

#557

Post by jelliclesfarm » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:17 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #552

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can build new housing in california. its just difficult to build affordable housing apartment complexes in the bay area and other affluent zipcodes. california is huge. if they fixed transport problem(HST failed), we have plenty of space to build homes. its not like we are the australian bush or something..these are perfectly buildable areas..its just not san francisco or the bay area or wherever there is high de…

Is this satire? The current situation is the direct result of what you are recommending. California has tried to suburban sprawl our way out of our problems for 80 years. We have service workers commuting 4 hours a day, freeways at a standstill, and all those “buildable areas” that they have to bulldoze forests for get burned down every year.

you will get an answer if you delete the 'is this satire' beginning to your comment. because then, i will read the rest of it.

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

#558

Post by sagarm » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:19 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #498

defterGoose wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you like the plebs getting arrested for spitting on the sidewalk or executed for shooting up, Singapore is the place for you!

> arrested for spitting on the sidewalk Getting arrested is a bit much, but what's the redeeming quality of spitting on the sidewalk?

It's the irony of people arguing that California is making them a "slave" and then advocating moving to a literal military dictatorship where jail for minor infractions like spitting on the sidewalk is routine. The drug laws are even more totalitarian.

California has problems, but individual liberties and lives are treated with respect.

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

#559

Post by sixstringtheory » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:21 PM UTC

damnyou wrote: post #432

daenz wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we should leave the allocation of who is allowed to own how much stuff to who exactly? Politicians? Your average person on the street? Who are those economic geniuses who will distribute everything with objective correctness? That is the alternative that it sounds like you are promoting.

I share your concerns about centralized management, which is why the money should be redistributed in the form of a UBI to enable decentralized decision-making.

The decision about how much UBI is enough and from whom it is drawn and by how much is the critical part of the equation, and that is necessarily centralized.

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

#560

Post by tacitusarc » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:23 PM UTC

Straw wrote: post #320

tacitusarc wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has had his house smashed into an all of his stuff stolen, none of which was recovered and no meaningful attempt to do so was made, I don't particularly buy the argument that government enforces property rights. In certain cases, maybe. But mostly property rights exist because we all kind of agree they exist, and we generally don't go burglarizing each other.

You kept the house and the land- probably by far the most valuable assets. Without enforcement of property rights, what stops me from coming in with a bigger gun and just taking the land? Of course, there are limits to the protection they provide- you can always buy more.

Clearly if the police could get away ignoring the fact that you came in and took the land, they would.

I would make a strong delineation between the adjudication of property rights and the enforcement of property rights. Those are two different things, and it has ever been the case that individuals frequently must act in an enforcement capacity. Potentially, if you tried to take someone's land, they will shoot you. That is enforcement. Adjudication happens when a judge says they were in the right.