3 ms·

>Taxing someone who spends only 60 days in the state in any single year—and extending that tax over an ensuing decade—would be something new under the sun. Wow

>Taxing someone who spends only 60 days in the state in any single year—and extending that tax over an ensuing decade—would be something new under the sun. Wow. That's nuts.

sunshinerag 6y ago
No. Progressive.
- umeshunni 6y ago
  "progressive" like most Californian things.
Shivetya 6y ago
Yeah, this won't make it past the courts let alone the economic damage its going to cause California and loss of some of the brightest college students. Who knows what your wealth profile will be after you move out? Let alone anyone who inherits wealth, will California want a piece of that even if the property is wholly outside the state? This is basically an act of desperation which will be wrapped under some fanciful class warfare and sadly also rife with cut outs to avoid offending specific groups. If they would clamp down on industries rife with funny money accounting, namely the music and movie industry, they might not have to go after individuals. However people always think this will stay at certain income and wealth numbers don't fully understand who exactly is paying the bills. While it easy to point to this percentage of people paying half the money the rest is equally important. Example, in NYC it is estimated that eighty percent of taxes is from less than twenty percent of people earning a hundred thousand per year. While skewed to the much higher end the fact is this eighty percent on income taxes is twenty two percent of the total tax revenue in the city. Finally, all of this that is happening in California is on top of a thirteen percent marginal rate which is highest in the country being over half again as much as New York.
carapace 6y ago
Yah, this sounds batshit insane to me. And I'm a SF-grown Left-leaning freak.
anonymoushn 6y ago
If there are 60 jurisdictions with identical laws to this one and you try your best, you can be subject to the wealth tax in all 60 of them in the same year.
nfiedel 6y ago
The tax is proportional to the number of days in California, and is only on wealth above $30M (married) or $15M (single). How many people do you think have $30M and spend >= 60 days a year in California, that do not benefit from business/property/services/educated employees in California? Very, very few.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  but do people who spent >= 60 days in california one time continue to accrue benefits from their visit over the next decade? that's the egregious part.
  - nfiedel 6y ago
    The tax is based on the fraction of time spent in CA, both days and years. The intent (for years) is likely to avoid people striking it rich in startups/movies/etc, and then immediately leaving the state to avoid a tax on the windfall. The intent (for days) is probably to avoid a high net worth CEO "moving" to a close state and flying in frequently to conduct an in-state business. I don't know many working people who spend 60 days/year on vacation :-) From the bill itself: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2088 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml... "... percentage of days in the year such taxpayer was present" "... the portion of a taxpayer’s wealth subject to the tax imposed by this part shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be years of residence in California over the 10 last years, and the denominator of which shall be 10" So taking a contrived example of someone most affected who visited for the briefest of 60 day visits one time in 10 years, we would have 60/365 * 1/10 * 0.4% = .006%/yr tax. That seems pretty reasonable for a CEO/movie-star/whatever who visits (most likely to earn more money based on in-state activities). Even over the ten year period this amounts to 0.06% which is TINY. For someone with $100M net worth, over ten years it would amount to $42K of state tax (note that the first $30M is not taxed).

>Taxing someone who spends only 60 days in the state in any single year—and extending that tax over an ensuing decade—would be something new under the sun. Wow. That's nuts.

sunshinerag 6y ago

No. Progressive.

umeshunni 6y ago
"progressive" like most Californian things.

Shivetya 6y ago

Yeah, this won't make it past the courts let alone the economic damage its going to cause California and loss of some of the brightest college students. Who knows what your wealth profile will be after you move out? Let alone anyone who inherits wealth, will California want a piece of that even if the property is wholly outside the state? This is basically an act of desperation which will be wrapped under some fanciful class warfare and sadly also rife with cut outs to avoid offending specific groups. If they would clamp down on industries rife with funny money accounting, namely the music and movie industry, they might not have to go after individuals. However people always think this will stay at certain income and wealth numbers don't fully understand who exactly is paying the bills. While it easy to point to this percentage of people paying half the money the rest is equally important. Example, in NYC it is estimated that eighty percent of taxes is from less than twenty percent of people earning a hundred thousand per year. While skewed to the much higher end the fact is this eighty percent on income taxes is twenty two percent of the total tax revenue in the city. Finally, all of this that is happening in California is on top of a thirteen percent marginal rate which is highest in the country being over half again as much as New York.

carapace 6y ago

Yah, this sounds batshit insane to me. And I'm a SF-grown Left-leaning freak.

anonymoushn 6y ago

If there are 60 jurisdictions with identical laws to this one and you try your best, you can be subject to the wealth tax in all 60 of them in the same year.

nfiedel 6y ago

The tax is proportional to the number of days in California, and is only on wealth above $30M (married) or $15M (single). How many people do you think have $30M and spend >= 60 days a year in California, that do not benefit from business/property/services/educated employees in California? Very, very few.

leetcrew 6y ago
but do people who spent >= 60 days in california one time continue to accrue benefits from their visit over the next decade? that's the egregious part.
- nfiedel 6y ago
  The tax is based on the fraction of time spent in CA, both days and years. The intent (for years) is likely to avoid people striking it rich in startups/movies/etc, and then immediately leaving the state to avoid a tax on the windfall. The intent (for days) is probably to avoid a high net worth CEO "moving" to a close state and flying in frequently to conduct an in-state business. I don't know many working people who spend 60 days/year on vacation :-) From the bill itself: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2088 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml... "... percentage of days in the year such taxpayer was present" "... the portion of a taxpayer’s wealth subject to the tax imposed by this part shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be years of residence in California over the 10 last years, and the denominator of which shall be 10" So taking a contrived example of someone most affected who visited for the briefest of 60 day visits one time in 10 years, we would have 60/365 * 1/10 * 0.4% = .006%/yr tax. That seems pretty reasonable for a CEO/movie-star/whatever who visits (most likely to earn more money based on in-state activities). Even over the ten year period this amounts to 0.06% which is TINY. For someone with $100M net worth, over ten years it would amount to $42K of state tax (note that the first $30M is not taxed).