Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

661–670 of 734 posts

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

#661
post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also a false Argument, as even moving from the US does not absolve you of US Taxation, even if you renounce your citizenship in some cases they take your past, current and future wealth in taxes This is aside from the fact that is a clear logical fallacy [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

It’s actually a clear point- there is no nation on earth without a government that will provide you with services that you will disagree with. There are degrees of disagreement, so people do choose to move to one that fits their comfort level. But you seem to be making the case that this principle is completely disagreeable, and so you disagree with the social contract completely. Which is ludicrous. So indeed, you c…

>>But you seem to be making the case that this principle is completely disagreeable, and so you disagree with the social contract completely.

No, I just do not accept the idea that the terms of the "Social Contract" can be changed on the whims of a Majority / democracy, or worse on the whims of an elected officials

I believe in the Lockean principle of natural rights, on which I believe the terms of said social contract are written and are unchangeable

I believe what Authoritarian Democrats and Republicans call the "social contract" is a complete perversion of the concept in order to justify their own unethical power driven political ends.

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

#662
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Islam took a similar route with Zakat (a form of "charity tax" if you will, over 1400 years ago, and it's proven to work. When you look at history, there was a period of time, when everyone paid their share of Zakat, and when there were no poor people left to take it! It's not that much either, only 2.5% for currencies like gold and silver over a minimum threshold (so the poor/lower class are exempted anyway…

Which period was this? Because when I see what people with bank accounts in PK do now when Zakat is levied...

It was during the time of Omar Ibn AbdulAziz. I looked up the reference, and it was actually not just income from Zakat, but the entire fund in Iraq was overflowing, so much so that it was not only sufficient for the needy, but it also paid off people's debts, and married whomever wanted to get married.

[1] https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/181283/%D8%A3%D8%AB%D8%B1-...

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

#663
post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s actually a clear point- there is no nation on earth without a government that will provide you with services that you will disagree with. There are degrees of disagreement, so people do choose to move to one that fits their comfort level. But you seem to be making the case that this principle is completely disagreeable, and so you disagree with the social contract completely. Which is ludicrous. So indeed, you c…

>>But you seem to be making the case that this principle is completely disagreeable, and so you disagree with the social contract completely. No, I just do not accept the idea that the terms of the "Social Contract" can be changed on the whims of a Majority / democracy, or worse on the whims of an elected officials I believe in the Lockean principle of natural rights, on which I believe the terms of said social contr…

What you’re disagreeing with is also how every single nation functions. By all means, people can disagree with the specifics of how different governments function, but what you’re describing is something common to every polity. Even despotates claim to rule by a theoretical consent of the oppressed.

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

#664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could organize those who want to contribute voluntarily. A tax is mandatory. Example: We have a homelessness industrial complex in California. Our taxes go more towards paying activists and those who work with the homeless rather than building homes. The only way to get rid of homelessness is to build homes. It’s not like you can talk your way out of street living with talk therapy. While a portion need help..all…

You and I agree here. Build homes. Use tax money to build and operate housing. (Don't do the shitty American thing where you spend on the capital budget but not the operational budget.) We also need crisis intervention, counseling, drug programs, and support.

There has to be three streams. Housing those who need to get a job/reskill/can’t work. Another for medical intervention. And the third is rehab for addiction issues. This would be the largest group.

I want to share more re problem statement/solution strategy..but a little busy now. I hope to revisit this at some other time. I just have to find it for a quick cut and paste from where I had written earlier. Cheers.

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

#665
post #341
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> San Francisco spends $50k per homeless person. A commonly repeated falsehood. Is totally incorrect. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...

You’re linking to an article from mid 2018, before SF passed the largest tax in the city’s history: 2018 Prop C, a gross receipts tax for homeless services expected to raise another $300M. Several other additional tax measures were also passed since then to raise funds for homeless services.

These do not make fifty thousand opex per homeless person per year or anything around that. Both before and onwards, much is capex to build out.

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

#666
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think we should? Is it fair to everyone who didn’t go to college because it was too expensive?

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. There are people tied to tracks as far as you can see. You can pull the lever at any time to stop the trolley from killing people, but that would not be fair to everyone who has already been ran over by the trolley. Which is the right thing to do?

That's not an apt metaphor. I wasn't talking about it being unfair to those who paid off their debt already/got "killed by the trolley", but those who didn't go to college because it was too expensive, or lived at home, went to community college for two years, and then transferred to a state school so that they didn't have to take on debt. Now their tax dollars would go to help pay off the debts of everyone who went to expensive private colleges, many of whom come from much wealthier families.

Rather than forgiveness, we should make the debt dischargeable via bankruptcy. It should've never been made non-dischargeable (though it did help reduce interest rates, and enable more people to get them, that also upped the amount schools could charge, and made it so loan officers didn't have to consider the creditworthiness of the applicant, and their plan for repayment). It should be something that passes a need bar before essentially foisting the cost on society, and bankruptcy is a mechanism for doing exactly that.

Use the money toward making public universities free, and expand the public university system, as well as trade schools. That’s really how you save all those future people tied to those tracks.

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

#667
post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_You_ go to Idaho and Wyoming. California is our state.

I’m sorry, but you have me confused with someone else who is fantasizing about “a California with population levels pre-Gold-Rush, pre-Dust-Bowl and pre-Silicon-Valley”. I wasn’t being sarcastic with my previous comment

My qualms are more with the demographic changes these massive migrations brought.

Just very greedy overly ambitious and pretentious people.

To me they make terrible neighbors and have zero regard for the land, nature or the people here.

Some I assume are good people but I haven't met any.

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

#668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital gains taxes are already a thing. You just pay on liquidation instead of having to come up with cash every year.

First, let's recognize that this is a completely made-up criteria for when to apply the tax, then: there's no "natural" ethical principle for why it's ok to tax at liquidation vs tax continuously. The question, then, is whether one method is actually better than another under some set of criteria. The original comment's 'I don't feel like it' is insufficient in my mind. The reality of the current system is that we ha…

Are you familiar with the history of AMT? When it was enacted, it was meant to target an extremely small set of households, on the order of 1,000 iirc. But the thresholds weren’t indexed to inflation, and so now it triggers on a huge number of people every year. Maybe we are all temporarily embarrassed billionaires ;-).

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

#669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worth asking why compensation is the way it is. If we assume that people's compensation is based on the value they generate for an organization, then what you are asking is basically "can a million warehouse workers together in a collective be as effective as Jeff Bezos at producing value for Amazon?" Alternatively, you could ask "can a given warehouse worker given one million times his current compensat…

Yes, I do believe that the amount of wealth people get from a company should be proportional to their contributions to that company. Of course, this is very hard to give a clear number to. Still, one way to go about this is to assume that workers and employers are rational economic agents and look at their incentives and bargaining power. Obviously, an employer will never employ anyone for more money than they believ…

With 0 Jeff Bezos’, ~none of those 800k people would be working at a company called Amazon. Not sure who else at Amazon you can say that about.

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

#670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He as a human is worth exactly the same as the workers, of course. But that changes nothing about his right to the wealth he created. The others could create their own wealth, Bezos wasn't in a privileged position when he started. If his money gives him political power, the solution is to fix the political system, not steal his money.

> Bezos wasn't in a privileged position when he started. According to wikipedia: > He accepted an estimated $300,000 from his parents and invested in Amazon. I know literally zero people whose parents could afforded to have given this type of loan, let alone willing to.

If you're telling yourself, "the only difference between me and Bezos" is his "privilege", and "If I had that 300k I would do the same", I think you're missing out on how important his personal choices were, and your own.

If you don't see the choice factor, I think two things happen: 1) you stay where you are because you think, nobody is in fact successful, they only had it given to them, and 2) and you think it doesn't matter what you do, so you will not navigate your path with choices, and see yourself as an agent, but instead see yourself as basically a helpless leaf in the current, tossed this way and that by fortune and fate.

Personally, I feel it's really important to take personal responsibility for my own path, and see where I am as a result of choices. Not just for things like business, but for all of life. I think that's perspective puts me in a position of power, and taking that perspective is something I can control. Even in the context of things like harassment, or accidents, or childhood abuse and trauma, I don't think about it as, "I chose for this to be done to me," but rather as, "I choose what I make this mean, and I choose how I respond." I feel if I give that up that perspective, I willingly take on a disempowered perspective, so I see giving that up as giving myself a disadvantage.

I understand if you and other people want to see things that way, and I myself have the reflex where if I see someone successful I immediately ask myself, "Yeah, but who did they know? Who gave that to them?" and I try to let go of that because I see that as a trap that will make me feel better (by comparatively telling myself, it wasn't my fault, I just didn't get so much given to me, and also by letting me bring down in my own estimation the significance of their success, and thereby their capability, by eroding its legitimacy, since it wasn't them, it was just what they got given) -- and I try to remember that such notions won't help me get anywhere. So I try to emphasize to myself how inspired I feel about this, as in, "I like this. How can I get some of that for myself?"

One way I try to remember this to myself is, "If I can't get from where I am to where they started, how would I ever get from they started to where they go to?" And "win from any position". All the same, I'm not suggesting these are appropriate attitudes for you or others, since everyone has a different path and purpose, and we need a diversity of people who believe different things...but I just hope that sharing this, can give you some insight into the other perspectives that are out there about this. I know how hard it can be to hear even a simple set of ideas like this, because these ideas, if you entertain them run the risk of removing the comfortable distance you put between your own path, and those of others, by being able to explain it away as not having any responsibility yourself. It's a lot easier to psychologically deal with knowing about "people more 'successful' than me" if I can tell myself "it's not my fault" and even "they are not responsible for their success". Taking that responsibility, even just in a perspective sense, prompts you to look at where you are at, which can be very painful. It's not my intention to initiate this sort of response in you by sharing this, and it's not an attack on your position, just sharing my relationship to that kind of thinking, and how I understand it can be a very difficult type of thinking to try. I hope it was insightful and worth your time reading, but if not, at least you have the perspective you already know and like.

Post reply on HN