I'm glad I turned down the interview offer from bleacher report. ;)
Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
41–50 of 55 posts
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stupid question, but how did you pay 2012 taxes before 2012 was over?
well i didn't! hypothetically, we'd be talking about my 2011 earnings, already taxed, being retroactivity taxed (again) in fiscal year 2012.
well, that definitely is hypothetical, because that's not what happened
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#43...in New York? I would consider that a jump from the fire into the frying pan.
Yeah, if dude thinks going from CA to NY is going to increase his autonomy or decrease his tax burden, he's got a painful lesson coming.
There are so many things that can be done to address this sort of thing - too bad he's probably "saving money" by not paying for legal or tax/accounting help.
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.
the tax law was found to be invalid by a court, so all taxes paid under the law had to revert to the rate paid under the previous law. However, only taxes paid in the last four years are subject to court rulings like this due to statutes of limitation, which is why the CFTB went back four years, and not zero (everyone paying after the law was found to be invalid would have a 14th amendment suit since the law is inval…
Okay, thanks for the info!
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
well i didn't! hypothetically, we'd be talking about my 2011 earnings, already taxed, being retroactivity taxed (again) in fiscal year 2012.
well, that definitely is hypothetical, because that's not what happened
"This despite the fact that I already paid my 2012 taxes back in September."
fiscal year does not necessarily equals calendar year, how do you know for a fact that's not what happened?
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#46While 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…
> 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. Perha…
This comment is one big logic failure. First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't). Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which is a peculiar statement about the nation with the greatest manufacturing output in the world (1) and the 3rd most competitive manufacturing sector (2). Finally, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about economic policy in the 1930s or not, but I'm going to suggest a refresher course in the material just in case.
The parent comment wasn't really talking about economic inequality directly anyhow, it was discussing the potential danger inherent in an democratic system when the majority willingly votes away the property of the minority. I don't necessarily agree that this is what's going on currently, but it is something that was frequently of concern to revolution-era scholars. Regardless, your comment seems like it was meant to scratch some political itch instead of actually discussing the topic.
[1]: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf [2]: http://www.compete.org/ncf/Council_GMCI_2012.pdf
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, that definitely is hypothetical, because that's not what happened
"This despite the fact that I already paid my 2012 taxes back in September." fiscal year does not necessarily equals calendar year, how do you know for a fact that's not what happened?
Prop 30 raised personal income tax (and sales tax, a separate point), which is based on calendar years.
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
The equal and proportional was with regard to the income tax bump. Since not everyone was given an increase, it can neither be equal or proportional. Sales tax is of course a dollar for dollar match. We all got hit with that. But my simple reasoning was not "people with more money spend all their money"... it was that people with more money tend to spend more money. Their dinners out are often more frequent and more…
> it was that people with more money tend to spend more money And somewhere between $100k/year and $100M/year this no longer holds. Instead of spending the money, it gets invested. Generally speaking, Someone with $1B spends about as much as someone with $5B and about as much as someone with $500M. > the net gain is going to be higher from those that spend more money. > [the rich] were already being asked to pay more…
I disagree.
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I guess my joke didn't come across. The Constitution already has the words "no ex post facto law shall be passed" in it (my joke is that all that work going back to try to add it would be wasted) right after the words that congress can't just declare someone guilty of a crime without a trial. Just Google "no ex post facto shall be passed."
Re: Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Perha…
This comment is one big logic failure. First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't). Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which…
> This comment is one big logic failure.
Well, yeah, because my comment uses rhetoric, not logic.
> First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention.
In the interest of keeping this post relatively short, I'm not going to make a fully fleshed out argument for whether or not supply-side economics is intended to distribute wealth upwards since that will basically come down to a bunch of quotes showing who knew what and when, but I will say that, whether intended or not, there has been a steady upward distribution of wealth since roughly 1980.
> The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't).
Perhaps that second link is a bit of a non sequitur there, but it is a reponse to the parent's claim that the "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."
> Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which is a peculiar statement about the nation with the greatest manufacturing output in the world and the 3rd most competitive manufacturing sector.
First off, it's worth pointing out that manufacturing makes up only 12.2% of the GDP based on output and employs only 9% of the total workforce (13% if you include jobs that manufacturing supports) [1], so even if we accept your premise that manufacturing is somehow not part of a consumer-based economy, then, no, the US does not have a manufacturing-based economy, or whatever type of economy you thought was based on manufacturing that wasn't consumer-based.
Now for your implied point that manufacturing isn't part of a consumer-based economy; A consumer-based economy just means that consumer spending drives the economy instead of gross private domestic investment [2], government spending [3], or exports minus imports. Consumer spending has made up at least 65% of the GDP since 1983 [4].
> Finally, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about economic policy in the 1930s or not, but I'm going to suggest a refresher course in the material just in case.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. but the economic policy at the time, either implicitly or explicitly, was to redistribute wealth downwards through massive government spending (eg painting a mural, building a damn or highway or bridge or battleship, or occupying various parts of Europe and Asia).
> The parent comment wasn't really talking about economic inequality directly anyhow, it was discussing the potential danger inherent in an democratic system when the majority willingly votes away the property of the minority.
First, unabridged possession of property is not some sort of basic human right. Up until America's reaction against socialism and communism abroad in the 1910's and 1920's private property wasn't considered personal.
Second, Taxes aren't the voting away of property, but rather the price for being a member of a society.
[1]: http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufactu... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investme... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending [4]: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/econ...
