[mark212]

This is such a misleading essay. AB 2088 (to tax net worth over $30 million at 0.4%) was a gut-and-replace two weeks before the end of the session which never even got a vote in committee.[1] It hardly reflects the will of the Assembly, much less a serious attempt to change California law.

The other parts of the essay do a bait-and-switch between noting that some businesses are leaving and implying that it’s the over-regulated business environment —- but if you drill down it’s really motivated by the state income tax. Which, yes, is high and can be significant especially on the sorts of people that are successful at running their own business, which is to say high earners.

And still, how many businesses did California lose in 2018 and 2019? Less than 800 total. So out of the 40 million people that live here, 0.001% chose to leave every year. Even if that’s a net number (which the author doesn’t clarify) it doesn’t rise to the level of something policy makers should care about.

One would think economists writing at the Hoover Institute would be more rigorous about their facts and argument, and not just whine in print and get it published.

[1]https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x...

[refurb]

And still, how many businesses did California lose in 2018 and 2019? Less than 800 total. So out of the 40 million people that live here, 0.001% chose to leave every year.

I assume a business would have more than 1 employee?

[jjeaff]

I would assume few businesses that move would convince a significant number of their employees to move.

In other words, I can't imagine very many businesses with lots of employees moving at all.

[primrose]

The fact that the "gut-and-replace" wealth tax happened in the first place is a problem. Rob Bonta then gets on TV and justifies it ensuring no one with substantial assets will come here.

Income tax at 13% is enough to encourage some founders not to come here. 16% will be worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrEK5hgr3vY

[mark212]

If your point is that at least a dozen or so elected pols thought it worth doing this as a “virtue signaling” exercise, then yes I agree. Not sure it has all that much chance of dissuading rich folks from coming. I honestly don’t know who in their right mind with the geographic option would ever choose to make their permanent residency in a state with income tax. Buy a condo in Las Vegas, register to vote there, and spend all your time in San Diego.

As to your second point, I sincerely doubt California’s greatest problem is too few wannabe founders. ::smiley face emoji::