3 ms·
> Not to mention that few places can match all the benefits of SV The counterpoint would be how many billionaires, besides those in the tech industry, choose t
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> Not to mention that few places can match all the benefits of SV
The counterpoint would be how many billionaires, besides those in the tech industry, choose to put down roots in the Bay Area? Not many at all. (The only real exceptions I can think of are Napa/Sonoma/Marin, not SV/SF proper.) We're talking about a class of people who are truly unconstrained in terms of location, so that should be pretty indicative of where local amenities really shine.
And it's pretty clear that New York, SoCal, and Southern Florida are the truly attractive locales in America. Many people choose to pay Manhattan, Beverly Hills or Palm Beach prices without a compelling economic draw to those areas. Virtually nobody chooses to pay SF prices just for the lifestyle, amenities and culture.
Without the draw of tech employment and investment, there's no way SV/SF can maintain its current level of economic prosperity.
- foxtr0t 6y agoPeople with means tend to locate in tax havens, not places that have good amenities. Presumably with sufficient resources, you can produce any sort of amenity you'd like.
- dcolkitt 6y agoNYC and LA are taxed just as heavily as the Bay Area.
- digi59404 6y agoNo; People with means tend to declare a residence in a Tax Haven. Which they use to observe profits. I.e. Registering their personal corp in WY, NV, or MD. Then recognizing all profits for themselves under a Corp/LLC and being taxed at WY, NV, or MD results. Then they proceed to live wherever they want and buy items using Corp/LLC Funds. When they need to use personal funds or pay income tax - They minimize their tax impact through various methods. Point being - The people live where they want regardless of tax haven status. They recognize revenue in a Corp/LLC in a tax haven.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]