Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, 'killing the golden goose' only matters when the goose lays eggs where you can get them. Otherwise, roast the sucker.
Hawaii gets taxes from tourists, but that's just licking the bowl, we're not even getting the icing on the cake. How about making it a requirement that all businesses in Hawaii pay a higher tax and higher wages if they aren't at least 50% owned by Hawaii residents? Every corporation doing business in Hawaii is benefiting off of Hawaii, why not have Hawaii residents do the same?
So it would be ok for locals to pay their employees less because they are locals?
Thankfully, such a scheme would be unconstitutional as it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Austin v. New Hampshire, which invalidated a commuter income tax that was applied only to non-residents, is probably the best judicial rationale against such a proposed scheme.
From the Court syllabus in that case:
Quote:
The New Hampshire Commuters Income Tax imposes a tax on nonresidents' New Hampshire-derived income above $2,000 at a 4% rate, except that, if the nonresident's State of residence would impose a lesser tax had the income been earned in that State, the New Hampshire tax is reduced to that amount. The Commuters Income Tax contains provisions that, in practical effect exempt from tax income earned by New Hampshire residents outside the State, and New Hampshire imposes no tax on its residents' domestic earned income.
Held: Under the rule requiring substantial equality of treatment for the citizens of the taxing State and nonresident taxpayers, the New Hampshire Commuters Income Tax violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, since the tax falls exclusively on nonresidents' incomes and is not offset even approximately by other taxes imposed upon residents alone. Pp. 420 U. S. 665-668.
(a) The State's contention that the tax's ultimate burden is not in effect more onerous on nonresidents because their total tax liability is unchanged once the tax credit received from their State of residence is taken into account cannot be squared with the underlying policy of comity that the Privileges and Immunities Clause requires. Pp. 420 U. S. 665-666.
(b) The possibility that, in this case, Maine, the appellant taxpayers' State of residence, could shield its residents from the New Hampshire tax by amending its credit provisions does not cure, but, in fact, compounds, the constitutional defect of the discrimination in the New Hampshire tax, since New Hampshire in effect invites appellants to induce their representatives to retaliate against such discrimination. The constitutionality of one State's statutes affecting nonresidents cannot depend upon the present configuration of another State's statutes. Pp. 420 U. S. 666-668.
But I'm sure if Hawaii could get away with such unequal taxation, it would. Thus, this is another among many occasions where I say thank God for the US Constitution
More on the Privileges and Immunities Clause:
Quote:
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This clause protects fundamental rights of individual citizens and restrains state efforts to discriminate against out-of-state citizens. However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause extends not to all commercial activity, but only to fundamental rights.
Well, 'killing the golden goose' only matters when the goose lays eggs where you can get them. Otherwise, roast the sucker.
Hawaii gets taxes from tourists, but that's just licking the bowl, we're not even getting the icing on the cake. How about making it a requirement that all businesses in Hawaii pay a higher tax and higher wages if they aren't at least 50% owned by Hawaii residents? Every corporation doing business in Hawaii is benefiting off of Hawaii, why not have Hawaii residents do the same?
So make Hawaiian Airlines and pretty much all the banks pay higher taxes because as publicly held companies will never be “locally” owned? Make Hawaiian Tel pay higher taxes etc? Nah. Not going to fly. And any increase is passed on to local residents.
Or perhaps they could encourage a lot of the publicly held stock to be held by folks living in Hawaii? Although, they don't ask where you live when you buy stocks.
I dunno, how can it be arranged so the folks living in Hawaii benefit from being covered in tourists and having all the best spots inaccessible due to excessive tourism? They say we get tax dollars from the tourists, but we also need more infrastructure and such because of the tourists, so do we benefit from them?
Before all this social media and 'hidden' spots, - which are now mobbed - most of the tourists stayed in Waikiki or on a tour bus and they didn't cause much problems. Now they're everywhere and a lot of places they shouldn't be. There's no educating them, either. Soon as some of them get a clue, they leave and another ignorant one fills that spot. Unceasing education isn't the answer.
Perhaps the fee will be charged when you arrive? I assume cruise ship passengers passing through Hawaii would have to pay it if they get off the ship on any island?
Hawaii also just changed the property tax structure for many people who have second homes here. Now, if you don't rent it out, you will pay the same rate as people who do. For several of my neighbors, their property tax bill just quadrupled. Since they are part-timers, they can't vote here. This seems like "taxation without representation".
I read recently that San Francisco now charges a 10k-20k additional property tax fee for those who have second homes there. Apparently, East Coast areas are doing the same.
Endless schemes to squeeze more money out of people.
I think this is an excellent idea. The idea of having multiple homes while so many have none is disgusting. The problem is that you see investment groups buying all of the homes up across the country is a problem. There is a huge lack of affordable housing here in Denver, Colorado where I live and I believe in Hawaii as well. If people are living on the streets there is a problem. Our states and cities can do better. I am not seeing the problem with levying taxes on people who want to keep empty properties or second properties as an investment when we need those homes so others can have a first home.
Certainly Hawaii has a relatively high percentage of homes owned by out of state residents.
Somewhat related to this subject, I heard second hand that over 20% of home sales this past year in US were from real estate speculators or investment firms.
I've read many stories over the years about how public officials encourage developments for 2nd homebuyers, because they typically pay a lot of taxes, provide jobs for locals, yet don't use any public services. (Social Services, schools, police, fire, prisons, etc.)
Wailea, Kapalua, and Kaanapali (3 master-planned communities on Maui) are covered with homes that aren't occupied at all, annually. Many others are occupied for only a few days or weeks per year.
Certainly Hawaii has a relatively high percentage of homes owned by out of state residents.
And - that is a good thing. Out of state homeowners pay a higher property tax rate and pay roughly 1/3 of the state's property tax.
Let's keep it real - out of state buyers are not getting their second home (or third or forth, etc) in working class neighborhoods.
Out of state homeowners have little desire to mingle with the unwashed masses and I suspect practically every home purchased by out of state buyers are far out of reach of first time Hawaii homeowners.
The outer islands should follow Oahu's lead in banning short term rentals like AirBnB if they don't have a permit - and practically every permit is in Waikiki. Rent decreased on Oahu after the ban and a better sense of normalcy returned to many neighborhoods.
At the end of the day, politicians should just acknowledge no such thing as "affordable" housing exists in Hawaii except patches of the Big Island - where one can't live with decent career aspirations.
If you are working the register at Foodland or Macy's - flipping burgers - etc, time to marry up or start realistically assessing your situation - your life choices to not go to college or learn a trade will haunt you the rest of your life.
I think this is an excellent idea. The idea of having multiple homes while so many have none is disgusting. The problem is that you see investment groups buying all of the homes up across the country is a problem. There is a huge lack of affordable housing here in Denver, Colorado where I live and I believe in Hawaii as well. If people are living on the streets there is a problem. Our states and cities can do better. I am not seeing the problem with levying taxes on people who want to keep empty properties or second properties as an investment when we need those homes so others can have a first home.
Are you assuming that homeless people could buy these multi-million dollar homes if they become available?
I'm pretty sure that these homes would not help at all. It sounds like you are really advocating for the government to give homes to the homeless. Those are called housing projects.
If your job skills are minimum-wage skills, you will remain homeless. It's up to you to improve your marketability.
If your job skills are minimum-wage skills, you will remain homeless. It's up to you to improve your marketability.
Anyone who is homeless in Hawaii has either chosen that path - or are so mentally ill, drug dependent, or alcohol dependent that they can't hold a job anyway. Even flipping burgers - you may not live in the most desirable neighborhood - but you can always find roommates/rent a room.
The only real exception to the homeless mentioned above in my opinion is battered women more or less forced on the streets - hopefully temporarily.
If you don't have the brains or motivation for college - can't afford a trade school - or whatever, you still have an option where housing is provided to you and they will also train you - and if you stay long enough, a pension - the military.
Anyone who is homeless in Hawaii has either chosen that path - or are so mentally ill, drug dependent, or alcohol dependent that they can't hold a job anyway. Even flipping burgers - you may not live in the most desirable neighborhood - but you can always find roommates/rent a room.
The only real exception to the homeless mentioned above in my opinion is battered women more or less forced on the streets - hopefully temporarily.
If you don't have the brains or motivation for college - can't afford a trade school - or whatever, you still have an option where housing is provided to you and they will also train you - and if you stay long enough, a pension - the military.
Lol … once again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about today’s military.
You frame it as if:
1. Anyone can be accepted into service
2. As if it is a simplest of professions
3. As if a career is readily accomplished if one wants once on-board.
The modern military does have a wide range of specializations, running from combat minions on up to nuclear engineering and cyber-warfare and intelligence specialists (to say nothing of medical and legal personnel). But even the ground-pounding grunts these days are increasingly training and deploying with technical equipment that, frankly, quite a number of folks would not find easy or personally compatible.
And, once in, a career path takes some serious dedication and competitive effort … or you are mustered out with not much more than a little pat on the back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
