Good riddance. We need the space more than we need the tax revenue. (no offense intended, the housing situation is just dire and I’ll use any excuse to convince people to move out cause so few actually people want to)
Good riddance. We need the space more than we need the tax revenue. (no offense intended, the housing situation is just dire and I’ll use any excuse to convince people to move out cause so few actually people want to)
The reality is that California is so economically powerful that any corporation that leaves is almost certainly going to have to register as a foreign business and pay the franchise tax on all revenue earned in California anyway (the minimum cutoff is $500k or 25% of total revenue, whichever is lowest). The employees who stay in California are still going to pay income tax which makes up the bulk of state revenues. Everyone is still going to be paying sales tax on goods purchased from California vendors, the largest source after income tax.
Corporate taxes contribute less than 15% of California's budget so it's a reverse catch 22: either they're so small that the threats to leave are empty (DO IT!), or they're so big that they can't afford not to pay California taxes regardless of where they are. Like I said, either way the FTB will get the bulk of its cut.
I'm simply saying those who were stuck buying at inflated prices might be opposed to that.
My home is paid off and I got it for half of it's market value. I have no skin in the game either way as I'd never sell.
They never said that.
> I'm simply saying those who were stuck buying at inflated prices might be opposed to that.
No, you were calling someone "myopic or selfish" because they suggested ways more people might be able to afford housing.
> My home is paid off and I got it for half of it's market value. I have no skin in the game either way as I'd never sell.
You're being myopic or selfish, neither is fair to your neighbors (who can't afford housing due to market dynamics and bad policies).
What exactly are you even proposing? You want the government to mandate cheaper land, construction material, and builder wages? To lower taxes on all of the above? People who think there is some simple solution "duh just build more houses!" are extremely myopic. Again it's not my problem, I'm not against building more houses and I also get NIMBY because "affordable" or government subsidized housing has a direct correlation to crime rates, lowering property values, and lowering the quality of schools.
California stands alone as one of the top 5 or 6 biggest economies in the world. The 2008 GFC was a blip in our housing market even when the economy turned upside down. My city experienced less than 18 months of flat real estate prices before growing out of control again.
If an actual economic crisis caused by housing loans doesn't destroy California's housing market, forcing companies to pay their fair share certainly won't.
Housing should not be an investment, period.
So if I invent an awesome new car, it's selfish because it's destroying the value of your beater? If I invent a new GPU that costs 1/10 the price of existing ones, it's selfish because your computer is now worthless on the secondary market?
Homes are to LIVE in, I consider them consumables just like cars, just on the order of ~a lifetime instead of ~10 years. I don't give a flying f about neighbors' house or car values, I just care that I have a comfortable roof to live under and that I can afford it.
I know boomers treat houses as investment assets. I don't. They're shitty return and high-maintainence as an investment. But I'd like to have my own so I can modify the hell out of it to my liking.
If you want an affordable home move somewhere affordable. You can't legislate affordable housing for yourself without introducing problems for everyone else. Someone just living in a home they bought is not actively preventing you from affording one, at least, they're the last people you should blame (even after yourself).
That's the exact issue. They aren't.
But none of this has to do with small startups
While they're all good ideas, I don't think they'll totally solve the issues of affordability here.
But again, I don't know what any of this has to do with small startups suffering from the main topic. Paying some 4k more per employee isn't a singular gatekeeper, it's a deal breaker for those who already are on thr fence.