Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California | Hacker News Reader

Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

pandodaily.com

39 pointsprotomyth52 comments

here is the relevant info i could find about the taxes/asset seizure the author is referring to:

"Proposition 30 creates three new upper income tax brackets for the next seven years. For example, folks with $250,000 to $300,000 a year in income will pay 10.3%, up from 9.3%. The new top income tax rate–for folks with income of $1 million-plus–will be 13.3%, up from a current top rate of 10.3%. That eclipses New Yorkers’ combined state and local top rate of 12.7% and Hawaii’s top rate of 11%. The income tax hikes are retroactive to Jan. 1, 2012, but the extra bill isn’t due until April 15, 2013. (See below for a photo gallery of the highest state and local income taxes on a $1 million income post election.)

Still, all Californians will be chipping in: Proposition 30 also raises the state sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5% for four years, starting Jan. 1, 2013."[1]

[1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/11/08/califor...

Income != Assets

His bio describes him as a "failed investment banker", so perhaps his lack of that kind of basic knowledge should come as no surprise.

This Proposition was passed back in November, yet somehow it appears to be news to the author.

i totally agree that it's a tax, not an asset seizure, but i was trying to remain neutral; since he referred to it as an asset forfeiture and CA referred to it as a tax I just put both and left it up to the reader to decide which it was.

The issue is that it's retroactive. That income had become an asset to suddenly be considered as income again. The retroactive nature of the proposition was not in any of the official summary documentation for the election either.

That's not what happened, the tax law was found to be invalid by a court, so all taxes paid under the law had to revert to the rate paid under the previous law.

He is referring to it as an "asset seizure" because he already paid incomes taxes on this amount. Prop 30 was passed late in the year, after most of this income was made. If we classify this as a tax, then all true asset seizures could be reclassified as such if we just apply tax rules to earlier and earlier tax years.

Remember, the constitutional prohibition against "Ex Post Facto" laws doesn't apply here.

Stupid question, but once your income has been taxed and you turn the net into an asset, and then the state comes back in and tell you that the money you used to buy this asset really belonged to the state, isn't that asset seizing?

Edit 1: SP

Stupid question, but how did you pay 2012 taxes before 2012 was over?

well i didn't! hypothetically, we'd be talking about my 2011 earnings, already taxed, being retroactivity taxed (again) in fiscal year 2012.

well, that definitely is hypothetical, because that's not what happened

"This despite the fact that I already paid my 2012 taxes back in September." fiscal year does not necessarily equals calendar year, how do you know for a fact that's not what happened?

Prop 30 raised personal income tax (and sales tax, a separate point), which is based on calendar years.

It should be noted that these tax rates are marginal. Effective state income tax rates are typically much, much lower.

Here in the UK the bottom rate of tax is 20%, it rises to 40% for income over £40,000 (about $60,000). I would love an income tax rate of 13%!

Oh and we currently have a 50% rate but it's about to drop to 45% for income come over £150,000.

We have federal marginal income tax rates as well.

These are the state income tax rates; Federal income taxes are on top of that. The bottom Federal rate is effectively zero, and tops out at 35% for marginal income over about $380K.

Ok thanks, that makes more sense. Still much lower than us though. I suppose that's what we get for having the NHS.

The NHS is funded over the National Insurance, which you're not including. You also need to account for local taxes (e.g. council tax in the UK).

But the total tax bills are still not that different, as they are marginal rates for the most part and the threshold where they start are different.

The effective rate paid in the UK is still somewhat higher for most earners, but for most people it's not as much as you might think from just looking at the headline rates.

We also pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which are 6.2% and 1.45% respectively. Most of us pay for at least part of our health insurance premiums as well.

But health care costs for us are a substantial add-on, which I believe you don't have to worry about.

The big one that likely upset him (and which he more specifically calls out in a previous piece) was the elimination of the qualified small business exclusion:

  Not only did the state's Franchise Tax Board (FTB)
  eliminate a tax break on capital gains for small 
  business owners and investors, it announced the tax 
  would be reinstated retroactively. This means those 
  who benefitted from the break can expect a bill for 
  unpaid taxes, plus interest, stretching all the way 
  back to 2008.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/21/the-california-tax-th...

The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.

Scary! Which part of my net money belongs to me? Do we have to tt money to the caiman AFTER paying taxes now?

>The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.

if you want to make duly passed state laws like this illegal, you would need to take a time machine back to May of 1787 and try to add "no ex post facto law shall be passed" to the constitution.

if you do can I come with you just to see the look on your face?

I guess my joke didn't come across. The Constitution already has the words "no ex post facto law shall be passed" in it (my joke is that all that work going back to try to add it would be wasted) right after the words that congress can't just declare someone guilty of a crime without a trial. Just Google "no ex post facto shall be passed."

Constitutionality of law indicates otherwise.

the tax law was found to be invalid by a court, so all taxes paid under the law had to revert to the rate paid under the previous law. However, only taxes paid in the last four years are subject to court rulings like this due to statutes of limitation, which is why the CFTB went back four years, and not zero (everyone paying after the law was found to be invalid would have a 14th amendment suit since the law is invalid), three (see previous) or five (statute of limitations).

Okay, thanks for the info!

> the tax law was found to be invalid by a court

This isn't quite true, only part of the law was found to be unconstitutional (the part requiring that 80% of your payroll be located in CA). The FTB could have chose to continue the law but would have to retroactively pay people who previously applied for this deduction and were refused because they had >20% payroll outside of CA.

That was an extremely rare tax deduction that few had every even heard of before an article about it came out in January.

It was struck down by courts as unconstitutional, so the deduction had to be disqualified retroactively.

> Still, all Californians will be chipping in: Proposition 30 also raises the state sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5% for four years, starting Jan. 1, 2013.

But not chipping in equally or proportionally. Only the very top tier have an increased income tax, so they will be paying more from the start. And the simple reasoning that "people with more money tend to spend more money" says that the top tier will also be chipping in more of that sales tax.

Prop 30 was a piece of shit. I personally voted for the competing Prop that would have given a equally proportionate income tax bump across the board. Unlike many, I wasn't selfish and voted to give myself a tax bump rather than just give it to the top tier. Shame that the selfish mob won out and 30 passed.

>> Still, all Californians will be chipping in: Proposition 30 also raises the state sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5% for four years, starting Jan. 1, 2013.

> But not chipping in equally or proportionally. Only the very top tier have an increased income tax, so they will be paying more from the start. And the simple reasoning that "people with more money tend to spend more money" says that the top tier will also be chipping in more of that sales tax.

that totally depends on what you use to determine proportionality or equality.

A sales tax is equally proportional from the persective that everyone pays the same amount for the same amount of dollars spent, regardless of net worth. It's progressively proportional from the perspective that people who spend more have to pay more taxes, and up until a certain point, people spend all or nearly all their income. It's regressively proportional from the perspective that the rich do not in actuality spend all or even most of their income (ie your simple reasoning fails to be consistent with reality somewhere between $100k/year and $1M/year) and instead park it investments which are not taxed through sales tax (depending on who you talk to, it's because the rich have run out of things to buy, or because they are being responsible with their money).

A flat income tax is equally proportional from the perspective that everyone pays the same percentage of income. A flat income tax is progressively proportional from the perspective that the rich must pay more dollars than the poor since they have benefited more. A flat income tax is regressively proportional from the perspective that the rich have much more discretionary funds than the poor people after taxes, since many expenses, like food, housing, rent, gas, and car maintenance are relatively inelastic until at least the upper-middle end of the quality spectrum.

A graduated income tax is equally proportional from the perspective that equal amounts of income is taxed at the same rate regardless of the total amount of income (eg: two brackets, x <=100 := 3% and x > 100 := 3.25. An income of 105 has a tax of 100 * .03 + 5 * .05 = 8.05 and not 105 * .05 = 5.25). A graduated income tax is progressively proportional since the people in a higher bracket pay a larger percentage of income than those in a lower bracket. A graduated income tax might be regressively proportional from the perspective that the total amount of tax paid is supposed to be roughly equal to the benefits received from being a part of that society and if the beneefits from being a part of the society are much more progressively proportional than the tax rates and brackets.

> Prop 30 was a piece of shit. I personally voted for the competing Prop that would have given a equally proportionate income tax bump across the board.

I agree with you that the tax increases should have been across the board, and I think the increase should be progressively proportionate. But prop 38 did a bunch of things wrong outside of getting the tax increase part right:

"For example, none of it could be used to increase salaries. But the restraints appear to deter some kinds of reform, such as lengthening school days or years, creating regional pools of resources or offering more instruction online. And the measure bars the Legislature from changing any provisions that prove problematic; instead, any amendments would have to be made by the voters.

The biggest shortcoming of Proposition 38, though, is what its supporters consider its main selling point: the fact that it walls off from the general fund most of the money it raises. That's a real problem for the current fiscal year, which will be over before much of the funding would kick in.

. . .

In addition, the singular focus of Proposition 38 on education is misplaced, particularly in light of the deep and damaging cuts the state has been making in programs that aren't already guaranteed half the state's general fund. As much as the schools need help, they aren't the only ones in need of rescue. And walling off another chunk of the state's revenues would only make it harder for lawmakers to address the breadth of the state's needs." [1]

[1]: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-p...

The equal and proportional was with regard to the income tax bump. Since not everyone was given an increase, it can neither be equal or proportional. Sales tax is of course a dollar for dollar match. We all got hit with that. But my simple reasoning was not "people with more money spend all their money"... it was that people with more money tend to spend more money. Their dinners out are often more frequent and more expensive. Their cars are often more expensive. They often have more gadgets and stuff. So while the sales tax bump itself was equal, the net gain is going to be higher from those that spend more money. That was not so much a criticism of fairness but just another point of getting more from the rich... who were already being asked to pay more from the start. Sure, Prop 38 was not perfect either, true. But, IMO, it was more balanced and fair. It was less likely to drive people away like 30.

> it was that people with more money tend to spend more money

And somewhere between $100k/year and $100M/year this no longer holds. Instead of spending the money, it gets invested. Generally speaking, Someone with $1B spends about as much as someone with $5B and about as much as someone with $500M.

> the net gain is going to be higher from those that spend more money. > [the rich] were already being asked to pay more from the start

That's true of literally every tax except for a flat tax. The general reasoning behind non-flat taxes is that the richer you are, the more you have benefited from society (so the more you should pay back to society) and you are more able to pay a tax (eg: 30% of $30k per year will have a huge impact on lifestyle, but 30% on $300M or even $300k, will have much less of an impact, because the absoulte after-tax income is so high, even though the tax rates are the same)

> Sure, Prop 38 was not perfect either, true. But, IMO, it was more balanced and fair. It was less likely to drive people away like 30.

Prop 38's issues weren't that it was unfair or unbalanced, but that it was not nearly as effective as 30 and/or that it would have more negative consequences than 30, because of how it required money to be spent.

I disagree.

...in New York? I would consider that a jump from the fire into the frying pan.

Read the author's previous pieces-- very little logic, lots of California-hate.

The premise of this article, Prop 30, is nothing new. Rehashing of the same things (from the same author no less) must give PandoDaily some page views or something

"Rehashing of the same things (from the same author no less) must give PandoDaily some page views or something"

PandoDaily is all about the page views.

Seems an odd choice if just for the taxes. I would think Nevada or Colorado or even Oregon (my home state) would be better alternatives tax-wise, and yet still retain the "Startup community scene" to some extent.

I could see moving to New York if it were a finance or media company (sounds like it is a media company), so maybe that has a larger impact on location than tax alone.

Phoenix is starting to pick up some of it, too, I think. But yeah, really, New York?

Yeah, NYC has its own city income tax, on top of federal and state income taxes. And the property tax rates in NYC seem to go up every year.

Yeah, if dude thinks going from CA to NY is going to increase his autonomy or decrease his tax burden, he's got a painful lesson coming.

There are so many things that can be done to address this sort of thing - too bad he's probably "saving money" by not paying for legal or tax/accounting help.

Yes, leave California for the even bigger nanny state of New York where they're busy hiding your cigarettes and soft drinks...

I think there are much better choices of state to relocate to.

Come to Texas. You know you want too :)

Offer me a job in San Antonio or Austin and I'll be there. :)

the key thing that "come to Texas" commenters fail to realize is that opportunity and taxes are not independent variables

While I don't think these current retroactive taxes are intentional hard core redistribution of wealth (because there might be some technicality or specific quark we are dealing with here) it is none-the-less a soft beginning and a peak into what's to come.

When a State becomes a welfare and entitlement land, the hordes that it will bread will have a voting power that will outmatch those that work and earn.

Just look at any city or state that's failing. They all have the same thing in common. Too many resource consumers (and destroyers), not enough resource producers (and creators).

And redistribution of wealth will always have catchy names and socially and politically correct situations.

There is no doubt that in the next 20-50 years we will probably see this redistribution mostly in the form of higher taxes, and taxation without representation will become the norm (see - http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/suburbs-secede-from-atlanta/ for an intresting example of this last part). And it will always fail and just make things worse.

> While I don't think these current retroactive taxes are intentional hard core redistribution of wealth (because there might be some technicality or specific quark we are dealing with here) it is none-the-less a soft beginning and a peak into what's to come.

> When a State becomes a welfare and entitlement land, the hordes that it will bread will have a voting power that will outmatch those that work and earn.

Perhaps, but the US's domestic policy from about 1980 has been an intentional distribution of wealth: [1].

And on top of that, americans prefer much more evenly distributed wealth than the current situation: [2].

Source article for [1] and [2] is [3].

> Just look at any city or state that's failing. They all have the same thing in common. Too many resource consumers (and destroyers), not enough resource producers (and creators).

The US has a consumer based economy, so wouldn't more consumers be a good thing since it would require the producers to produce more, which would create more jobs? Also, wasn't the main problem with the recession that most companies couldn't find enough consumers willing to buy their product? I think you have this part backwards.

> There is no doubt that in the next 20-50 years we will probably see this redistribution mostly in the form of higher taxes, and taxation without representation will become the norm (see - http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/suburbs-secede-from-atlanta/ for an intresting example of this last part). And it will always fail and just make things worse.

It seemed to work pretty well in the 1930's and 1940's.

[1]: http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_a... [2]:http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page2... [3]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequalit...

This comment is one big logic failure. First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't). Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which is a peculiar statement about the nation with the greatest manufacturing output in the world (1) and the 3rd most competitive manufacturing sector (2). Finally, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about economic policy in the 1930s or not, but I'm going to suggest a refresher course in the material just in case.

The parent comment wasn't really talking about economic inequality directly anyhow, it was discussing the potential danger inherent in an democratic system when the majority willingly votes away the property of the minority. I don't necessarily agree that this is what's going on currently, but it is something that was frequently of concern to revolution-era scholars. Regardless, your comment seems like it was meant to scratch some political itch instead of actually discussing the topic.

[1]: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf [2]: http://www.compete.org/ncf/Council_GMCI_2012.pdf

> This comment is one big logic failure.

Well, yeah, because my comment uses rhetoric, not logic.

> First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention.

In the interest of keeping this post relatively short, I'm not going to make a fully fleshed out argument for whether or not supply-side economics is intended to distribute wealth upwards since that will basically come down to a bunch of quotes showing who knew what and when, but I will say that, whether intended or not, there has been a steady upward distribution of wealth since roughly 1980.

> The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't).

Perhaps that second link is a bit of a non sequitur there, but it is a reponse to the parent's claim that the "When a State becomes a welfare and entitlement land, the hordes that it will bread will have a voting power that will outmatch those that work and earn."

> Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which is a peculiar statement about the nation with the greatest manufacturing output in the world and the 3rd most competitive manufacturing sector.

First off, it's worth pointing out that manufacturing makes up only 12.2% of the GDP based on output and employs only 9% of the total workforce (13% if you include jobs that manufacturing supports) [1], so even if we accept your premise that manufacturing is somehow not part of a consumer-based economy, then, no, the US does not have a manufacturing-based economy, or whatever type of economy you thought was based on manufacturing that wasn't consumer-based.

Now for your implied point that manufacturing isn't part of a consumer-based economy; A consumer-based economy just means that consumer spending drives the economy instead of gross private domestic investment [2], government spending [3], or exports minus imports. Consumer spending has made up at least 65% of the GDP since 1983 [4].

> Finally, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about economic policy in the 1930s or not, but I'm going to suggest a refresher course in the material just in case.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. but the economic policy at the time, either implicitly or explicitly, was to redistribute wealth downwards through massive government spending (eg painting a mural, building a damn or highway or bridge or battleship, or occupying various parts of Europe and Asia).

> The parent comment wasn't really talking about economic inequality directly anyhow, it was discussing the potential danger inherent in an democratic system when the majority willingly votes away the property of the minority.

First, unabridged possession of property is not some sort of basic human right. Up until America's reaction against socialism and communism abroad in the 1910's and 1920's private property wasn't considered personal.

Second, Taxes aren't the voting away of property, but rather the price for being a member of a society.

[1]: http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufactu... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investme... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending [4]: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/econ...

Thanks for the follow-up post. I'm not going to continue this dead thread, but I do appreciate the reply.

I'm glad I turned down the interview offer from bleacher report. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com