5 ms·

But their success has very little do with the tax burden imposed on them by the state of California (c.f. any number of Seattle-based companies).

by cltby 6y ago

tempsy 6y ago
I don’t know what you’re getting at but it isn’t my point. And the other way to look at it is California is expensive because the opportunity to become rich is greater here than elsewhere.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Florida and Texas both have comparable numbers of billionaires, and aren't crazy expensive.
  - shuckles 6y ago
    Both have a considerably lower number billionaires (2-3x) per capita, and the Florida number should be investigated to see where the money was earned. (What’s the per capita billionaire rate of, say, Monaco or St. Tropez? Is that meaningful?) It’s certainly a nice place to retire to, as evinced by Keith.
- cltby 6y ago
  > I don’t know what you’re getting at but it isn’t my point. I can't tell if you're upset by their disingenuousness, or by their refusal to give a cut to the state. If the former, I sympathize. But it mostly seems to be the latter. The obvious rejoinder to which: why should they feel so eager to fork over their money to an institution that did ~nothing to contribute to their success? > California is expensive because the opportunity to become rich is greater here than elsewhere Your statement only explains the e.g. high housing costs. The tax question is orthogonal.
rconti 6y ago
... so what you're telling me is, Washington has a very low tax rate and few people who complain about their overall tax burden?
- cltby 6y ago
  My comment is a reply to this: "To blast the Bay Area and state which made them rich and then flee before they owe a penny is gross." It's not gross to minimize your obligations towards people who have done nothing for you. Seattle is the relevant counterfactual: flourishing tech scene without the punitive tax burden that we're supposed to believe enabled California's success.
  - tempsy 6y ago
    Seattle’s tech scene consists of two giant tech companies that started in the 80s and 90s and the satellite offices of California HQ’d companies. It’s a lot of cogs. There is no comparison when it comes to startups created in, say, the last 10 years or so.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      In the earlier days, Silicon Valley also had had satellite offices from some of major tech companies on Route 128. It was the minicomputer that upset this state of affairs.
  - rconti 6y ago
    Your comment is dripping with opinion and utterly devoid of any attempt at supporting evidence. I've lived both places. Seattle is not a low-tax paradise, nor are tax dollars completely and utterly squandered in California. It is gross how, the more money one makes, the more entitled one feels to not have to give a dime back. It's a game to them.
    - cltby 6y ago
      > Seattle is not a low-tax paradise Excepting special situations for certain PR and USVI residents, Washington state is as close to a tax haven as a US citizen is going to find. > nor are tax dollars completely and utterly squandered in California This depends on what you think the dollars should be used for. Most taxpayers would like to see their taxes used for provision of public services, and not in service of a vast public employee enrichment scheme. From this POV, the money is in fact squandered. > It is gross how, the more money one makes, the more entitled one feels to not have to give a dime back It's less about greed and more about abuse of generosity. See prior point.

But their success has very little do with the tax burden imposed on them by the state of California (c.f. any number of Seattle-based companies).

by cltby 6y ago

But their success has very little do with the tax burden imposed on them by the state of California (c.f. any number of Seattle-based companies).

tempsy 6y ago

I don’t know what you’re getting at but it isn’t my point. And the other way to look at it is California is expensive because the opportunity to become rich is greater here than elsewhere.

dcolkitt 6y ago
Florida and Texas both have comparable numbers of billionaires, and aren't crazy expensive.
- shuckles 6y ago
  Both have a considerably lower number billionaires (2-3x) per capita, and the Florida number should be investigated to see where the money was earned. (What’s the per capita billionaire rate of, say, Monaco or St. Tropez? Is that meaningful?) It’s certainly a nice place to retire to, as evinced by Keith.
cltby 6y ago
> I don’t know what you’re getting at but it isn’t my point. I can't tell if you're upset by their disingenuousness, or by their refusal to give a cut to the state. If the former, I sympathize. But it mostly seems to be the latter. The obvious rejoinder to which: why should they feel so eager to fork over their money to an institution that did ~nothing to contribute to their success? > California is expensive because the opportunity to become rich is greater here than elsewhere Your statement only explains the e.g. high housing costs. The tax question is orthogonal.

rconti 6y ago

... so what you're telling me is, Washington has a very low tax rate and few people who complain about their overall tax burden?

cltby 6y ago
My comment is a reply to this: "To blast the Bay Area and state which made them rich and then flee before they owe a penny is gross." It's not gross to minimize your obligations towards people who have done nothing for you. Seattle is the relevant counterfactual: flourishing tech scene without the punitive tax burden that we're supposed to believe enabled California's success.
- tempsy 6y ago
  Seattle’s tech scene consists of two giant tech companies that started in the 80s and 90s and the satellite offices of California HQ’d companies. It’s a lot of cogs. There is no comparison when it comes to startups created in, say, the last 10 years or so.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    In the earlier days, Silicon Valley also had had satellite offices from some of major tech companies on Route 128. It was the minicomputer that upset this state of affairs.
- rconti 6y ago
  Your comment is dripping with opinion and utterly devoid of any attempt at supporting evidence. I've lived both places. Seattle is not a low-tax paradise, nor are tax dollars completely and utterly squandered in California. It is gross how, the more money one makes, the more entitled one feels to not have to give a dime back. It's a game to them.
  - cltby 6y ago
    > Seattle is not a low-tax paradise Excepting special situations for certain PR and USVI residents, Washington state is as close to a tax haven as a US citizen is going to find. > nor are tax dollars completely and utterly squandered in California This depends on what you think the dollars should be used for. Most taxpayers would like to see their taxes used for provision of public services, and not in service of a vast public employee enrichment scheme. From this POV, the money is in fact squandered. > It is gross how, the more money one makes, the more entitled one feels to not have to give a dime back It's less about greed and more about abuse of generosity. See prior point.