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

Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#881

Post by throwaway09223 »

johnwyles wrote: post #844
tempsy wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No my main point is that people on here are reading into Rabois’ comments on quality of life issues at face value and not recognizing that his move out of state at this moment in time has to do with avoiding taxes on his IPO gains and not much else.

I moved out of state BEFORE an IPO on options gained while working in CA that I then purchased as a resident outside of CA. This does not work as others are describing it. CA did and will come after anyone who earned options while in the state.

You had ISOs or NSOs either granted or vested or both while in CA and those count as income earned in CA. CA will tax that income, even if you don't realize the gains until after you leave the state.

A VC is investing in a company, like any other stock investment. There is no earned income.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#882

Post by BobbyJo »

DSingularity wrote: post #848
BobbyJo wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can echo this. I loved the bay when I first moved here 8 years ago, but the political dynamic of the area, and the ever growing drug/homelessness crisis said dynamic is completely unable to deal with, both have just worn my enthusiasm away.

It is unbecoming to point at the homeless and blame them for making our cities unattractive. These are human beings with souls and emotions. When they make us feel uncomfortable with their appearance or behavior we should remember they lead lives where they are likely suffering most of every day. We as a people have failed to create a society with space for these people to exist in peace, happiness, and good health.…

They are people, and I feel for the trouble they are in, but no amount of compassion or empathy could convince me to take a stroll through a majority of SF downtown after dark. Likewise with many of the South Bay trails and parks. I don't even go to SF downtown during the day anymore because of the number of times I've almost stepped in human feces, and the needles strewn about.

8 years of liberal politicians claiming to care, and 8 years later it is significantly worse. I could excuse the lack of progress if the city government wasn't rolling in money the entire time. If they can't solve the problem with the way things were, they are going to have a hell of time doing it with the way they are headed.

Edit: I'd also like to point out society does not exist to gift every person peace, safety, and health. A just society offers opportunities, not guarantees.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#883

Post by asdff »

residentfoam wrote: post #137
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #70

I'd love to hear from people who want to stay in the Bay area what is unique that you cannot find elsewhere in cheaper locales. I lived in Mountain View for 3 months during 500 startups and the valley proper was the most garden variety suburban existence you could find anywhere. I lived in SF proper off and on and can attest that it certainly has (had?) fantastic restaurants/shops and a particular type of culture tha…

If I could, I'd leave tomorrow, but, besides tech, there is another unique aspect of Bay Area: the Biotech scene. My wife works in Biotech and the only other alternative for us would be the Boston area. But, after running some numbers pro/cons, the Bay Area wins. So we are stuck here ... for now.

You can work in biotech in any city on the west coast

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#884

Post by joshuamorton »

tekknik wrote: post #769
commandlinefan wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually do have high quality produce and food here in North Texas, too.

Pretty much anywhere other than SF can have fresher food. It’s a city, you can’t compete with farm fresh from down the road.

Uhm, there's some of the most diverse produce farmland in the country close to the bay. You get a much wider variety of farm-fresh bproduce there then in much of the rural south, for example (and yes I've lived in both).

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#885

Post by chordalkeyboard »

jbay808 wrote: post #875
yanderekko wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ll be simultaneously grateful and also resentful towards the squandering of resources that you could direct towards better ends.

If you want to put them towards better ends, donations are tax free.

Voluntary bloodletting is not a treatment for parasite infestation.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#886

Post by [deleted] »

g9yuayon wrote: post #865
greensquirrel wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they just never really liked the city. Pretty hard to like a city where a non-trivial portion of the residents are hating on you and blaming you and others like you for many problems of their own doing. I left a year ago and I personally hope both San Francisco and all of California suffers fiscal collapse. The state grossly mistreats it's most productive citizens, when its those very citizens that fund the greates…

I'm not sure. Most of us voted the same group of politicians year in and year out, right? It looks we lost check and balance years ago, but that's voters' choice, no?

[deleted]

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#887

Post by bourgeoismedia »

tempsy wrote: post #857
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California actually has fairly carefully considered taxation of equity compensation. It might be that the structure Rabois has put together allows him to avoid taxes on equity after he moves; but most people who are leaving will still have to pay those taxes when they finally sell. Regarding their actions being a symbolic betrayal of the Bay Area, I suspect most of them feel betrayed. High income tax in California do…

Different situations. If you’re a VC you’re simply buying preferred shares. Shouldn’t be owing anything until you sell. And if your residence for that tax year is somewhere else I don’t know of any reason why California could claim capital gains tax simply because you invested in a pre-IPO company and selling post IPO. The reason some people are surprised by tax bills when they move is because they vested their share…

If you held the preferred shares while you were a resident of California, why shouldn't you be subject to California CGT when you realize the gain in proportion to the length of your residency, just like if it were deferred employment compensation (taxed by CA in proportion to workdays in CA vs workdays elsewhere) or real estate (taxed in full by CA)?

Why should VCs get a tax preference employees don't get?

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#888

Post by solidsnack9000 »

tempsy wrote: post #857
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California actually has fairly carefully considered taxation of equity compensation. It might be that the structure Rabois has put together allows him to avoid taxes on equity after he moves; but most people who are leaving will still have to pay those taxes when they finally sell. Regarding their actions being a symbolic betrayal of the Bay Area, I suspect most of them feel betrayed. High income tax in California do…

Different situations. If you’re a VC you’re simply buying preferred shares. Shouldn’t be owing anything until you sell. And if your residence for that tax year is somewhere else I don’t know of any reason why California could claim capital gains tax simply because you invested in a pre-IPO company and selling post IPO. The reason some people are surprised by tax bills when they move is because they vested their share…

Well, this point specifically applies to options. Per FTB-1004 (https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1004.html) you will be taxed whenever you exercise, whether you're a resident or a non-resident. Doesn't matter if you're out-of-state for a particular tax year.

It is not really correct to cast this in terms of owing taxes on income in the state that you earned it because options are not income. There is a non-symmetry here with financial options generally: if you lived in California and bought some options, then left the state, and then, as a non-resident, exercised the options and sold shares, you would not be taxed in California because there was no income in California. Income on a stock transaction is generally recognized at the time a security is sold. Obtaining options and stocks both represent an outflow of money, not an inflow. It's a regressive policy to treat options purchased in-kind with labor in an unfavorable way, with regards to taxation, relative to those purchased with cash.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#889

Post by xvedejas »

dcolkitt wrote: post #821
nus07 wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree on almost all of your points with a few caveats. - Cars : The Bay Area is very walkable but that’s mainly SF. The tech burbs of Palo Alto , Menlo Park are not super walkable and you are relying on the BART and other public transport . But Covid has destroyed public transport and cuts in funding threaten them further. LGBT : This is not really the 80s and 90s . Most big cities from DC, Atlanta, Austin ,Chicago…

> The Bay Area is very walkable but that’s mainly SF. The tech burbs of Palo Alto , Menlo Park are not super walkable and you are relying on the BART and other public transport . Even SF is not very walkable compared to Chicago, DC, Philly, Boston, etc. (All significantly cheaper than SF.) Even by American standards, the BART is a pretty second-rate metro. (And that's not even counting the fact that nowadays it's ess…

To push back a bit: SF proper must have the best bus system of any city in the US. It's possible to get pretty much anywhere in a reasonable amount of time, even late at night, with just a quick bus ride or two. I won't say MUNI is perfect but it's doing a lot of things right. Anyone who thinks BART is synonymous with SF's inner city transportation is really not making their way around the city by transit.

Re: Tech elites leaving San Francisco threaten Silicon Valley's supremacy

#890

Post by solidsnack9000 »

bourgeoismedia wrote: post #887
tempsy wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different situations. If you’re a VC you’re simply buying preferred shares. Shouldn’t be owing anything until you sell. And if your residence for that tax year is somewhere else I don’t know of any reason why California could claim capital gains tax simply because you invested in a pre-IPO company and selling post IPO. The reason some people are surprised by tax bills when they move is because they vested their share…

If you held the preferred shares while you were a resident of California, why shouldn't you be subject to California CGT when you realize the gain in proportion to the length of your residency, just like if it were deferred employment compensation (taxed by CA in proportion to workdays in CA vs workdays elsewhere) or real estate (taxed in full by CA)? Why should VCs get a tax preference employees don't get?

Yeah, it's weird that in California that if one does an in-kind transaction to obtain options or shares with labor, it's treated unfavorably relative to a cash transaction for the same things. It's a regressive tax: a special case to tax working people more for gains on equity. The normal way to recognize income on equities is at the time of sale.

This is one of a few examples where California's progressive politics haven't lead to progressive policies, whereas states that are much more non-progressive in their politics -- states like Texas -- have, as a practical matter, policies that are much better for working people.

I suppose that, hypothetically, when you purchase shares with cash it's "post-tax" cash; whereas when you purchase shares with labor it's "pre-tax" labor.

Post reply on HN