California's Surreal Retroactive Tax On Tech Startup Investors 514
waderoush writes "Engineers and hackers don't think much about tax policy, but there's a bizarre development in California that they should know about, since it could reduce the pool of angel-investment money available for tech startups. Under a tax break available since the 1990s, startup founders and other investors in California were allowed to exclude or defer their gains when they sold stock in California-based small businesses. Last year, a California appeals court ruled that the tax break was unconstitutional, since it discriminated against investors in out-of-state companies. Now the Franchise Tax Board, California's version of the IRS, has issued a notice saying how it intends to implement the ruling — and it's a doozie. Not only is the tax break gone, but anyone who claimed an exclusion or deferral on the sale of small-business stock since 2008 is about to get a big retroactive tax bill. Investors, entrepreneurs, and even the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit are up in arms about the FTB's notice, saying that it goes beyond the court's intent and that it will drive investors out of the state. This Xconomy article takes an in-depth look at the history of the court case, the FTB's ruling, and the reaction in the technology and investing communities."
Another retroactive cash grab by California? (Score:2)
That's unpossible! /looks at "Fire Prevention Fee" bill
And you expected something else...? (Score:2, Insightful)
And you expected something else from a state run by "progressives"? They never have enough of other people's money!
Re: And you expected something else...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically in this case it was a tax break created by progressives that was ruled unconstitutional. So your joke/stupid remark falls flat. Really this is a situation where large investors are taking it on the nose. As a progressive liberal I'm actually not OK with charging them retroactively unless this was acknowledged as up for debate previously and even then it should be executed without penalties.
Cash grab or otherwise this is more or less an administrative issue to be rectified amongst the elite.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
Re:And you expected something else...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Texas has textbooks with mandated Christianity in them, pretty sure teaching the bible as fact ruins your education argument. That's one. Business climate is a toss up as Texas really isn't good at innovation, but it's really good for companies looking to cut costs by lowering how much they pay their workers. Infrastructure is the same, Texas has been working for a while to tackle it's serious traffic problems in the cities, taxes are lower sure, but in Texas you're on your own if something bad happens, whi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
" in Texas you're on your own if something bad happens"
In California, you use the entire village to raise an idiot, and all you've got to show for it is - an idiot. Real men and women can indeed stand on their own. It's a shame that so many idiot can find creative ways to kill themselves - drug overdoses, for instance - but some of us believe that idiots have every right to remove themselves from the gene pool.
"on your own", you say? And, you say that like it's a bad thing!
Re:And you expected something else...? (Score:5, Insightful)
In California, you use the entire village to raise an idiot, and all you've got to show for it is - an idiot.
What would you rather happen? Would you prefer that the idiot was put down, or allowed to starve homeless on the street?
Real men and women can indeed stand on their own.
That's complete and utter bullshit. There is evidence[*] that even pre-human homonids cared for those incapable of looking after themselves.
What would happen to you if you were struck down by a degenerative disease? What would happen if it happened in your 20's before you'd had the opportunity to save much money? What about your teens when you'd had no opportunity.
All your bombastic talk about real men/women/small furry creatures from alpha centauri is just so much talk to make you feel superior about yourself simply because you happened to be lucky.
"on your own", you say? And, you say that like it's a bad thing!
Yes it it. Without society, life is short, nasty and brutal. Just look at the life expectancy of wild versus captive animals. You like to pretend you are self sufficient and superior, but the reality is you depend a lot on what society has to offer. You are not even remotely on your own but apparently you'r rather the less fortunate than you suffer in order for you to keep feeling superior.
And your talk about personal freedom and drugs is a complete red herring.
[*]Citation hard to find, but the original article was, IIRC about a homonid with an advanced case of degenerative bone disease. Basically the disease is not survivable in that state without external assistance because it makes the afflicted person unable to hunt or gather. This implies that other homonids fed and cared for the diseased one.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to annoy here, I'd say that someone struck with a degenerative disease that makes it necessary to depend on others for life means that person has a pretty low quality of life. Are you sure life is worth living under those circumstances? I'm not. Being forced to be utterly dependent on other people for life can be OK but it can also be a living hell.
However, one thing I am not in favor of at all is giving the state and/or their appointed representatives, the power to decide that my life isn't worth l
Re:And you expected something else...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And you expected something else...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Austin is afflicted wit the same disease as CA.
We have a 20 million dollar "commuter rail" that transports maybe a few hundred a day. Of course, it loses money.
They just decided to pay millions of dollars on a "bike sharing" program that involves bike shelters costing hundreds of thousands of dollars each. They charge people to participate, but the fees don't come close to paying for it.
The voters have twice turned down a Bond that would fund home shelters and other low income stuff, but the City Council has directed staff to prepare for another election. They'll get their Bond money (and go into debt) no matter how many times it takes.
The are also looking at Light Rail down town. No matter it doesn't make sense and costs Billions, they want to be like all the other "
grown up and enlightened cities".
The State Government, on the other hand is debating on how to spend surplus money or just save for the next session.
Re: (Score:2)
By that same definition, roads themselves lose money, because they are paid for by property taxes, because gas taxes aren't enough alone. Here in Portland, OR our rail system carries over a thousand an hour in rush hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Austin ... We have a 20 million dollar [annual operating cost?] "commuter rail" that transports maybe a few hundred a day.
What the ???? A city of 1.7 Million, with only one train line that is barely used? How is that possible? I live in a city only slightly larger, with massive sprawl and cars rule, but the 5 rail lines carry 360,000/day, many down the middle of congested freeways.
Is Austin some Green paradise where everybody lives close to their work and the roads are clear? Nobody works downtown? How does a rail line like that fail so badly?
Re: (Score:3)
Is Austin some Green paradise where ... the roads are clear
Having had the misfortune of driving through Austin many, many times (en route to places I actually want to go) I can answer this with a resounding NO.
I really, really hate Austin. The place is a dump. I wish it would move to San Francisco where it belongs and get out of my way.
Re:And you expected something else...? (Score:4, Informative)
Is Austin some Green paradise where everybody lives close to their work and the roads are clear? Nobody works downtown? How does a rail line like that fail so badly?
Hah, quite the opposite. Traffic here is terrible. We've been the fastest growing area in the nation for a few years now, so things will only get worse. The biggest problem is that all of our major thoroughfares (at least in Austin proper) were built in such a way that it will be extremely difficult to expand them. Unfortunately that's meant that we've had toll roads crammed down our throats. Several pre-existing highways have been converted, with more slated to be converted over the next few years. In theory that should mean mass transit should be a great option, and I think that's why the city has chosen to take this route. In practice, however, it's not at all convenient to use public transport. Though extensive, the bus system is highly inefficient. Count on an hour bus ride to get somewhere when you could drive yourself in 30 minutes, or maybe less. Light rail could be better since it can bypass the traffic altogether, but it really only connects 2 main points in the city, and you have to use the bus from there.
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem: until they expand the number of routes for light rail, it's going to be of limited use. To be fair, the line was just completed a year or two ago and they do have plans to expand. However, expanding the routes is so expensive, its a tough pill to swallow when you see a train go by with only a couple of people onboard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Taxi drivers and company owners make political contributions regularly.
Tourists and business people are treated like a resource to be bled. Locals are expected to work around the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how light rail is run in Austin, but in 11% of commuters in Sacramento use light rail exclusively. That is a pretty sizable number. If it doesn't work for Austin, then that is an Austin problem, not a Californian or progressive one.
Re:And you expected something else...? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it doesn't work for Austin, then that is an Austin problem, not a Californian or progressive one.
The philosophy that is opposed to central planning is not rooted in the belief that central planning always fails, but instead in the moral argument that when it does fail that some of the people that suffer could not opt out of that suffrage (tyranny of the majority), and now continue their suffering with no recourse (the momentum of the resulting bureaucracy.)
Look no further than things like the TSA as prime examples of how the failures of central planning do not get corrected, that the suffrage of society continues in spite of the complete obviousness of the failure. Now consider failures that arent quite so obvious, and you get an idea of why some people hold a very strong philosophy against all central planning, even when sometimes the act of central planning seems like a great success.
Re: (Score:3)
The man show did a great 'Stop the suffraging' bit. Got women to help collect signatures to end Women's suffrage. Should be on Youtube but I'm to lazy to find it and post a link.
The first thing the bitches (I don't use that a lot, but here it fits) did was pass alcohol prohibition. We should have just said 'it was all a mistake' and just not counted their votes from then on.
Re: (Score:3)
Alright all you people who don't believe, here are the "Citations Needed".
I misremembered about the bike stuff [slashdot.org].
The Kiosks where you get the bikes cost $40,000 to $50,000. The bikes themselves costs $1000. It will cost about a quarter of a million dollars a year to operate, a cost the membership fee doesn't even pretend to cover.
But that's OK, I made up for it it by misremembering the Commuter Rail costs [wikipedia.org].
One hundred six million to build...on existing tracks! Guess how many people ride it per day. One thou
Re:And you expected something else...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, as opposed to conservatives who can fund their spending based upon sunshine and puppy farts.
It's astonishing to me how many conservatives seem to believe that you don't need taxes to pay for services. You can just keep lowering taxes on the rich and wind up with more money than you had before.
I'm neither, but in all fairness I think the idea is to spend less on services, or have fewer services.
Re:And you expected something else...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since extra taxes never seem to go toward the national debt, but rather to new pet projects (aka money sinks), I can't blame people for wanting lower taxes. I'm conservative, but I would vote for a tax increase if it were guaranteed to go exclusively toward curbing the national debt. Note also that I think we need to reduce our spending.
"Surreal"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Retroactive taxes aren't particularly surreal. An example of surreal taxes would be if you had to submit your check to a giant who was growing out of the floor in a building that's melting.
So let's use the word correctly, please.
Re:"Surreal"? (Score:4, Funny)
From what I hear, Californians smoke a joint before doing anything. Which would necessarily include paying taxes...so maybe it really is surreal?
Don't like retroactive laws. Taxes no different (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been up in arms over ex post facto law, so why do they think they can get away with taxes? Granted, not all retroactive laws are unconstitutional. The tax law shouldn't have been in the books in the first place if it was unconstitutional, but we're not talking slavery here. Repeal the law, if you must, and call it even.
This is just a sad attempt at increasing state revenue
Re: (Score:2)
And this isn't a retroactive law, its the implementation of the decision that an existing statute providing a tax break, to quote the court decision, "can not stand under the commerce clause".
Re:Don't like retroactive laws. Taxes no different (Score:5, Insightful)
But it DOES create a tax liability that people had no reson to expect at the time it was (retroactively) incurred. So it is an ex post facto tax and it is unfair for the same reason an ex post facto law is.
In a sense, it is an ex post facto law because it creates a legal obligation for actions in the past that did not carry such an obligation at the time.
Otherwise, we accept that it is somehow Constitutionally OK to roll back a law that invalidated another law and so create a crime in the past where there was not one at the time (which is exactly when the prohibition on ex post facto laws is meant to prevent).
Re: (Score:2)
An ex post facto tax can't be "unfair for the same reason an ex post facto law" is, because the principle invalidating ex post facto laws is intimately tied to the punitive nature of criminal law and the kind of penalties associated with criminal offenses.
Re: (Score:3)
An ex post facto tax can't be "unfair for the same reason an ex post facto law" is, because the principle invalidating ex post facto laws is intimately tied to the punitive nature of criminal law and the kind of penalties associated with criminal offenses.
Sure they can, let's say you cashed out of your small business investment in the spring of 2008, and reinvested it into the broader market (portfolio diversification, a very sound practice for a small business investor who has realized a gain), well in the
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, if you owe money, that money will be collected. That's not a criminal sanction, so it has nothing to do with the idea that this would somehow be an ex post facto law.
Yes, it is. The FTB is not treating this as a criminal offense that occurred in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is more broadly attached to the idea that it is patently unfair to change the rules once the play is in motion. More broadly, it is summed up as "no take backs".
If you want to look at it another way, at the time of the transactions, the tax LAW said no tax was owed. Now, ex post facto, the tax LAW says the tax was owed.
If they would like to ask for voluntary contributions, they are free to change the tax SUGGESTION all they want.
Re:Don't like retroactive laws. Taxes no different (Score:5, Insightful)
A law wasn't passed ex post facto and wasn't applied retroactively. A law passed years ago was declared unconstitutional, and the FTB is now making people re-file their taxes without its benefit.
I don't agree with the ruling, either, but if you are going to throw around all of those legal terms make sure they are used correctly...
Re: (Score:2)
The body of law was changed ex post facto by expanding a portion of it after the fact to cover a situation that was not covered at the time.
If I don't not kill someone, I have still committed murder.
Damages to out of state companies (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Damages to out of state companies (Score:5, Funny)
We can not allow the tarrifists to win!
Hey Cali, why stop at 2008 ... (Score:2)
How far back are they permitted to go? What stops them from going back 20 years or more? I would think there would be some ex post facto equivalent for civil issues.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would be that it has to do with a statute of limitations...
Apparently California has a limit of four years from the filing date to collect any unpaid taxes. So I would conclude that the FTB's logic here is that, because the tax break was unconstitutional, these people should have known that(?) and their returns were all filed incorrectly. Thus, the FTB can collect the last four years of these back taxes because the deductions that were claimed weren't valid.
It's adorable the logic governments use
Re: (Score:2)
They are going back exactly as far as they are allowed (and, in FTB's view, required) to go, applying the invalidation of the statute providing the tax break to all tax years for which the statute of limitations for tax collection has not expired.
There isn't, really, because the reason for the prohibition of ex post facto laws -- which appli
Retroactive Tax Hikes (Score:2)
I can't believe how any freedom-loving country can permit retroactive anything.
How can anyone plan anything when the threat of a retroactive change takes place?
Re: (Score:2)
country can permit retroactive anything.
You buy a slave legally. Country decides that is unconstitutional and decides all slaves must be free - retroactively.
Maybe some retroactive decisions are good.
Re: (Score:3)
country can permit retroactive anything.
You buy a slave legally. Country decides that is unconstitutional and decides all slaves must be free - retroactively.
Maybe some retroactive decisions are good.
that's not really retroactive. it's not like slave owners were forced to retroactively pay proper working mans wages to the slaves when they were freed...
there's nothing retroactive about ending someones contract at a certain point in time. it just ends there and then.
now, punishing concentration camp guards.. that's sort of retroactive, deciding their job was illegal after they had been at it for years.
this retroactive tax sort of assumes that rich are still rich, though it might be true in most cases who
Re: (Score:3)
That merely freed them in the future. Had they been freed retroactively anyone who owned a slave within the previous years could have been imprisoned for kidnapping.
Still, some retroactive decisions are good. I don't think this tax collection is one of them, though I do agree with the court's ruling.
"Deferred"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, it's only $150 million. A drop in the bucket, relative to the tech industry as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're just going to pitch your kids out onto the porch at 18 and say Good Luck?
What a parent.
Ex post facto? (Score:5, Interesting)
So. Does this make a crime of not paying taxes out of a situation where it was not a crime?
If so, it would seem to be ex post facto:
Seems to me they should just not pay, because there's no legal way to punish them for not paying.
Not that the supreme court has actually paid that much attention to ex post facto violations on either the federal or state level... real bunch of pants-shittingly stupid people in SCOTUS lately...
Re: (Score:3)
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
Key words your ignoring: law, passing, and criminal. No law was passed. Instead a court invalidated a law. Thus when the people doing the action, they were not innocent. Second ex post facto only applies to criminal law. No tax payer is going to jail over this.
Plantiffs thought process (Score:2)
Hey let's push the state into exempting out of state companies so we can get the exemption too. Oh crap, we just screwed it up for everyone and wasted millions in legal fees for a ruling that will get us nothing. Who could have ever guessed California would take the money grab option?
WAIT A MINUTE! (Score:3)
Oh, wait. This is TAX law. The IRS can do pretty much anything they want; even the state IRS.
Re: (Score:2)
No low is being made retroactive.
An old law is being declared unconstitutional, and therefore all the benefits and penalties under the old law were invalid in the first place.
Ex post facto laws are illegal (Score:3, Informative)
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
People will sue - and this will go to federal courts... The question is will it make it to SCOTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
14th Amendment would have made it applicable to the individual States, even assuming CA didn't have such a provision in its own Constitution (which it does, Article 1, Section 9).
Re: (Score:2)
So, where's the ex post facto law in this case?
While I consider CA's behaviour slightly sleazy (though predictable), I can't see anything unconstitutional here.
As a Californian (Score:2, Interesting)
I am ashamed of my state government and the populace that elected it. As soon as I have enough money to be worthy of Franchise Tax Board's notice, I'm fleeing to a free state.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like all those people who threaten to flee to Canada if an election doesn't go their way, right?
Pfft.
Re:As a Californian (Score:4, Interesting)
no, my flight from California will have been motivated by economic reasons rather than ideological.
My mother owns commercial real estate (a small strip mall) and she's been sued three times in the past three months by handicapped people under California ADA provisions. That's like... once a month.
First two have been settled for $2500 and $3200, third suit is pending.
Why did she get sued? First one was, the handicapped parking spot didn't have the words "Van Accessible" in the correct sized font. Second one, the towel rack/grab rail in the bathroom was 2 inches too high.
Exodus floodgates open just a little wider (Score:5, Interesting)
Texas appears to be the largest recipient of the migrations but so are Arizona and Florida. Coincidentally Texas was also named the 2012 Top State [yahoo.com] for business. Every few weeks I see more and more business headlines of companies (namely tech) moving to or starting a branch in Texas such as Apple [wired.com], Facebook [statesman.com], PayPal [austinnovation.com], Catepillar [msn.com] and so on
There had been, however, some controversy over the years of TX Gov Perry's use of the Texas Enterprise Fund to woo companies to relocate. While the deal-landing results appear to be evident, some worry about the taxpayer cost, total incentive packages, and net gain of these deals. The fund seems to be perfectly suited to situations like this, where California tax laws cause some turmoil thereby increasing the opportunity to woo away industry. Recently Texas AG Greg Abbott has also been advertising to New Yorkers to move to Texas on account of gun control issues.
I wonder how long Texas can remain "Texas" if it becomes stuffed with people who are accustomed to living like Californians and New Yorkers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
NYC has been gaining in population and business formation. Upstate is in decline, but whatever.
Screw it! (Score:2)
I'm moving to France!
You should know that ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Commerce Clause (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why... (Score:2)
In economic terms, a tax is basically a government's way of saying, "we don't want you to do that". An income tax is basically saying, we don't want you to work. A payroll tax is basically saying,
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
As an employee, why would I want to work in states like Texas or Arizona that provide much less in the way of protections for workers? One of the reasons I like working in California is the laws that give me some leverage when dealing with employers, and protections and safety nets when said employer folds due to dumb decisions by management.
And as an employer, why would I want to set up business in a state where my pool of workers is limited to the kind who all they have to offer is their willingness to accept that lack of protection? One of the reasons tech companies locate in California is that that's where the people they need/want to hire are. If I set up business in Texas or Arizona, I do so knowing that the best employees, the ones I'd most want to have, aren't going to be willing to relocate there. I can't see that being a winning strategy long-term.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do I want to live in a nanny-state where people try to ban toys in happy meals?
Good point! You should come to Texas where we have a sky-daddy state where the government keeps you from buying cars on Sunday.
Re: (Score:2)
Nashville (Score:2)
The Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the relevant part from the Appeal Court opinion:
Plaintiff asks us to hold that a refund is the only proper remedy in this case, under the authority of McKesson Corp. v. Florida Alcohol & Tobacco Div. (1990) 496 U.S. 18 [110 L. Ed. 2d 17, 110 S. Ct. 2238] (McKesson). In McKesson, the high court held that “[i]f a State places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due and relegates him to a postpayment refund action in which he can challenge the tax's legality, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment obligates the State to provide meaningful backward-looking relief to rectify any unconstitutional deprivation.” (McKesson, supra, 496 U.S. at p. 31, fn. omitted.) McKesson identified three ways to provide the “‘clear and certain remedy’” required for an unlawful tax collection. (Id. at p. 39.) These were (1) “refunding to petitioner the difference between the tax it paid and the tax it would have been assessed were it extended the same rate reductions that its competitors actually received”; (2) “assess[ing] and collect[ing] back taxes from petitioner's competitors who benefited from the rate reductions during the contested tax period”; and (3) “a combination of a partial refund to petitioner and a partial retroactive assessment of tax increases on favored competitors, so long as the resultant tax actually assessed during the contested tax period reflects a scheme that does not discriminate against interstate commerce .” (Id. at pp. 40–41.) In this case the statute of limitations prevents the state from collecting additional taxes from other taxpayers who benefited from the unconstitutional deferral provision.
Under this portion of the opinion the Franchise Tax Board can not do nothing. They are required by this opinion to level the playing field. The Franchise Tax Board has three options;
1. Refund the tax to him and every other other person that was denied or didn't file because they did not qualify.
2. Retroactively tax everyone
3. A combination of partial refunds and partial taxes opening up even more litigation.
Option 1 is bad because the state could loose a lot of revenue. Option 3 is bad because the state loses revenue and spends more on litigation. Option 2 is viable as it already falls under the process of filing and adjusted tax return. By requiring the Board to level the playing field the court threw a wrench in the works.
Mass Insanity... thats ALL it is.. (Score:3)
This kind of shit is soooo FAR beyond merely shooting yourself in the foot, its more like pointing a gun at your foot, letting loose one round, blowing half your foot off, then blithly taking the gun, shooting the rest of the original foot off, taking a morphene shot to kill the pain, then turning the gun on your other foot, and doing the same thing again.. The old MontyPython skit with the guy getting his limbs shot off and continuing to taunt his attacker is kind of appropriate for California.. To keep ratcheting down on business like they're doing will ONLY work in a *completely* totalitarian country, one that includes barbed wire fences on the borders, landmines, tank traps, reminicient of the old "Iron Curtain".. When a business can weigh the pros-cons of staying/leaving and decides to pack it up and head for one of the states that are welcoming business, like Texas, f'instance, with no chance of being shot while going over the fence, the "geniuses" in Sacramento can only sit back and watch their tax-base leave the state.
Of course, in the world that the California liberal bureaucrat lives in, they never see this.. Up until the reality of the situation jumps up and bites them on the ass.. namely when they have 20+ million mouths on the government feed trough and ZERO tax-paying businesses.. I was born in California many moons ago, in what is now "liberal-ville", better known as the "City By The Bay"... such a lovely town, gone to hell by the Nancy Pelosi-liberals.. The wife and I saw the handwriting on the wall back in the mid 90s and moved to Las Vegas Nevada.. Best move we ever made.. With that, we had to fight with the State Franchise Tax Board for nearly 3 years after moving to prove to them we no longer had any income from the State.. It finally took a tax attorney to rattle their cage and get their b.s. stopped. I hate to think about ALL the hassle any business will get today when they move out of California... My thoughts are with them...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this Californian was in Chicago last week and it was 12F. So, that's why.
Re:California (Score:4, Funny)
"Well, this Californian was in Chicago last week and it was 12F. So, that's why."
Yeah, that can get old even for us Illinoisans.
But, on the other hand, it does help persuade the Californians to go back home after visiting. ;)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not going to argue with 'severely over budget' (thank you, Prop 13) but the last information available for California suggests that federal spending in the state was substantially less (by roughly 25%) than federal revenues from the state; California is, on a per-capita basis and certainly on an overall basis, one of the largest net givers to the federal budget, not a taker. Do you have any specific reason to believe that that's changed in the last few years?
Re:California (Score:4, Informative)
California is net contributor to the federal budget, so a negative percentage of the federal budget deficit is due to California. Leaving aside the other inaccuracies in that sentence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.yahoo.com/california-budget-plan-surprise-surplus-012349478.html
and like most Blue States, we pay more $ to the Feds than we get back in Benefits
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/11/11/chart-ruh-roh-red-state-socialism-alert/
as does Minnesota.
You don't have to live here, but we like it quite a bit.
-I'm just sayin'
Re:California (Score:5, Funny)
NO NO! We hate it here! It's terrible! Don't move to California, the weather isn't nearly as nice as you think! And there are all these liberals everywhere! And the GAYS!
By all means move to the East Coast; or Texas! Anywhere else but here.
(wink wink).
signed,
lifelong Californian
Re: (Score:2)
NO NO! We hate it here! It's terrible! Don't move to California, the weather isn't nearly as nice as you think! And there are all these liberals everywhere! And the GAYS!
By all means move to the East Coast; or Texas! Anywhere else but here.
(wink wink).
signed,
lifelong Californian
I grew up in California, but when it became time to buy a house in an area where I could be gainfully employed, I had to move out of state. Just sayin'.
Re:California (Score:5, Informative)
Texas and Minnesota both pay more taxes than they recieve. The biggest debtor state in the union is Virginia.
Re:California (Score:4, Informative)
Virginia (and Maryland, the second biggest net recipient) are a little different from other states, in terms of this comparison. A lot of that money isn't state grants or welfare checks or other federal largesse. That's money spent on federal employees and facilities that were located outside DC. The Pentagon, for example, is just over the river in Arlington. These are facilities that need to be kinda close to DC, but don't really need to be right on top of the White House.
The states definitely benefit from it. If the government were to pack up and move, the DC metro area would become a ghost town, and the whole economy would change. But it's not just a subsidy or pork-barrel make-work projects; it's the government actually doing what it does. MD and VA don't get that because of power. It's just geography.
Re:California (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all about the weather.
Seriously. I've lived on the central coast most of my life and 5 years or so in the OC. When I visit other places, the weather often seems extreme. I visit family in the northwest and they've got this crazy stuff called snow that's like everywhere. It's where people live. In central and southern CA, we keep that shit up in the mountains where it belongs for ski weekends. I go to Vegas and it's ball-scorching hot. I don't care if it's a dry heat. An oven is dry heat, too. Don't even get me started on those New England summers and their 112% humidity. Just sit on the porch and sweat. Same in the south but they throw in thunderstorms and hurricanes.
Having said all that, I plan to be out of CA forever this year. I can take my equity from CA and be a semi-retired land baron in just about any other part of the country, living a comfortable life of leisure. Gonna load up the RV and head east until I find a nice place to settle down.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure that much of the national deficit is due to California? They pay more to the feds than they take in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_spending_and_taxation_across_states [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
No, much of the national deficit actually cannot be laid at CA's doorstep. Those decisions get made in Washington, DC. California has always been a net contributor, being still the eighth largest world economy in spite of the recession. You must be thinking of those red states... http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union [economist.com]
*Certain* businesses flock to CA because the laws, business environment, and climate support their businesses well. Tech companies can find plenty of highly
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear the media saying that a lot these days.
It's an absolutely ignorant and contemptible argument that it's just the rich that are affected by things like this. Venture capital outfits are funded by every day people, many of whom have their retirements locked up in pension funds that are tied to vc firms. So my big question to you, or anyone that makes this argument is... why do you hate pensioners so much? Why do you hate the guy who works hard, and puts money in his 401k to get a six percent or
I'm calling my accountant !! (Score:2)
Right now I'm outside of the USA and I do not know how this bizarre court ruling gonna affect me.
And I am not alone in this --- many people that I know started our respective careers and business ventures in the Silicon Valley, before moving on to something larger and better elsewhere.
There are two groups of people who will benefit from this ruling - the attorneys (particularly the tax attorneys) and the accountants.
Re:I'm calling my accountant !! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm another Silicon Valley expat (Australian now). I don't expect it will affect me. What interests me about it, though, is how this is going to fly in light of the Constitution forbidding ex post facto laws - you can't make a law that penalizes someone for something they did before the law was passed.
Can you?
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In that sense, none of the amendments guarantee your right to anything - they're all subject to judicial interpretation, and all were interpreted, and sometimes re-interpreted (like the 1st) over time.
The Fourteenth Amendment (Score:3)
At the time the second amendment was debated, it was meant to prohibit the federal government from passing gun control laws as a means of controlling the states. But the person you are replying to is wrong in that he says "That right, as it exists today, is granted by a later court interpretation of the 2nd amendment." In fact, it was the fourteenth amendment which conferred those rights on individuals at the end of the civil war, to prevent them from oppressing their citizens. Of course, at the time they w
Re:Obama effect (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bill of Rights was a compromise to shut up the anti-federalists. The Founders felt it was obvious that if the Constitution hadn't explicitly granted a power to the Federal Government, they didn't have it. The anti-federalists voiced concerns that it wasn't clear.
The Founder's view seems evidenced in the level of detail in the Constitution listing exactly what the Federal Government can do, esp. in Article 1, Section 8.
I don't know the history of Prohibition well, but now it seems rather quaint that as recently as 1919, folks thought it was necessary to actually amend the Constitution (the Eighteenth Amendment) to ban the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors". Now, we seem to accept that if the Federal Government wants to ban a substance nationwide, they can just do it with, at most, Congressional and Executive approval. How far we have fallen in less than 100 years.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to eliminate any possibility that people in the future would interpret the Bill of Rights as a complete list of rights held by the people and the states. As it turns out, these Amendments were obviously insufficient.
Subsequent Amendments and SCOTUS interpretations/decisions (perhaps most notably the Incorporation Doctrine) have altered the landscape of course by imposing restrictions on states as to what rights they can abridge.
Re:Obama effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "assault weapon". There is not a single "assault weapon" available on the civilian market. You're yet another victim of liberal hype. Talk to a veteran. Talk to almost any veteran, from any service. Some sailors never handled an assault rifle, and maybe some airedales. All marines have handled them, and I think all army soldiers have.
My own assault weapon was an M14. There is a little lever on the side that makes it what it is. That little lever switches the piece from semi-automatic to full automatic. That is the one determining characteristic of an "assault weapon". The bayonet lugs? I'll grant that it is probably unnecessary for civilians. Oversize magazines? Again, I'll grant that is probably unnecessary. But, those two features do not determine that the weapon is an "assault weapon".
However - if you're able to pass a background check, and you're willing to pay the licensing fee, you can purchase a Thompson submachine gun, perfectly legal.
Having spent most of an hour staring down the muzzles of several Thompsons while holding onto my M14, I'm here to tell you that it is a much more effective "assault weapon" than the M14 - or an M15 or an M16.
I don't know how many Thompsons are currently held by private citizens in the United States. Funny thing, you don't hear of them being stolen, and used in criminal activity. Seems that the people who own them, keep them properly secured, and that common criminals just can't get to them.
Maybe THAT is where legislation needs to be aimed. Make the owners of ALL weapons responsible for securing those weapons that they own.
Nuts? There are plenty of nuts on both sides of the issue. None of the nuts want to address the real issues. Those issues include identifying whackos, kooks, and nuts who are likely to commit a mass shooting. Almost always, people step forward after a shooting, to inform the media that the shooter was some kind of mental case. Family and acquaintances are generally unable to "connect" with the guy. He's strange, weird, or whatever - often a "loner".
The real issue here, is identifying such people, and getting help for them - OR, institutionalizing them, so that they most definitely CANNOT access weapons.
But, boo-hoo-hoo - it violates some kind of "rights" if we start institutionalizing mental cases.
Meanwhile, we continue to incarcerate people for possession of natural substances like marijuana. It's alright for corporations to profit from incarcerating perfectly safe people, but we don't want to violate any civil rights of genuinely dangerous people.
This whole controversy borders on insanity.
Re:Obama effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of us liberals are against gun control. Be careful where you point that thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all liberals swallow the liberal hype, just as not all conservatives go for the conservative hype. While the conservative nuts are telling us that elimination of bayonet lugs and oversized magazines violate the constitution, you'll note that I've dismissed both as unnecessary.
I think that you'll grant that liberals and conservatives alike have their hype machines. People who think for themselves can recognize hype for what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Any weapon that can be used to assault. E.g. a club.
Nothing to thank for.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people would call a full-auto M16 an assault rifle.
That's the point. "Assault rifle" has a specific definition, being a selectable semi-/full-auto shoulder arm firing a rifle-caliber round; a selectable semi-/full-auto shoulder arm firing pistol rounds is a submachine gun, and a selectable semi-/full-auto handgun is a machine pistol. "Assault weapon" is an invention of the media, defined as "any semi-automatic weapon that looks evil by dint of possessing one or more cosmetic aspects of a military weapon, these cosmetic features including, but not limited to
Re:Obama effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Any law in the USA that purports to control weapons should be unconstitutional.
Arguing ethics, morals, need, danger or anything else in regards to weapons is (or should be) irrelevent.
If you don't like that situation you should work to get the second amendment changed, not work to undermine the constitution.
America has, in the past, been an example of freedom and rule of law that has inspired many people. It would be a tragedy if you were to undermine your rule of law and slide into becoming a police state by subverting your constitution.
If you truly believe that the situation and weapons have evolved to the point where that amendment is no longer needed, or needs to be changed, then the constitution contains methods for amending itself.
Please don't throw away the rule of law.
Re: (Score:3)
Creative accounting doesn't work for liberals or conservatives. Follow Ded Bob's link. Bullshit is bullshit, no matter which side the bullshit comes from. It's still a deficit.