California's Wealth Tax

[Anonymous]

What are DCUM's thoughts on California's proposed wealth tax.

To me it makes more sense than capital gains taxes. I feel that taxing earnings are problematic. It encourages companies to reinvest rather than pay dividends that might be taxed. Eventually creating the conditions that monopolies flourish in.

EG capital gains taxes it actually punishes people that make and report profits. Personally, I feel we should really encourage profits at least the theoretical ideal, where a company efficiently produces a product and sells it for more than they needed to produce it. Though, the standard profit that we have today, where each company feels it's entitled, to 10% profits is basically rent seeking, and that is exactly the problem I think capital tax solves. Either you are putting your money to use and creating profits and paying them out to shareholders, or you don't deserve to have that amount of influence. Full stop.

What are other thoughts on the idea? Furthermore, I think it's justified in the amount of political influence that these billionaires garner and how much of our government is optimized for them. Want government services, like USCIS Visa's, start paying.

[Anonymous]

The wealth tax is on individuals, not companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wealth tax is on individuals, not companies.

Individuals who avoid taxes by holding money in stocks, then take out loans to live on. Bill Ackerman describes the loop hole.

[Anonymous]

NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

[Anonymous]

JLG says hold my beer Newsome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

Yeah, there's an issue with illiquid assets, especially in volatile industries. I think it could still be manageable at a lower tax rate though (5% is insane).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

Do you have any evidence that this would be the case or is this just one of the fantasies you have where the billionaire will finally notice you if you kiss his ass hard enough?

I mean, trump is ruining the the economy well enough on his own, if anything this will be a vast improvement and a return of sanity. I hope that it’s super hot wherever Reagan is.

[Anonymous]

Remember Margaret Thatcher's line: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".

Taxes drive behavior, and that behavior will be to avoid the tax one way or another, not to happily pay for endlessly expanding social welfare programs. To the extent that wealthy people become tax exiles from CA, the state will experience a net loss of income rather than any gains at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

Do you have any evidence that this would be the case or is this just one of the fantasies you have where the billionaire will finally notice you if you kiss his ass hard enough?

I mean, trump is ruining the the economy well enough on his own, if anything this will be a vast improvement and a return of sanity. I hope that it’s super hot wherever Reagan is.

God, people are so stupid these days. Here is your evidence, which you could have found yourself if you possessed two brain cells to rub together.

The Californian Legislative Analyst’s office notes that this tax is based on “net worth,” which therefore includes unrealized gains. That means all illiquid and long-term holdings, which is the foundation of why equity investment works so well. So yes, this would kill the startup ecosystem entirely in the state of California.

https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2025-024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

Yeah, there's an issue with illiquid assets, especially in volatile industries. I think it could still be manageable at a lower tax rate though (5% is insane).

5% is a very bad idea. If they want to raise more tax revenue without encouraging outmigration, they should create an alternative minimum tax calculated based off net worth. Eg. AMT is 0.1% of net worth. Net worth of 2 billion dollars, AMT would be $2,000,000 if regular state income taxes are less than that you would owe the difference up to 2M. This AMT would be assessed every year to minimize the benefit of state tax avoidance strategies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

Yeah, there's an issue with illiquid assets, especially in volatile industries. I think it could still be manageable at a lower tax rate though (5% is insane).

5% is a very bad idea. If they want to raise more tax revenue without encouraging outmigration, they should create an alternative minimum tax calculated based off net worth. Eg. AMT is 0.1% of net worth. Net worth of 2 billion dollars, AMT would be $2,000,000 if regular state income taxes are less than that you would owe the difference up to 2M. This AMT would be assessed every year to minimize the benefit of state tax avoidance strategies.

If regular income taxes paid exceed this amount they could get a credit towards state amt that offset against future years with income taxes below that amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

“Trickle down” didn’t work. Free trade deals didn’t work either. Why not tax the rich who are now making many times the amount of the average worker than they did 20-30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

I don't think there should be so many billionaires but this seems so ludicrous.

1. People can vote to say we are taking 5% of your all your wealth in 2025? Is there a limit, can voters get enough signatures to vote for taking 10% more in 2030 of every billionaire's wealth?

2. How do you even value all of someone's assets over a billion? They are all mandated to inform the government of every last penny they have? Many billionaires have assets like art which is hard to value or non-liquid assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think there should be so many billionaires but this seems so ludicrous.

1. People can vote to say we are taking 5% of your all your wealth in 2025? Is there a limit, can voters get enough signatures to vote for taking 10% more in 2030 of every billionaire's wealth?

2. How do you even value all of someone's assets over a billion? They are all mandated to inform the government of every last penny they have? Many billionaires have assets like art which is hard to value or non-liquid assets.

Yes, it’s a stupid idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think there should be so many billionaires but this seems so ludicrous.

1. People can vote to say we are taking 5% of your all your wealth in 2025? Is there a limit, can voters get enough signatures to vote for taking 10% more in 2030 of every billionaire's wealth?

2. How do you even value all of someone's assets over a billion? They are all mandated to inform the government of every last penny they have? Many billionaires have assets like art which is hard to value or non-liquid assets.

Yes, it’s a stupid idea.

Of course it is, and world class economists have said as much over the past 100 years. California has plenty of money, but has mismanaged it so badly that it needs another source of revenue to offset its incompetence. Politicians know that voters won’t feel sorry for billionaires, and won’t even notice the precedent this sets until the bar is lowered to hit their pockets.

Borrowing money against appreciated assets is not a loophole. Rather, it’s a risk that both the bank and borrower take when dealing with illiquid assets. Just wait until California decides to tax home equity, retirement accounts, and any other assets that appreciate over time.