111–120 of 318 posts
Does this apply to a Delaware corporation which happens to have offices ("do business") in California?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't know much about Vancouver if you think this is a realistic possibility. Vancouver, BC has barely any tech industry (a few software companies like Business Objects, and EA Sports are up there, but nothing meaningful), and the taxes are high. British Columbia has one of the highest tax rate in Canada. One of my Canadian friends told me that the 50% marginal tax rate started around $65k, although I haven't dou…
I live in Vancouver. Have you ever actually lived in Canada? >Vancouver, BC has barely any tech industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vancouver Let's just ignore the fact that MS has a development centre in Vancouver, specifically because its easier to hire game developers here. Halo is being written here. > British Columbia has one of the highest tax rate in Canada. You may want to tell that to BC: http:/…
This point is significant in and of itself. It's no coincidence that health insurance is a central point in just about every major recent union dispute.
Health insurance is wildly expensive, and the cost to private corporations is not to be underestimated. Anyone who's ever had to provide health insurance to employees is acutely familiar with these costs.
I'm not sure I would recommend Texas either. Use tax means you pay annual taxes on everything you own, plus sales tax on any affiliate deals; franchise tax will hit you hard even if your not making a dime because it's based on 'net worth' and not on profit. It's a tough place to be.
If you don't pay Texas sales tax on something, which varies from 6.25% to 8.25% depending on the jurisdiction, you are supposed to pay the difference between Texas sales tax and the tax you paid elsewhere. You do this once, not annually.
This is not unique to Texas. Use taxes exist in almost every other state, including California and New York. Like everywhere else, use tax is often (usually) completely ignored by taxpayers. After all, it's not like we file a state income tax return down here. No one goes, looks up, and files the individual form for 'use tax'.
I don't pay franchise tax in Texas, and I'm not an affiliate marketer - but in my experience it's a rather low-tax jurisdiction with a rather low cost-of-living.
Come to New York! We're rolling in so much finance money we don't need to hit up small businesses.
Thanks, but no thanks. I've experienced New York's laws on intellectual property ownership. Any programmer who thinks that they should have any right to have "their own time" and "side projects" should leave for a more friendly state. Like California. I am not joking.
I guess the way I see it is this. I imagine most startups don't have much profit, so therefore they won't pay much in taxes. If you are making a lot of profit and paying a bit more in taxes, it seems like the system is working. If these people are selling millions of dollars in stock options and complaining about having to pay more taxes on them, I have a hard time having sympathy. I'd love for my biggest problem to…
A lot of the comments are characterizing this as a money grab by the state. To me, it sounds more like the unintended consequences of a clever lawsuit and/or a poorly-crafted piece of tax-break legislation. People should be advised that California has a lot of clever lawyers who work to find and exploit holes in legislation.
The provisions in California law regarding the 80 percent asset and payroll requirements were found to be unconstitutional in August 2012 by the California Court of Appeal in Cutler v. Franchise Tax Board (FTB). The court's decision made California's entire QSBS statute invalid and unenforceable. As a result, all QSBS gain exclusions and deferrals previously allowed under California law became invalid. It is important to note that the court's decision in Cutler did not change the federal treatment of QSBS. (Source: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/Qualified_Small_Business_Stock_an... )
So the California FTB (and the rest of the states participating in the UDITPA Multistate Tax Compact) use the original "loophole" as a means to essentially siphon off a greater portion of the tax revenue from the occurrence of interstate commerce, and to keep it in the respective state. Washington, Oregon, California all participate (Source: http://www.startuplawblog.com/2012/08/17/interstate-business...)
This would be fine all fine and dandy, but for the fact that most of the "startups" or QSBs that benefit/ed from this exception derive/d revenue from multi-state commerce, on the Internet. This has made it and makes it more difficult for those businesses trying to do their "startup" thing out of state to compete with those here who get more tax breaks to re-invest. Interestingly, most of the VC money - over HALF of all venture capital in the USA -- goes to businesses in California. This is kind of messed up. (Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-20010486-62.html)
So looking at the bright side -- this should encourage startups to start places other than CA.
[Edited to include info about UDITPA in response to dragonwriter's comment]
Come to New York! We're rolling in so much finance money we don't need to hit up small businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That will work until one of the Microsofts of the world decides it's more cost effective to move everyone 2 hours drive north to Vancouver than it is to pay this giant bill. The US is quickly going to learn that there is a rather modern country to the north that isn't in the same financial distress as Europe or most states are. I'd imagine given that, this line of thinking would probably play itself out pdq.
You don't know much about Vancouver if you think this is a realistic possibility. Vancouver, BC has barely any tech industry (a few software companies like Business Objects, and EA Sports are up there, but nothing meaningful), and the taxes are high. British Columbia has one of the highest tax rate in Canada. One of my Canadian friends told me that the 50% marginal tax rate started around $65k, although I haven't dou…
I think your friend has very poor math skills.
http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax/Tax-Calculators-2012-Pe...
$65K gross income in BC nets nearly $52K; a ~20% average tax rate. This is before any eligible deductions.
Even if your friend was making $1,000,000 gross salary, they'd still pay less than 42% tax on average, and that's ignoring several legal tax shelters available to all Canadians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A cohort of reasonable voters? You just keep racking up reasons to move there...
Vancouver has horrible housing affordability ratios (housing price : income), income is lower at the entry level for software by almost double compared to WA (MS can change that), cost of goods is about %15-%30 more expensive across the board. Housing prices are just now reversing because of stricter mortgage requirements. Interest rates are really low and an interest rate hike is just waiting to happen. The reason w…
The reason I suggested Vancouver is because of it's proximity. It's pretty much the same place.
To me this is a symptom of the twisted politics around taxation in the US. You have one very powerful group that is continually fighting to lower or eliminate taxes and another somewhat less powerful group that wants to bring in enough tax money to fund government services. One side cuts taxes or refuses to raise them and the other side finds new things to tax or other taxes to raise. Normally such a tug of war is no…
Pro-tax types should stop carrying water for bad governance. I am one of those anti-tax people you say "has no use for logic and evidence", and I am happy to pay taxes when I feel it is going to good use. But I am not willing to pay taxes so that politicians can turn around and give it to the unions that own them at the expense of the public good.
It's funny that most of the world's entrepreneurship is in my country, where people can keep most of their money earned to fund new ventures (for now).