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

151–160 of 318 posts

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

#151

Post by redthrowaway »

enraged_camel wrote: post #82
kjackson2012 wrote: post #71

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…

High taxes aren't an issue, since healthcare is free and there is a very strong social safety net.

Also, taxes aren't high.

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

#152

Post by Domenic_S »

pc86 wrote: post #79
rayiner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, I think you'll see more of these problems as states get crushed under their existing debt and new expenditures from pension obligations, etc. See: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2...

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.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist. If the State killed all new pensions they'd still have to pay existing obligations.

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

#154

Post by robfig »

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...

I was not under the impression that public sector employees are paid significantly less than private sector. This seems to be the most reputable source I could find:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/...

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

#155

Post by rgbrenner »

jstalin wrote: post #126
jstalin wrote: post #63

Come to (western) Michigan. We have new corporate tax reforms that dramatically reduced liabilities (6% rate for C-Corps, flow-through taxation for LLCs and S-Corps, personal income tax rate of 4.3%), we have a 6% sales tax, low property taxes, very cheap housing (compared to much of the nation), well-educated workforce, and liberal gun laws (for the guy who wouldn't move to NY). Our 4.3% income tax rate is still low…

Forgot to mention - it costs $50 to form an LLC in Michigan and takes about a week (I've heard horror stories about forming an LLC in CA). $100 additional for same-day service. And you don't have to publicly disclose the LLC's members, only the registered agent, which can be an attorney or any other resident of the state. Forming a Michigan corporation is $60 and has a few more public disclosure requirements.

A whole $50?! Colorado: $1.00 for your Articles of Incorporation (Corp) or Articles of Organization (LLC). It's online filing.. takes a day(?).

http://sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/fees/business.html#B...

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

#156

Post by talmand »

jibjaba wrote: post #61

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…

So, there can't be a disagreement over what the definition of what a modern government is or what's required to run it? What if my idea of a modern government costs less than your modern government?

What if my modern government gives out free money taken from people, through high taxation, with screen names that start with j? Can I tell you to shut up because you are refusing to provide the funds necessary to run a modern government?

Keep in mind that different people have different ideas about what is needed in government. Debates over taxation is just simply a symptom of that.

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

#157

Post by jstalin »

rgbrenner wrote: post #155
jstalin wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgot to mention - it costs $50 to form an LLC in Michigan and takes about a week (I've heard horror stories about forming an LLC in CA). $100 additional for same-day service. And you don't have to publicly disclose the LLC's members, only the registered agent, which can be an attorney or any other resident of the state. Forming a Michigan corporation is $60 and has a few more public disclosure requirements.

A whole $50?! Colorado: $1.00 for your Articles of Incorporation (Corp) or Articles of Organization (LLC). It's online filing.. takes a day(?). http://sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/fees/business.html#B...

LOL, ok, you win.

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

#158

Post by msmith »

w1ntermute wrote: post #106
kyrra wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your state's gun laws prevent me from ever living there.

Take a look at the Great State of Texas. It is quite free when it comes to gun laws. For example, I believe it is the only state in which you are allowed to use lethal force to defend your property. And there's the added benefit that if you learn some basic Spanish, you can hire illegal immigrant labor to do all your housework and gardening for a pittance (this can be done without knowing Spanish, but then you end up…

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...

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

#159

Post by dragonwriter »

smsm42 wrote: post #104
flagnog wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and you can't legally buy a Big Gulp. Seriously, and city/county/state govt that would do that, you can't trust them with your livelihood.

If the government thinks they need to tell you how big a drink you can have, and the citizens agree with it, there's something seriously wrong with both. OTOH, we have plastic bag ban in California and lightbulb ban federally, if I remember correctly, so it's not that easy nowdays to find a place to live where there's not something seriously wrong with it.

You remember incorrectly.

There is no statewide plastic bag ban in California (though some California municipalities have restrictions on plastic grocery bags).

And there is no federal lightbulb ban (there is a federal rule providing energy efficiency standards for certain categories of lightbulbs which sets increasing standards including ones which many currently-popular incandescent bulbs would fail; the intent of the bill was to encourage development and sale of more efficient lighting devices, which it has done.)

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

#160

Post by illuminate »

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...

"Saying they should eliminate one of the better benefits public sector employees get is stupid"

It's not stupid to them, they want labor compliant, they don't want better options available to compare to.

"Why worry about retirement? You should be lucky you HAVE a job..."

Post reply on HN