6 ms·
It is easy for a high net worth person to change primary residence. This is going to backfire and cause a reduction of revenue.
by PacketPaul 6y ago
It is easy for a high net worth person to change primary residence. This is going to backfire and cause a reduction of revenue.
- goldenManatee 6y agoOld argument. So be it, I’ll submit a bid to the first beachside house in Carmel this causes.
- milky2028 6y agoIt's worth $150k not to have to live in Carmel.
- whb07 6y agoI can assure you, that what was once luxury beach front properties in Venezuela and the islands it controls in the Caribbean are now but a couple weeks wages for someone working in SF. I can assure you that if that house gets frequently robbed or has large homeless encampment of heroine users and drunks on the same street you wouldn't be saying it. Then again...if you're from SF that's your daily life. So yeah....sweet house in the beach woot!
- RestlessMind 6y agoAnd I can assure you that what were once huge estates of wealthy barons of Russia and France, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few due to a lack of redistributive taxation and where there was an utter lack of social safety net due to a lack of state revenue resulting from such tax policies. People revolted, those barons were killed and their estates were confiscated. I can assure you that I do not want Venezuela or Cuba of today. But I can also assure you that I neither want Russia of 1917 or France of 1789. Let's trudge down the middle road.
- ec109685 6y agoPeople making over 5M a year, are going to move in order to pocket 3% more?
- husgfdsr3 6y agoWhy not? It's a lot more than just "3%" because that's in addition to the 13% state taxes they already pay. Many California businesses have already moved to Texas for lower tax rates.
- joemazerino 6y ago3% of 5M is $150,000. Not shabby. One percenters often have multiple houses to move to so this isn't some major obstacle.
- paul_f 6y agoThis is not taxing income, it is a tax on net worth. This is not done because it is completely unworkable. If I own a successful business, who gets to decide what it is worth?
- ac29 6y ago> If I own a successful business, who gets to decide what it is worth? The market, if its publicly traded. This proposed law is about taxing the Zuckerberg's and Musk's in the State, not worrying about putting a precise value on smaller assets.
- robk 6y agoGoogle had a lot of pre ipo refugees. It's sort of the reason we opened the Zurich and Seattle offices.
- m463 6y agoIt sort of reminds me of the Nazi gun registration laws. They made everyone register all their guns. Then they came in and took them. (change "guns" to "assets")
- Cieplak 6y agoIt’s tricky. California will subpoena cellphone location records. They’ll query records from license plate scanners around the state, searching for those new Nevada plates. They’ll consider you a resident just for having assets in the state, leaving the burden of proof on the defendant. It’s particularly hard for executives whose companies are headquartered in California. That being said, the new reality of remote work could be a paradigm shift that enables a mass exodus of firms moving their headquarters out of state.
- ashtonkem 6y agoWealth is moveable, but often not very far. Closely packed states have a big issue of people moving across state lines to escape taxes; think of hedge fund managers moving to New Jersey. California is big, and has a lot of stuff in it people find desirable. Moving from CA is to commit to moving hundreds of miles to get to another state, which is a pretty extreme ask comparatively. Historically CA has managed to get away with high taxes and disastrous housing policy because it was desirable; good jobs, weather, etc. With remote work it’s yet to be seen exactly where the balance of desire and cost will settle back out to.