9 ms·
So why not impose an internal visa system? Instead of having people buy up the property and jack the prices to shit, just have some notion of "Californian citi
by heartbeats 4y ago
So why not impose an internal visa system?
Instead of having people buy up the property and jack the prices to shit, just have some notion of "Californian citizenship".
* If you were born there, you're grandfathered in by birthright.
* If you move out, we'll pay you some money or whatever.
* If you want to move in, either pay a big sum of money or convince the government you're helpful.
Then they could use the money from these sales to invest in the community, rather than it going to property speculators.
- aw1621107 4y agoWouldn't such a scheme violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution? See e.g., Crandall v. Nevada, where the Supreme Court explicitly held that an egress tax was unconstitutional. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crandall_v._Nevada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crandall_v._Nevada
- heartbeats 4y agoCertainly you couldn't do it like a straight-up visa policy, but you could probably achieve something very similar by giving them strongly unfavorable property taxes and so on.
- aw1621107 4y agoSuch a taxation scheme sounds like it can potentially run into similar issues as well. For example, from Cornell's Legal Information Institute [0]: > In the exercise of its taxing power, a state may not discriminate substantially between residents and nonresidents. In Ward v. Maryland the Court set aside a state law that imposed specific taxes upon nonresidents for the privilege of selling within the state goods that were produced in other states. Also found to be incompatible with the comity clause was a Tennessee license tax, the amount of which was dependent upon whether the person taxed had his chief office within or without the state. In Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., the Court, although sustaining the right of a state to tax income accruing within its borders to nonresidents, held the particular tax void because it denied to nonresidents exemptions which were allowed to residents. The "terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous," wrote Justice Pitney, "... but a general taxing scheme ... if it discriminates against all non-residents, has the necessary effect of including in the discrimination those who are citizens of other States ...." Where there were no discriminations between citizens and noncitizens, a state statute taxing the business of hiring persons within the state for labor outside the state was sustained. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/privileges-and-immunity-clause-doctrine-and-practice https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/sec...
- heartbeats 4y agoNo, in this system, they would be "residents", they would just be residents that haven't gone through the sort of procedures that California would like for them to, and so they get absurd property taxes or whatnot. e.g. if you go don't go through immigration, you can physically live there, but you'll have to pay 105% of your income in tax
- aw1621107 4y agoIf California residents also have to go through that same procedure (i.e., everyone is subject to it), sure, that might pass muster. Otherwise, it sounds like a distinction without a difference. How do you imagine a "going through immigration" process that doesn't effectively produce "resident"/"non-resident" status?
- dredmorbius 4y agostrongly unfavorable property taxes Prop 13: Mission accomplished.
- ericmay 4y agoIt’s an interesting idea, but I think you’d ultimately have to leave the union to implement it because you can’t restrict freedom of movement within the US. I think there are other potential solutions, however. Finding ways to create incentives for not speculating on property, huge taxes for vacation homes, etc. may work. Though it’s dangerous because you might get something that sounded good at the time but turned out to be a disaster like Prop 13.
- thatfrenchguy 4y agoWe already have this with prop 13, let’s not take it any further, it’s already insane enough.
- rayiner 4y agoInternal immigration reduces California’s population (more people leave than come in). It’s international immigration and births that drive’s the state’s population growth.
- seoaeu 4y agoYou’d better take down all those “refugees welcome” signs then
- epistasis 4y agoThis would also jack up the prices a huge amount, wealth is anything that people want where there's not enough to go around. By keeping people out, this will actually increase the scarcity and drive up "prices" even more. Your "big sum of money" acknowledges as much. So this is a terrible, unfair idea. And if we were to ever implement such a scheme, the only way to make it remotely fair would to heavily heavily tax this wealth, perhaps by charging existing residents a highly monthly rent to stay, and for those that get a grandfathered-in prize, they should have to pay a large amount of capital gains.
- heartbeats 4y agoThe prices of the passports would go up, yes, but the prices of property would go down.
- epistasis 4y agoPrices for whom? Only those born into this wealth, or those who have wealth by other means. It's a recipe for even more massive inequality.
- heartbeats 4y agoPeople from out of state. The native Californians would not have to pay, since they already live there.
- epistasis 4y agoExactly, those who have been born into wealth have a gilded life, while the rest of the states struggle. I think it's important to remember that California's wealth comes not from internally, but from externally. By exporting the goods from labor in the state, labor that is largely the result of immigrants into the state, California is leading the way to a more environmentally friendly path, with greater wealth, for all of humanity. Wishing to cut that off because of a few conservative "native born" Californians don't want to see apartment buildings is the height of foolishness and greed.