Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

xconomy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 318 posts

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#231

Post by dragonwriter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #209

One-sided and confused article. Whether this is an attempt to mislead readers or a misunderstanding by the writer, I don't know. But this is not a case of California choosing to implement an unhelpful policy. This is a case of California's previous helpful policy being found illegal because it violates the commerce clause; the FTB had no other choice but to impose the tax. http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/214234/…

The FTB doesn't have a choice. The court invalidated the statute which provided the benefits. The legislature could pass a new statute which provided similar benefits without the features which made the old statute unconstitutional, but the FTB is an executive-branch agency and can't make up its own laws to replace ones that are struck down by the courts.

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#232

Post by redspark »

w1ntermute wrote: post #165
msmith wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than half of the states in the Union have some sort of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law [1]. It's not just Texas. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_St...

There's a difference between just having a Castle Doctrine and being allowed to use lethal force. Because if you are not allowed to use lethal force, you always have to worry about the consequences of killing the intruder.

Having grown up in Wyoming.

While Wyoming is definitely not a tech hub, they do protect your right to use lethal force to protect your property.

Plus if they steal your horse, you can hang them and shoot them. win/win

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#233

Post by bubbleRefuge »

LockeWatts wrote: post #218
nostromo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think states and locales should be able to declare bankruptcy and restructure their obligations. Currently there is no clear way to get out from under prior bad governance. Here's a good article about how San Bernardino is trying: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-bernardino-bank... > a third of the city's 210,000 people live below the poverty line, making it the poorest city of its size in Californ…

Do you have a problem with the amount of money they're paying, or the fact that they're paying a pension at all? What your suggesting seems like a horrible idea. The point of a pension is that it's a guaranteed obligation. Being able to absolve yourself of it with a bankruptcy is a wonderful way to screw over the workers who paid into it their entire lives.

Screwing over workers happens all the time in business. So lets screw over tax payers instead so they wind up having to spend tons of money to finance benefits that they are not receiving.

I think what most people have a problem with is that pension benefits are written by politicians who've are strongly supported by union's and looking out for their interest while no-one is watching out for the interest of the tax payer. As a result, pensions are gamed to max out the benefits by working overtime etc. There should be caps on the size of pensions. Bankruptcy could be used as a tool to re-negotiate some of these abusive pension benefits.

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#234

Post by run4yourlives »

BetterLateThan wrote: post #189
run4yourlives wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:/…

> Let's just ignore the fact that MS has a development centre in Vancouver Wow, MS centre! It will save us all. And they don't have MS centers anywhere else, right? Vancouver here. * All of Canada has as many my profile job openings as Seattle. * Salaries are lower here than there. * Taxes are higher here than there. * Prices are higher here than there. * Selection of everything is miserable here. * It's impossible t…

You're right. What am I talking about? Vancouver is a shit hole. It's clear that nobody wants to live here.

I mean just look at where it ranks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_most_livable_cities

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertypicturegalleries...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-world%E2%80%99s-best-place...

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#235

Post by bubbleRefuge »

Niten wrote: post #194
pc86 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps defined-benefit retirement plans should not be in the public sector since they haven't been in the vast majority of the private sector for quite some time.

It completely baffles me how any reasonable person could look at the retirement and health benefits situation in our country and come to the conclusion that our problem is being too generous to the working class. Yes, the private sector has been much more effective than the public sector in collectively diminishing workers' wages and benefits in recent years. The logical conclusion is not that the public sector shoul…

You are right about the status of retirement. However, the role of government is to serve the public first, not to serve public employees. Everyone should have a dignified retirement, perhaps on the order of 60% of earned wages. Social security benefits should be raised accordingly, retirement age should be lowered back to 65 for max benefits and we should mint a platinum coin to ensure its all funded.

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#236

Post by rayiner »

LockeWatts wrote: post #220
notdrunkatall wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you didn't realize it, that costs the states money, and money is what states don't have.

The states can find other things to cut than middle class benefits.

Like what? E.g. in Chicago, the infrastructure is crumbling so that teachers can get paid far more than they would earn in the private sector given their qualifications, meanwhile getting 13 weeks off each year.

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#238

Post by viggity »

sp332 wrote: post #200
bjornsing wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some things about the US still surprise me. In "socialist Sweden" (as it's sometimes called) retroactive taxation is unconstitutional. On the other hand capital gains is 20-30%, and most entrepreneurs actually have their gains taxed as income. That means you're lucky if you get to keep 13%. ;) I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much.

It's not retroactive taxation. The Supreme Court pointed out that a tax break enacted several years ago was unconstitutional.

most tax bills have a severability clause in them, meaning that is one part is struck down, the rest remain in force. I don't know that was the case with this particular law.

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#239

Post by anigbrowl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #231
anigbrowl wrote: post #209

One-sided and confused article. Whether this is an attempt to mislead readers or a misunderstanding by the writer, I don't know. But this is not a case of California choosing to implement an unhelpful policy. This is a case of California's previous helpful policy being found illegal because it violates the commerce clause; the FTB had no other choice but to impose the tax. http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/214234/…

The FTB doesn't have a choice. The court invalidated the statute which provided the benefits. The legislature could pass a new statute which provided similar benefits without the features which made the old statute unconstitutional, but the FTB is an executive-branch agency and can't make up its own laws to replace ones that are struck down by the courts.

Good point - the FTB doesn't have the authority to give away more of the state's money to people who sold stock in non-QSBs.

I do think there's a problem here of notice; I can't pretend I'd feel enthusiastic about having to pay 5 years of back taxes if I had been enjoying this tax break [edit: well it's a deferral rather than a break, but it's still a benefit]. But as you say, that's not up to the FTB; some other taxpayer will have to sue the state and argue successfully against retroactive taxation.

Re: California To Hit Startup Founders with Big Retroactive Tax Bills

#240

Post by lisper »

bradleyjg wrote: post #217
lisper wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Court gets things wrong occasionally. They got this wrong. Legislative intent does not trump the clear unambiguous wording of the law. This is why, for example, minting the trillion dollar coin would be legal despite the fact that this was clearly not the intent of the legislation.

ex post facto isn't English, it's not even really Latin. It's a legalism. The go to source of meaning for Anglo legalism in the late 19th century was Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" . It's the Blackstone definition that the Court adopted.

I stand corrected. Wow, this sucks.
Post reply on HN