4 ms·

at some point people start looking for a different state. Everyone has a breaking point

nathanaldensr 6y ago
That point was reached many years ago. Here's some information: https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265
- LanguageGamer 6y ago
  This shows that wealthier people are moving to California, while middle and lower income people are leaving (People with an income lower than 110k a year).
- cbhl 6y ago
  That's due to rent, not taxes, though, right? A tax impacting the top 0.5% of earners would maybe cause someone to move a corporate HQ out-of-state. That said, based on how SF's Prop C (2018) went, billionaires disagree on whether or not paying more taxes is fair.
C1sc0cat 6y ago
It's only a 1% increase in state taxes FFS for some one earning $1 million which if I where I that situation would think is fair. In the uk you'd be on 60%
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  1% this year after many 1% in the previous years. Still everyone judges for their own
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Maybe if you're not in that situation, you don't have the best insight into their mindset, how they would react, and at what point they decide to move to a different tax locale. It's very easy, but not very helpful, to theorize about what you'd do given taxation policy you don't actually have to deal with.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    If only the people affected by this increase were allowed to theorize about it, there would be virtually no conversation.
- moultano 6y ago
  In the UK you'd get free quality healthcare, abundant public transit, and streets without poop.
  - chundicus 6y ago
    Yep. Higher taxes + minuscule military spending (compared to U.S.) + citizens who probably believe more in governance and social welfare than your average American.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      US tax revenue per capita is nearly double that of the UK, more than enough to offset the difference in military budget. popular opinion is the only meaningful difference that you listed. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/tax-revenue-capita-england-scotland-wales-and-northern-ireland-199900-201516 https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/tax-revenue... https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/breakdown_2017USdt_21ds1n https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/breakdown_2017USdt_21ds1...
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    You get streets without poop pretty much everywhere in the US, too; just not in San Francisco.
  - C1sc0cat 6y ago
    And also much more generous ways of managing Tax ISA' VCT, EIS SIS EMI - no worthless options landing you with an insane tax bill tax. Pensions are also better and receive relief at your tax rate
  - rudolph9 6y ago
    In the US, healthcare is likely the least of your concerns if you're making > $2M/year Universal healthcare would be great if it brought down the ridiculous costs for basic health services and it helped the growing number of homeless and impoverished escape the cycle. The people who already pay will probably never pay less but it's so frustrating to see bills for thousands on simple things like an x-ray? My partner recently dislocated her shoulder and we were billed $1,500 to get an x-ray. Nothing crazy just tripped and hit the shoulder the wrong way. We went to immediate care center, after waiting over an hour, the doctor tells us they don't have an x-ray tech on the weekend so we need to go to the hospital emergency center. Still got billed for immediate care visit. Then we go to emergency center, wait almost 3 hours, get an x-ray (nothings broken), they pop it back in (no sedative, no equipment, took literally 5 seconds), a month later we get a bill for almost $5,000 for shoulder surgery! We dispute the charge, get it knocked down to $1,500 (for an "emergency room" x-ray that we waited three hours for and only went because the immediate care center owned by the same org didn't have x-ray tech on the weekend) and after insurance our out of pocket charges are basically the same. I've had good health care experiences in US but often the charges just have no basis in reality.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  It's actually a zero percent increase on someone making $1 million, as it only applies to income over $1 million. If you made $2 million, you'd pay 1% of the second million, or $10 thousand. $10k is no big deal to someone making $2m per year. But that person is already paying ~$240,000 per year in California state income taxes[according to a random tax calculator I just googled]. So they're already voluntarily paying $2.4 million per decade, $24 million over a working career for the privilege of living in the state of California. And yet that isn't enough. In the immortal words of CCR, "And when you ask 'em, 'How much should we give?' Ooh, they only answer 'More, more, more!'"
  - zentiggr 6y ago
    Perfect, incredibly sweet irony in quoting THAT song in reference to increasing taxes on the super rich. You win HN today.
mywittyname 6y ago
Well yeah, but I think that's somewhat the goal here. Given the overcrowding in regions of California, I can see why some people would incentivize others to leave the state. Especially the very wealthy.
- idoh 6y ago
  Why would you want to incentivize wealthy people to leave?
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    Because they drive up prices. If a bunch of people with 10-100x your income kept moving into your city, driving property prices into the stratosphere, you'd be pissed too. It doesn't stop with houses either. All of the middle class stores start getting replaced with higher cost ones that cater to the ultra-wealthy, leaving you to drive further out for good deals. Resident who don't want to be pushed out have their own breaking point to, and instead of voting with their feet, they vote to evict the invaders. California isn't the only place where this a problem. All across the world we are seeing pushback against ultra-wealthy taking over cities/neighborhoods and driving out middle class residents.
    - setr 6y ago
      Driving up prices such that a minority population can afford it is a solution to overcrowding -- not a cause of it. In fact, its the natural market solution to overcrowding: demand exceeding supply..
      - mywittyname 6y ago
        And yet, the problem isn't fixed, even after 20+ years of this "natural market solution". Turns out, these people have to live somewhere, so now they travel from further out by car, causing a bunch of traffic congestion. They had to move, but the jobs are still in the same place.
rockinghigh 6y ago
This change is pretty small. If you make $2 million it’s only a 0.5% increase of your effective tax rate.
yazaddaruvala 6y ago
Its still an income tax, impacting 0.5% of taxpayers, and most companies reduce pay if the employee leaves the bay area for remote work or to work at a remote office. 1. The reduced pay might not be worth leaving. 2. There are also other benefits to be in California (e.g. friends, like-minded people, infrastructure, etc). Even if some of those taxpayer chose to leave, demand for housing and goods/services is reduced, but supply stays constant. i.e. prices decrease for the people who choose to stay. Reducing economic inequality for the people who choose to stay in California. Seems like a win either way.
- tehlike 6y ago
  above 2M$ is definitely an executive level pay, which would mean remote work would not work, and it's all about being close to hq.
coldpie 6y ago
Imagine deciding to move because the tax bill on your $1,100,000 salary increased by $1,000. What a hardship.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  That's only the 1m - 2m segment, not the 2m+. Also, the last steep hike was 7 years ago. Many people will see the writing on the wall that taxes in CA are going to squeeze most of their marginal income.
  - coldpie 6y ago
    If I did my math right[1], the ones ""earning"" $2,100,000 will have to pay an extra $13,000. How will they survive? Golly. [1] (1,000,000 * 0.01 + 100,000 * 0.03 = 10,000 + 3,000 = $13,000)
    - nickff 6y ago
      Rich people know how a frog gets boiled... slowly.
      - coldpie 6y ago
        I know! If we tax them too much, they'll have to... live like 98% of the country already does[1]. That's totally comparable to being killed. Good analogy. [1] Top 1% of earners are those above $750,000 https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
UncleMeat 6y ago
If you are making literally 10 figures annually this increases your tax bill by an overall amount of about 3%. Every ten years you can buy one fewer yacht. Oh no.

That point was reached many years ago. Here's some information: https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

LanguageGamer 6y ago
This shows that wealthier people are moving to California, while middle and lower income people are leaving (People with an income lower than 110k a year).
cbhl 6y ago
That's due to rent, not taxes, though, right? A tax impacting the top 0.5% of earners would maybe cause someone to move a corporate HQ out-of-state. That said, based on how SF's Prop C (2018) went, billionaires disagree on whether or not paying more taxes is fair.

C1sc0cat 6y ago

It's only a 1% increase in state taxes FFS for some one earning $1 million which if I where I that situation would think is fair. In the uk you'd be on 60%

onetimemanytime 6y ago
1% this year after many 1% in the previous years. Still everyone judges for their own
bpodgursky 6y ago
Maybe if you're not in that situation, you don't have the best insight into their mindset, how they would react, and at what point they decide to move to a different tax locale. It's very easy, but not very helpful, to theorize about what you'd do given taxation policy you don't actually have to deal with.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  If only the people affected by this increase were allowed to theorize about it, there would be virtually no conversation.
moultano 6y ago
In the UK you'd get free quality healthcare, abundant public transit, and streets without poop.
- chundicus 6y ago
  Yep. Higher taxes + minuscule military spending (compared to U.S.) + citizens who probably believe more in governance and social welfare than your average American.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    US tax revenue per capita is nearly double that of the UK, more than enough to offset the difference in military budget. popular opinion is the only meaningful difference that you listed. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/tax-revenue-capita-england-scotland-wales-and-northern-ireland-199900-201516 https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/tax-revenue... https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/breakdown_2017USdt_21ds1n https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/breakdown_2017USdt_21ds1...
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  You get streets without poop pretty much everywhere in the US, too; just not in San Francisco.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  And also much more generous ways of managing Tax ISA' VCT, EIS SIS EMI - no worthless options landing you with an insane tax bill tax. Pensions are also better and receive relief at your tax rate
- rudolph9 6y ago
  In the US, healthcare is likely the least of your concerns if you're making > $2M/year Universal healthcare would be great if it brought down the ridiculous costs for basic health services and it helped the growing number of homeless and impoverished escape the cycle. The people who already pay will probably never pay less but it's so frustrating to see bills for thousands on simple things like an x-ray? My partner recently dislocated her shoulder and we were billed $1,500 to get an x-ray. Nothing crazy just tripped and hit the shoulder the wrong way. We went to immediate care center, after waiting over an hour, the doctor tells us they don't have an x-ray tech on the weekend so we need to go to the hospital emergency center. Still got billed for immediate care visit. Then we go to emergency center, wait almost 3 hours, get an x-ray (nothings broken), they pop it back in (no sedative, no equipment, took literally 5 seconds), a month later we get a bill for almost $5,000 for shoulder surgery! We dispute the charge, get it knocked down to $1,500 (for an "emergency room" x-ray that we waited three hours for and only went because the immediate care center owned by the same org didn't have x-ray tech on the weekend) and after insurance our out of pocket charges are basically the same. I've had good health care experiences in US but often the charges just have no basis in reality.
marcusverus 6y ago
It's actually a zero percent increase on someone making $1 million, as it only applies to income over $1 million. If you made $2 million, you'd pay 1% of the second million, or $10 thousand. $10k is no big deal to someone making $2m per year. But that person is already paying ~$240,000 per year in California state income taxes[according to a random tax calculator I just googled]. So they're already voluntarily paying $2.4 million per decade, $24 million over a working career for the privilege of living in the state of California. And yet that isn't enough. In the immortal words of CCR, "And when you ask 'em, 'How much should we give?' Ooh, they only answer 'More, more, more!'"
- zentiggr 6y ago
  Perfect, incredibly sweet irony in quoting THAT song in reference to increasing taxes on the super rich. You win HN today.

mywittyname 6y ago

Well yeah, but I think that's somewhat the goal here. Given the overcrowding in regions of California, I can see why some people would incentivize others to leave the state. Especially the very wealthy.

idoh 6y ago
Why would you want to incentivize wealthy people to leave?
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Because they drive up prices. If a bunch of people with 10-100x your income kept moving into your city, driving property prices into the stratosphere, you'd be pissed too. It doesn't stop with houses either. All of the middle class stores start getting replaced with higher cost ones that cater to the ultra-wealthy, leaving you to drive further out for good deals. Resident who don't want to be pushed out have their own breaking point to, and instead of voting with their feet, they vote to evict the invaders. California isn't the only place where this a problem. All across the world we are seeing pushback against ultra-wealthy taking over cities/neighborhoods and driving out middle class residents.
  - setr 6y ago
    Driving up prices such that a minority population can afford it is a solution to overcrowding -- not a cause of it. In fact, its the natural market solution to overcrowding: demand exceeding supply..
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      And yet, the problem isn't fixed, even after 20+ years of this "natural market solution". Turns out, these people have to live somewhere, so now they travel from further out by car, causing a bunch of traffic congestion. They had to move, but the jobs are still in the same place.

rockinghigh 6y ago

This change is pretty small. If you make $2 million it’s only a 0.5% increase of your effective tax rate.

yazaddaruvala 6y ago

Its still an income tax, impacting 0.5% of taxpayers, and most companies reduce pay if the employee leaves the bay area for remote work or to work at a remote office. 1. The reduced pay might not be worth leaving. 2. There are also other benefits to be in California (e.g. friends, like-minded people, infrastructure, etc). Even if some of those taxpayer chose to leave, demand for housing and goods/services is reduced, but supply stays constant. i.e. prices decrease for the people who choose to stay. Reducing economic inequality for the people who choose to stay in California. Seems like a win either way.

tehlike 6y ago
above 2M$ is definitely an executive level pay, which would mean remote work would not work, and it's all about being close to hq.

coldpie 6y ago

Imagine deciding to move because the tax bill on your $1,100,000 salary increased by $1,000. What a hardship.

reducesuffering 6y ago
That's only the 1m - 2m segment, not the 2m+. Also, the last steep hike was 7 years ago. Many people will see the writing on the wall that taxes in CA are going to squeeze most of their marginal income.
- coldpie 6y ago
  If I did my math right[1], the ones ""earning"" $2,100,000 will have to pay an extra $13,000. How will they survive? Golly. [1] (1,000,000 * 0.01 + 100,000 * 0.03 = 10,000 + 3,000 = $13,000)
  - nickff 6y ago
    Rich people know how a frog gets boiled... slowly.
    - coldpie 6y ago
      I know! If we tax them too much, they'll have to... live like 98% of the country already does[1]. That's totally comparable to being killed. Good analogy. [1] Top 1% of earners are those above $750,000 https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...

UncleMeat 6y ago

If you are making literally 10 figures annually this increases your tax bill by an overall amount of about 3%. Every ten years you can buy one fewer yacht. Oh no.