4 ms·

Certainly you couldn't do it like a straight-up visa policy, but you could probably achieve something very similar by giving them strongly unfavorable property

Certainly you couldn't do it like a straight-up visa policy, but you could probably achieve something very similar by giving them strongly unfavorable property taxes and so on.

aw1621107 4y ago
Such a taxation scheme sounds like it can potentially run into similar issues as well. For example, from Cornell's Legal Information Institute [0]: > In the exercise of its taxing power, a state may not discriminate substantially between residents and nonresidents. In Ward v. Maryland the Court set aside a state law that imposed specific taxes upon nonresidents for the privilege of selling within the state goods that were produced in other states. Also found to be incompatible with the comity clause was a Tennessee license tax, the amount of which was dependent upon whether the person taxed had his chief office within or without the state. In Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., the Court, although sustaining the right of a state to tax income accruing within its borders to nonresidents, held the particular tax void because it denied to nonresidents exemptions which were allowed to residents. The "terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous," wrote Justice Pitney, "... but a general taxing scheme ... if it discriminates against all non-residents, has the necessary effect of including in the discrimination those who are citizens of other States ...." Where there were no discriminations between citizens and noncitizens, a state statute taxing the business of hiring persons within the state for labor outside the state was sustained. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/privileges-and-immunity-clause-doctrine-and-practice https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/sec...
- heartbeats 4y ago
  No, in this system, they would be "residents", they would just be residents that haven't gone through the sort of procedures that California would like for them to, and so they get absurd property taxes or whatnot. e.g. if you go don't go through immigration, you can physically live there, but you'll have to pay 105% of your income in tax
  - aw1621107 4y ago
    If California residents also have to go through that same procedure (i.e., everyone is subject to it), sure, that might pass muster. Otherwise, it sounds like a distinction without a difference. How do you imagine a "going through immigration" process that doesn't effectively produce "resident"/"non-resident" status?
dredmorbius 4y ago
strongly unfavorable property taxes Prop 13: Mission accomplished.

Certainly you couldn't do it like a straight-up visa policy, but you could probably achieve something very similar by giving them strongly unfavorable property taxes and so on.

aw1621107 4y ago

Such a taxation scheme sounds like it can potentially run into similar issues as well. For example, from Cornell's Legal Information Institute [0]: > In the exercise of its taxing power, a state may not discriminate substantially between residents and nonresidents. In Ward v. Maryland the Court set aside a state law that imposed specific taxes upon nonresidents for the privilege of selling within the state goods that were produced in other states. Also found to be incompatible with the comity clause was a Tennessee license tax, the amount of which was dependent upon whether the person taxed had his chief office within or without the state. In Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., the Court, although sustaining the right of a state to tax income accruing within its borders to nonresidents, held the particular tax void because it denied to nonresidents exemptions which were allowed to residents. The "terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous," wrote Justice Pitney, "... but a general taxing scheme ... if it discriminates against all non-residents, has the necessary effect of including in the discrimination those who are citizens of other States ...." Where there were no discriminations between citizens and noncitizens, a state statute taxing the business of hiring persons within the state for labor outside the state was sustained. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/privileges-and-immunity-clause-doctrine-and-practice https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/sec...

heartbeats 4y ago
No, in this system, they would be "residents", they would just be residents that haven't gone through the sort of procedures that California would like for them to, and so they get absurd property taxes or whatnot. e.g. if you go don't go through immigration, you can physically live there, but you'll have to pay 105% of your income in tax
- aw1621107 4y ago
  If California residents also have to go through that same procedure (i.e., everyone is subject to it), sure, that might pass muster. Otherwise, it sounds like a distinction without a difference. How do you imagine a "going through immigration" process that doesn't effectively produce "resident"/"non-resident" status?

dredmorbius 4y ago

strongly unfavorable property taxes Prop 13: Mission accomplished.