

Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California - protomyth
http://pandodaily.com/2013/03/25/because-of-asset-seizures-i-am-starting-my-new-company-outside-california/

======
joshAg
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 Yorkers’ combined state and local top rate of 12.7% and Hawaii’s top rate
of 11%. The income tax hikes are retroactive to Jan. 1, 2012, but the extra
bill isn’t due until April 15, 2013. (See below for a photo gallery of the
highest state and local income taxes on a $1 million income post election.)

Still, all Californians will be chipping in: Proposition 30 also raises the
state sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5% for four years, starting Jan. 1, 2013."[1]

[1]:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/11/08/califor...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/11/08/california-
voters-sock-it-to-the-rich-and-the-fate-of-other-state-tax-ballot-measures/)

~~~
muzz
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.

~~~
mentat
The issue is that it's retroactive. That income had become an asset to
suddenly be considered as income again. The retroactive nature of the
proposition was not in any of the official summary documentation for the
election either.

~~~
joshAg
That's not what happened, 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.

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

~~~
muzz
Read the author's previous pieces-- very little logic, lots of California-
hate.

The premise of this article, Prop 30, is nothing new. Rehashing of the same
things (from the same author no less) must give PandoDaily some page views or
something

~~~
niggler
"Rehashing of the same things (from the same author no less) must give
PandoDaily some page views or something"

PandoDaily is all about the page views.

------
Glyptodon
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.

~~~
abrown28
Come to Texas. You know you want too :)

~~~
Glyptodon
Offer me a job in San Antonio or Austin and I'll be there. :)

~~~
muzz
the key thing that "come to Texas" commenters fail to realize is that
opportunity and taxes are not independent variables

------
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.

~~~
joshAg
> 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.

Perhaps, but the US's domestic policy from about 1980 has been an intentional
distribution of wealth: [1].

And on top of that, americans prefer much more evenly distributed wealth than
the current situation: [2].

Source article for [1] and [2] is [3].

> 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).

The US has a consumer based economy, so wouldn't more consumers be a good
thing since it would require the producers to produce more, which would create
more jobs? Also, wasn't the main problem with the recession that most
companies couldn't find enough consumers willing to buy their product? I think
you have this part backwards.

> 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.

It seemed to work pretty well in the 1930's and 1940's.

[1]:
[http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_a...](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png)
[2]:[http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-
page2...](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-
page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png) [3]:
[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-
inequalit...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-
in-america-chart-graph)

~~~
bhb916
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>

~~~
joshAg
> 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...](http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-
Manufacturing/Landing.aspx) [2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investment)
[3]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending> [4]:
[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/econ...](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/economy/consumergdp.jpg)

~~~
bhb916
Thanks for the follow-up post. I'm not going to continue this dead thread, but
I do appreciate the reply.

------
eighteyes
I'm glad I turned down the interview offer from bleacher report. ;)

