Hacker News Reader

Comment by PacketPaul | Hacker News Reader

It is easy for a high net worth person to change primary residence. This is going to backfire and cause a reduction of revenue.

View on HN

It’s tricky.

California will subpoena cellphone location records.

They’ll query records from license plate scanners around the state, searching for those new Nevada plates.

They’ll consider you a resident just for having assets in the state, leaving the burden of proof on the defendant.

It’s particularly hard for executives whose companies are headquartered in California.

That being said, the new reality of remote work could be a paradigm shift that enables a mass exodus of firms moving their headquarters out of state.

Wealth is moveable, but often not very far. Closely packed states have a big issue of people moving across state lines to escape taxes; think of hedge fund managers moving to New Jersey.

California is big, and has a lot of stuff in it people find desirable. Moving from CA is to commit to moving hundreds of miles to get to another state, which is a pretty extreme ask comparatively.

Historically CA has managed to get away with high taxes and disastrous housing policy because it was desirable; good jobs, weather, etc. With remote work it’s yet to be seen exactly where the balance of desire and cost will settle back out to.

Old argument. So be it, I’ll submit a bid to the first beachside house in Carmel this causes.

It's worth $150k not to have to live in Carmel.

I can assure you, that what was once luxury beach front properties in Venezuela and the islands it controls in the Caribbean are now but a couple weeks wages for someone working in SF.

I can assure you that if that house gets frequently robbed or has large homeless encampment of heroine users and drunks on the same street you wouldn't be saying it.

Then again...if you're from SF that's your daily life. So yeah....sweet house in the beach woot!

And I can assure you that what were once huge estates of wealthy barons of Russia and France, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few due to a lack of redistributive taxation and where there was an utter lack of social safety net due to a lack of state revenue resulting from such tax policies. People revolted, those barons were killed and their estates were confiscated.

I can assure you that I do not want Venezuela or Cuba of today. But I can also assure you that I neither want Russia of 1917 or France of 1789. Let's trudge down the middle road.

People making over 5M a year, are going to move in order to pocket 3% more?

3% of 5M is $150,000. Not shabby.

One percenters often have multiple houses to move to so this isn't some major obstacle.

I heard a rumor that governor Cuomo wants the 1% back but mayor De Blasio told them to fuck off. _scratches head_

The 3% rate applies only income above 5M.

This is not taxing income, it is a tax on net worth. This is not done because it is completely unworkable. If I own a successful business, who gets to decide what it is worth?

> If I own a successful business, who gets to decide what it is worth?

The market, if its publicly traded. This proposed law is about taxing the Zuckerberg's and Musk's in the State, not worrying about putting a precise value on smaller assets.

Google had a lot of pre ipo refugees. It's sort of the reason we opened the Zurich and Seattle offices.