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

251–260 of 318 posts

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

#251

Post by qq66 »

rgbrenner wrote: post #187
mindcrime wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA has plenty of institutionalized corruption (see: Washington D.C.) and organized crime too, so how much worse can Mexico be?

"so how much worse can Mexico be?" That's sarcasm right? Mexico: 3rd highest number of murders in the world (only India and Brazil are worse). Nearly 5x the murder rate in the US - nearly 2x the total number of murders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

Mexico has the 3rd highest number of murders, not the third highest murder rate. It's also the 11th most populous country.

Mexico's murder rate per capita is 22.7 per 100,000, compared to Brazil's 21.0, the US' 4.8, and India's 3.4. While these are hugely different, they're also not even close to the 3rd highest murder rate in the world, with Honduras leading the pack at 91.6.

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

#252

Post by muzz »

brianoverstreet wrote: post #246
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/…

Hi - as the author of the article, I don't think I was misleading, nor do I think I misunderstand the issues. The FTB has a number of options and tools at its disposal to craft an alternative to this "nuclear option". They could have changed the rule going-forward and allowed post 2008 QSB exclusions under revised terms. Yes, that may have cost them some $$$, but probably not as much as you think, and certainly not a…

"The court's decision made California's entire QSBS statute invalid and unenforceable"

https://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/Qualified_Small_Business_Stock_an...

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

#253

Post by rgbrenner »

mindcrime wrote: post #248
rgbrenner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"so how much worse can Mexico be?" That's sarcasm right? Mexico: 3rd highest number of murders in the world (only India and Brazil are worse). Nearly 5x the murder rate in the US - nearly 2x the total number of murders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

I was referring, specifically, to the issues of corruption and organized crime. But even considering the general murder rate, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your likelihood of being murdered in Mexico vary tremendously depending on where in Mexico you are. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing there are some areas that are pretty safe and some areas that you'd have to be brain-dead stupid to walk into.

1. Most of the murders in Mexico are from drug cartels. Are you saying that the cartels are NOT a form of organized crime??

2. If you go to the URL I posted, Mexico and the US are broken down by states. The are only 3 states in Mexico with a murder rate below the US average.

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

#254

Post by anigbrowl »

brianoverstreet wrote: post #246
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/…

Hi - as the author of the article, I don't think I was misleading, nor do I think I misunderstand the issues. The FTB has a number of options and tools at its disposal to craft an alternative to this "nuclear option". They could have changed the rule going-forward and allowed post 2008 QSB exclusions under revised terms. Yes, that may have cost them some $$$, but probably not as much as you think, and certainly not a…

allowed post 2008 QSB exclusions under revised terms.

I'm not at all sure that the FTB has the authority to do that. It's a statute that was struck down, not an agency rule. If the CA legislature wants to make it up to everyone, it could craft some legislation to that effect, but I don't see how the FTB is empowered to start issuing checks on its own authority.

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

#255

Post by rgbrenner »

qq66 wrote: post #251
rgbrenner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"so how much worse can Mexico be?" That's sarcasm right? Mexico: 3rd highest number of murders in the world (only India and Brazil are worse). Nearly 5x the murder rate in the US - nearly 2x the total number of murders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

Mexico has the 3rd highest number of murders, not the third highest murder rate. It's also the 11th most populous country. Mexico's murder rate per capita is 22.7 per 100,000, compared to Brazil's 21.0, the US' 4.8, and India's 3.4. While these are hugely different, they're also not even close to the 3rd highest murder rate in the world, with Honduras leading the pack at 91.6.

You are correct. I did mean "3rd highest number of murders." I corrected my post.

My point was, here is a country with 36% the population of the US, and yet has a much higher number of murders annually (most caused by drug cartels).

Although Hondorus is higher, if you notice, the worst Mexican state is at 111.

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

#256

Post by mturmon »

mudge wrote: post #226
mturmon wrote: post #47

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.

But to make the cancellation retroactive for 5 years makes it seem to be a money grab to me. Why not just cancel for now and in the future?

Because then there would be a flood of revised tax returns from corporations previously excluded in past years.

Probably this is not the last we have heard of this story.

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

#257

Post by outside1234 »

rkowalick wrote: post #105
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.

This is the exact same argument the supporters of Ohio Senate Bill 5[1] used. One reason people in the public sector are willing to be paid less than their private counterparts is because their benefit plans are genuinely better. Saying they should eliminate one of the better benefits public sector employees get is stupid. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Refere...

Offering deferred benefits is the thing that is "stupid" - it should be all cash to state employees so that their cost is correctly accounted for as part of the current budget.

Yes, I understand this might mean we have to pay higher salaries, but it will be far less than these crazy benefits they are getting.

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

#258

Post by twoodfin »

rayiner wrote: post #180
w1ntermute wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under Bloomberg, NYC has turned from a police state into a full-fledged nanny state.

To be fair, it's also much nicer to live in (at least for white people) than it ever has been. New York before it became a police state was basically Gotham City.

What's the marginal improvement under Bloomberg vs. Giuliani's last year in '01? I remember NYC as being in pretty good shape by that point. Has livability improved substantially because of the Bloomberg Nanny State stuff? Smoking bans are pleasant for some, but most everywhere has those now.

Though I do have the impression that Bloomberg has done yeoman's work on public education.

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

#259

Post by anigbrowl »

brianoverstreet wrote: post #247
dragonwriter wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The court did not invalidate the statute, it invalidated one of the many qualifiers for a company to be deemed a QSB.

"The statute is discriminatory on its face and cannot stand under the commerce clause."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1745098991866615...

It's at the end of section 3 (pagination doesn't work properly on GS at present). Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

PS: I think the least you could do is update your blog post to remove the factual inaccuracies and correct the misapprehensions of your readers; most of the commenters at the blog page appear to have taken your explanation at face value.

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

#260

Post by caniszczyk »

tarice wrote: post #123
redm wrote: post #86

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.

No state income tax, much cheaper housing costs than the national average, and cheap gas make it a pretty good place to live and work. Plus, because of all that, you can pay your employees much less (than California) and still provide them an equally-good standard of living. And Tex-Mex! I don't see how people in other parts of the country could live without Tex-Mex food.

I would argue better standard of living.
Post reply on HN