but do people who spent >= 60 days in california one time continue to accrue benefits from their visit over the next decade? that's the egregious part.
The tax is based on the fraction of time spent in CA, both days and years. The intent (for years) is likely to avoid people striking it rich in startups/movies/etc, and then immediately leaving the state to avoid a tax on the windfall. The intent (for days) is probably to avoid a high net worth CEO "moving" to a close state and flying in frequently to conduct an in-state business. I don't know many working people who spend 60 days/year on vacation :-)
"... percentage of days in the year such taxpayer was present"
"... the portion of a taxpayer’s wealth subject to the tax imposed by this part shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be years of residence in California over the 10 last years, and the denominator of which shall be 10"
So taking a contrived example of someone most affected who visited for the briefest of 60 day visits one time in 10 years, we would have 60/365 * 1/10 * 0.4% = .006%/yr tax. That seems pretty reasonable for a CEO/movie-star/whatever who visits (most likely to earn more money based on in-state activities). Even over the ten year period this amounts to 0.06% which is TINY. For someone with $100M net worth, over ten years it would amount to $42K of state tax (note that the first $30M is not taxed).
