24 ms·

I find it comical to see you assert, in 3 words, that states shouldn't have the ability to exercise their regulatory powers to protect their citizens on the sin

by nawgz 5y ago

I find it comical to see you assert, in 3 words, that states shouldn't have the ability to exercise their regulatory powers to protect their citizens on the singular basis that the entity subject to regulations is outside their border. The real "untenable" thing is proposing that corporations can neuter state laws entirely by the simple act of incorporating in not that state. I'm sure that wouldn't lead to a race to the bottom or anything, the US definitely doesn't already have issues with corporate-owned states or anything

WkndTriathlete 5y ago
I see you didn't bother to read the article. I have no problem with California exercising its sovereignty over its own citizens. The employee in question should have been protected by California laws, being a resident of California. What the article's author relates is California asserting sovereignty over an entity that has no nexus or revenue derived from California. This is the overreach and should be outright banned at the Federal level, otherwise there's nothing stopping a state from passing a law that requires companies to pay $30,000 tax for the next five years for every employee that vacations in that state. Do we really want to stomp small businesses with having to know the business tax codes for all fifty states in this age of remote work? I think not. It's about as stupid as the five states in the US that decide they can impose income tax on non-citizens of those states if the employer resides in that state.
- lovich 5y ago
  They have nexus in California the moment they engage in business with an entity in California. When they hired an employee in California the employee was the entity and hiring them to do work while in California was engaging in business in California. The idea that the employees and the work they do aren’t part of the business is some new idea that I hope doesn’t gain traction. Say the federal government did allow for this line of reasoning and prevented states from treating remote employees as having nexus in the state they live and work in. How does that not end up with every company incorporating in one state and hiring all their employees in other states so they can avoid all state level regulation?
- nawgz 5y ago
  > an entity that has no nexus or revenue derived from California The revenue any business derives is the sum of its employee efforts. A physical presence vis a vis an employee is surely a nexus. > otherwise there's nothing stopping a state from passing a law that requires companies to pay $30,000 tax for the next five years for every employee that vacations in that state You know, I'm not surprised you would make such a hilarious non-sequitur given your position makes no sense in the first place, but to argue "an employee going on vacation in a state" is even in the same universe as "employing a resident of a state" is actually pathetic. > Do we really want to stomp small businesses with having to know the business tax codes for all fifty states in this age of remote work? I think not. Do we really want to simply take away all regulations so corporations can take advantage of interconnectivity and globalization to be even more exploitative of workers and increase wealth inequality further? I think not. > It's about as stupid as the five states in the US that decide they can impose income tax on non-citizens of those states if the employer resides in that state. What is a "non-citizen of a state"? I have never heard of citizenship in a state, that is a country-level concept. If you perhaps mean non-residents, I would also agree this seems like overreach, except funny enough the US government does the same thing to all its citizens unless they pay a big fee to renounce their citizenship, so it is a distinctly American brand of overreach!
dvdkon 5y ago
What if those citizens move to a different state or country? I think we can agree the new state's laws shoud apply exclusively. Why or how is that different from commuting into work across borders? And why is that different from working remotely? Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for treating these differently, I just don't see it right now.
- nawgz 5y ago
  > What if those citizens move to a different state or country? I think we can agree the new state's laws shoud apply exclusively. Yes, because if the person moves to a new state, their entity has established a nexus in one state, and therefore that state exclusively governs them. The business entity who has employees in other states is, by the exact same logic, subjected to the laws of each state they have nexus in, and an employee that is a resident of a state is transparently a nexus in that state, as you agreed upon in your "moving" example. Hopefully it's clear!

by nawgz 5y ago

WkndTriathlete 5y ago

I see you didn't bother to read the article. I have no problem with California exercising its sovereignty over its own citizens. The employee in question should have been protected by California laws, being a resident of California. What the article's author relates is California asserting sovereignty over an entity that has no nexus or revenue derived from California. This is the overreach and should be outright banned at the Federal level, otherwise there's nothing stopping a state from passing a law that requires companies to pay $30,000 tax for the next five years for every employee that vacations in that state. Do we really want to stomp small businesses with having to know the business tax codes for all fifty states in this age of remote work? I think not. It's about as stupid as the five states in the US that decide they can impose income tax on non-citizens of those states if the employer resides in that state.

lovich 5y ago
They have nexus in California the moment they engage in business with an entity in California. When they hired an employee in California the employee was the entity and hiring them to do work while in California was engaging in business in California. The idea that the employees and the work they do aren’t part of the business is some new idea that I hope doesn’t gain traction. Say the federal government did allow for this line of reasoning and prevented states from treating remote employees as having nexus in the state they live and work in. How does that not end up with every company incorporating in one state and hiring all their employees in other states so they can avoid all state level regulation?
nawgz 5y ago
> an entity that has no nexus or revenue derived from California The revenue any business derives is the sum of its employee efforts. A physical presence vis a vis an employee is surely a nexus. > otherwise there's nothing stopping a state from passing a law that requires companies to pay $30,000 tax for the next five years for every employee that vacations in that state You know, I'm not surprised you would make such a hilarious non-sequitur given your position makes no sense in the first place, but to argue "an employee going on vacation in a state" is even in the same universe as "employing a resident of a state" is actually pathetic. > Do we really want to stomp small businesses with having to know the business tax codes for all fifty states in this age of remote work? I think not. Do we really want to simply take away all regulations so corporations can take advantage of interconnectivity and globalization to be even more exploitative of workers and increase wealth inequality further? I think not. > It's about as stupid as the five states in the US that decide they can impose income tax on non-citizens of those states if the employer resides in that state. What is a "non-citizen of a state"? I have never heard of citizenship in a state, that is a country-level concept. If you perhaps mean non-residents, I would also agree this seems like overreach, except funny enough the US government does the same thing to all its citizens unless they pay a big fee to renounce their citizenship, so it is a distinctly American brand of overreach!

dvdkon 5y ago

What if those citizens move to a different state or country? I think we can agree the new state's laws shoud apply exclusively. Why or how is that different from commuting into work across borders? And why is that different from working remotely? Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for treating these differently, I just don't see it right now.

nawgz 5y ago
> What if those citizens move to a different state or country? I think we can agree the new state's laws shoud apply exclusively. Yes, because if the person moves to a new state, their entity has established a nexus in one state, and therefore that state exclusively governs them. The business entity who has employees in other states is, by the exact same logic, subjected to the laws of each state they have nexus in, and an employee that is a resident of a state is transparently a nexus in that state, as you agreed upon in your "moving" example. Hopefully it's clear!