4 ms·
Say $10m+ earners. If you're making that one-time and expect it to be a good chunk of your lifetime earnings it doesn't seem all that crazy to move in order to
by jamiequint 4y ago
Say $10m+ earners. If you're making that one-time and expect it to be a good chunk of your lifetime earnings it doesn't seem all that crazy to move in order to save $1.33m, or if Prop 30 passes then 1.51m. That's a free (very nice) house in most states.
https://www.wealthspire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/qsbs-state-map.png https://www.wealthspire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/qsbs-...
- jedberg 4y agoIf you're making that one time and you already live in California, chances are you earned it in California, and they will come after you for the taxes anyway. For example if that 10M+ is in stock that was granted to you when you lived in California, they will tax you for it anyway regardless of where you live in the US when it vests.
- jamiequint 4y agoThat's patently false, know a number people who were granted stock in CA and later moved. The taxation is based on the allocation ratio, which is determined by the number of days you stayed in California. Some data on migration effects of taxation in CA from the last Prop 30 that raised income taxes, and that was blunted by Obama's ATRA which added SALT deductions that are now capped. None of this even counts the secondary economic effects of driving a bunch of high-earners out of state: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26349 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26349 And for what, so we can subsidize electric cars that people are buying anyway? What an asinine piece of legislation.