Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably none. They will sue saying you left to avoid taxes. The California courts will agree with the State. Now you get to pay taxes in both localities.
Nope, if I move to, say, Bellevue, WA permanently to avoid CA income tax, I will not pay any CA income tax on work done after I relocated permanently from CA. Edit: Source - done that before when relocating (and having the same employer, which has offices in both states)
2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely
31–35 of 35 posts
Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely
#32I don’t live in SF but for all the angst ridden articles about it, the Bay Area seems to have been the most fertile source of business wealth creation in history. That can’t be purely accidental. I suppose coders can sort of live anywhere but there will always be agglomeration benefits for business creators to concentrate and cross pollinate in person.
Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely
#33I feel like there's an implied "and keep their comp". There are a decent number of remote jobs out there right now. They pay well, but certainly not SF TC.
Frankly, I think that implicit assumption by workers is totally fair! The way COL adjustments are done results in a strong incentive to live wherever costs the most. Some time ago I made a comment on this concept that I'll re-post here with minor edits: -- Say you move to a lower cost of living area, perhaps 6% cheaper, and your employer adjusts your wages down by the same amount as the change in COL. Now all your ex…
It's not 6 it's 60
Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely
#34I feel like there's an implied "and keep their comp". There are a decent number of remote jobs out there right now. They pay well, but certainly not SF TC.
yeah cause quality of life is so much better earning 200k and living w/ room-mates or a small apartment over owning your own home and earning 120k. I'd gladly take 120k over 300k as long as I don't need to live in SF. cost of living is just not worth it. Remote's best cause you can live anywhere including rural. I live in rural utah and work remotely doing freelance mostly, love it. We have 1GIG internet in most rura…
You’d rather not make an additional $100,000 _post tax_? That’s about $9,000/mo, way more than the CoL difference, way. And $300k in the Bay Area isn’t even crazy, $400k is also reasonable. If you want to stay in Utah for family/life reasons that makes a ton of sense, but don’t make it about the comp, it doesn’t add up.
Re: 2 Out of 3 tech workers would leave SF permanently if they could work remotely
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah cause quality of life is so much better earning 200k and living w/ room-mates or a small apartment over owning your own home and earning 120k. I'd gladly take 120k over 300k as long as I don't need to live in SF. cost of living is just not worth it. Remote's best cause you can live anywhere including rural. I live in rural utah and work remotely doing freelance mostly, love it. We have 1GIG internet in most rura…
You’d rather not make an additional $100,000 _post tax_? That’s about $9,000/mo, way more than the CoL difference, way. And $300k in the Bay Area isn’t even crazy, $400k is also reasonable. If you want to stay in Utah for family/life reasons that makes a ton of sense, but don’t make it about the comp, it doesn’t add up.
If I could afford to OWN a home for But for like 140-200k, I can get 5+ rooms in Utah, decent schools, near family, etc.... politics could be better, but that's just a personal beef. The same home would probably cost > 1 million in SF. I can't even imagine earning 1 mill, as a self-taught dev doing freelance who's aging (40).