[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::

[primrose]

Here's a rich dude named Peter Schiff: https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1294454477299363840

He moved to Puerto Rico to avoid taxes. He is an outlier but his sentiment is correct.

This is a spectrum. If California raised it's taxes to 100% no one would live in the state. If they dropped the taxes to near zero lots of people would move in given everything wasn't chaos. The higher the taxes go the more likely someone is to not move here.

> Buy a condo in Las Vegas, register to vote there, and spend all your time in San Diego.

California will charge you income tax for the time you spent in San Diego. California will even charge you income tax if you never set foot in the state if your income is earned from the state: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2019/10/22/now-calif...

> I sincerely doubt California’s greatest problem is too few wannabe founders

You underestimate the influence of the rich. People mimic what they perceive to work. If rich people don't move here, people who aspire to become rich will not move here.

[dariusj18]

> If California raised it's taxes to 100% no one would live in the state

That would obviously depend on the services provided.

[primrose]

You underestimate people's need for freedom.

[dariusj18]

Freedom is an illusion, and having a 100% tax doesn't technically restrict freedom. Any policy that arose would itself need to be measured against the tolerance of the people, but if that 100% tax came with guarantees of the things that actually restrict our freedom, there might be a lot of people who would tolerate it.