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

Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

pandodaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#21

Post by rajjalan »

samwillis wrote: post #11
joshAg wrote: post #4

here is the relevant info i could find about the taxes/asset seizure the author is referring to: "Proposition 30 creates three new upper income tax brackets for the next seven years. For example, folks with $250,000 to $300,000 a year in income will pay 10.3%, up from 9.3%. The new top income tax rate–for folks with income of $1 million-plus–will be 13.3%, up from a current top rate of 10.3%. That eclipses New Yorker…

Here in the UK the bottom rate of tax is 20%, it rises to 40% for income over £40,000 (about $60,000). I would love an income tax rate of 13%! Oh and we currently have a 50% rate but it's about to drop to 45% for income come over £150,000.

But health care costs for us are a substantial add-on, which I believe you don't have to worry about.

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#22

Post by RexRollman »

wooster wrote: post #17
joshAg wrote: post #4

here is the relevant info i could find about the taxes/asset seizure the author is referring to: "Proposition 30 creates three new upper income tax brackets for the next seven years. For example, folks with $250,000 to $300,000 a year in income will pay 10.3%, up from 9.3%. The new top income tax rate–for folks with income of $1 million-plus–will be 13.3%, up from a current top rate of 10.3%. That eclipses New Yorker…

The big one that likely upset him (and which he more specifically calls out in a previous piece) was the elimination of the qualified small business exclusion: Not only did the state's Franchise Tax Board (FTB) eliminate a tax break on capital gains for small business owners and investors, it announced the tax would be reinstated retroactively. This means those who benefitted from the break can expect a bill for unpa…

The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#23

Post by greenyoda »

pravda wrote: post #2

...in New York? I would consider that a jump from the fire into the frying pan.

Yeah, NYC has its own city income tax, on top of federal and state income taxes. And the property tax rates in NYC seem to go up every year.

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#24

Post by sybhn »

muzz wrote: post #6
joshAg wrote: post #4

here is the relevant info i could find about the taxes/asset seizure the author is referring to: "Proposition 30 creates three new upper income tax brackets for the next seven years. For example, folks with $250,000 to $300,000 a year in income will pay 10.3%, up from 9.3%. The new top income tax rate–for folks with income of $1 million-plus–will be 13.3%, up from a current top rate of 10.3%. That eclipses New Yorker…

Income != Assets His bio describes him as a "failed investment banker", so perhaps his lack of that kind of basic knowledge should come as no surprise. This Proposition was passed back in November, yet somehow it appears to be news to the author.

Stupid question, but once your income has been taxed and you turn the net into an asset, and then the state comes back in and tell you that the money you used to buy this asset really belonged to the state, isn't that asset seizing?

Edit 1: SP

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#25

Post by vidarh »

samwillis wrote: post #19
dsr_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the state income tax rates; Federal income taxes are on top of that. The bottom Federal rate is effectively zero, and tops out at 35% for marginal income over about $380K.

Ok thanks, that makes more sense. Still much lower than us though. I suppose that's what we get for having the NHS.

The NHS is funded over the National Insurance, which you're not including. You also need to account for local taxes (e.g. council tax in the UK).

But the total tax bills are still not that different, as they are marginal rates for the most part and the threshold where they start are different.

The effective rate paid in the UK is still somewhat higher for most earners, but for most people it's not as much as you might think from just looking at the headline rates.

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#26

Post by absconditus »

samwillis wrote: post #19
dsr_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the state income tax rates; Federal income taxes are on top of that. The bottom Federal rate is effectively zero, and tops out at 35% for marginal income over about $380K.

Ok thanks, that makes more sense. Still much lower than us though. I suppose that's what we get for having the NHS.

We also pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which are 6.2% and 1.45% respectively. Most of us pay for at least part of our health insurance premiums as well.

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#27

Post by sybhn »

RexRollman wrote: post #22
wooster wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big one that likely upset him (and which he more specifically calls out in a previous piece) was the elimination of the qualified small business exclusion: Not only did the state's Franchise Tax Board (FTB) eliminate a tax break on capital gains for small business owners and investors, it announced the tax would be reinstated retroactively. This means those who benefitted from the break can expect a bill for unpa…

The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.

Scary! Which part of my net money belongs to me? Do we have to tt money to the caiman AFTER paying taxes now?

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#28

Post by abrown28 »

Glyptodon wrote: post #14

Yes, leave California for the even bigger nanny state of New York where they're busy hiding your cigarettes and soft drinks... I think there are much better choices of state to relocate to.

Come to Texas. You know you want too :)

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#29

Post by powertower »

While I don't think these current retroactive taxes are intentional hard core redistribution of wealth (because there might be some technicality or specific quark we are dealing with here) it is none-the-less a soft beginning and a peak into what's to come.

When a State becomes a welfare and entitlement land, the hordes that it will bread will have a voting power that will outmatch those that work and earn.

Just look at any city or state that's failing. They all have the same thing in common. Too many resource consumers (and destroyers), not enough resource producers (and creators).

And redistribution of wealth will always have catchy names and socially and politically correct situations.

There is no doubt that in the next 20-50 years we will probably see this redistribution mostly in the form of higher taxes, and taxation without representation will become the norm (see - http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/suburbs-secede-from-atlanta/ for an intresting example of this last part). And it will always fail and just make things worse.

Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California

#30

Post by lilthing »

RexRollman wrote: post #22
wooster wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big one that likely upset him (and which he more specifically calls out in a previous piece) was the elimination of the qualified small business exclusion: Not only did the state's Franchise Tax Board (FTB) eliminate a tax break on capital gains for small business owners and investors, it announced the tax would be reinstated retroactively. This means those who benefitted from the break can expect a bill for unpa…

The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.

>The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.

if you want to make duly passed state laws like this illegal, you would need to take a time machine back to May of 1787 and try to add "no ex post facto law shall be passed" to the constitution.

if you do can I come with you just to see the look on your face?

Post reply on HN