[timtom39]

My company is largely remote at this point and is moving away from CA for cost/tax reasons. For some portion of companies this is just one more reason to move headquarters.

That being said, I live in a pretty population dense area and my largest cost by far is dedicated home office space. It would be nice for my company to pay for that but it would have also been nice for them to pay for gas for my commute when I had one.

I think CA is likely overplaying their hand. They are not the place of choice for many remote employees (because of taxes) and are trying hard to not be the place of choice for remote companies.

[brightball]

> That being said, I live in a pretty population dense area and my largest cost by far is dedicated home office space. It would be nice for my company to pay for that but it would have also been nice for them to pay for gas for my commute when I had one.

This is probably the best equivalent comparison I've seen in the thread. Paying commute costs vs paying home office costs.

[genewitch]

i'm unsure if i've mentioned this ever, but i had a company give me a large bonus (to my salary) when i requested remote work, with a contractual rider stating that my salary would go up an additional $15,000 if i moved within 20 minutes of the office within 1 year. The bonus was to entice me to come to the office more often - that is, to offset my pain and suffering, wear and tear, fuel costs, etc.

I still did 3/5 days remote.

[dheera]

Where I live, dedicated home office space is about 1/4 the cost of commercial rent, in terms of $/sqft. It would be stupid for companies to not pay for it in lieu of commercial real estate.

[civilitty]

As a Californian who has lived here for a quarter century and has never threatened to leave, I’m glad the state doesn’t cater to startups who can’t afford an extra 5% for home office expenses for their remote workers. They have zero loyalty to the state and if all employees are remote there’s little benefit keeping the corp in CA. Everyone has to register to do business here and the FTB will get the bulk of its cut anyway.

Good riddance. We need the space more than we need the tax revenue. (no offense intended, the housing situation is just dire and I’ll use any excuse to convince people to move out cause so few actually people want to)

[twelve40]

confused. If all of this is about remote workers, how are they taking up "the space" here? aren't most of them in the lower COL areas freeing up the space while the company pays the CA taxes?

[civilitty]

My rant is directed at the entrepreneurs and companies who scoff at paying their fair share to employees and the state while demanding all the benefits of living and operating in the great state of California. Getting these politically powerful NIMBYs out of the state would do a disproportionate amount of good.

The reality is that California is so economically powerful that any corporation that leaves is almost certainly going to have to register as a foreign business and pay the franchise tax on all revenue earned in California anyway (the minimum cutoff is $500k or 25% of total revenue, whichever is lowest). The employees who stay in California are still going to pay income tax which makes up the bulk of state revenues. Everyone is still going to be paying sales tax on goods purchased from California vendors, the largest source after income tax.

Corporate taxes contribute less than 15% of California's budget so it's a reverse catch 22: either they're so small that the threats to leave are empty (DO IT!), or they're so big that they can't afford not to pay California taxes regardless of where they are. Like I said, either way the FTB will get the bulk of its cut.

[valianteffort]

And destroy the property values of all the people that worked their whole lives to own a home there. You're being myopic or selfish, neither is fair to your neighbors.

[p_j_w]

Is it not myopic or selfish for my neighbors to insist that I shouldn’t be able to afford a home because of their precious investment?

[valianteffort]

You can't afford a home for a multitude of reasons I'm sure, least of which is your neighbor insisting you shouldn't.

If you want an affordable home move somewhere affordable. You can't legislate affordable housing for yourself without introducing problems for everyone else. Someone just living in a home they bought is not actively preventing you from affording one, at least, they're the last people you should blame (even after yourself).

[johnnyanmac]

>Someone just living in a home they bought

That's the exact issue. They aren't.

But none of this has to do with small startups

[valianteffort]

Are you saying we should make renting (landlording) illegal again? Or owning multiple homes? Or just businesses owning homes?

While they're all good ideas, I don't think they'll totally solve the issues of affordability here.

[vecinu]

Property values should not be an investment or retirement fund, it is selfish to think so. Literally, by definition, if you think the value of YOUR home and SOME of your neighbors should increase to price others out, that is selfish.

Housing should not be an investment, period.

[valianteffort]

I don't disagree at all. I like the idea of homes being depreciating assets. America just doesn't subscribe to that and so paying a massive up front cost, there is some expectation no one is going to actively try to destroy your property value.

[photonbucket]

Half of us want the property values lowered, so that it's even possible to buy something

[valianteffort]

And a lot of people were stuck buying at inflated prices.

[kevingadd]

That's your mistake, it's not their responsibility to make you rich

[valianteffort]

I never said that. What the previous gent said was he wanted property prices artificially lowered.

I'm simply saying those who were stuck buying at inflated prices might be opposed to that.

My home is paid off and I got it for half of it's market value. I have no skin in the game either way as I'd never sell.

[LightHugger]

Property prices are better off destroyed though. It doesn't take away the home from people who overpaid for it, making homes accessible is better for society outside of some myopic nonsense where someone's net value drops, the actual homeowner can just keep using their home as before.

[civilitty]

> And destroy the property values of all the people that worked their whole lives to own a home there.

California stands alone as one of the top 5 or 6 biggest economies in the world. The 2008 GFC was a blip in our housing market even when the economy turned upside down. My city experienced less than 18 months of flat real estate prices before growing out of control again.

If an actual economic crisis caused by housing loans doesn't destroy California's housing market, forcing companies to pay their fair share certainly won't.

[coffeebeqn]

Now it’s immoral to deflate the housing bubble?

[dheera]

> destroy the property values

So if I invent an awesome new car, it's selfish because it's destroying the value of your beater? If I invent a new GPU that costs 1/10 the price of existing ones, it's selfish because your computer is now worthless on the secondary market?

Homes are to LIVE in, I consider them consumables just like cars, just on the order of ~a lifetime instead of ~10 years. I don't give a flying f about neighbors' house or car values, I just care that I have a comfortable roof to live under and that I can afford it.

I know boomers treat houses as investment assets. I don't. They're shitty return and high-maintainence as an investment. But I'd like to have my own so I can modify the hell out of it to my liking.

[valianteffort]

So basically you want to own a home with all the benefits that come with it but you don't think you should pay the market rate like everyone else because you deserve not to. And boomers are to blame for it. Gotcha.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

If my older neighbors are trying to make my children renters for life, they might be the selfish ones.