6 ms·

Millionaires Flee California After Tax Hike

29 points by spking 8y ago

unstatusthequo 8y ago
Left SF. Not willing to be a tax donkey any more. Not only because of this, but also housing cost vs value and Trump tax plan limit on limiting state tax. Washington has been great! At least a 13% raise!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jacobmoe 8y ago
I'm enjoying the contrast between the title of this article and the first sentence of the article that it links to: > California lost a very small but statistically significant percentage of high-income residents after voters approved Proposition 30 I wish it was possible to talk about important and interesting issues like optimal tax levels without everything being an ideological battle. I don't care if you think taxes are too high on high income earners. You might be right. But you should be curious about the possibility that you're wrong.
- tuesdayrain 8y ago
  Awareness of the Laffer Curve is helpful for these discussions.
  - ebikelaw 8y ago
    Did you mean awareness of how it’s the most thoroughly debunked idea of the Reagan era, or something else?
  - jacobmoe 8y ago
    I'm aware of the Laffer Curve. It's generally used as a argument for decreasing taxation, even after experience finds that decreasing taxation leads to lower revenue. Just because it's true that there are two levels of taxation that result in $0 revenue (0% and 100%) does not say anything about the shape of the curve connecting those points, nor to where we currently are on the curve.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  > I wish it was possible to talk about important and interesting issues like optimal tax levels without everything being an ideological battle. I don't care if you think taxes are too high Irony meter off the charts. most people don't understand they are likely tax consumers, not providers. As a thought experiment, it must be true that at some income level a person uses more taxes than they provide. Quantifying the exact number is difficult and locality dependent, but it clearly exists. Who do you think the major tax revenue providers are? Corporations and rich people. I don't understand why anyone thinks they're not paying their fair share when they are almost the only ones paying. The top 10% of us wage earners account for over 70% of personal income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% (under 40k/year) contribute <3% https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe...
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    The reason people see it as unfair is because the wealth in the United States goes disproportionately to the top. Of course they are going to be the ones paying they are the only ones left with anything of value and any real disposable income. The money they pay mostly goes to services that benefit themselves anyways. There's a reason that wealthier areas have nicer schools, better roads, always get plowed first. I mean come on if the top 10 percent are only paying 70% then they are underpaying based on the fact that they hold 77% of American wealth. Let's not get into the world. https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/ https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/
    - tekproxy 8y ago
      Pareto distributions occur in all skill dependent distributions from musicians and academics. You say it like it's some evil conspiracy or that the rich only become rich by making others poor.
      - chrisbennet 8y ago
        When a man tells you he got rich by hard work, ask him: Whose? -Don Marquis
pat2man 8y ago
Would love to see the numbers on millionaires created by California who choose to stay. If the California economy is good enough those numbers could offset the lack of millionaires moving to California.
- secabeen 8y ago
  It's nothing. From a neutral article without an axe to grind or a political message to send: >The state lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals, or about 0.04 percent of the roughly 312,000 people subject to the tax increase, said co-author Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Dozens-of-millionaires-fled-California-after-2012-13053135.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Dozens... Ideally, the mods would replace the top link with the SFChronicle one that puts the number in context and gives way more details, but it may not be worth it.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Political axe aside, the tax rate is foremost in entrepreneurs minds when they decide to build a company in CA. Maybe even more so than labor costs. You don’t obsess and negotiate over 0.1% increases in option pools and ignore the silent 15%/25%/35% partner in the room. CA eliminating the QSBS Section 1202 exemption is an equally glaring wart on establishing CA residency for entrepreneurs.
    - nimish 8y ago
      > the tax rate is foremost in entrepreneurs minds when they decide to build a company in CA Sure, that's why nobody's built a company in CA in the last decade, and they all chose to build them in Seattle.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      "...the tax rate is foremost in entrepreneurs minds when they decide to build a company in CA..." ??? No horse in the California tax race personally, but if taxes are your foremost consideration when launching your startup, you should really rethink your plans. That advice is not specific to California startups. If taxes are the foremost consideration for a prospective startup anywhere in the US, you should sit down with someone to talk through your plan. Just to ensure that it makes sense. If I heard that from a prospective startup here in Wisconsin? I have to say, just on first blush, something would sound off about that.
commandlinefan 8y ago
Surprised it took so long. Come here to Texas and start up some companies here.
- Kyragem 8y ago
  You’re much better off in liberal neighbor state Nevada while only being a 25 minute flight away from the bay.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
coldseattle 8y ago
I just stopped working. Between state and local taxes, I only got to keep 46 cents of every additional dollar I earned. I shut down my business, let 6 people go, and stopped.
- rabboRubble 8y ago
  What do you do now?
dghughes 8y ago
You have to wonder about people against any taxes where do they think roads, schools, military, police, fire etc. all come from. They just pop into existence?
- dmarlow 8y ago
  From others, obviously.
jacknews 8y ago
"Going back to California’s high tax burden, Varner’s new research backs up the old adage that when you tax something you get less of it. That applies whether the thing being taxed is cigarettes, booze, or, in California’s case, millionaires. " I would say this is fake logic. No-one is going to stop trying to be a millionaire because of taxes. Though they may try to move to a another state to avoid them. That just highlights that the tax system needs to be less fragmented and "service oriented". Individual states may charge taxes based on the services they provide, but taxation at large should be about balancing the wealth distribution.
RickJWagner 8y ago
I'd like to see increased taxes targeted at the entertainment industry. Entertainment seems to given an oversized voice in influencing politics. It would be right for the industry to contribute a corresponding amount of money to help fund the issues espoused.

29 points by spking 8y ago

Left SF. Not willing to be a tax donkey any more. Not only because of this, but also housing cost vs value and Trump tax plan limit on limiting state tax. Washington has been great! At least a 13% raise!

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jacobmoe 8y ago

I'm enjoying the contrast between the title of this article and the first sentence of the article that it links to: > California lost a very small but statistically significant percentage of high-income residents after voters approved Proposition 30 I wish it was possible to talk about important and interesting issues like optimal tax levels without everything being an ideological battle. I don't care if you think taxes are too high on high income earners. You might be right. But you should be curious about the possibility that you're wrong.

tuesdayrain 8y ago
Awareness of the Laffer Curve is helpful for these discussions.
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  Did you mean awareness of how it’s the most thoroughly debunked idea of the Reagan era, or something else?
- jacobmoe 8y ago
  I'm aware of the Laffer Curve. It's generally used as a argument for decreasing taxation, even after experience finds that decreasing taxation leads to lower revenue. Just because it's true that there are two levels of taxation that result in $0 revenue (0% and 100%) does not say anything about the shape of the curve connecting those points, nor to where we currently are on the curve.
kryogen1c 8y ago
> I wish it was possible to talk about important and interesting issues like optimal tax levels without everything being an ideological battle. I don't care if you think taxes are too high Irony meter off the charts. most people don't understand they are likely tax consumers, not providers. As a thought experiment, it must be true that at some income level a person uses more taxes than they provide. Quantifying the exact number is difficult and locality dependent, but it clearly exists. Who do you think the major tax revenue providers are? Corporations and rich people. I don't understand why anyone thinks they're not paying their fair share when they are almost the only ones paying. The top 10% of us wage earners account for over 70% of personal income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% (under 40k/year) contribute <3% https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe...
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  The reason people see it as unfair is because the wealth in the United States goes disproportionately to the top. Of course they are going to be the ones paying they are the only ones left with anything of value and any real disposable income. The money they pay mostly goes to services that benefit themselves anyways. There's a reason that wealthier areas have nicer schools, better roads, always get plowed first. I mean come on if the top 10 percent are only paying 70% then they are underpaying based on the fact that they hold 77% of American wealth. Let's not get into the world. https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/ https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/
  - tekproxy 8y ago
    Pareto distributions occur in all skill dependent distributions from musicians and academics. You say it like it's some evil conspiracy or that the rich only become rich by making others poor.
    - chrisbennet 8y ago
      When a man tells you he got rich by hard work, ask him: Whose? -Don Marquis

pat2man 8y ago

Would love to see the numbers on millionaires created by California who choose to stay. If the California economy is good enough those numbers could offset the lack of millionaires moving to California.

secabeen 8y ago
It's nothing. From a neutral article without an axe to grind or a political message to send: >The state lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals, or about 0.04 percent of the roughly 312,000 people subject to the tax increase, said co-author Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Dozens-of-millionaires-fled-California-after-2012-13053135.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Dozens... Ideally, the mods would replace the top link with the SFChronicle one that puts the number in context and gives way more details, but it may not be worth it.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Political axe aside, the tax rate is foremost in entrepreneurs minds when they decide to build a company in CA. Maybe even more so than labor costs. You don’t obsess and negotiate over 0.1% increases in option pools and ignore the silent 15%/25%/35% partner in the room. CA eliminating the QSBS Section 1202 exemption is an equally glaring wart on establishing CA residency for entrepreneurs.
  - nimish 8y ago
    > the tax rate is foremost in entrepreneurs minds when they decide to build a company in CA Sure, that's why nobody's built a company in CA in the last decade, and they all chose to build them in Seattle.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    "...the tax rate is foremost in entrepreneurs minds when they decide to build a company in CA..." ??? No horse in the California tax race personally, but if taxes are your foremost consideration when launching your startup, you should really rethink your plans. That advice is not specific to California startups. If taxes are the foremost consideration for a prospective startup anywhere in the US, you should sit down with someone to talk through your plan. Just to ensure that it makes sense. If I heard that from a prospective startup here in Wisconsin? I have to say, just on first blush, something would sound off about that.

commandlinefan 8y ago

Surprised it took so long. Come here to Texas and start up some companies here.

Kyragem 8y ago
You’re much better off in liberal neighbor state Nevada while only being a 25 minute flight away from the bay.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

coldseattle 8y ago

I just stopped working. Between state and local taxes, I only got to keep 46 cents of every additional dollar I earned. I shut down my business, let 6 people go, and stopped.

rabboRubble 8y ago
What do you do now?

dghughes 8y ago

You have to wonder about people against any taxes where do they think roads, schools, military, police, fire etc. all come from. They just pop into existence?

dmarlow 8y ago
From others, obviously.

jacknews 8y ago

"Going back to California’s high tax burden, Varner’s new research backs up the old adage that when you tax something you get less of it. That applies whether the thing being taxed is cigarettes, booze, or, in California’s case, millionaires. " I would say this is fake logic. No-one is going to stop trying to be a millionaire because of taxes. Though they may try to move to a another state to avoid them. That just highlights that the tax system needs to be less fragmented and "service oriented". Individual states may charge taxes based on the services they provide, but taxation at large should be about balancing the wealth distribution.

RickJWagner 8y ago

I'd like to see increased taxes targeted at the entertainment industry. Entertainment seems to given an oversized voice in influencing politics. It would be right for the industry to contribute a corresponding amount of money to help fund the issues espoused.