5 ms·

I'm confused by your argument. The proposed wealth tax is on billionaires. That's fewer than 200 people in California. You're obviously not one of them, and nev

by lapcat 10mo ago

I'm confused by your argument. The proposed wealth tax is on billionaires. That's fewer than 200 people in California. You're obviously not one of them, and never were one of them, so it wouldn't raise your taxes. And it sounds like you left San Francisco not because of taxes but because of the cost of housing. San Francisco used to be a city where normal people could afford to live. The current insane price of housing was caused primarily by the growth of the tech industry. It's true that the tech industry in California created a vast amount of wealth, but that wealth is concentrated into relatively few hands, especially the billionaires. The wealth did not trickle down to normal people; what did trickle down was housing inflation and gentrification. If the tech industry left Silicon Valley—and there's no inherent reason why it needs to be concentrated in Silicon Valley, given the technology to work from anywhere—perhaps San Francisco would be better off in general and return to normalcy.

mothballed 10mo ago
Most billionaires are billionaires are on paper, by owning capital. Capital used to produce things. I'm presuming they won't actually be taxing capital investment but if they did you simply end up driving much of those capital investments elsewhere. If they are simply taxing whatever loose cash and personal (mostly luxury) assets people have, then yeah I don't expect it will shake things up very quickly, paying an extra ~5% to live in San Francisco isn't the biggest deal if it stops there.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- lapcat 10mo ago
  > Most billionaires are billionaires are on paper, by owning capital. By owning stock. I'm not sure that "on paper" is a particularly interesting qualifier. I'm not a billionaire, but most of my wealth, such as it is, is "on paper". I have some cash on hand to pay expenses (technically, a checking account, and less than $50 in physical bills and coins), but you're probably losing money if you're keeping most of it in cash and not investing it on something with returns. > Capital used to produce things. The reality is much more complicated than this simple statement. An IPO is a one-time cash infusion for the company; subsequent sales of the shares on the stock market may bring additional cash to the shareholders, but not to the company. A company may issue additional shares, but this requires approval of the current shareholders, who probably won't look kindly on dilution. I think the main use of this is not to raise additional capital from the public but rather to compensate employees. (Sometimes companies do the opposite: stock buybacks, where the company gives cash to stockholders rather than vice versa.) One primary purpose of an IPO is not to raise new capital but rather to compensate the company founders/executives and initial private investors. So you could say that stock indirectly produces things by enticing investment. But a lucrative IPO requires that the company already produce something of value before the IPO. A successful publicly owned corporation does not require further capital infusion from investors, because sales of the corporation's products to customers are more than sufficient to fund continued operation. > you simply end up driving much of those capital investments elsewhere It's questionable how much these investments actually benefit the community. For example, if labor is brought primarily from outside the community, then existing residents do not necessarily benefit from the spending, and they may find themselves priced out of their own community by the incoming labor force. > If they are simply taxing whatever loose cash and personal (mostly luxury) assets people have No, that does not appear to be the design or intention of the proposed wealth tax.
  - mothballed 10mo ago
    >By owning stock. Yes often stock, although this can be confusing for ownership portions in private equity because the incorporation often does use stock as a form of ownership but not the publicly traded kind as one often thinks of (this why I prefer a more generic 'capital'). The key here is ownership of things that facilitate the production of goods and services. These usually represent by far the largest portion of wealth billionaires have, its almost never mostly horded as mostly unused or non-productive wealth but rather representative of ownership of productive assets that bring goods and services to fruition. >I'm not sure that "on paper" is a particularly interesting qualifier. I'm not a billionaire, but most of my wealth, such as it is, is "on paper". I have some cash on hand to pay expenses (technically, a checking account, and less than $50 in physical bills and coins), but you're probably losing money if you're keeping most of it in cash and not investing it on something with returns. A large portion of people have their assets mostly in real estate, vehicles, demand accounts, personal tangible assets. The median household stock ownership is $~50k of $~200k in median household net worth. Having most wealth "on paper" is very much a situation of note from the viewpoint of the common person, and your position puts you closer to the billionaires in this regard. >IPOs Stock ownership is literally the ownership of the company and thereby the productive capital. Wealth tax on stock is a punishment for owning productive assets, and also a punishment for creating productive assets. You are trying to sidestep this by arguing whether the purchase of the stock itself adds investment while ignoring the stock itself is a fractional title of the productive assets. >It's questionable how much these investments actually benefit the community. For example, if labor is brought primarily from outside the community, then existing residents do not necessarily benefit from the spending, and they may find themselves priced out of their own community by the incoming labor force. This is a fully informed acknowledgement you simply don't seem to care if the investments leave the community. Your attitude seems to be something akin to, well, if the biggest productive capital holders want to leave then it probably doesn't matter for the community anyway. I can respect that. You know what you want and you're willing to work to get it. I wish you the most sincerest of luck. Although I'm not in favor of these kind of zero sum games, I will definitely welcome the movement of investment out of California and into my state where it definitely will not benefit my community.
    - 10mo ago

by lapcat 10mo ago

mothballed 10mo ago

Most billionaires are billionaires are on paper, by owning capital. Capital used to produce things. I'm presuming they won't actually be taxing capital investment but if they did you simply end up driving much of those capital investments elsewhere. If they are simply taxing whatever loose cash and personal (mostly luxury) assets people have, then yeah I don't expect it will shake things up very quickly, paying an extra ~5% to live in San Francisco isn't the biggest deal if it stops there.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
lapcat 10mo ago
> Most billionaires are billionaires are on paper, by owning capital. By owning stock. I'm not sure that "on paper" is a particularly interesting qualifier. I'm not a billionaire, but most of my wealth, such as it is, is "on paper". I have some cash on hand to pay expenses (technically, a checking account, and less than $50 in physical bills and coins), but you're probably losing money if you're keeping most of it in cash and not investing it on something with returns. > Capital used to produce things. The reality is much more complicated than this simple statement. An IPO is a one-time cash infusion for the company; subsequent sales of the shares on the stock market may bring additional cash to the shareholders, but not to the company. A company may issue additional shares, but this requires approval of the current shareholders, who probably won't look kindly on dilution. I think the main use of this is not to raise additional capital from the public but rather to compensate employees. (Sometimes companies do the opposite: stock buybacks, where the company gives cash to stockholders rather than vice versa.) One primary purpose of an IPO is not to raise new capital but rather to compensate the company founders/executives and initial private investors. So you could say that stock indirectly produces things by enticing investment. But a lucrative IPO requires that the company already produce something of value before the IPO. A successful publicly owned corporation does not require further capital infusion from investors, because sales of the corporation's products to customers are more than sufficient to fund continued operation. > you simply end up driving much of those capital investments elsewhere It's questionable how much these investments actually benefit the community. For example, if labor is brought primarily from outside the community, then existing residents do not necessarily benefit from the spending, and they may find themselves priced out of their own community by the incoming labor force. > If they are simply taxing whatever loose cash and personal (mostly luxury) assets people have No, that does not appear to be the design or intention of the proposed wealth tax.
- mothballed 10mo ago
  >By owning stock. Yes often stock, although this can be confusing for ownership portions in private equity because the incorporation often does use stock as a form of ownership but not the publicly traded kind as one often thinks of (this why I prefer a more generic 'capital'). The key here is ownership of things that facilitate the production of goods and services. These usually represent by far the largest portion of wealth billionaires have, its almost never mostly horded as mostly unused or non-productive wealth but rather representative of ownership of productive assets that bring goods and services to fruition. >I'm not sure that "on paper" is a particularly interesting qualifier. I'm not a billionaire, but most of my wealth, such as it is, is "on paper". I have some cash on hand to pay expenses (technically, a checking account, and less than $50 in physical bills and coins), but you're probably losing money if you're keeping most of it in cash and not investing it on something with returns. A large portion of people have their assets mostly in real estate, vehicles, demand accounts, personal tangible assets. The median household stock ownership is $~50k of $~200k in median household net worth. Having most wealth "on paper" is very much a situation of note from the viewpoint of the common person, and your position puts you closer to the billionaires in this regard. >IPOs Stock ownership is literally the ownership of the company and thereby the productive capital. Wealth tax on stock is a punishment for owning productive assets, and also a punishment for creating productive assets. You are trying to sidestep this by arguing whether the purchase of the stock itself adds investment while ignoring the stock itself is a fractional title of the productive assets. >It's questionable how much these investments actually benefit the community. For example, if labor is brought primarily from outside the community, then existing residents do not necessarily benefit from the spending, and they may find themselves priced out of their own community by the incoming labor force. This is a fully informed acknowledgement you simply don't seem to care if the investments leave the community. Your attitude seems to be something akin to, well, if the biggest productive capital holders want to leave then it probably doesn't matter for the community anyway. I can respect that. You know what you want and you're willing to work to get it. I wish you the most sincerest of luck. Although I'm not in favor of these kind of zero sum games, I will definitely welcome the movement of investment out of California and into my state where it definitely will not benefit my community.
  - 10mo ago