Elon Musk moves to Texas • Hacker News Board

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#341

Post by GavinMcG » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

LinuxBender wrote: post #201

GavinMcG wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, state personal income taxes are based on personal income you earn in the state . If you work in multiple states, you file in multiple states.

That depends on reciprocal tax agreements. [1] He will have to file in both states, but what he pays will depend on several factors. He will likely get tax credits in California, but I am not a tax attorney or a CPA. Elon could probably give some indication on how much he is saving if he is saving anything at all. [1] - https://www.optimataxrelief.com/live-work-pay-taxes/

Only 17 states have those, California and Texas don't, and even if they did they're limited to specific other states.

It's simply not accurate to make the general statement that state personal income taxes are based on your domicile.

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#342

Post by hguant » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

cannam wrote: post #335

BurningFrog wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the states also have their own constitutions. This is the Texas one: https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

Ah, thank you! And so, what happened in Texas that "made an income tax unconstitutional"?

They passed an amendment to their constitution.

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#343

Post by politician » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

cannam wrote: post #325

An ignorant question for American readers. This article quotes a tweet from somebody who presumably has something to do with promoting Texas. He writes: > Texas is the best state for business. Texas has no state income tax, while California’s is the highest in the country. It just got better because Texas made an income tax unconstitutional. Can you explain what he means by that last sentence? I'm not asking for a po…

Each state in the US has its own constitution that defines its governance.

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#344

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

boringg wrote: post #135

smaryjerry wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t give California’s government any credit for Tesla’s success so far. If it was so good then Tesla wouldn’t be the only car company doing so well.

I know it's tough for free market people to understand this but it can't be understated. California SUPPORTS AND BUILDS the nascent market space from subsidizing Solar, Energy Storage and yes Electric Vehicles. I know it isn't cool to defend the government they are the ultimate boogeyman but like FFS they provide so many critical parts of our economy and, in progressive states like CA, help nascent industries get a f…

> state government covered $7,500 of every Tesla bought in the state.

This was a general subsidy for every car maker, regardless of location.

> Obama’s administration...

Was also not California specific.

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#345

Post by setpatchaddress » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

_0w8t wrote: post #204

S_A_P wrote: post #158

Pretty interesting to see this move makes people so salty. There does seem to be a trend of people fleeing California, I dont know enough about the situation out there to comment on whether or not its valid. I suspect something must be going on for several high profile folks moving out. And before you bash Texas, its not perfect. But its pretty diverse, and it seems that folks with opposing viewpoints can still coexi…

Few reasons to leave California - https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2020/09/12/leaving-the-ba...

"Nothing works in California; it is “failed state” tier. It is also a preview of the national dystopia to come if California isn’t sawed off and left to drift off to sea in a Calexit. It is either that, give it back to Mexico, or a war of extermination -nothing less will save us from the nightmarish California Dream. The Bay Area has nice weather, and some interesting people live there out of what I assume is inertia and provincialism, but there is no worse place to live in North America today. It’s a physical paradise made into dystopian hellscape by the people who live in it."

This is completely unhinged (and bigoted) fantasy. I have lived in multiple places around the US and liked many of them. California works pretty well, actually. It is not remotely like the USSR circa 1985.

It does overtax and underdeliver. But the federal government does that on a much grander scale.

The Bay Area and LA are overcrowded. There are other places to live in California! Some with much more natural beauty.

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#346

Post by jm20 » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

elindbe2 wrote: post #107

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #96

I was on the edge of the same decision. This move by the new district attorney in LA is so far beyond the pale that if it's not rescinded soon, I am gone too: "NEW: L.A. County DA George Gascon has issued a directive to prosecutors that the following misdemeanors will be declined for prosecution, with exemptions. -Trespassing -Disturbing the peace -Driving without license -Prostitution -Resisting arrest" This is an a…

So do people not need to renew their driver's license then? Or is there a fine? What if you don't pay the fine?

My guess would be eventually the fines rack up to the point where it becomes a more serious offense and more drastic measures are taken. Also, a lot of the enforcement measures likely do not fall under the umbrella of "prosecution."

I'm not sure if driving without a license can ever be escalated to a felony, but I'm sure they can do things like impound the car, etc. That would never involve the DA unless it was challenged in court

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#347

Post by gonehome » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

setpatchaddress wrote: post #326

JKCalhoun wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wondering if Prop 13 is the cause of Cal-flight. Is it driving home prices up? Or is it robbing the state coffers of a tax revenue that has to be made up elsewhere? I don't know.

Yes, it both drives home prices up and robs the state of taxes. It would also devastate many people already invested if it went away overnight; there's not really an easy solution to fixing it.

One idea I've had is tie new housing supply numbers to it.

Build X amount of new housing or have your property tax go up 10% per year until at market rate.

Would never pass, but I think it would be interesting.

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#348

Post by DenisM » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

cft wrote: post #19

throwaway894345 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're sharing this to echo the sentiment, but it's plausibly worth sharing to note that this politician is transparently working to drive Tesla operations out of her jurisdiction.

I am just linking the historical background for Musk's move. Not sure why I'm getting downvoted- it's a factual tweet from a politician from where he lived.

Perhaps for the same reason an editor for a very prominent news paper got fired for publishing a policy statement by a very prominent politician.

Killing the messenger nowadays is all the rage. "Rage" here to be taken literally.

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#349

Post by akavi » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

dimitrios1 wrote: post #52

cma wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much in subsidies did he get from California?

Nothing in comparison to what states offered. Giving businesses subsidies to attract more employers isn't anything unique to California.

It's a bit incoherent to offer subsidies to encourage the creation of new tech and then get mad at people for taking you up on the offer.

Re: Elon Musk moves to Texas

#350

Post by pchristensen » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #309

majormajor wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, I'm holding my breath that enough richer-than-most folks will move to make house prices go down a bit instead of up 10% since last year like https://ktla.com/news/local-news/socal-homes-prices-again-se... Seems like they're still moving in instead of moving out, for now, though.

Wondering if Prop 13 is the cause of Cal-flight. Is it driving home prices up? Or is it robbing the state coffers of a tax revenue that has to be made up elsewhere? I don't know.

It distorts many aspects of governance.

People don't move because there's a tax hike proportionate to how long you've lived there, so there's less turnover in housing, meaning less supply, meaning higher prices.

It puts a hard, long term, effectively permanent cap on tax growth, so cities must plan for everything to continually get leaner. Cities make land use and zoning decisions based on uses that are net contributors to revenue, vs net costs. What is a net cost? Housing in general, especially housing that might contain school aged children - that's why 3+ bedroom apartments are so much more rare. What are net contributors? Offices and retail. So the places with demand get to pick, and SF and the Peninsula restrict housing as much as they can and have a huge concentration of offices.

Places on the outskirts (e.g. Dublin, Livermore, Gilbert, Brentwood) are allowing housing to be built because they're trying to turn nothing into something, but any established, and especially built-out city, has a strong financial incentive not to admit a single additional resident to live there, while encouraging everyone they can to shop and work there.