4 ms·

I fly out to California 5 days a week for consulting work currently. I live in Texas. So does my wife and dog. My paycheck’s now include the 13% deduction from

I fly out to California 5 days a week for consulting work currently. I live in Texas. So does my wife and dog. My paycheck’s now include the 13% deduction from California :( I’m leaving this project as soon as possible. Would happily pay 13% more for federal income tax FWIW.

lightedman 8y ago
Sue the state for falsely claiming you as a resident for fraudulent tax purposes, and file the suit in Texas. Your airline tickets and job alone should be enough evidence for a Texas judge, and that will firmly establish residency in Texas. You may then nail California very hard for their fraudulent scheme.
skh 8y ago
Why does a 13% tax to California bother you if a 13 percentage point increase in tax to some other entity doesn’t? Is it dislike of California? Dislike of state taxes? This reminds me of an experiment I read in - I think - Nudge. A random group of people were given the scenario of being at a store and about to buy a box of chocolate for $10. Just before they purchase it they find out they can buy it at a store a few blocks away for $5. Most said they would go to the other store. Another group of random people were asked the same scenario but with a tuxedo costing $1500. The competitor store a few blocks alway sold the tuxedo for $1495. Most said they would not go to the other store for just a $5 decrease in cost.
- panzagl 8y ago
  He doesn't live in California so would see no benefit from the CA tax, while he theoretically would from a Fed increase.
  - lakisy 8y ago
    He may not live in California but he WORKS in California.
  - skh 8y ago
    I see now. I was focusing on not being too upset at 13% being taken in one scenario but not being upset if taken in another scenario.
  - IvyMike 8y ago
    > would see no benefit from the CA tax Well, no benefit except for the 70% of his time he spends there.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      But, what benefit is he getting during his temporary stays there that is worth anything close to the 13% they're taking? California's budget is about 35% health care (his doctor is probably back in Texas), 20% education (his kids if he has any go to school in Texas), and about 20% to pensions for state workers, which he obviously derives no benefit from. So how do you justify taxing someone who doesn't live here based on the "benefits" they receive?
      - vidarh 8y ago
        If he feels he's not getting sufficient benefit, because of a belief he doesn't live there, he's of course free to choose not to work there.
        IvyMike 8y ago
        He's already stated that he's not going to take another $1M+ job in California again. I wish him the best of luck.
      - skh 8y ago
        He doesn’t benefit from state workers in California? Without those workers the streets would be worse than what they are now. There would be fewer police and a non-functioning judicial system. Certainly his work benefits from a governmental entity that handles contract law disputes. The workers of the company that he works at benefit from state employees. Would the job exist if those workers didn’t exist?
      - IvyMike 8y ago
        > what benefit is he getting during his temporary stays there that is worth anything close to the 13% they're taking? Things that keep people healthier and smarter, and provide infrastructure and livable wages, do in fact benefit people in the state, resident or not. I mean, if he's in the 13% marginal tax bracket, that means he's making $1M+ a year. ( https://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable https://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable ) The fact that California has such jobs while other states don't have as many is at least partially because the state provides an environment in which such jobs can exist.
  - sundaeofshock 8y ago
    He is in California five days a week, including at least 4 nights of sleep. He benefits from the airports, roads, police and fire protection, water, and all other services. He also receives such a high income due to the fact that his employer is based in California. Why shouldn’t he contribute to the state that is providing him with income and the services to support that income?
  - mleo 8y ago
    Other than flying into a California airport, traveling on public streets, having suppport of local police, fire and other services while in California. That said, there are some services taxes go to that he would not receive benefit from. So paying the same tax rates as a resident does not make as much sense.
- ohithereyou 8y ago
  Not the grandparent poster, but a 13% increase in Federal income tax would apply to everyone in the country, regardless of where they live, and therefore would be fair. Punishing people who don't live in your state (only commute there for work and have an actual, bona fide residence elsewhere) is not fair.
  - skh 8y ago
    Income gets taxed on where you earn it. It’s been that way for a very long time. This applies to everyone. Don’t see how it’s unfair. I’m certain OP knew this when taking the contract to work in California.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      That's not true. I was a resident of TX for two years while still working for my SD company was not subject to CA state tax. If you're not present you don't pay.
      - skh 8y ago
        Right. That's what I said. You get taxed where you earn the money. If you aren't in California when you earn the money then you don't pay California tax. If you are in California when you earn the money then you pay California tax. (I know there are reciprocity laws among some of the states but there aren't between California and Texas.)
        EpicEng 8y ago
        ok I misunderstood what you meant by "where [you earn it]". Still though, things get more complicated when you have residence in state A and spend a significant portion of your time working in state B. You're paying taxes which go to other people, regardless of whether or not you benefit partially. My kids don't get better schools, my family doesn't get better healthcare, etc.
    - mandevil 8y ago
justin66 8y ago
So you don't mind the amount of money you're paying, you mind that it's going to a state instead of the federal government? I can't imagine that's a common gripe.
- jdavis703 8y ago
  It’s going to a state he doesn’t live in, I think that’s the problem.
  - justin66 8y ago
    I can sort of relate, although that's still BS. I pay income taxes to the locality where my office is located, which is irritating when it comes time to vote and I don't have any say in how that money is spent, since I can't vote in that city. (as if we as individuals ever really have much say about how our tax money is spent) On the other hand, if the city wasn't there the job wouldn't exist, and nobody is forcing me to work there.
kuhhk 8y ago
How many days in California caused this to be triggered? Looking at the CA non-resident form, I don't see how you have to pay taxes in CA: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/fileRtn/Nonresidents-Part-Year-Residents.shtml https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/fileRtn/Nonresidents-Part...
r00fus 8y ago
Here's a quick solution: find a client that has an office outside of CA.

lightedman 8y ago

Sue the state for falsely claiming you as a resident for fraudulent tax purposes, and file the suit in Texas. Your airline tickets and job alone should be enough evidence for a Texas judge, and that will firmly establish residency in Texas. You may then nail California very hard for their fraudulent scheme.

skh 8y ago

Why does a 13% tax to California bother you if a 13 percentage point increase in tax to some other entity doesn’t? Is it dislike of California? Dislike of state taxes? This reminds me of an experiment I read in - I think - Nudge. A random group of people were given the scenario of being at a store and about to buy a box of chocolate for $10. Just before they purchase it they find out they can buy it at a store a few blocks away for $5. Most said they would go to the other store. Another group of random people were asked the same scenario but with a tuxedo costing $1500. The competitor store a few blocks alway sold the tuxedo for $1495. Most said they would not go to the other store for just a $5 decrease in cost.

panzagl 8y ago
He doesn't live in California so would see no benefit from the CA tax, while he theoretically would from a Fed increase.
- lakisy 8y ago
  He may not live in California but he WORKS in California.
- skh 8y ago
  I see now. I was focusing on not being too upset at 13% being taken in one scenario but not being upset if taken in another scenario.
- IvyMike 8y ago
  > would see no benefit from the CA tax Well, no benefit except for the 70% of his time he spends there.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    But, what benefit is he getting during his temporary stays there that is worth anything close to the 13% they're taking? California's budget is about 35% health care (his doctor is probably back in Texas), 20% education (his kids if he has any go to school in Texas), and about 20% to pensions for state workers, which he obviously derives no benefit from. So how do you justify taxing someone who doesn't live here based on the "benefits" they receive?
    - vidarh 8y ago
      If he feels he's not getting sufficient benefit, because of a belief he doesn't live there, he's of course free to choose not to work there.
      - IvyMike 8y ago
        He's already stated that he's not going to take another $1M+ job in California again. I wish him the best of luck.
    - skh 8y ago
      He doesn’t benefit from state workers in California? Without those workers the streets would be worse than what they are now. There would be fewer police and a non-functioning judicial system. Certainly his work benefits from a governmental entity that handles contract law disputes. The workers of the company that he works at benefit from state employees. Would the job exist if those workers didn’t exist?
    - IvyMike 8y ago
      > what benefit is he getting during his temporary stays there that is worth anything close to the 13% they're taking? Things that keep people healthier and smarter, and provide infrastructure and livable wages, do in fact benefit people in the state, resident or not. I mean, if he's in the 13% marginal tax bracket, that means he's making $1M+ a year. ( https://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable https://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable ) The fact that California has such jobs while other states don't have as many is at least partially because the state provides an environment in which such jobs can exist.
- sundaeofshock 8y ago
  He is in California five days a week, including at least 4 nights of sleep. He benefits from the airports, roads, police and fire protection, water, and all other services. He also receives such a high income due to the fact that his employer is based in California. Why shouldn’t he contribute to the state that is providing him with income and the services to support that income?
- mleo 8y ago
  Other than flying into a California airport, traveling on public streets, having suppport of local police, fire and other services while in California. That said, there are some services taxes go to that he would not receive benefit from. So paying the same tax rates as a resident does not make as much sense.
ohithereyou 8y ago
Not the grandparent poster, but a 13% increase in Federal income tax would apply to everyone in the country, regardless of where they live, and therefore would be fair. Punishing people who don't live in your state (only commute there for work and have an actual, bona fide residence elsewhere) is not fair.
- skh 8y ago
  Income gets taxed on where you earn it. It’s been that way for a very long time. This applies to everyone. Don’t see how it’s unfair. I’m certain OP knew this when taking the contract to work in California.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    That's not true. I was a resident of TX for two years while still working for my SD company was not subject to CA state tax. If you're not present you don't pay.
    - skh 8y ago
      Right. That's what I said. You get taxed where you earn the money. If you aren't in California when you earn the money then you don't pay California tax. If you are in California when you earn the money then you pay California tax. (I know there are reciprocity laws among some of the states but there aren't between California and Texas.)
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        ok I misunderstood what you meant by "where [you earn it]". Still though, things get more complicated when you have residence in state A and spend a significant portion of your time working in state B. You're paying taxes which go to other people, regardless of whether or not you benefit partially. My kids don't get better schools, my family doesn't get better healthcare, etc.
  - mandevil 8y ago

justin66 8y ago

So you don't mind the amount of money you're paying, you mind that it's going to a state instead of the federal government? I can't imagine that's a common gripe.

jdavis703 8y ago
It’s going to a state he doesn’t live in, I think that’s the problem.
- justin66 8y ago
  I can sort of relate, although that's still BS. I pay income taxes to the locality where my office is located, which is irritating when it comes time to vote and I don't have any say in how that money is spent, since I can't vote in that city. (as if we as individuals ever really have much say about how our tax money is spent) On the other hand, if the city wasn't there the job wouldn't exist, and nobody is forcing me to work there.

kuhhk 8y ago

How many days in California caused this to be triggered? Looking at the CA non-resident form, I don't see how you have to pay taxes in CA: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/fileRtn/Nonresidents-Part-Year-Residents.shtml https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/fileRtn/Nonresidents-Part...

r00fus 8y ago

Here's a quick solution: find a client that has an office outside of CA.