|
|
|
|
|
|
by jdvolz
5462 days ago
|
|
|
As someone who is living in Las Vegas NV (no state income tax) I am struggling with where I should move. I just checked and the CA state income tax is 10% for my earning bracket. That's a 10% premium (>$10k per year) when compared to Texas, Nevada and Washington. It's also 1% greater than Oregon. It's 5% greater than CO or NM. Add to that the high cost of living in the valley (particularly housing) and it's difficult to justify moving to California vs. getting a remote job working for a company in California at the same salary. I see the economic value of working the valley and that the salaries are higher, but they would have to be 30% higher than what I'm earning in Nevada just to offset the increase in costs. Imagine if I actually wanted a raise. If you tell me that not only is the CA legislature requiring these funds from me, but also requiring corporations with operations in the state to collect sales tax (putting them at a competitive disadvantage to companies that don't have operations there) I'm going to start to wonder about what other anti-business measures might get passed. Anti-business measures are going to cause businesses to move if they can. Less businesses means less chance for jobs which is obviously a negative for someone looking to move to economic opportunity. |
|
|
All CA has to do is redefine "source" and poof, free money. http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/manuals/audit/rstm/3000.pdf section 3420 "The critical factor in determining the source of income from personal services is not the residence of the taxpayer, the place where the contract for services is entered into, or the place of payment. It is the place where the services are actually performed" - change that definition, and there goes your sweet telecommuting tax break.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/... is an interesting article about the New York telecommuting tax.