2 ms·

> between ~2008 and ~2016, incorporating in CA could at least potentially be read as "We're really serious about hiring the best talent and doing an unusually g

> between ~2008 and ~2016, incorporating in CA could at least potentially be read as "We're really serious about hiring the best talent and doing an unusually good job, to the point that we're willing to pay a premium." This makes sense for putting a headquarters in California but doesn't explain incorporating there. For example, from TFA: Meta is thinking of moving their corporation from DE to somewhere else, but their headquarters was and will likely remain in CA. I'm trying to figure out what values would be signaled by incorporating anywhere other than DE.

RickS 2y ago
> This makes sense for putting a headquarters in California but doesn't explain incorporating there. Good point. Agree that DE C corp has been the norm and expectation since forever. Doesn't look like CA is a mentioned contender, and my guess is that it is very much not in consideration, for all the above reasons. In "TX and other states" I read "TX and other states that will lean towards relative deregulation in coming years". It's less about sticking it to DE, more about bribing TX or whoever into even more favorable terms than you're getting in DE, in a way that wins some 10+ year metagame. Bezos did a classic version of this with HQ2 and DC
ok_dad 2y ago
> I'm trying to figure out what values would be signaled by incorporating anywhere other than DE. "I don't like that corporations can shop around for the best deal in governments, while an individual is stuck with using their physical location and must follow those laws and pay those taxes no matter where they work. Therefore, my company will be incorporated in the locality that it's main office is in, and we'll pay local taxes and follow local laws for our locations elsewhere, so as to support the people who make our products/services great."

2 ms·

> between ~2008 and ~2016, incorporating in CA could at least potentially be read as "We're really serious about hiring the best talent and doing an unusually g

by lolinder 2y ago

RickS 2y ago
> This makes sense for putting a headquarters in California but doesn't explain incorporating there. Good point. Agree that DE C corp has been the norm and expectation since forever. Doesn't look like CA is a mentioned contender, and my guess is that it is very much not in consideration, for all the above reasons. In "TX and other states" I read "TX and other states that will lean towards relative deregulation in coming years". It's less about sticking it to DE, more about bribing TX or whoever into even more favorable terms than you're getting in DE, in a way that wins some 10+ year metagame. Bezos did a classic version of this with HQ2 and DC
ok_dad 2y ago
> I'm trying to figure out what values would be signaled by incorporating anywhere other than DE. "I don't like that corporations can shop around for the best deal in governments, while an individual is stuck with using their physical location and must follow those laws and pay those taxes no matter where they work. Therefore, my company will be incorporated in the locality that it's main office is in, and we'll pay local taxes and follow local laws for our locations elsewhere, so as to support the people who make our products/services great."