The FTB did not 'take its ball and go home.' The Court told the FTB that it was not allowed to favor [EDIT: investment in qualifying] California corporations that way to begin with. An alternative would have been to extend the tax break to all companies that do business in California and send them a refund check for every year the QSB rule had been in place, but the FTB most likely doesn't have that much money available.
From the law:
(1) The term "qualified small business" means any domestic
corporation (as defined in Section 7701(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue
Code) which is a C corporation if all of the following apply:
Because the act explicitly qualifies that the exemption applies only if ALL conditions are met there is no question of legislative intent or judicial remedy that could be applied. There is no possibility of "revised terms" because that would mean essentially rewriting the statute to make some conditions
optional, which was not the intent of the law.
Thus the entire statute(18152.5) is unworkable as explained by the FTB:
I'm not at all sure that the FTB has the authority to do that. It's a statute that was struck down, not an agency rule. If the CA legislature wants to make it up to everyone, it could craft some legislation to that effect, but I don't see how the FTB is empowered to start issuing checks on its own authority.
Why didn't you report this number?
In the original article, he didn't even mention the amount of tax breaks given by the code thus far.
I doubt the purpose of the article is to inform, as much as it is to tell you that you should be outraged about something anti-entrepreneurial done by California.
I do think there's a problem here of notice; I can't pretend I'd feel enthusiastic about having to pay 5 years of back taxes if I had been enjoying this tax break [edit: well it's a deferral rather than a break, but it's still a benefit]. But as you say, that's not up to the FTB; some other taxpayer will have to sue the state and argue successfully against retroactive taxation.
It's at the end of section 3 (pagination doesn't work properly on GS at present). Seems pretty unambiguous to me.
PS: I think the least you could do is update your blog post to remove the factual inaccuracies and correct the misapprehensions of your readers; most of the commenters at the blog page appear to have taken your explanation at face value.
Thanks for your interest in this matter,
Here's that link:
And here's the specific section I'm referring to:
As noted previously,16 the same definitional provisions upon which the property and payroll requirement is
derived for purposes of gain deferral under Section 18038.5 apply also with respect to qualification for gain
exclusion under Section 18152.5(a). However, the Court of Appeal’s decision addressed the
constitutionality of the gain deferral provision under Section 18038.5 only, and the facts before the court did
not involve the gain exclusion provision under Section 18152.5(a). Thus, the court’s decision did not
address whether the property and payroll requirement would cause the gain exclusion provision under
Section 18152.5(a) to also be deemed unconstitutional. The court’s decision in Cutler also did not address
whether the unconstitutional definitional language in Section 18152.5 (and the Section 18038.5(b)(1) crossreference
to that language), upon which the property and payroll requirement is based, could be excised
from the statutes or whether the decision would operate to invalidate both statutes in their entirety.
Finally, as discussed above, the Court of Appeal declined to decide whether the taxpayer should be afforded
the refund requested or whether some other appropriate remedy, if any, should apply and instead remanded
the case to the trial court for further proceedings to address the remaining factual dispute and, if appropriate,
EDIT: If talking to legal and tax expects leaves you only feeling "upset" instead of "seeking remedy", then it seems that what the FTB did is in accordance to the law, and that you simply don't like it.
You could probably argue that some of the other things in the ruling very strongly suggest that the Court didn't understand the scope of the statute and the impact of invalidating the statute as a whole and might have said something different if it was reasoning clearly, but even though it might be a result you favor in this case, I doubt you really want executive agencies to start applying court decisions based on what they think the court would have ruled had it been reasoningly clearly rather than what the court actually ruled.
I can't plan today for what yesterday's laws will be tomorrow.
Yes, the private sector has been much more effective than the public sector in collectively diminishing workers' wages and benefits in recent years. The logical conclusion is not that the public sector should do more to keep up with the downward spiral.
I am looking out my window now at a city project to build a park that is maybe 25 yards wide and 75 yards long. The property sits between a private car lot and an office building with no nearby parking, so I'll be surprised if I ever see anyone use it. That of of course assumes it is ever finished. It has been under construction for just over a year and still looks nowhere near complete. We joked a couple months ago while we watched workers move dirt from one pile to another and back again over the course of a month.
Now of course this is a small probably <$5M project, but if government can't manage it how am I supposed to trust them to manage healthcare or retirement? So yes, it baffles me how any reasonable person could look at the retirement and health benefits situation in our country and come to the conclusion that government can provide a fix.
You can engage in all the a priori pleading you like, but until you address that empirical, real-world fact there is no worthwhile argument to be had.
Secondly and to your point, I am only speaking of defined-benefit "If you work here for x years you get y% of your salary." This is to say nothing of the health care (which is generally better than the private sector), the hours (which if you don't work for a legislator are generally better than the private sector), the guaranteed pay raise every year, the access to jobs you can only apply to if you already have a state job, and various small perks like free or cheap parking, food, etc. These are all benefits of the job and I had to take a serious look at the health care and hours for a state job when deciding between that and a corporate offer.
I'm not here to argue whether or not defined-benefit retirement plans are inherently good or bad. I'm saying it's irresponsible and dangerous for a state to guarantee by law that they'll pay anyone a fixed amount of money for decades at some distant point in the future. This is why it's most dangerous. If the state gets bankrupted by some unforeseen catastrophe 30 years from now, it can't suspend, eliminate or trim pension payouts. Not even $0.01. By definition the fact that pensions offer better retirement income than defined-contribution plans like a 401k should be a giant red flag. The system implodes if you can't at least break even off of it, and if it was possible to make money off of them the private sector would still be using them.
He didn't call you stupid for expressing an opinion, he called that particular view stupid.
This isn't 7th grade — come up with another word that really means what you want to say. There are a lot of ways to disagree with someone and/or an idea without the derogatory language.
Of course, when legislators pass pension hikes, they do so knowing that it pleases powerful unions now and the costs to tax payers are decades down the road. So it is one of the more appealing ways for a legislator to screw their state. They may even be out of office by the time the bill comes due!
Defined-benefit pensions are a huge drag on many state budgets, and paying them does nothing to improve the quality of current government services. The bluer the state, the more they are screwed:
Contrary to what you say, most people don't choose teaching because of the benefit plans. They might do it because they only have to work 75% of the time, but it isn't the benefits. They choose it because that is what they want to do. Help kids, teach, etc.
The benefits do not make sense as a reason to do this job. If that's what you're going for, you'd just take a job in the private sector, work more, and make a lot more money.
Yes, I understand this might mean we have to pay higher salaries, but it will be far less than these crazy benefits they are getting.
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..."
...but the governments are on the side of the government workers (most government workers are unionized and these funds lobby the politicians).
The result is that it becomes an "us vs them" fight, and while common citizens may theoretically have political power through the ballot box, in practice power is mostly exercised through campaign donations and backroom deals, so the politicians are taking the decisions that they're incentivized to take: stealing seed corn and feeding it to the public sector employees.
Isn't that what they're trying to do? :D But I guess this is a typo for "public sector"...
The US is quickly going to learn that there is a rather modern country to the north that isn't in the same financial distress as Europe or most states are.
I'd imagine given that, this line of thinking would probably play itself out pdq.
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 double-checked this for accuracy.
You can't compete between Washington State, with no state income tax, and Vancouver, BC.
>Vancouver, BC has barely any tech industry
Let's just ignore the fact that MS has a development centre in Vancouver, specifically because its easier to hire game developers here. Halo is being written here.
> British Columbia has one of the highest tax rate in Canada.
You may want to tell that to BC: http://www.bcjobsplan.ca/?facts=b-c-lowest-personal-taxes
>One of my Canadian friends told me that the 50% marginal tax rate started around $65k, although I haven't double-checked this for accuracy.
Your friend is either an idiot, or hasn't lived here in a long, long time.
>You can't compete between Washington State, with no state income tax, and Vancouver, BC
How's your health care? How much does that cost your employer?
There are many great things about WA. I love it. However if the state is going to retroactively go after companies, BC starts to become very, very attractive. We are not that different, tax wise. We obviously need to stay competitive.
Wow, MS centre! It will save us all. And they don't have MS centers anywhere else, right? Vancouver here.
* All of Canada has as many my profile job openings as Seattle.
* Salaries are lower here than there.
* Taxes are higher here than there.
* Prices are higher here than there.
* Selection of everything is miserable here.
* It's impossible to have a career if you can't talk hockey for 2 hours. Nobody gives a f$%k about your abilities - you must be "one of us".
> How's your health care?
Pathetic, thank you. I just waited 4 months for an ultrasound. They said everything was OK - but why then would I have insisted on it in the first place?
> BC starts to become very, very attractive
Do you have a house for sale? Because it sure sounds like it. BC does not start to become very, very attractive to anyone ambitious and able - and these guys will go to US for the same reason that all ambitious and able Canadians move to US.
There are M.D. taxi drivers and Ph.D. WalMart cashiers here - because their names are Davinder and Reza rather than Sean and Tim.
No doubt, BC is a great place for natural resources barons, drug traffickers, porn and gambling shops, and bribe-happy Party officials from China. It's extremely neophobic, hypocritical and hostile to changes.
I mean just look at where it ranks!
This point is significant in and of itself. It's no coincidence that health insurance is a central point in just about every major recent union dispute.
Health insurance is wildly expensive, and the cost to private corporations is not to be underestimated. Anyone who's ever had to provide health insurance to employees is acutely familiar with these costs.
Yes, Vancouver has some tech companies, but I wouldn't call it anything like a tech hub like Ottawa or Toronto. Also, UBC and SFU do not have a strong tech program. I'm sure it's average compared to most cities, but you won't find the same amounts of tech people in Vancouver like you will in Seattle or Silicon Valley. In fact, I'd bet that most above average developers in Vancouver would move to a more tech-oriented city.
He also mentioned that the cost of housing in Vancouver is twice the amount of Seattle. Not sure how accurate that is either.
Some of Microsoft's game studios may be based there, but I believe this is not necessarily true for Halo. 343 Industries is based in Kirkland.
Long ago, when I moved to the US from Canada, I figure out what I'd owe in tax in Canada vs. what I was paying in the US.
Keep in mind that I owed a home (mortgage interest deduction) and maxed out my 401k (which isn't a % of income like Canada).
I was only making $50K/yr, but I was taking home an extra $5K by living in the US and not Canada. 10% more income is pretty good, no?
I think your friend has very poor math skills.
$65K gross income in BC nets nearly $52K; a ~20% average tax rate. This is before any eligible deductions.
Even if your friend was making $1,000,000 gross salary, they'd still pay less than 42% tax on average, and that's ignoring several legal tax shelters available to all Canadians.
I'd be interested in an objective comparison of SF, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver from the perspective of a startup and ~10-20 developers making O($100k/yr) each. Maybe throw in Las Vegas or Austin, for the lowest possible US case, and someplace like Calgary for the cheapest Canadian case.
Superior Canadian immigration rules would seem to dominate if taxes are even within 50% of each other in some cases (founders or substantial early employees not being willing or able to work in the US), and would also dominate in cases like "gaming", anything privacy/anonymity based where US law was an issue, etc. I'm not sure how Canadian investment rules work (I know there's the weird R&D tax credit, and there were issues until recently with taxing or reporting gains).
Corporate taxes are lower in Canada, but there are other mandatory payroll costs like CPP (9.9% of the first eligible $50k earned split 50/50 between employer/employee) and EI (employer pays 1.4x whatever the employee pays at 1.88% of the first eligible $50K earned).
Don't forget that BC has 12% sales tax and monthly premiums for health insurance.
Income tax is only one of the many taxes.
Correct on MSP (Medical Services Plan). Personally, I'd love to abolish this and roll it into general revenues. It's a nightmare.
BC health premiums are $65/month for a single person. Sales tax is a consumption tax and not really relevant.
We have however shown a remarkable ability to vote for people that tell us we can't afford things we can't afford. We took drastic austerity measures in the 90's and we actually voted for it - twice.
I'm not too worried about our finances, once people get the numbers in front of them, they tend to be convinced.
But no, the Canadian healthcare system is not going to pull you under.
The reason why Vancouver is so bad for housing is because wealthy foreign investors see Vancouver as a stable store of value for their money. It's a complicated bank account for large sums of money.
Alberta is the money making place to be in Canada, since the resource industry & banking drives over %50 of the TSX. Rent is also a lot better in Alberta. But Canada is not a country right now to be a techie compared to the USA. It's a great place to be in the oil industry although.
The reason I suggested Vancouver is because of it's proximity. It's pretty much the same place.
0 - http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/26375
1 - http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm
2 - http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-budgets-call-for-cu...
3 - http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-polit...
(Texas is my home state. I left, though I keep close ties to it through family and frequent visits.)
Water is going to be the biggest issue this legislative session. California has similar water problems.
Schools... are complicated. That one might not get fixed, but performance is better correlated with household income than education spending.
Roads are easy. Tolls. The people who use the roads pay for them.
Texas is my home state as well. I went to California for a few years, then came back. I don't plan on leaving.
Unless Texas is going to take water from Oklahoma by force, I wasn't meaning a solution to the problem from the state government. Texas is in a long-term, structural drought. The Ogallala aquifer is a shadow of its former self and the next major underground aquifer in East Texas is in danger of being rendered unusable by the Keystone pipeline. Several surface lakes have simply gone...away (check out aerial maps near Bronte).
As for tolling, I suppose the city folk will just keep letting paid for highways like 121 or capacity expansions (basically anything; 820, 183, Westpark, 635) go toll because hey, poor people don't need to get around. Mass transit will take care of that. Oops, no it won't. Besides, developers in rural areas gotta have their pristine FM roads (which are paid for by the state).
I didn't leave Texas for California (heavens, no) and I had the chance to come back this year making more money than I do in the (higher cost of living) state where I now live. Couldn't do it. Until the Legislature gets its head out of its ass and realizes that government is expensive--both for needed things like roads and schools, and nice to have things like state parks--and that you just dishonestly can't cut your way to perfection, my state is going to be set up more and more for long-term failure. Even the Comptroller, who is legally required to make an accurate assessment of the state's income, can't get it all to balance without slight of hand.
0 - Sure, the state government hasn't raised taxes or imposed new fees in years. They just leave that hatchet job for the local governments. Never mind the several billion dollars earning crap for interest in the "rainy day fund" that's never once seen an emergency worthy of tapping it.
My apologies for the extreme derail; I'll stop ranting now.
HN: where all y'all learn you somethin'.
And I do visit the Bay Area regularly as I work for Twilio. I just wouldn't want to live there.
Water is a problem...a BIG problem. But...we have a large coastline, salinated deep water tables etc, so if it comes down to it we could expensively desalinate. That would be brutal, though.
As far as schools -- the overall decline in public schools is counter-balanced by the rise of good charter schools. If you care about your kids' education there are options.
The road situation is kind-of a pain but here in Austin and Central Texas area at least, we have improving public transportation. And there is the toll option (of which I am not a fan).
But the tax policy is pretty nice. And Austin cannot be beat in terms of livability if you can stand the summer heat. I think we have a $20-25 billion surplus this year so we won't be going broke anytime soon.
For what it's worth, Texas has never had a $25bln surplus. In the 2011 biennium, the budget had to cover a $27bln shortfall. (Note that all Texas budgets are written to cover two years, as the Legislature meets for 140 days on every odd-numbered year.) This biennium's budget will start out with approximately $8bln in unspent revenue (mostly left over from dramatic cuts made in the 2011 two-year budget) and starting out with $5.3bln in "unpaid bills" around the Women's Health Insurance Program and natural disaster spending. (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/he...)
Yeah, didn't think so...
> a third of the city's 210,000 people live below the poverty line, making it the poorest city of its size in California. But a police lieutenant can retire in his 50s and take home $230,000 in one-time payouts on his last day, before settling in with a guaranteed $128,000-a-year pension.
> In 2009, patrol lieutenant Richard Taack retired at the age of 59, after 37 years of service. He took home $389,727 that year, including $194,820 in unused sick time and $33,721 for unused vacation time, according to city payroll records. Shortly after Taack retired - on an annual lifetime pension of $128,000 - he was hired part-time by Penman's city attorney's office, at $32 an hour.
Total effective tax rate is: 37.4%
A bit higher than I thought it would be overall, but not quite close to 55%. Of course, if you're at that level of income you should probably set up an S-corp to save on SE tax and dump some money into a 401(k) to further reduce your taxable income.
Over $85,650 but not over $178,650 -> $17,442.50 plus 28% of the excess over $85,650
Total federal payment: 17.4 + .28(150-85) = 35.6
35.6 over 150 = .23, and that's before factoring in the deduction you get to take for your California payment, or the standard deduction if you choose not to itemize.
What your suggesting seems like a horrible idea. The point of a pension is that it's a guaranteed obligation. Being able to absolve yourself of it with a bankruptcy is a wonderful way to screw over the workers who paid into it their entire lives.
I think what most people have a problem with is that pension benefits are written by politicians who've are strongly supported by union's and looking out for their interest while no-one is watching out for the interest of the tax payer. As a result, pensions are gamed to max out the benefits by working overtime etc. There should be caps on the size of pensions. Bankruptcy could be used as a tool to re-negotiate some of these abusive pension benefits.
The state is too big. You need too big of a budget to campaign here. So the unions dominate.
I say split the state in half.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that they was a blatant money grab. </sarcasm>
I'm pretty sure "Ex Post Facto" is dead.
See the post by David Redden in this thread: http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/ex-post-facto-law.
"Secondly, while there’s some evidence that some of the “framers” thought “ex post facto” included civil laws, it’s well-established that the most influential federalists in the late 18th Century understood an “ex post facto law” to mean a law that was 1) criminal, 2) functioned retroactively, and 3) worked to the detriment of the accused. (See Crosskey, The True Meaning of the Constitutional Prohibition of Ex-Post Facto Laws, 14 U.Chi.L.Rev. 539 (1947))."
This situation was instigated by a successful lawsuit against the FTB. I wonder if another one is on the way. According to this, however, courts have ruled that retroactive tax laws are not considered ex post facto.
Potential arguments include due process, "wholly new tax", lack of notice, ex post facto (with the same caveat as mentioned here about applicability only to criminal cases), and the fifth amendment taking clause.
Conclusion: it's hard to fight.
On the other hand capital gains is 20-30%, and most entrepreneurs actually have their gains taxed as income. That means you're lucky if you get to keep 13%. ;) I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much.
The difference between the US and postage-stamp-sized European countries like Sweden is that there is great political and cultural variation between different parts of the US. California is chock full of socialists/liberals.
At 174K mi^2, Sweden is larger than California's 164K mi^2.
By no stretch of the imagination is interpreting a widely-used phrase as it's widely used "being intentionally obtuse."
I already addressed this point below in response to another reply: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062138
> Given that we elected Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and David Dreier, California's chock full o' wingnuts as well as socialists/liberals.
I'm not familiar with Dreier, but there's no doubt that Californians have a soft spot for actors.
Where do you get that? The Constitution says simply:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Period, end of story. Just because someone on the Internet says this applies only to criminal law doesn't make it so.
See Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 58 U.S. 456 (1854):
"The debates in the federal convention upon the Constitution show that the terms "ex post facto laws" were understood in a restricted sense, relating to criminal cases only, and that the description of Blackstone of such laws was referred to for their meaning. 3 Mad.Pap. 1399, 1450, 1579.
This signification was adopted in this Court shortly after its organization in opinions carefully prepared, and has been repeatedly announced since that time. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87; 33 U. S. 8 Pet. 88; 36 U. S. 11 Pet. 421."
Legislative intent doesn't trump the clear and unambiguous wording of the law, but the clear and unambiguous meaning of "ex post facto law" is the particular class of criminal law that the phrase "ex post facto law" has always referred to.
Unfortunately our law is not only the constitution, but also hundreds of years of decisions surrounding it. Makes it hard for any layperson to actually know what the law is!
Despite flailing politicians on both sides of the aisle, the Constitution is not as clear-cut as that.
Thus, the logical resolution would be to allow those unconstitutionally barred from receiving the benefit to file for retroactive benefits. However, this would allow pretty much any company located anywhere to file for the benefit (at least to my reading; IANAL), completely defeating the purpose of a tax law that encouraged CA businesses and potentially bankrupting the state.
So: someone ignored the spirit of the law and exploited a loophole to get themselves a bigger tax break and instead broke the entire system for everyone. California was stuck between a rock (allowing for pretty much everyone to file for retroactive benefits) and a hard place (nullifying previous year benefits for those who received them).
Nice job, guy.
To me, it sounds more like the unintended consequences of a clever lawsuit and/or a poorly-crafted piece of tax-break legislation. People should be advised that California has a lot of clever lawyers who work to find and exploit holes in legislation.
The provisions in California law regarding the 80 percent asset and payroll requirements were found to be unconstitutional in August 2012 by the California Court of Appeal in Cutler v. Franchise Tax Board (FTB). The court's decision made California's entire QSBS statute invalid and unenforceable. As a result, all QSBS gain exclusions and deferrals previously allowed under California law became invalid. It is important to note that the court's decision in Cutler did not change the federal treatment of QSBS. (Source: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/Qualified_Small_Business_Stock_an...
So the California FTB (and the rest of the states participating in the UDITPA Multistate Tax Compact) use the original "loophole" as a means to essentially siphon off a greater portion of the tax revenue from the occurrence of interstate commerce, and to keep it in the respective state. Washington, Oregon, California all participate (Source: http://www.startuplawblog.com/2012/08/17/interstate-business...)
This would be fine all fine and dandy, but for the fact that most of the "startups" or QSBs that benefit/ed from this exception derive/d revenue from multi-state commerce, on the Internet. This has made it and makes it more difficult for those businesses trying to do their "startup" thing out of state to compete with those here who get more tax breaks to re-invest. Interestingly, most of the VC money - over HALF of all venture capital in the USA -- goes to businesses in California. This is kind of messed up. (Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-20010486-62.html)
So looking at the bright side -- this should encourage startups to start places other than CA.
[Edited to include info about UDITPA in response to dragonwriter's comment]
Probably this is not the last we have heard of this story.
EDIT: Michigan's new corporate income tax also has an alternative rate of 1.8% for Qualified Small Businesses... those with net income under $1.3 million. If your corporation operates outside of Michigan and has no activity in Michigan itself, there is no corporate income tax.
Forming a Michigan corporation is $60 and has a few more public disclosure requirements.
If your method of balancing the budget is always asking for more money, you haven't really balanced the budget.
What are you going to do in a few years when those tax hikes expire, and you suddenly lose the same amount of revenue?
I look forward to a few years when we begin to hear the claim in that we need to make the temporary hikes permanent, because we are running out of money again.
(This is, btw, fairly similar as to how the federal income tax was created. It was originally temporary)
As for the surplus claims: Of course the guy who supported the ballot initiative is going to say it's going to run a surplus.
However, even the ballot initiative booklet mentioned the surplus claims are possibly false, as the kind of revenue they are depending on is very transient and hard to predict.
The independent Legislative Analyst's Office, which had previously said Brown's budget would have had a $1.9 billion shortfall in November, now says that it is roughly in balance due to changes in income tax:
How is increasing revenues not a valid way of balancing a budget? And always asking for more money? Reagan raised the top income tax bracket in California from 7% to 10%. It now stands at 10.3%.
What are you going to do in a few years when those tax hikes expire, and you suddenly lose the same amount of revenue? I look forward to a few years when we begin to hear the claim in that we need to make the temporary hikes permanent, because we are running out of money again.
Considering most of the budget deficit is mostly due to California's substantial social safety net being engaged by the Great Recession, as long as the economy continues to improve, California will probably get by fine with the increased revenues of more people working and lessened burden of people applying for medicaid and unemployment insurance.
I have no knowledge of the LAO, but the federal CBO (which I believe has a similar function, and is supposedly similarly independent) continuously makes projections that are worthless.
One of the reasons for this is that their mandate requires them to assume the current taxation regime; which means that whenever you do tax cuts (e.g. Bush), you do them "temporarily", which means that CBO estimates will necessarily assume they expire. Then you extend them, and -- tada, CBO is never right regardless of how well they do their work.
Politicians hacking the rules they set themselves. If it wasn't sad, I'd say it was entertaining.
Assumes economic growth of exactly 0%.
I'll be proud of California if it works out, but I have my doubts.
But yes, you are technically correct :)
Unfortunately, my local campaign for renaming "leaders" to "rulers" has about as much success as RMS' re-acronyming DRM to "digital restriction management". Actually, even less than that.
I don't understand why the VC and tech community in California stand for this stuff . There should either be more lobbying by the seemingly powerful tech and vc community or mass exodus out of the state. I don't see either happening and I wonder why. Perhaps these things just take time.
Is CA killing the golden goose here?
 I am guilty too by living here at the moment, but I am a relative new comer to the state. The situation is completely baffling to me after being here for almost two years and am exploring other states at the moment.
Seattle, Boulder, and Austin are probably the most viable options right now, if you want more libertarian/sustainable government combined with the same overall feel of the Bay Area. It would be better if there were one place which was head and shoulders better than all the others.
Nothing really touches SFBA for VC, though, and Stanford is probably the world's best university for applied CS with startup involvement.
Any programmer who thinks that they should have any right to have "their own time" and "side projects" should leave for a more friendly state. Like California.
I am not joking.
In New York, you can negotiate a contract to get this clause - it's quite common. The only difference is that contracts without the exemption (ie, total assignments) are considered enforceable, whereas in California, they aren't. That doesn't mean that Californian contracts don't sometimes include those clauses anyway - from a legal strategy standpoint, it's in the company's best interest to do so.
Furthermore, my understanding is that this Californian precedent is rather limited in practice, since it's easy for a company to claim that your product is related to something that the company is doing or is planning on doing (and hard to prove otherwise), and similarly easy for them to claim that you've used company resources and/or time to do the project, as people sometimes do without thinking about it. When you start picking it apart, the Californian exemption is very narrow in letter, and even more so in practice.
In short, you're definitely not missing out on anything automatically by coming to New York, because it depends on what kind of a contract you negotiate. And Californian law won't get you home free either, because there are too many other variables at play, and too many other ways for them to wiggle around the law - they just need the incentive to do so.
First of all in California it is against the law to fail to inform people of their rights. Thus even in the cases when contracts include those clauses, the impact is severely watered down.
Secondly in New York, even contracts without these clauses by default have them implicitly included.
Thirdly the "claim we're working on everything" issue is real in California, but only for people working for large corporations. People working for small companies can usually make a good case that they are working on something different.
Fourth, there is a real difference in culture. In California it is common for people to do things like"start companies on the side", and therefore the natural response upon finding that someone has done so is to not try to contest it unless they have specific cause to. By contrast in New York this is not common, which means that employers are much, much more likely to try to explore their legal options.
I am sure that it is possible to live in New York, sign careful contracts, and find people who will be supportive. However if management changes, or different lawyers examine those contracts, or someone just does the calculation that you won't be able to afford to assert your rights, I believe that your odds of running into trouble in New York are significantly higher than in California.
Maybe I'm overreacting. But once burned, twice shy. This is among the reasons why I never again want to live in New York. (The weather would be another. The fact that it never quiets enough for me to sleep soundly would be a third.)
Decades in some cases the long running section A pension case went on for well over a decade in the UK conveniently for the employer that meant that the people effected by the decision started dieing off reducing the cost.
As a side note, I cannot move to most cities in Colorado because I happen to have two dogs who are banned by their breed. The point is, there is way more to the conversation than just taxes alone.
Don't say I didn't warn you!
Seriously, stop going to bars around Times Square. You should know better by now.
It slightly irritates me when people say this, because usually those people have no problem accepting that other amendments that they hold to be more important (e.g, the 1st) apply to the states.
Heck, people try to apply the 1st amendment to private corporations & online forums set up by 14 year olds.
Similarly, gun enthusiasts can't claim that all gun control is unconstitutional. The easy days of magical thinking (whether one side arguing "Second amendment does not protect an individual right!" or the other side arguing "Thomas Jefferson wrote ``Thou needeth an HK-416 with a magazine of thirty cartridges lest black helicopters invade thy farm''!") are done.
This is completely wrong. Not just for the second amendment,
but for pretty much every other Bill of Rights amendment that guarantees a "fundamental right" (including the first, which begins with "congress shall pass no law").
Whether or not you like the idea of private gun ownership (if you don't, you have a lot of room to argue about what is protected under the second amendment), doing away with 14th amendment incorporation would be a horrible idea (Remember Jim Crow? Remember when women could not obtain an abortion, period?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri... -- The doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago -- The ruling that incorporated the second amendment. Interestingly Justice Thomas' opinion (in favour of McDonald, but opposed to due process incorporation) is interesting in that it demonstrates an originalist constitutional view (opposed to the view everyone else uses) which is typically associated with conservative politics, despite the fact that joining the majority in a "due process" incorporation would mean probably mean less gun-control laws (a typically conservative opinion) than in using "equal protection" incorporation.
tl;dr 14th amendment incorporation is probably the most important evolution of US constitutional law in terms of expanding actual civil liberties as experienced by US citizens. It is not okay to be ignorant of it.
 Second amendment as an individual right is fairly new: first such reading in 2008 (Heller) as opposed to 1919 for first amendment -- despite, of course, both amendments dating back to the 18th century. As a result, there's not much good case law on books: it's very hard to argue a second amendment case from a criminal trial and yet it's also hard to find civil litigants with standing to sue such as Heller. It's safe to say that complete weapon bans or bans that make self-defense impossible are unconstitutional and that bans on fully automatic weapons (like the 1934 National Firearms Act) are constitutional. However, that's not where most of the debate is happening, so a clear standard has not yet evolved (but there are more cases working their way up through the federal courts).
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 wasting money on a middleman, and there are other benefits to knowing Spanish in Texas anyway).
While Wyoming is definitely not a tech hub, they do protect your right to use lethal force to protect your property.
Plus if they steal your horse, you can hang them and shoot them. win/win
Actually a "duty to retreat" is rather rare. In California, there's a right to use lethal force if you are in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they are in risk of life or limb.
I also don't think you can shoot someone for just being on your property in Texas when there's no reason to suspect they are a danger to you, or if they're just trying to steal your car while you're inside the house, etc...
Far more difficult in New York: I've heard "must wait six months", "need to document a specific reason", and both... The overall message being "don't bother."
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.)
OK, I agree - I should have said "in many places in California". Using weasel words like "restriction" - as if only "very dangerous assault bags" were prohibited but there was no problem with regular plastic bags - does not change the fact the bags are banned - in SF, in San Jose, in LA county and in some others. In fact, in most places the regulators themselves flat out call it a "ban" in their explanatory materials.
>>>> And there is no federal lightbulb ban (there is a federal rule providing energy efficiency standards for certain categories
Which is effectively a ban on certain - very widely used - categories of lightbulbs. The fact that the it is called more verbosely does not change the fact that it is a ban. The intent also does not change the fact - I'm sure every governmental ban has tons of supposedly good intents behind it, it does not stop being a ban because of it.
Though I do have the impression that Bloomberg has done yeoman's work on public education.
I don't have the energy to find which state would give me the best deal, but I seriously doubt it's NY. :-)
But then again there might be some tax magic I'm missing.
In NYC, including city tax, it's $5,203 versus $5,289 in California. If you live in NJ or Westchester, it's $5,495.
That being said you can live in New York City and get much better public services than say living in Silicon Valley. $100 per month for a MTA pass versus $100 a month for car insurance alone, etc.
Normally such a tug of war is not an issue and is basically a natural consequence of a functioning democracy but in the US it has gone to the extreme.
Personally I blame the anti tax group. They seem to have no use for logic or evidence and only demand more cuts regardless of the previous ones or the consequences. They are refusing to provide the funds necessary to run a modern government.
Pro-tax types should stop carrying water for bad governance. I am one of those anti-tax people you say "has no use for logic and evidence", and I am happy to pay taxes when I feel it is going to good use. But I am not willing to pay taxes so that politicians can turn around and give it to the unions that own them at the expense of the public good.
It's funny that most of the world's entrepreneurship is in my country, where people can keep most of their money earned to fund new ventures (for now).
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.
> It turns out that a few years ago, someone sued the Franchise Tax Board over being denied the right to claim the QSB benefit [Cutler v. Franchise Tax Bd., 208 Cal. App. 4th 1247 (2012)]. The company at issue in that lawsuit did not meet one of the QSB requirements—that it maintain 80 percent of its employees and assets in California. In August of 2012, the California Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiff, ruling that denying him the QSB exclusion based on the “80 percent requirement” was an unconstitutional violation of the interstate commerce clause.
> Since the FTB lost the case, you might think that they would strike the unconstitutional requirement and keep the rest of QSB statute intact. Not a chance.
> What the FTB did instead was to take their ball and go home. They decided that since they could not impose the “80 percent requirement,” no one would be entitled to the QSB exclusion. They put out an announcement terminating the Qualified Small Business exclusion and retroactively disqualifying all exclusions and deferrals going all the way back to 2008.
The decision explicitly found that the statute supplying QSB benefits in California "is discriminatory on its face and cannot stand under the commerce clause". Had an agency interpretation been struck down, it would be fair to say that (within the bounds of the court decision and the governing statute) the FTB was free to come up with a new interpretation. But when a statute is struck down, it can only be fixed by the legislature. An administrative agency can't fix constitutional defects in statute: they have no authority to do so.
(The court could have severed the unconstitutional provision and preserved the rest of the statute, and there is some indication in the decision that they probably would have done so rather than ruling the statute facially invalid if they had been reasoning clearly and consistently. But they didn't, and the FTB isn't really free to apply what the court should have ruled instead of what the court actually ruled.)
The FTB doesn't have the power to arbitrarily rewrite unconstitutional laws to remove the parts that have been found to make them unconsitutional -- either the court (by explicitly severing the unconstitutional provision) or the legislature would have to do that.
The court of appeals case is at http://www.leagle.com/xmlresult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20CACO%202012... and the FTB's description of its application of the decision is at https://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/notices/2012/2012_03.pdf and the FTB's FAQ on its action is at https://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/Qualified_Small_Business_Stock_an...