3 ms·

Probably referring to the trend of California residents making a lot of money from being located in California and then re-locate to Texas. The implication is

• ykevinator 6y ago
  Wait til their kids attend the schools only to discover they're being taught creationism. I have a feeling this whole move to Texas thing is not gonna stick.
• slowmovintarget 6y ago
  Presumably they already paid California taxes for when they worked there. The people governing California have decided they want to take more. There's no debt there. "California" isn't owed. There's nothing to "pay back." Having a hostile tax environment makes people and businesses go elsewhere, if they can.
  • Jochim 6y ago
    I guess that depends on your point of view. If the cultural/economical environment present in California is what allows those businesses to exist/be as successful as they are in the first place then in some sense it's reasonable to see California as holding some stake in that success. Income/Business taxes don't really capture that type of value add. Especially in tech where it's much easier to relocate your business/employees. The alternative point of view is that California isn't special at all, and they should be grateful to have the valley ecosystem. In which case they should reduce the tax burden and focus on reducing cost of living. I don't know which it is for California, but I do think that society would benefit from a system that provides strong incentives for companies to stay rooted/contribute back to the societies that they benefit from before they're established enough to leverage national/international labour.