DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
88% Positive
Analyzed from 1055 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#tax#wealth#more#money#taxes#california#gen#https#don#system
Discussion (19 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The system is rigged against people who provide labour, when these people are the ones keeping the system going. Why can companies deduct taxes from operating expenses and investments, yet individuals are taxed on revenue? This means companies can build wealth much easier than individuals. Why is housing, food, education and savings not considered operating expenses?
The personal tax prep burden would be unbearable without cheating or taking a statutory amount of personal expenses, which is essentially our current situation.
Arguably encouraging people not to save any money would be a moral hazard.
However, I think you’re really just saying you’d like personal taxes to be lowered, yes?
we need some fresh air, not old cranks.
Or the one that spent $24 billion dollars fighting homelessness only to have overall homelessness numbers increase? My point being California could do a lot more to fix their financial situation but cutting their expenses than trying to claw more money from people.
There's a discussion to be had about taxation in this country but I predict no matter how much revenue they make from this "one time 5% tax", they'll blow the whole thing within 3 years for no gain and then start proposing another "1 time tax" again to try and fix their coffers.
After all it doesn't matter how much money you make if you're spending more than you earn, and nothings more permanent than a temporary fix.
I'm skeptical this bill is actually a positive step in the overall campaign. That said, I think the more discussion about the concept, the better.
I’m fine with it provided there’s some sort of minimum level of wealth required to be taxed in this manner. Taxing someone that is using a HELOC to replace their roof on the unrealized equity appreciation would be unfair, and I’m not even a homeowner.
There are better ways to attempt to tax wealth, eliminate the step-up cost basis and asset shielding in trusts and other forms of estate tax avoidance and the issue would correct itself eventually. Unfortunately, politicians in the US will not do this because they need donations from extremely wealthy people who absolutely do not want their estates taxed away. It’s also too easy to hide money in other places, there will always be nations willing to take on tax haven status to reap the benefits. I’m not sure what a practical solution is given the outsized influence of the wealthy all over the world.
> A new CBS/YouGov poll released Sunday found that 69 percent of respondents under 30 favor candidates who support raising taxes on wealthy Americans.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6096809-gen-z-taxes-we...
https://assets1.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/cms/prod_cms_alt/file/...
Then they should vote more.
Gen Z participated much less than the general electorate in the last election. In 2024 Gen Z voter turnout in the presidential election was 47% vs 65% overall turnout.
Also, do they know who really is going to eventually pay for this tax? Guess. (It is not most billionaires.)
On top of that, those taxes will require founders to liquidate their holdings and will also affect employees holding the stock as well so it actually hits tech workers harder.
It's bad enough that the large tech companies are now funding AI data centers by selling their own stock. So why would the founders want to tolerate a >$1B-$40B hit to their own net worth for a tax that really is not a one time tax which the threshold of this "wealth tax" will eventually get lowered into the 100M zone?
As I understand, this is the best way to do which we have so far. We are welcome to find a better way while we're using this approach.
It will be interesting to see how many very successful people decide they don't want to supply even more of the tax base.
"Second, the proponents’ 10 percent avoidance assumption is obsolete before signatures have even been submitted. Between the initiatives announcement on October 15, 2025 and the residency snapshot date of January 1, 2026, just six publicly confirmed departures eliminated far more than 10 percent of the base. During this period, nearly 30 percent of California’s wealth tax base left the state, and this only includes the billionaires who publicly announced their departures (see Table 1). "
https://libertylensecon.substack.com/p/california-wealth-tax...
Unlike in New York City, though, billionaires don't contribute that much to a total income tax receipts- a little over 2%, though that is from about 150 households, so anybody moving will have necessarily a significant impact.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w35218
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/leave-if-you-tax-them-...
What is hardly mentioned about inflation is the tax cuts for the rich. That increases money supply and forces the Fed to borrow more, or find other ways of raising funds to pay for the government.
So yes, either fix the tax code or enable this wealth tax nation wide, no other choice. One reason people like the 50s was everyone was taxed and most wealth was not in the hands of the few.