Meh, as a French person, the number of people who did this is pretty low. People hid their assets sure, but the FTB is a bit better at this than the fisc is ;-)
Put another way, the more complicated the tax, the easier it is to find loopholes. It’s basically impossible to write a simple wealth tax. If you do, you end up capturing people who shouldn’t be captured (for example a founder with illiquid stock and purely paper wealth). I’m actually all for taxing income pretty heavily especially in a progressive manner. Better yet, tax consumption. I think a luxury consumption tax, especially one that penalizes things like expensive cars, jets, boats, and similar would be a more effective way to tax the rich.
The people who would actually be subject to kind of tax would not, in an actual monetary sense, be adversely affected by this kind of tax, and we're really falling back on to crying BUT IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING. And, fine, but also ironic -- after all, that's also the rationale for imposing the tax.
Liberal politics turn everyplace into a disaster. CA was at a high bar so it is taking a little longer.
a.k.a. the Slippery Slope.
This is like the conversation over signing NDAs, where one party pressures the other by saying it doesn’t matter...
You're mixing up to whom it's meaningful. Rich individuals will be unaffected, but it will benefit the state as the tax is collected from more than one person.
The way I see it, it is small for the taxpayer. It is not insignificant for the state.
Personally, I don't own any land and I'd be pretty happy if we stripped property tax from local government and made one uniform federal property tax set somewhere between five percent and ten percent of the market value of the property annually with the goal that you will pay about the sticker price of the property in taxes every ten or so years. In return, the state will grant a housing allowance to every eligible resident over the age of eighteen which covers two times the cost of a modest two bedroom somewhere in the US. It won't be enough for a two bedroom in mid-town Manhattan but we will have guidelines that enable you to live somewhere habitable (access to decent road/transit options, running drinking water and sewage, electricity, reliable wired Internet access).
No allowance is available to or for anyone under the age of eighteen. No provision shall be made for regional differences in cost of living. No exemption shall be made with respect to tax-exempt status or any other reason. All agreements made with local governments (like the ones corporations like Walmart make to not pay any property tax for a hundred years or something) will not affect the property tax they pay under this new tax regime.
If we implement this and close income tax loopholes, we won't need to have a wealth tax. We will also not need to vilify corrupt officials in the CCP government in mainland China and other investors for "parking" their money in empty properties in the west and driving up the cost of real estate. We will instead thank them for their contribution to our communities through property taxes.
The most important thing is there should be no loopholes in tax policy. I really think most people in the US will agree that we shouldn't be driving policy issues through tax credits/deductions. It makes no sense to me to give tax credits or deductions for buying a house, selling a car, having a child, saving money in a health saving account, investing money for retirement, or donating to charity. All credits and deductions (going forward) in personal income tax should go away forever. All of this is basically a human shield for the wealthy to hide their tax loopholes.
Well they aren't collecting it from just one person, so the number's really big on one side (in aggregate) and it's really small on the other side.
You might be interested in this nice lottery the state also offers. Some call it a tax for those who are bad at math.
So you could pay the tax, draw out $960K a year (I mean, you can live on that, right? Not a hardship?), and still have another $960K left over.
$20M * 0.004 = $80,000
Which does actually mean my numbers are off, in that I accidentally calculated the guy with $50M in wealth having to pay $800K in wealth tax, and he actually only has to pay $80K. So, thank you for pointing out that this proposed tax was even more trivial for anyone that it would have affected than I'd originally thought.
You do know that the US taxes its citizens living abroad, right? I know someone who was born in the US, moved back to their home country at the ripe old age of 1, and chose to keep his citizenship when he turned 18, thinking that an additional passport won't hurt. Whoops! When he started making money, suddenly the taxman came calling! Even though he had not set foot in the US for 20 years!
Federal tax. US citizens living abroad can still vote in federal elections. People who haven't lived in California for ten years can not vote in California elections.
This would be taxation without representation. If you're an American, you probably were educated on the proper procedure for dealing with that.
People who haven't lived in California for one year can't vote in elections. So why the additional taxes for the next 9 years??
Libya I think. Nope, sorry, even worse: Eritrea [1]
[1] https://www.taxesforexpats.com/expat-tax-advice/Citizenship-...
> Bill No. 2088 would have created a new annual tax of 0.4% on individuals with worldwide annual wealth over $30 million;
This is taken from www.irs.gov
This kind of thing just looks american to me.
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.
You could kill SV and create five more.
The most likely thing isn't five more valleys, it's that the valley gets { Texas, Boston, Utah, Minnesota, DC Metro, ..}-ized and there is nothing like it again.
* (I _hate_ "entrepreneur"; I've founded and exited a company but as a term it is not in-line at all with the freewheeling, let's-do-this, let's-do-it-better-than-anyone way people who drove the valley in the 70s and 80s thought of themselves. The rise of "entrepreneur" as the way of thinking about founders correlates well, imho, with the decline of the valley as the center of technology.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment#Jobs_and_gro...
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
California is our state.
I wasn’t being sarcastic with my previous comment
If we’re talking about the conquistadors, can’t we lump them in with “Just very greedy overly ambitious and pretentious people”? They weren’t kind to the indigenous people. Even slavery wasn’t out of the question.
This is the type of ignorance I'm talking about.
The first people to colonize California were mestizo and mulato - generations after the conquistadores in Mexico.
“Prior to contact with Europeans, the California region contained the highest Native American population density north of what is now Mexico.“
Native Americans settled in California 19,000 years ago or earlier, at least 18,500 years before the arrival of the conquistadors.
Given your own ignorance of history, I really doubt you’re even old enough to remember Silicon Valley when it was just a bunch of orchards.
If you really want to live in a place similar to California before Silicon Valley, there are plenty of states within the US that can offer that experience right now. You don’t need patience, you just need courage to experience it; that is of course if you were pining for less development and population density. Reading what you’ve previously written again, if what you really wanted was ethnic purity (which I misread as wanting to live in less developed areas) then I have other words for you. That type of post is not welcome on HN
California indigenous who settled and mestizos who colonized share the same haplogroup d dna.
They are the same people.
And for what it's worth the massive anglo/white immigration into California has been tantamount to ethnic replacement - not just in California but all over this continent.
So excuse me if I don't cry a river over fewer transplants.
So we're playing the semantics game now? Let me guess, you didn't make a racist comment. Instead you made a comment about ethnic pride? If we're playing this game, let's be clear on the definitions:
settle - to establish in residence
colonize - come to settle among and establish political control over the indigenous people of an area.
> They are the same people.
According to the Californios article you referenced, they are not the same people as the Native Americans who first settled in CA.
"Californios included the descendants of agricultural settlers and retired escort soldiers deployed from what is modern-day Mexico. Most were of mixed ethnicities, usually Mestizo (Spanish and Native American) or mixed African and Amerindian backgrounds."
Otherwise, (using your own language), the Californios wouldn't have colonized California
> And for what it's worth the massive anglo/white immigration into California has been tantamount to ethnic replacement - not just in California but all over this continent.
Thank you for confirming my suspicions of your comments being racist and no, I am not white yet I do find it ironic for one descendant of colonizers to complain about the descendants of other colonizers. I wouldn't be surprised if you considered Asians and Pacific Islanders as "invaders" as well. Also you're proving your ignorance yet again. Since you've mentioned your imagined "ethnic replacement" of Hispanics in CA (which the majority of I'm pretty sure are not as prejudiced as you - and let's not confuse ethnic cleansing with population changes from immigration & migration), let's go over CA's current or near current ethnicity statistics ordered by the largest:
* Hispanic 39.29% (This has increased from 36.6%)
* White, non-Hispanic 36.64%
* Asian 14.525
* Black 5.51%
* Pacific Islander 0.36%
* Native American 0.35% (they are not Californios, and they are still here)
* Other
> So excuse me if I don't cry a river over fewer transplants.
I'm not going to excuse and condone what I feel are posts from a racist reminiscing about ethnic purity in California. You do NOT post this type of garbage on HN.
Do you think it's really all about taxes? It's not.
The prevailing rhetoric of California being "bad" is mostly political and has racist anti-liberal roots.
By shutting down counter views you're allowing those racist viewpoints to prosper.
And by the way, none of your rhetoric counters what is historical fact.
The plurality of California are not Hispanic by pure accident.
Lastly, it should be possible to have a rational discussion about demographics on this site without people over reacting and name calling.
From your initial post, I just thought it was about over-development. I didn't expect to be about demographics and ethnicity, specifically maintaining your idea of CA's racial "purity". Consequently, I was very confused when you asked me to leave CA.
> The prevailing rhetoric of California being "bad" is mostly political and has racist anti-liberal roots. By shutting down counter views you're allowing those racist viewpoints to prosper
Let me get this straight, by calling you out on your racist viewpoints, I am allowing racist viewpoints to fester? That totally makes sense.
Who cares if other racist viewpoints have white, conservative roots? Racism is bad, period, regardless of its origins, the ideology of the people holding those ideas, and whether or not it's systemic. As shown by your own comments, conservatives do not have a monopoly on racism either.
> And by the way, none of your rhetoric counters what is historical fact.
That's great counter-argument with no details or facts, other than the slivers you've previously provided that I've quickly shut down. I guess your newest comment isn't rhetoric either?
> The plurality of California are not Hispanic by pure accident.
Yes, CA promotes diversity, yet you lament not having a more homogeneous population. The only difference between your views and "America First" proponents' view is the ethnicity being supported.
> Lastly, it should be possible to have a rational discussion about demographics on this site without people over reacting and name calling.
Forgive me for pointing out thinly veiled racist comments on HN. It's a natural conclusion to assume that racists comments are made by a racist. I am not over reacting. I initially assumed good faith and gave you the benefit of the doubt for too long. You're just downplaying your BS.
Let's revisit your BS before you delete it:
"_You_ go to Idaho and Wyoming.
California is our state."
So apparently according to your view point, California is only for "Californios", Hispanics who originated from Mexico?
"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."
I don't even have to comment on this one. It speaks for itself, especially the last line. Since you're really into semantics, let's define racist:
racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance
I hate racists too which is why I prefer not having them in my state.
What does this non-sequitur have to do with anything written so far? With you alluding to be a liberal, you've just proven that racism transcends American politics of left and right.
> I hate racists too which is why I prefer not having them in my state.
I am sorry that somewhere along the way you were hurt so much that it would push you to blame all of your misfortunes on another race or ethnic group, similar to poverty stricken members of neo-Nazis and the KKK; but you need to have a hard look in the mirror and do some serious self-introspection.
Let's re-read your comments.
"_You_ go to Idaho and Wyoming. California is our state."
I didn't understand it at the time, but you were telling me that CA only belonged to members of your own ethnic group.
"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."
Your comments in just a single thread, really just this specific comment, already meet the textbook definition of a racist. In fact, I can attribute what you just wrote to a white supremacist, and it wouldn't seem out of place.
racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance
If you can't reconcile this and change, then I agree with your statement. I also prefer not having racists in my state and I like diversity because life is richer with it, so it would be nice if racists like yourself left California or the United States entirely, regardless of whether they think they are conservative or liberal. In fact, please leave HN. People with your ideology need to either change or leave.
Maybe you should go educate yourself about what Liberalism is before appointing yourself the racism police on Hackernews.
I'm a liberal and I've said I prefer not having more racists in California with illiberal sentiment. That is the opposite of racist.
There is a long history of America enforcing white racial integrity which you seem to be naive to. As a native Californian I think it's fair to be weary.
I stand by not wanting more transplants in my state and it's not just me.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
1. Just because you feel that you're liberal does not mean that you are actually a liberal.
2. You can identify as a liberal and still be a racist. e.g. your ideals of "egalitarianism" only seem to apply to you fellow "Californios" and no one else
> Maybe you should go educate yourself about what Liberalism is before appointing yourself the racism police on Hackernews.
I've already proven based on your comments alone that you hold racist views. Let me remind you the definition of a racist again, since you keep forgetting and ignoring it.
racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance
How do you not fit the definition of a racist based on your previous comments? Let me remind you that your very first comment for me was essentially, "Leave my home, it only belongs to my people (who are racially / ethnically similar to me)". How is that much different from "Go back to your own country?"
Maybe we should have HN decide who is right and who is wrong? Your views do not belong here.
> There is a long history of America enforcing white racial integrity which you seem to be naive to. As a native Californian I think it's fair to be weary.
You're not wrong that America has a long history of racism in favor of white Anglos. I'm not disputing that. However, I think you're the one who needs a history lesson, instead of believing in your revisionist version. While the Calfornios were mixed, being multi-generational descendants of both conquistadors and indigenous people, they were by and large culturally still the same as their conquistador ancestors. They served European royalty to take and subvert land and native peoples for the Spanish crown by any means necessary. The first Calfornios were soldiers. All of this is well documented.
"Spanish and Mexican rule were devastating for native populations. 'As the missions grew, California’s native population of Indians began a catastrophic decline.' Gregory Orfalea estimates that pre-contact population was reduced by 33% during the Spanish and Mexican regimes. Most of the deaths stemmed from imported diseases and the disruption of traditional ways of life, but violence was common, and some historians have charged that life in the missions was close to slavery."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide
The Spanish conquistadors' descendants were no better than their English counterparts when it came to colonization and brutality. "Californios" are also not the same people as California's native population.
> I stand by not wanting more transplants in my state and it's not just me.
The popularity of a belief does not guarantee that it's actually moral or ethical. Your views are not acceptable on HN and they do not belong on HN.
The place this thread really went off the rails is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25482753. Your first comment was obviously in good faith, but when you got an obviously bad faith reply, you should not have fed it. This is in the site guidelines: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." When flames aren't fed, they quickly die out.
- Cali has concentrates most of the entrepreneurship... of the entire world for the next century, so a bit of decentralization would be a trickle-down equivalent,
- There is already an exode to Texas,
- This rule will make people move,
- And also cancel all their meetings in Cali, to avoid reaching anywhere close to the 2 months per year threshold.
That’s scary.
No, you fix it. Law is code, and needs tuning.
When people as so inclined to give up on first failing, then I feel it says more about their underlying worldview than it does about what's possible in the world.
Entee is just outlining why this approach probably won't work, not saying we shouldn't adjust laws at all to serve all people. TBH, I think your comment says more about your worldview than his.
> Thing is we’ve done the experiment and it doesn’t work.
My main reaction was discomfort with one observation of a legislative failure being used to advocate discarding a hypothesis * shrug *
EDIT: But thanks for reply to my lazy and poorly framed comment!
Hardly a comparison. Can't do an easy commute to the office with that. Most people with that wealth won't burn the money on uprooting their companies.
Couldn't they just limit the amount you can emigrate from the country with.
So if you emigrate, you can only take a maximum of, say, €10 mill.
i.e. earn it in France, using French laws, a French education and French infrastructure, it stays in France.
Obviously it clashes with EU free movement, but basically the problem seems to be we can't tax the rich because they take advantage of globalism to move their money around.
Isn't the solution to stop them moving it, rather than giving up?
Is a tiny distillation of one of the most difficult problems facing legislators intending to mitigate wealth inequality across their society: if the rich get upset, they can just take their toys and leave.
This is, from the perspective of legislative generations, a very new problem that has crystallized in the past 40 years with the expansion and standardization of international trade law.
The problem is that different places have different values and policies and compete with each other? The problem is that people have the audacity to disagree with governments and seek out different ways of living? Sorry but any proposal that disincentivizes or punishes free movement is atrocious and totalitarian. And I mean that literally.