Startup Flees To Seattle Amid Amazon's Tax Fight

And in the event.. by intellitech · 2011-09-16 10:59 · Score: 2

And in the event of civil uprising in the states, Canada is only 2 hours away.

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.

Re:And in the event.. by isorox · 2011-09-16 11:16 · Score: 0

And in the event of civil uprising in the states, Canada is only 2 hours away.
Do people really think that an event that spreads from San Diego to Boston, Portland to Oregon, will stop at an imaginary line north of Seattle, and resume east of Fairbanks?
Re:And in the event.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:20 · Score: 1

Don't forget Canada is friendly to the US.
So much so that they passed a law that retroactively allows the USA to draft any eligible male who might have moved to Canada up to 10 years prior.
You hear that? That means when shit starts hitting the fan and you decide to leave, until 10 years pass by they can still force Canada to return you for active draft.
Re:And in the event.. by flaming+error · 2011-09-16 11:23 · Score: 1

Sure. A hypothetical popular uprising against the US Gov't wouldn't necessarily spread to Canada any more than an uprising in Syria must spread to Turkey.
Re:And in the event.. by billcopc · 2011-09-16 11:28 · Score: 0

I wasn't aware of this law, but I'm guessing it's my favorite assclown Stephen Harper who signed it ? That man had a giant boner for Dubya.

--
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Re:And in the event.. by Alien+Being · 2011-09-16 13:29 · Score: 1

And in that event, Canada would have to consider itself a casualty of a continental war fought between two halves of a superpower nation. That would be very sad.
I hope that we in the U.S. can settle things more locally by destroying the bastards who have taken control of our fine nation. We all know who they are. *
* Contentious. IMO it's the two major political parties, the scumbags on Wall Street and the clowns in Hollywood.
Re:And in the event.. by godel_56 · 2011-09-16 13:39 · Score: 1

Don't forget Canada is friendly to the US.
So much so that they passed a law that retroactively allows the USA to draft any eligible male who might have moved to Canada up to 10 years prior.
You hear that? That means when shit starts hitting the fan and you decide to leave, until 10 years pass by they can still force Canada to return you for active draft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
Australia is in the same position. As much American backside as our government can kiss.
Re:And in the event.. by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-16 14:33 · Score: 1

So much so that they passed a law that retroactively allows the USA to draft any eligible male who might have moved to Canada up to 10 years prior.
Google doesn't find anything, so - link, please?
Re:And in the event.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 15:17 · Score: 0

A popular uprising of that magnitude in the U.S. would spread throughout the world.
The financial impact would be huge. We are the number one trading partner of many countries for imports and/or exports. The dollar has a lot of influence (even now) and it would drop like a stone.
China might decide to take Taiwan. North Korea might decide to attack South Korea. The arabs might decide to deal with Israel.
Canada? Canada would be fucked. They couldn't handle a mass migration from the U.S. on a good day. 5% of our population is nearly 50% of theirs. My guess is the smartest of *them* would be fleeing for Europe, Australia, or somewhere else.
We are their number one trading partner. Their economy would be tanked.
U.S. military leaders wouldn't give shit one about the border. Large portions of Canada (the parts closest to the U.S. which also happen to be the most populated) would probably be annexed by one group or another.
Yes, it would definitely spread to Canada. Alaska might be a better place to flee.
Re:And in the event.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 15:26 · Score: 0

I get the first two references, but who are the clowns in Hollywood and how do they control the nation?
Re:And in the event.. by aix+tom · 2011-09-16 21:45 · Score: 1

Yep. WWII also pretty much stopped at the Swiss border, despite messing up the rest of Europe and beyond.

Why Not Oregon? by OS24Ever · 2011-09-16 11:07 · Score: 2

They don't have a sales tax there, won't ever have to deal with it there.

--

As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

Re:Why Not Oregon? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:17 · Score: 1

They don't have a sales tax there, won't ever have to deal with it there.
Because it's Oregon.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:23 · Score: 0

Which works fine for Intel, Nike HQ, and Linus Torvalds among many others. Portland is absolutely fantastic for this. Seattle and SF are on two extremes. Portland is just the right mix of those two, without quite the douchiness (despite what the TV show Portlandia might try to portray).
http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2011/07/big-name_tech_companies_resume_migration_into_the.html
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Tumbleweed · 2011-09-16 11:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Seattle and SF are on two extremes. Portland is just the right mix of those two, without quite the douchiness (despite what the TV show Portlandia might try to portray).
I would say that as far as douchiness is concerned, it is highest in SF, next highest in Portland, then least in Seattle. I'm not sure what happens when you cross the border and get into Vancouver, BC, as I think their douchiness is measured in metric, and I don't know how to convert that. Google was of absolutely no help there. :(
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 12:15 · Score: 0

In my experience, SF is busy being all about SF and making sure everyone else is all about SF. Seattle is all about Settle and making sure everyone else is all about Seattle. SF has the moderate weather, the progressive population and atmosphere, the high tech environment, and the major quirkiness of the other two, but doesn't really give a fuck if anyone is about Portland or not.
I enjoy all three - but will take PDX over the others any time I'm given the chance. Plus, the most strip clubs, coffee houses, used book stores, and bars per capita of anywhere in the nation. So . .. you know . . . hurrah.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by im_thatoneguy · 2011-09-16 13:09 · Score: 1

Yeah I'm really confused by this news. Just so I'm clear... companies are fleeing California (because it has a sales Tax) to go to Washington which has a sales Tax!?
Re:Why Not Oregon? by PPH · 2011-09-16 14:40 · Score: 1

You can't pump your own gas in Oregon.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by davemshopobot · 2011-09-16 15:18 · Score: 2

Hey! - one of the http://shopobot.com/ founders here.. We chose Seattle because we've both lived there before, and we like it, and it has a pretty good startup scene. I actually just moved to SF from Seattle to when we started the startup, so it was a quick return home for me.

btw, this is the first time we've been on /. so I was excited about having the servers melt.. but unfortunately most people just went to the blog on not our site. Maybe next time :)
Re:Why Not Oregon? by xero314 · 2011-09-16 15:23 · Score: 1

I think you mean you don't have to pump our own gas in Oregon, or New Jersey.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by davemshopobot · 2011-09-16 15:29 · Score: 2

No - it was weirder than that...
basically..
1) online stores like Amazon would prefer not to collect sales tax. And they've been able to do that because they're not a "California company"
2) California would love to get some more tax revenue. So they made a law saying: if you work with a CA affiliate, that's basically the same thing as being a CA company.

So Amazon had a choice.. start collecting sales tax in CA, or stop working with CA affiliates. The choice was pretty easy for them! But for us (shopobot) that meant that we had to leave the state to keep working with the online stores. It wasn't the end of the world, but it was annoying.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by PPH · 2011-09-16 16:11 · Score: 1

No. I mean can't. I don't have to in Washington State, if I'm willing to pay for full service. Try getting out of your car and grabbing the nozzle in Oregon and see what happens.
I wonder if Oregon will hang on to this nonsense if, one day, some CEO considered Oregon for their new corporate HQ. But he (or she) is a real car nut and just said, "Can't pump my own gas? I'll locate somewhere else. Thanks anyway."

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Ultracrepidarian · 2011-09-16 20:59 · Score: 1

And yet, gas in Oregon is still cheaper than self-serve in Washington.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by drinkypoo · 2011-09-17 00:30 · Score: 1

No. I mean can't. I don't have to in Washington State, if I'm willing to pay for full service. Try getting out of your car and grabbing the nozzle in Oregon and see what happens.

Yeah, I tried to do that one time, because I'm an independent individual as well. But then I realized that the gas was still cheaper than it was in Washington (where I was driving from) or California (where I live) and then I relaxed.

I wonder if Oregon will hang on to this nonsense if, one day, some CEO considered Oregon for their new corporate HQ. But he (or she) is a real car nut and just said, "Can't pump my own gas? I'll locate somewhere else. Thanks anyway."
I wonder where you come up with this shit.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why Not Oregon? by drinkypoo · 2011-09-17 00:36 · Score: 1

As douchey as San Francisco can be, Los Angeles is an order of magnitude douchier. In SF you can still get women to talk to you other than to get your name for a restraining order. Of course, they're probably lesbians, but amusingly, they're still friendlier than the straight girls in LA.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Surt · 2011-09-17 05:33 · Score: 1

The downside is that you can't have automated stations that will let you pump your own gas any time of day. Try getting gas at 2am on a lonely stretch of road in Oregon, that's the real downside of that law.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-17 07:27 · Score: 1

Intel and Nike don't pay property taxes because Washington County and Oregon cut 'em sweetheart deals to go run out of state. Both pretty much only offer revolving door six month contracts, contributing to the high unemployment. And since they're not paying anything to the county, then people wonder why the schools are so lousy and most roads are still two lane here. Beaverton is Los Angeles North, and Portlandia is an accurate description of Portland (speaking as someone who's middle name is Eliot after the Northeast Portland district, where I was born and grew up). If you can't see this, you're clearly reading The Oregonian in a vacuum and never have been to someplace that has a tax strategy that's a bit less favorable to cheapskate corporations, like Oklahoma, where the wages and job security are better and the cost of living is lower.

--
Furries make the internet go.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-17 07:31 · Score: 1

Seattle and SF are on two extremes. Portland is just the right mix of those two, without quite the douchiness (despite what the TV show Portlandia might try to portray).
I would say that as far as douchiness is concerned, it is highest in SF, next highest in Portland, then least in Seattle.
Western California in general has Californicated pretty much every major American city within a two day drive of it, that hasn't the stones to take none of their crap. Portland used to have the stones, but then the population tripled in ten years largely from the smarmy side of California, so now there's far more Californians than Portlanders in Portland, and Portlanders that have the means to do so are abandoning the city for places that don't take California's bullshit.

I'm not sure what happens when you cross the border and get into Vancouver, BC, as I think their douchiness is measured in metric, and I don't know how to convert that. Google was of absolutely no help there. :(
You have an international boundary between Vancouver and California, which cuts down the asshole factor big-time. This major difference alone is good enough reason to expel California from the US, for the protection of Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Bend, Boise, Seattle, Butte....

--
Furries make the internet go.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-17 07:33 · Score: 1

You can if you own or work for a transportation or energy company, or a farm. Rationale being that if you work in those sectors, you know what you're doing and aren't going to spill it, contaminating the air, groundwater and creating a fire hazard (since most of Oregon's population lives surrounded by trees that burn explosively). Gas is also cheaper as a result, since it doesn't cost as much to insure. The cheapest gas stations in Vancouver, WA are also minimum-service only with no self serve.

--
Furries make the internet go.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-17 07:35 · Score: 1

I wonder if Oregon will hang on to this nonsense if, one day, some CEO considered Oregon for their new corporate HQ. But he (or she) is a real car nut and just said, "Can't pump my own gas? I'll locate somewhere else. Thanks anyway."
Why pay more to do the gas station's job for 'em? Gas is 10-20 cheaper at minimum-service pumps than self service pumps in the same area in Washington and BC because the insurance liability is lower than letting every random moron handle volatile liquids that stick to skin...

--
Furries make the internet go.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-17 07:36 · Score: 1

Get a business license for some company that only exists on paper (but ostensibly requires you to use a vehicle) and sign up for Pacific Pride cardlocks. They're exclusively self-service, even in Oregon.

--
Furries make the internet go.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by arkane1234 · 2011-09-17 10:19 · Score: 1

Sorry dude, you're all alone there.
Never had that problem in L.A.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Why Not Oregon? by PPH · 2011-09-18 08:18 · Score: 1

And yet, gas in Oregon is still cheaper than self-serve in Washington.
State gas tax*. OTOH, compare that to an income tax (of which WA has none). We can go on nit-picking each other's tax rates to death. But nanny state regulations say a lot about the mindset of the government, even if they don't hit the bottom line directly.
* Can I pump my own motor fuel anywhere in Oregon? Even out of my own home tanks? Right now, I can zero out my WA state motor vehicle tax by home brewing bio diesel.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by pnutjam · 2011-09-19 01:52 · Score: 1

Whoa, is Mitch Daniels in charge of Oregon too?

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Why Not Oregon? by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-19 16:56 · Score: 1

No, we just have a regressive, fuck-the-poor-and-middle-class tax structure modeled after the US...

--
Furries make the internet go.

What day is today? by Spiridios · 2011-09-16 11:09 · Score: 2

Oh yeah, today's Stay Away from Seattle Day. I think /. is trying to subvert this most wondrous of holidays!

I've been to Seattle by blair1q · 2011-09-16 11:12 · Score: 1, Informative

I've been to Seattle.

The sun hasn't.

I wouldn't flee there except that I then proceed to another destination.

Re:I've been to Seattle by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-09-16 11:19 · Score: 1

I was going to say the same thing. In their defense, though, San Francisco isn't a mecca of sunshine either. Lots of grey days, even when the rest of the Bay Area is basking in sunshine.
Re:I've been to Seattle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:24 · Score: 0

Maybe they're vampires, you insensitive clod!
Re:I've been to Seattle by wilgibson · 2011-09-16 11:48 · Score: 2

Obviously you weren't in Seattle for the months of June, July, August, and September. All we've had are gorgeous sunny days with temperatures between 60 and 85F. Four months of amazing whether and eight months of drizzle and chill is definitely more favorable than the five months of 90F+, 100% humidity BS I moved out of when I left the south.
Re:I've been to Seattle by Dahamma · 2011-09-16 11:56 · Score: 1

SF may not be a mecca of *warmth* (in the summer - in winter it's warmer than most or the rest of the Bay Area), but it still WAY in the top percentage of US cities as far as sunny days goes. Not only blows away Seattle by 2x, it beats most major cities outside of CA and AZ...
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/weatherfacts/numbersunny_city_desc.php
Caveat - this does not apply if you live in the Sunset, in that case the rest of SF pities you :)
Re:I've been to Seattle by Sponge+Bath · 2011-09-16 12:02 · Score: 1, Funny

What about Texas? Come for the drought and wildfires, stay for the Tea Party madness.
Re:I've been to Seattle by badbart · 2011-09-16 12:07 · Score: 1

The first rule of Seattle Club is: you don't talk about July and August.
The second rule of Seattle Club is: YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT JULY AND AUGUST!
(An exception to rules 1 and 2 is being made for 2011).
Re:I've been to Seattle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 13:03 · Score: 0

Who cares about the weather when I'm too busy receiving all these fabulous blow jobs? Delish!
Re:I've been to Seattle by blair1q · 2011-09-16 13:06 · Score: 1

Must be.
If they were werewolves I'd have seen them at the meetings.
Re:I've been to Seattle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 13:18 · Score: 0

60-85?! Fuck that. I'll stay where it's always 70 and sunny!
Re:I've been to Seattle by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-16 13:25 · Score: 1

Huh? Not this year! Summer didn't arrive until August! June and July sucked bad - and I'm a native, having lived in Seattle for most of every one of my 43 years... We had a good August, and it stretched until September 10th - and then promptly petered out with the 62 and gray skies thing since then...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:I've been to Seattle by digitig · 2011-09-16 13:59 · Score: 1

What's sunshine got to do with it? As far as I can see, these are SF geeks. What would they be doing outside?

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:I've been to Seattle by AbrasiveCat · 2011-09-16 15:04 · Score: 1

Obviously you weren't in Seattle for the months of June, July, August, and September. All we've had are gorgeous sunny days with temperatures between 60 and 85F. Four months of amazing whether and eight months of drizzle and chill is definitely more favorable than the five months of 90F+, 100% humidity BS I moved out of when I left the south.
Bah, you weren't paying attention to Emmett Watson. It truly "rains all of the time in Seattle". (Keep to the message.)
Re:I've been to Seattle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 15:32 · Score: 0

SF feels colder than the rest of the Bay Area in the winter. The temperature may be higher, but it's so damn wet there the chill bleeds into your bones.
As for sunshine, yes, there are a lot of half sunny days. The fog usually burns off around noon. The bummer is that all those sunny days come in one great big chunk. Then it rains for six months.
Re:I've been to Seattle by Technician · 2011-09-16 16:24 · Score: 1

I've been to the rest of the state. Feel free to discover the rest of the state.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Clarkston-Washington.html
The average commute to work is less than 10 minutes.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:I've been to Seattle by Technician · 2011-09-16 16:29 · Score: 1

Forgot to include The Tri Cities in the post above. If you want Sun, check near Pasco.

With more than 300 sunny days each year, the Tri-Cities is perfect for Golfing, Swimming, Boating, Hiking, Hunting... Anything and everything under the Sun!!
65 days a year without sun is what part of the rest of the state has.
http://www.viewourhomes.com/tri-cities.html

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:I've been to Seattle by Dahamma · 2011-09-16 18:15 · Score: 1

6 months of rain!? Do you live here and just never go outside, or are you just trolling? How many of these SF weather myths do I have to debunk in one day!?
Mean clear days by month + total below. And "clear" means days that are majority sunny. SF only averages 67 rainy days a year. And if you want to stand on the beach in the surf, maybe winter will seem cold, but I guarantee you an evening in January in downtown SF both feels and *is* warmer than an evening in January in downtown San Jose...
SAN FRANCISCO 9 8 10 11 14 16 21 19 18 16 11 9 160
These stats are all available with 30 seconds of searching, if you don't feel like going outside at least once a day...
Re:I've been to Seattle by Ultracrepidarian · 2011-09-16 21:05 · Score: 1

June is usually cool and Independence day is generally rainy. October is often good, though a bit cool.
Re:I've been to Seattle by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-17 03:07 · Score: 1

Yet another reason I should have listened to my mother when she told me, "Dont buy a house in Texas unless it has wheels".

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Re:I've been to Seattle by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-17 03:12 · Score: 1

I visited the Tri-Cities when I was a kid to visit family. We went swimming one day then drove up into the mountains and went snow skiing the next.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Re:I've been to Seattle by Animats · 2011-09-17 06:20 · Score: 1

I went to Seattle when I had some business at Microsoft HQ. The sun was shining the three days I was there. I didn't realize how rare that was.
Microsoft now has a campus in Silicon Valley, near Google HQ. The people there seem happier than the ones in Redmond.

Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'way! by smoothnorman · 2011-09-16 11:13 · Score: 4, Funny

No no no... stay away from Seattle. nothing to see here. it rains all the time!. this is not the city you seek. you want...Portland, yeah! Portland is much more friendly and bike-centric and mellow. Seattlites are all hyper-liberal coffee-drinking zombies... save yourself! stay away! ....aaaaieeeee..... [end of transmission]

In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in droves by unassimilatible · 2011-09-16 11:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

over taxes and regulation. According to this blog (LOL, only "business relocation coaches" have secure employment in CA) companies leaving CA has increased 5-fold since 2009, an average of 5.4 per week! And Chief Executive magazine has again ranked California last of 50 states to have a business. 14 states have tasked their economic development agencies with luring away California companies tired of high taxes, profuse regulations, and an extortionate legal system. So let's not just make this about Amazon. Everyone is fleeing CA. In fact, WA is not even safe. With the NLRB's overreaching against Boeing, their next move might be to China.

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

Lonely in Seattle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:15 · Score: 0

And rain.

North Dakota by Billly+Gates · 2011-09-16 11:15 · Score: 1

Many new .COMs on a shoe string budget are opening there because of no sales taxes and other breaks. Texas is nice too, but the legislature keeps flirting with the idea of implementing an internet sales tax which scares many businesses. I strongly prefer to live in Texas vs Oklahoma, but any sales tax can quickly throw you out of business as it is an unfair disadvantage over someone else who can sell things cheaper.

California is a bad place for a startup due to its unfriendly business atmosphere, which is why companies there are laying off so many workers. I am surprised how the .com revolution even got started there? Maybe those were the days before Wall Street and cost accountants cared about profitability and taxes?

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:North Dakota by geekoid · 2011-09-16 11:30 · Score: 1

Did you miss the point where they got quick investment of money from CA?
No state moves investment faster the CA.
I don't care where you have your startup, if you sell in a state that has a tax, then you need to collect that tax.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:North Dakota by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:33 · Score: 0

Sounds great, but it's in North Dakota.
Re:North Dakota by zyzko · 2011-09-17 01:18 · Score: 1

Did you miss the point where they got quick investment of money from CA?
No state moves investment faster the CA.
I don't care where you have your startup, if you sell in a state that has a tax, then you need to collect that tax.
The greater problem is having the same currency and free flow of things in states with very different taxation and economic policies. Euro-zone is in crisis now because of this (and because of a certain housing bubble and even criminal activity in the form of forgery in the case of Greece). United States is a bit tighter federation and can throw down the big federal hammer more easily but it is still a problem when companies start to seriously shop for the cheapeast and politicians, investors and banks bend over to this - sure, it brings nice short-term benefits but in the long term if you have the same currency unified policies are better - ref. Ireland.
Re:North Dakota by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-18 04:44 · Score: 0

I don't care where you have your startup, if you sell in a state that has a tax, then you need to collect that tax.
I am in Massachusetts. I have my own state taxes to worry about collecting, but at least I have representation in Massachusetts.
Why should I have to play collection agent for the other 49 states, each of which could have byzantine tax regulations, where I don't receive any services and I don't have any representation? I will leave that matter up to the customers I ship to, because they receive those services and have that representation.
Consider the case of Alaska. The IRS instructions for deducting sales taxes on Form 1040 Schedule A pretty much special case all of Alaska and have you refer to a table that spans three pages. Sales taxes seem to be based on locality, borough, average price of crude oil over the past six months, the length of this year's fishing season, and who knows what else.
If Alaskans want that (and props to them for basically requiring each citizen to master multivariable calculus to buy a pair of boots), then that is their prerogative. We are more laid back in Massachusetts, one uniform sales tax of 6.25% is more our speed. If Alaska wants to start basing their sales taxes on the U.S. Dollar - Japanese Yen exchange rate, let them. But the rest of us are what they would call "outside of Alaskan jurisdiction" and will not be bearing the costs of Alaska's decisions.
I don't owe anything to Alaska, and I will sell to Jimmy Coldnuts in Barrow and do so without having to mind-meld with Sarah Palin, thank you.

Seattle is a nice destination? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:19 · Score: 0

News to me. Everyone who lives around these parts always wants to leave, saying how there's only one season here: the rainy season. It's like Vancouver and London in that respect.

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:22 · Score: 1

You exaggerate, Sir. Seattle has a summer. This year it was last weekend.

The story of Seattle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:25 · Score: 0

Long, long ago Seattle suffered under a drought that threatened to wipe the city off the map. The city fathers sacrificed a young virgin named Cortney Love to the rain god. The rain god expressed his displeasure by making it rain ever since.

Seattle startups by Omnifarious · 2011-09-16 11:25 · Score: 1

I think we, in many ways, have a better environment for startups than the SF area. There's a lot of good talent up here.

And it's not rainy year round. The summers are gorgeous and sunny. The SF area is pretty rainy in the winter too.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

Re:Seattle startups by Tumbleweed · 2011-09-16 11:50 · Score: 1

I think we, in many ways, have a better environment for startups than the SF area. There's a lot of good talent up here.
And it's not rainy year round. The summers are gorgeous and sunny. The SF area is pretty rainy in the winter too.
The problem with the startup talent in Seattle is that so many of them have grown up on MS shit that they don't realize it's shit. And expensive, which is anathema for startups. Some startups realize that as long as someone knows how to code, they can switch to any other platform with a minimum of fuss, but many do not.
Re:Seattle startups by Omnifarious · 2011-09-16 16:11 · Score: 1

There is a pretty strong population of non-MS programmers here too. I've l been mostly a Unix hacker, though I did do some work with Microsoft garbage a long time ago, and in the bad old days of MS-DOS when you couldn't get a machine on your desk that ran Unix for less than 10k USD.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Seattle startups by Surt · 2011-09-17 05:48 · Score: 1

I think we, in many ways, have a better environment for startups than the SF area. There's a lot of good talent up here.
And it's not rainy year round. The summers are gorgeous and sunny. The SF area is pretty rainy in the winter too.
Sure the summers are gorgeous and sunny, but can you really afford to live the good life only one week per year?

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:My experience as a Manhattan startup by camelphace · 2011-09-16 11:26 · Score: 1

WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING?

Lets see by geekoid · 2011-09-16 11:28 · Score: 0

A) People from Seattle move the CA and get funding for a CA organization
B) Amazon throws a hissy fit over having to collect taxes.(something they do in other states already)
C) Amazon just off thousand of people
D) These guys flee the state that got them started, and move to Washington so the can cozy up to the people that cut them out.

and, of course,m /. will blame CA for this, not understand this is about collection, blame CA for driving off a 2 man company, and ignore the fact that cutting people off was a strategy calculation from Amazon to put pressure to go to a one tax for all states model that have spent millions lobbying for.

As for the people who started the company? they where just leeches to get CA money and leave, this just provided a convient PR move so they can kiss amazons ass.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Lets see by frosty_tsm · 2011-09-16 11:35 · Score: 1

A) People from Seattle move the CA and get funding for a CA organization B) Amazon throws a hissy fit over having to collect taxes.(something they do in other states already) C) Amazon just off thousand of people D) These guys flee the state that got them started, and move to Washington so the can cozy up to the people that cut them out.
and, of course,m /. will blame CA for this, not understand this is about collection, blame CA for driving off a 2 man company, and ignore the fact that cutting people off was a strategy calculation from Amazon to put pressure to go to a one tax for all states model that have spent millions lobbying for.
As for the people who started the company? they where just leeches to get CA money and leave, this just provided a convient PR move so they can kiss amazons ass.
Not all small business owners in CA want to leech and leave; it's just prohibitively expensive to run a low-revenue operation.
Re:Lets see by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:47 · Score: 0

geekoid, please stop commenting on ./ Your comments are so poorly written, incomprehensible, and add nothing... Every time I read a comment obviously written by a dipshit, it is usually one of yours.

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by geekoid · 2011-09-16 11:32 · Score: 1

IF you like good beer and coffee, then yeah, come to portland. We will treat you and your business well.

Seattle is where old douche bags go to die.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Businesses are fleeing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Businesses are fleeing California for a lot of reasons.

Those that remain may enjoy their fitted sheet mandate as enforced by their mattress police.

Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by TiggertheMad · 2011-09-16 11:36 · Score: 1

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm sure that a lot of Canadians would like to overthrow the US government...

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by JWSmythe · 2011-09-16 11:52 · Score: 2, Informative

You know, a few years ago I would have argued with you about that. Then I spent some time up there.
There are plenty of people up there who have problems with our foreign policy, trade agreements (NAFTA is only when it works for the US). Some were a bit confused, and interested, to see that not all Americans fit the "dumb American" stereotype. The US gov't doesn't always play nice with the Canadian government, but you won't hear about that on our side of the fence. Very rarely will you see the whole picture of how others feel about America, until you've lived among them for a while.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Hylandr · 2011-09-16 11:54 · Score: 1

And everyone's going to sing: "Blame Canada!".

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by gilbert644 · 2011-09-16 14:06 · Score: 1

So the Canadians you meet thought that all Americans fit the "dumb American" stereotype? So you went there and meet a bunch of assholes?
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by tqk · 2011-09-16 14:24 · Score: 1

I'm sure that a lot of Canadians would like to overthrow the US government...
Perhaps. I'd prefer it if they'd just fix their gov't.
When Canada was formed, we were looking across the border seeing mobocracy (the US' Civil War) in action, and it doesn't seem that much has improved South of here since. Yeah, WWII was a terrific high point for the US (thanks!) and the Civil Rights Movement was great, but damn(!), is the US legal system, health care system, economic (Wall St.) system, ... broken! Their politicians are total sell-outs to special interests, the MAFIAA/Entertainment Industry (WTF?!?) appears to be in complete control, and JWST/NASA is begging for funds while the military gets damned near anything it wants via black budgets (don't get me wrong; thanks for potting that A-Hole bin Laden, and I love Seal Team 6, but geez, so much other really bad !@#$ is going on, it's ridiculous).
Why so little of all that bad !@#$ has any chance of getting cleaned up in my lifetime is what confuses me about the US. Does the US only do the Right Stuff when a Pearl Harbour happens or the Soviets might get there first? Seems so from here. The BS from their elected representatives they put up with is nonsensical.
The US's not much looking these days like the country their founding fathers envisioned it should be.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by tqk · 2011-09-16 14:33 · Score: 1

So the Canadians you meet thought that all Americans fit the "dumb American" stereotype?
A lot of the latter do fit the "dumb American" stereotype. Look at the US Congress for proof.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Pseudonym+Authority · 2011-09-16 15:26 · Score: 0, Flamebait

A lot of African-Americans fit the "nigger" stereotype. If it is okay for Canadians to be bigots (and still consider themselves better), is it okay for me to be racist?
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by tqk · 2011-09-16 17:19 · Score: 1

A lot of African-Americans fit the "nigger" stereotype. If it is okay for Canadians to be bigots (and still consider themselves better), is it okay for me to be racist?
What does "dumb Americans" have to do with your racist attitude, or blacks at all?
Lots of your congresscritters are dumb/stupid/whatever. That's got nothing to do with any particular American's DNA or parentage.
I wish you dorks would spend *any* time at all on introspection before blaming others first for your faults.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Pseudonym+Authority · 2011-09-16 17:42 · Score: 1

Do you not see how believing that one group is dumb, and how believing that one group is inferior are not related?

Is no amount of cognitive dissonance too much for you Canadians and Europeans when it comes to blind antiamericanism?
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by dbIII · 2011-09-16 17:56 · Score: 1

You captured that dumb American stereotype perfectly! Yes that's exactly the sort of thing they'd expect a dumb American to say.
Thankfully I've met a lot of Americans that are not dumb and the same goes with Canadians. They do have that insane idea of putting bacon AND syrup on pancakes for BREAKFAST but that's an inspired and tasty insanity.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Pseudonym+Authority · 2011-09-16 18:07 · Score: 1

I acknowledge your post but I failed to derive any meaning from it.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by manwargi · 2011-09-16 18:30 · Score: 1

Despite the attention-grabbing way he phrased it, he does have a point. Stereotyping all Americans as a bunch of obese gun-toting xenophobic anti-intellectuals is the same as pigeonholing all the colored people into the category of... well, obese gun-toting xenophobic anti-intellectuals. Funny how the negative stereotypes for blacks are so similar to the negative stereotypes for whites, isn't it??? The analogy works, and the n-bomb drove the point home.

Now that said, whatever you might think about the American public, the government has rightly earned a reputation for supporting greed and nasty foreign policies, and since American claims to be a democracy, it certainly would look like the public supports them too.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by dbIII · 2011-09-17 00:18 · Score: 1

There's no point continuing to pretend to be as dumb as you did with the earlier post is there? We all know you're not really dumb enough to actually mean the "OK to be racist" bit and it was a joke. That's true right - the words were a joke and not you being a complete joke of human being?
Now do you get it?
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by khallow · 2011-09-17 00:25 · Score: 1

So which country are you pretending to be a dumb member of? I need to pigeon-hole you correctly.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by flaming+error · 2011-09-17 03:29 · Score: 1

> Why so little of all that bad !@#$ has any chance of
> getting cleaned up in my lifetime is what confuses
> me about the US.
Even if we weren't ideologically divided and pitted against each other, they only let us out of our cages to vote once every four years, and even then keep us on a short leash.
Until enough thoughtful people manage to open their cages, nothing can change.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Surt · 2011-09-17 05:23 · Score: 1

Congress represents less than 1% of all Americans, and, yes, I mean that both ways.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by JWSmythe · 2011-09-17 07:00 · Score: 1

But during campaign time, they managed to get somewhere over 20.45% of the population to believe that they were representing the people. (over half of the voter turn voted for them).
While I fully believe that politicians lie during campaign season (and the rest of the time too), I still turn out to vote. I vote for the person least likely to strip us of our rights, and other assorted "bad things".

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 07:27 · Score: 0

It doesn't mean I don't care, or we shouldn't always try to be better people, but I stopped worrying too much about the anti-americanism thing a long time ago.

I've been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time traveling. Among the amazing things I've learned is that there is no land of enlightened intellectualism. Nobody has their foreign and domestic affairs figured out. There are no perfectly comfortable, "correct" positions that immunize you from criticism. No single country I've been to has struck me as having a discernibly lesser degree of hatred for other nationalities... sometimes specific, sometimes in general. None of them treat their citizens perfectly. Et cetera, ad infinitum.

The US, however, is a unique target at the moment. With its political, economic and military influence being what it is, we're the natural, rhetorical punching-bag. So when you're kicking around on the internet, you're going to hear a disproportionate degree of shouting about how horrible the US is. It's just the way it is.

When some other nation takes up the flagship role among global super-powers, the hate speech will be directed at them... just as it's always been. It's only a matter of time.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by JWSmythe · 2011-09-17 07:53 · Score: 1

That sample set is too small for an accurate analysis. Additionally, you have selected a filtered subset of the group for your sample set. Please retest and re-evaluate your position.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by lightknight · 2011-09-17 10:02 · Score: 1

Well, they've already burnt down the White House once...

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by arkane1234 · 2011-09-17 10:14 · Score: 1

You'll have to excuse him, he's slow, so he's obviously Canadian.
Just ask him the same question louder and more pronounced, it works for those slow people.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Surt · 2011-09-17 13:45 · Score: 1

How do you know which candidate that is, given that you believe they are lying to you?

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by JWSmythe · 2011-09-18 07:34 · Score: 1

You have to learn how to read people. What is their stance (what they say they want). Do they change their stance by the audience they're speaking? Are they trying to pley every side of a discussion to swing their vote? Are they consistent in what they're saying? What have they historically done, and how has that related to their previous stances?
If a candidate addresses the NRA and says that we're constitutionally protected to continue to bare arms, but has a history of voting to restrict firearms ownership, that indicates that they are more willing to vote against our rights. I'm by no stretch of the imagination an NRA supporter, but I *AM* a supporter of civilian ownership of firearms. If you dig through my posting history, even just here on Slashdot, you'll see that to be true.
If a candidate states that they swear to uphold and protect the US Constitution and rights of the citizens, but has publicly stated or voted against free speech and privacy rights (reasonable search and seizure), no matter what they say in the campaign, they aren't working to protect our rights.
If their campaign platform is to represent the citizens and not accept campaign contribution, or bend to the pressures of big business, but then they quietly accept a fortune, and vote constantly in favor of businesses over people, they aren't working for the people. Governor Rick Scott, I'm pointing at you.
If they swear to correct the budget by requiring all entities to pay their fair share in taxes to fix the budget, but then allow GE to make a 5.1 billion dollar profit in the US (14.2 billion dollars world wide), yet allowing them to have a $0 tax bill (and take 3.2 billion dollars in tax benefits), they aren't seeking to fix anything, other than to leave a looming deficit, and take shady "contributions" (paper bag full of cash, etc).
Some politicians votes can be bought for a fancy dinner. Some for a nice vacation for them and their family. Sometimes it's $10k cash. Sometimes it's more. Some are honest. The honest ones are the same ones that don't have a successful political career. They may do well in the short term, but they won't remain in office for the long run.
Find me a honest politician, and I'd bet within a day I can find enough dirt on them to make you wonder why they aren't in prison. Make it easy for me though, keep it on the federal level. It's harder to find information quickly on local politicians, although I'm sure there is plenty of it.
An example of local politicians and their dirt is this.. This is a true story. There was a large land owner in a small town. A good portion of his property bordered a remote shoreline, with direct access to international waters. During campaign season, he would hold political fundraisers at his ranch for the sheriff, judges, and county officials. Some late nights, low flying aircraft would land at his ranch. Some nights, boats would come in to his dock. The sheriffs department would have a substantial number of patrol cars drive out there, and then leave shortly afterwards. No lights or sirens. No urgency in their travel. Something was brought into the ranch, and something was taken out in the patrol cars. Nobody saw anything. There would be no record of any incident at the ranch. The sheriff lived in a very nice gated and guarded compound. The ranch owner paid next to nothing in taxes. Just a token amount, after the county approved tax incentives. You or I would never find anything on what was happening. It never made the papers. The only way to find out what was in the plane, boat, or cars, would be to intercept them. Good luck there. The only way to know about it was to be involved, or if you happened to be at the right place, at the right time, and didn't say anything to anyone about it. Well, you could, if you wanted to be the victim of a boating or hunting accident. Shit happens, especially if you see something you shouldn't have.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Coren22 · 2011-09-19 02:23 · Score: 1

America Democracy. Please stop believing it is.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Coren22 · 2011-09-19 02:24 · Score: 1

ack, it ate my brackets... "America =/= Democracy" works just as well

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Rise and overthrow the opressive overlords, eh? by Coren22 · 2011-09-19 02:31 · Score: 1

You mean every 2 years right?
We vote for the president every 4 years, but 1/3 of the Senate and all of the House get elected every two years. If more people voted on the off years, we might have a chance of changing things for the better, but the majority only vote for the president, who has no real power.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

No, not Portland by JordanL · 2011-09-16 11:39 · Score: 1

You shouldn't come to Portland either. We also have tons of rain, and... there's nothing to do here... so stay down in Cali where you're safe from the harmful drops of water that mysteriously fall to earth.

--
FanFictionRecs.net

Re:No, not Portland by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:47 · Score: 1

Well the water wasn't a part of the solution.
Re:No, not Portland by zippthorne · 2011-09-16 12:02 · Score: 1

Water is almost always part of the solution. It's the most common solvent by a significant margin over all the others.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:No, not Portland by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2011-09-16 12:40 · Score: 2

I can't believe this entire line was precipitated by a fairly innocuous comment.

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Re:No, not Portland by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 19:43 · Score: 0

To be fair, this person wrote "Cali", which should be a sign that you discount everything they say.
Silly non-northeastern people and their inability to grasp the concept of "weather". Not to mention inability to handle themselves in crowds or distinguish between "Mary", "merry", and "marry". Crazy kids these west coast bumpkins, they should really get off my lawn.
-Exiled in Seattle. :)

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by geekoid · 2011-09-16 11:39 · Score: 0

SO you list people who are making money moving companies as a source? are you really that stupid? I don't think so.

The first guys information include companies going under and uses it t imply they are moving, instead of simple loosing business and a poor economy.

I mean, Come on. Other companies his list have NOTHING to do with CA regulations or taxes. It was part of a plan when the were acquired by out of state companies.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Washington doesn't have a corporate income tax by Solandri · 2011-09-16 11:40 · Score: 1

Just a business and occupation tax which varies by industry. In most cases it's about 1% of revenue, which is pretty business-friendly.

Oregon has a two-tiered corporate income tax, which tops out at 7.9% of profit over $250k. Web-based services usually have low expenses, so there's not much difference between revenue and profit, making Washington the clear winner.

Re:Washington doesn't have a corporate income tax by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-16 13:24 · Score: 2

Oregon has a two-tiered corporate income tax, which tops out at 7.9% of profit over $250k. Web-based services usually have low expenses, so there's not much difference between revenue and profit, making Washington the clear winner.
Hmmm... Not quite. Having run a business in WA, you do pay an effectively hefty B&O tax (it's now at 1.5% for service industries, like resellers). And it's on GROSS receipts - not operating revenue. So every dollar of product or service you sell is hit with this rate - not just your gross profit or operating revenue. Buy a widget for $80 and sell it for $120? You pay 1.5% tax on the $120 - not the $40 of your gross margin. And there are NO deductions for profitability - you can lose money on the deal but you still have to pay the full B&O tax on the gross receipts.
All in all, a B&O tax is about the most unfair version of tax you can get as its strictly on gross receipts/dollars in, with no adjustments offered for expenses or even cost of goods sold. Just straight receipts times your rate and pay up.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Washington doesn't have a corporate income tax by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:21 · Score: 0

As a small bus owner.. couldn't agree more. Fool.com says the avg profit margin is 8.3%.. So a 1% b&o is equivalent to a 12% income tax rate. 1.5% is equivalent to a 18% income tax(!)
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2006/03/01/the-profit-margin-paradigm.aspx

Seattle is a nice place. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:46 · Score: 0

Everyone bitches and moans about how cloudy it is, and frankly it's not that bad. It's not always cloudy, and if you are so invested in how the weather is outside rather than the other things that make up and amounts to what makes a place a great place to live you've got other issues to deal with.

-Signed,
Raised in Hawaii Citizen.

PS always sunny and balmy weather is worthless if you're paying a huge cost of living. That's fiscally retarded. k thx bye.

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 11:48 · Score: 0

IF you like good beer and coffee, then yeah, come to portland. We will treat you and your business well.

Seattle is where old douche bags go to die.

... and Portland is where street youth go to sit on the corner and be all "deep" and superior to the working suckers. I was pretty underwhelmed when I went to Portland. It's like Seattle but smaller and with more street kids.

Same here by l0ungeb0y · 2011-09-16 11:55 · Score: 1

I'm just a one man operation doing a browser with mobile app API for my own service (for extra money revenue -- not a true startup in the typical sense) that got shutdown mid-development by this fracas. However, I'm not ready to move to Seattle -- lived there for 15 years, and unless you are wealthy the place has fuck all going on. I'm not wealthy and my CPA advises me that simply filing incorporation in another state without significant infrastructure there will not pass the smell test.
However, I'm considering living in Cabo San Lucas for the next couple years on an FM3 and looking at ways to swing that little complexity. But personally, I'd rather set up shop in Reno or Vegas under Nevada Charter than Washington State, if anything because Nevada is very corporation friendly and in much closer proximity to CA than Seattle and the property values there are still very reasonable since they didn't have the quite housing bubble that Seattle and other major Metro areas did over the last 10 years.

Frankly, I'm ticked-off at Amazon since they seem to be willing to settle this matter with CA, but have pissed all over their affiliates and haven't even sent a damned email about this latest development and how it effects the possibility of reinstature. And that really speaks a lot to what trash and garbage they view their affiliates as. So I've moved on to other projects for now.

Re:Same here by glenstar · 2011-09-16 12:17 · Score: 1

Washington state is downright hostile to small business. The DOR is evil and will treat you like a mega corporation even if you only have a single employee. I have had several corporations and LLCs registered in Washington (and stupidly just set up a new one here) but next time I will pay for an empty office space in Las Vegas and do it that way.
Re:Same here by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2011-09-16 12:52 · Score: 1

Every major city will have its issues. I lived in Reno for a year before moving to Carson City. Compared to my last home in Texas, the property rates here seemed high. My Los Angeles area relatives were shocked that I could buy a 3/2 house 1500 sqft for 74K. They also thought it a waste since it's just me and my girlfriend. At any rate, I've noticed more and more companies moving here from California. If I ever decided to give up my cushy government job, I'd have my pick of the companies coming here. So I applaud California, keep driving business out, I guarantee somebody else will want it.

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 16:25 · Score: 0

Yeah, ditto on the Dept of Revenue being evilll.
They'll hound you for $$ and shut down your business even though they won't get any tax if they do that.
By the way, you might want to consider Wyoming corps vs. Nevada. Wyoming corps are even more favorable to the small businessman.
Re:Same here by drsquare · 2011-09-17 07:34 · Score: 1

Why does proximity to California matter? You're trying to get away from them and their business-unfriendly environment, remember. Better to get as far away from them as possible.

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by JWSmythe · 2011-09-16 12:00 · Score: 1

I've been there several times, and I think you may be exaggerating the length of the summer. Well, unless this was a particularly hot year. :)

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by frank_adrian314159 · 2011-09-16 12:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, no!!! Not Portland! It's always rainy here and there are all of those smelly hippies and hipsters and... well, you saw Portlandia, didn't you? It's just like that. And there are cougars (the feline kind) roaming in the streets (no more cars to run them over now that we have so many bicycles) so you're not safe at all. Stay down there in beatuiful, sunny California. I'd be down there with you, instead of this hell hole, but we don't make enough money up here for us to move there.

--
That is all.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by MrEricSir · 2011-09-16 12:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

Look, California is one of the largest economies in the world for a reason. (Actually, a lot of reasons.)

If you don't want to give back to the state that you do business in, bye bye. You won't be missed. Have fun learning the hard way why nobody else is running a software company in South Carolina or whatever.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."

Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by sdguero · 2011-09-16 12:34 · Score: 1

North Carolina has a shitload of software companies. I dunno about the South though...
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 12:36 · Score: 0

Riiiight, /nobody/ has a successful software company in Washington.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 12:57 · Score: 0

Right.
This is why Germany and Austria are booming, luring new companies, and don't have employment issues.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by mc6809e · 2011-09-16 13:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look, California is one of the largest economies in the world for a reason. (Actually, a lot of reasons.)
If you don't want to give back to the state that you do business in, bye bye. You won't be missed. Have fun learning the hard way why nobody else is running a software company in South Carolina or whatever.
Ugly sentiment and dangerous.
At some point you'll wake up and realize that the state needs them more than they need the state. And California is not East Germany. You won't be able to build a wall to keep them in so they can be forced to "give back to the state". They'll leave and they'll be missed.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by MrEricSir · 2011-09-16 13:37 · Score: 1

What is why? It's not like either of those countries have super low taxes or anything.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Denmc · 2011-09-16 13:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

As a native Californian, this "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" attitude concerns me. Our state has an unemployment rate of 12.1%. Only Nevada is higher at 12.9%. Our state has a serious jobs problem and continuing to encourage businesses to leave will not improve the welfare of our citizens.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by NotAGoodNickname · 2011-09-16 14:06 · Score: 1

Hope you are enjoying that 12+% unemployment rate.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-16 14:43 · Score: 2

Look, California is one of the largest economies in the world for a reason. (Actually, a lot of reasons.)
If you don't want to give back to the state that you do business in, bye bye. You won't be missed. Have fun learning the hard way why nobody else is running a software company in South Carolina or whatever.
Thing is, you need to look for a middle ground there.
Yes, businesses (and citizens) should pay taxes in their state and country of residence. And yes, successful economies are generally not the ones which have ultra-low taxes, at least not in long-term - you can make a market "efficient" that way, but it does not contribute to a healthy society.
On the other hand, taxation should be fair. Taxes are not some kind of magic coffer where the state should reach into every time it runs out of money doing stuff - even if it seems like it's useful stuff. Furthermore, it's also most certainly possible to drive businesses away by setting the tax burden too high, and then you suddenly find out that, even though your tax rate is through the roof, the magic coffer is empty, because the leprechauns that were filling it are gone.
Laffer curve is a real thing, and applies outside of the Austrian economic school (even if those guys love to mention it every time they demand lower taxes - but that's not what it actually is about). Ignoring it when defining your economic policy is actively harmful to yourself, and this is true regardless of your political affiliation (unless you believe in abolishing all property altogether).
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by hwstar · 2011-09-16 15:43 · Score: 1

No, but as an employee I am enjoying section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code.
California is one of two states where this employee friendly law is on the books. The other is Oklahoma.
Never ever let employers take advantage of you.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by khallow · 2011-09-16 16:43 · Score: 1

If you don't want to give back to the state that you do business in, bye bye. You won't be missed. Have fun learning the hard way why nobody else is running a software company in South Carolina or whatever.
Looking back on it, while I still have some connections in California, leaving the state was good for me. Yes, I didn't want to give back, mostly because I think California deserves the destruction it is inflicting upon itself. My only concern is that the California disease will spread with California refugees.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Technician · 2011-09-16 16:58 · Score: 2

So seriously.. What is your state doing to attract and retain businesses and jobs?
High unemployment and businesses leaving for greener pastures is not the problem. The problem is the pasture is no longer green there.
California has become one of the most liberal states with fantastic benifits. The side effect is budget problems when the economy is not so great. Raising taxes instead of cutting entitlements has caused the problem.
Again, I ask, what is California doing to attract and retain businesses? We know why they are leaving. They have publicly stated why they left. It is not a secret.
I don't live in California because the cost of living is way too high.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by mc6809e · 2011-09-16 17:26 · Score: 1

No, but as an employee I am enjoying section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code.
California is one of two states where this employee friendly law is on the books. The other is Oklahoma.
Never ever let employers take advantage of you.
And it seems the strategy for that is to make sure there are no employers around.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by inglorion_on_the_net · 2011-09-16 17:55 · Score: 1

So, what are the reasons California is one of the largest economies in the world, and why wouldn't you want to run a software company in South Carolina?

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by drinkypoo · 2011-09-17 00:20 · Score: 1

Look, California is one of the largest economies in the world for a reason. (Actually, a lot of reasons.)
Hollywood, which is a criminal cartel. The music industry, likewise. The drug trade (and production) which is all criminal activity. Food production, which is based on illegal immigration. Tech, which is today overwhelmingly based on abuse of patents. Every way in which California leads the nation, it leads it in criminal and/or antisocial behavior.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by drinkypoo · 2011-09-17 00:22 · Score: 1

California has become one of the most liberal states with fantastic benifits. The side effect is budget problems when the economy is not so great. Raising taxes instead of cutting entitlements has caused the problem.
No, supporting shitty states that can't pay their bills has caused the problem. California gets less money back from the federal government for each dollar we put in than any other state so that we can prop up shitty states in the midwest that can't profitably produce anything and should be permitted to be turned into public storage for states people actually want to live in that have natural resources. I support the George Carlin prison plan, personally. That ought to use up some of that shitty real estate. (With the exception that using Colorado doesn't make sense.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by TarPitt · 2011-09-17 03:10 · Score: 1

what is California doing to attract and retain businesses?
Our property taxes per dollar value are among the lowest in the nation, thank to prop 13 (part of the reason income and sales taxes are high). Property is assessed at its original purchase price plus a 2% annual increase. Long term property holders pay a fraction of the taxes as similar holders in other states. California ranks 14th in per capita property tax collections ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/251.html ). New Hampshire ranks 4th, Vermont ranks 7th, Wyoming has the second highest. Are businesses fleeing these states due to high taxes?
We are the only major oil-producing state that does not tax this resource. Alaska, Texas, Wyoming, all do so.
In 2009 California passed a large corporate tax cut, providing billions of dollars in savings to the state's largest corporations: http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=xzsczul8kiltna , quoting : “This is the gutting of the state corporate tax,” said “In fact, they did it so badly that lawyers are chuckling about the opportunities for tax avoidance.”
California ranks 10th in total state taxes per capita ( http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html . Alaska, Wyoming, and Minnesota all rank higher. Are businesses fleeing these states?

--
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 04:39 · Score: 0

Jerry Brown is doing pretty much the same thing everyone else is doing, cutting taxes and state spending. Unfortunately, in IT especially, that's a race to the bottom, since there are plenty of states willing to give whatever incentives it takes to lure businesses in. California has high cost of living for many reasons, not all of them tax-related, but overspending is not just a California problem. Look at Texas, which had an equally scary budget shortfall.
But Amazon is just a Web company trying to buck the increasing trend of states collecting sales tax on Internet purchases, and any effect on companies who rely on Amazon alone for their business is simply a drop in the bucket. Amazon knows it will lose this battle, which is why it is cutting a deal with California. And more generally, we're going to keep seeing states fighting over who can ask the least of employers until the economy recovers enough that employees and consumers have choices again, and we're going to keep seeing states agonizing over how to pay the bills until their citizens can go back to work.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Technician · 2011-09-17 04:43 · Score: 1

Prop 13 was a drop in the bucket. The state made up for the shortfall in state income in other areas. As mentioned by a grandparent post, the State Governement spending as a portion of GDP is too high. Someone is getting the bill and leaving for greener pastures.

California, once a business friendly state, continues to conduct a war on its own economy. According to the Pacific Research Institute, it has the fourthlargest government of all U.S. states, with spending equal to 18.3 percent of GDP. The comparable figure for Texas is 12.1 percent. Survey respondents uniformly say the state’s regulators are hostile. “No one in his right mind would start a new manufacturing concern here,” said one California CEO.
http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business
The root cause is not fixed. It has a few band aids, but it is still broken.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 05:15 · Score: 0

California has become one of the most liberal states with fantastic benifits. The side effect is budget problems when the economy is not so great. Raising taxes instead of cutting entitlements has caused the problem.
Huh? California has been lowering taxes for decades through various voter approved propositions.
That's why the media is so full of stories about California trying to raise taxes in one sneaky way or another - the government is prohibited from raising revenue from the sources typically used by other states (and formerly used by California).
California is going bankrupt due to exceptionally low taxes. This is just the latest symptom.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 05:19 · Score: 0

Look, California is one of the largest economies in the world for a reason. (Actually, a lot of reasons.)
The primary reason: Inertia.
By far. And it's slowing.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Surt · 2011-09-17 05:45 · Score: 1

It is driving out a lot of losers, so yeah, it's great. Lousy people are fleeing the state in droves. In a couple of years, our budget will be fixed, but the cost of moving back here will still be high, so thankfully this improvement should be (somewhat) permanent.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 05:48 · Score: 0

Laffer curve is a real thing, and applies outside of the Austrian economic school (even if those guys love to mention it every time they demand lower taxes - but that's not what it actually is about). Ignoring it when defining your economic policy is actively harmful to yourself, and this is true regardless of your political affiliation (unless you believe in abolishing all property altogether).
The Laffer curve is a joke. It was purely theoretical and specifies NO 'optimal' tax rate. Laffer introduced it to the world by sketching the damn thing on a napkin in a meeting with Reagan. With a little arm-waving Reagan was sold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
See the section on that page "2005 US CBO estimates on tax cuts". The CBO conducted a study that concluded that lowering tax rates would lower tax revenues. They did see some of the "Laffer effect" but it was completely overwhelmed by the loss of revenue.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-17 07:03 · Score: 1

See the section on that page "2005 US CBO estimates on tax cuts". The CBO conducted a study that concluded that lowering tax rates would lower tax revenues.
That only means that US federal income tax rate is too low and below the optimal point - which anyone who studied the subject knows anyway. It does not disprove the concept itself. It also doesn't mean anything for California unless and until they run a similar study as CBO did for their taxes.
In that same Wikipedia article you cite, there's a paragraph titled "Relationship with supply-side economics". Pay attention to it, specifically this bit:

Both Wanniski and Laffer were prominent supply-side advocates, and as such the concepts of the Laffer curve and supply-side economics are often conflated. Further, supply-side advocates have at times argued for lower taxes on the basis of supply-side benefits while citing the Laffer curve as a reason that such cuts would also raise revenue. However, the objective of supply-side theory is to maximize the supply of goods and services, and to achieve this one should, in theory, always lower taxes. In contrast, the Laffer curve would suggest that a tax cut would raise tax revenues only if current tax rates were in the right-hand region of the curve.

One other thing is that Laffer curve does not treat progressive tax scale separately, but in practice it's often used to argue for a tax cut on higher brackets, which is pure BS (and is strictly "supply-side economics"). In practice different brackets have very different responses to cuts and raises, and this has to be taken into account separately. Specifically, you can jack the high end of the curve higher (i.e. make taxes more progressive) before it starts negatively affecting your tax income.
I don't care about how Republicans or Libertarians use the idea to justify obvious idiocy - the concept itself is both obvious and sound, if used right. I mean, do you seriously think you can raise taxes indefinitely?
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 13:53 · Score: 0

I am moving my biz from California. Normally, I don't mind paying taxes, giving back, etc. The last straw was when my home county sent me a property tax bill on my servers, retroactive to purchase. It isn't much money (only a few $K) but there is a principle here.
I write mobile apps sold through iTunes, Android market, etc. I don't cater exclusively to the California market even though I live here. To act like I am captive is a big mistake. And once I can sell my house (hahaha...) I will probably move to the state I have incorporated in.
FWIW, I incorporated in 1996, so I have been running a California company for 15 years. Never thought it would come to this.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by DigiShaman · 2011-09-17 16:40 · Score: 1

That depends on if you're speaking to a devout communist or not.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-18 04:24 · Score: 0

Look, California is one of the largest economies in the world for a reason. (Actually, a lot of reasons.)
California did a good job of developing its economy up until the end of the 20th century, yes. It began by exploiting its mineral resources (remember that whole Gold Rush thing?), which quickly made San Francisco a major city. It has a long coastline full of places where you can stick ports, so it saw a boom in trade with Asia. Various water development projects -- both public and private, federal and state -- turned desert into some of the most fertile land in the world.
The funny thing is it did all of that without crushingly high taxes and a bankrupt state treasury. Could it possibly be that state leaders mismanaged or squandered the state's economy over the past 25 years?
It is right for you to defend a minimal amount of taxes to facilitate the public good. I presume you don't mean to defend the extra high taxes California has been imposing.

If you don't want to give back to the state that you do business in, bye bye. You won't be missed. Have fun learning the hard way why nobody else is running a software company in South Carolina or whatever.
Protip: Seattle is in the state of Washington, not South Carolina.
Re:Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-18 05:56 · Score: 0

No, supporting shitty states that can't pay their bills has caused the problem. California gets less money back from the federal government for each dollar we put in than any other state so that we can prop up shitty states in the midwest that can't profitably produce anything and should be permitted to be turned into public storage for states people actually want to live in that have natural resources.
It saddens me that you have been misled to believe this, for a few reasons:
1. The amount Californian taxpayers remit to the federal government does not change the amount they remit to California. In fact, if those taxpayers itemize deductions (basically, those taxpayers who actually pay a significant portion of federal taxes), the *opposite* is true. In any case, there is *no* line in the California budget that remits money to the federal government. Taxpayers pay the federal government, not the states. That has been the way it is since 1789.
2. The federal budget is a complex beast. Strictly breaking things down into "we are spending $x to benefit state Y" is next to impossible. Especially when it is a judgment call, and much of the thought process behind each line of spending is more akin to "we are spending $x in state Y because it is near DC, or it has a seaport, or it is on an international border, or something." You and I both know that there are earmarks that are blatant, but we can't base our entire analysis on those corner cases.
3. Analysts pick and choose line items from the federal budget to support their position (this is partly the result of the issue raised in point 2 above). From this, it becomes very easy to construct a conclusion that shows one or two major blue states in a positive light, and one or two major red states in a negative light (or vice versa). The other states? All outliers, but that is often brushed aside.
4. It doesn't even attempt to catalog monies spent in one state that nearly exclusively benefit another state. Consider the Colorado River. No small sum of money was spent on improvements in Nevada and Arizona for the benefit of California.
But aside from those three points, such a analysis rejects the federal concept that the two sovereigns (federal and state) are co-existent, not mutually exclusive, in many areas. Or, another way of looking at it, people are both federal and state taxpayers, and are right to ask for services from both. Federal expenditures are not even a useful proxy for the relative effectiveness of a given state, and they are certainly not able to measure the relative advantages of one political party or another.
In summary:
* California's budget problems are not due to Sacramento paying more than its fair share to the feds to make up for Oklahoma City's shortfall,
* The federal budget doesn't support a fully rigorous net-flow analysis, especially when much money is spent in certain states for reasons unrelated to the goodness of the state,
* Some red and some blue states are struggling. Some red and some blue states are thriving. If the federal funds spent in a state are largely decoupled from the goodness of that state, it is folly to then recouple that federal funding to the political leanings of that state,
* Citizens of the states are also citizens of the United States, and are paying taxes and demanding services in return. Stop the presses!

Seattle's a nice destination... by skine · 2011-09-16 12:08 · Score: 1

Seattle's a nice destination until the volcano triggers the earthquake.

Or was it the other way around?

Re:Seattle's a nice destination... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 13:20 · Score: 0

The earthquake will trigger avalanches which will trigger the volcano, which will trigger more avalanches of concrete-like sludge as the eruption melts the glaciers which will roar down the valleys burying what's left of Seattle under fifty feet of steaming volcanic mud. Also, it's very drizzly.
Re:Seattle's a nice destination... by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-16 13:31 · Score: 2

It's actually the grizzlies getting pissed at all the rain and stomping too heavily that triggers the Earthquakes which kick off the volcanoes. So we Washingtonians try to keep the grizzlies happy by feeding them the occasional CA or OR hiker...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Seattle's a nice destination... by PPH · 2011-09-16 14:36 · Score: 1

And no NBA team.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Get some integrity, guys! by Okian+Warrior · 2011-09-16 12:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, it's really simple.

Taxing Amazon is unconstitutional on its face, and there is a supreme court decision which is on point that clarifies the issue.

Part of having integrity is supporting what's right even when it's not in your best interest. Yes, California is hurting, we get that. Yes, you need more money, we get that. No, it's not right, deal with it, and no, it's still not right even if you really, *really* need the money.

A better question is whether California really needs the money. Comparing CA with NH:

The CA budget is 9x the NH budget

CA has 28x the population to tax (income taxes)
CA residents have higher income on average than NH residents (income taxes)
CA has 17x the land area to tax (property taxes)
CA has much greater tourist draw than NH (meals and room taxes)
CA has a vast agricultural and industrial base (NAPA valley, Silicon valley) (business taxes)
CA has an enormous coastline which attracts international trade and recreation

NH has... hiking.

If you can't get 9x the revenue from 28x the population, you're doing it wrong.

Here's a thought: How about California just ditch all government infrastructure and duplicate the one in NH, expanded per capita. You would have no income tax, no sales tax, and an operating budget 3x higher.

Source:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2320930&cid=36754362

California

Population: 37M
Population Density: 234/sq mi
Area: 163,696 sq mi (770 miles from top to bottom)
2010-2011 Budget: 102 Billion
Budget per capita: $2756

NH

Population: 1.3M
Population Density: 146/sq mi
Area: 9,304 sq mi ( 190 miles from top to bottom)
2010-2011 Budget: $11.5 billion
Budget per capita: $8846

Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 12:52 · Score: 1, Funny

Are you really that dumb? Look at your own numbers: California Budget per capita: $2756, NH buget per capita: $8846
If California ran like NH it would have a budget of $327 Billion.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 13:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh, I may be a little slow but from your numbers it looks like the CA government is 3x more efficient than NH. Why on earth will Californians want to spend 3 times more to service the same population???
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 13:46 · Score: 0

Are you really that dumb?
California budget per capita: $2756
NH budget per capita: $8846
along with NO income tax and NO sales tax
I know its fucking difficult, but you could at least read the goddamn comment you reply to. Or at least keep your filthy fucking fingers off the keyboard if you can't.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:00 · Score: 0

If CA was next door to a socialist shit-hole with a population of 80m it could work. (20xMA)
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:02 · Score: 0

It would be awesome to start charging NH level property taxes out here. Though you would have to repeal prop 13 and that ain't gonna happen.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:08 · Score: 0

An important clarification is that Amazon is not being taxed. Amazon's affiliates located in CA are being taxes when they do business with Amazon. The solution for businesses that want to avoid paying tax to CA is simple, move out of CA. That said you take a drastic departure to this argument of whether or not Amazon should be taxed by trying to justify to what extent the CA government should tax its businesses. It's a black & white issue, not a gray one (as you so perceive it to be).
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:37 · Score: 0

uh... maybe 'cause they're going bankrupt with their current budget???
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:57 · Score: 0

You've just made a case of why CA is so much better run the NH....I think you are confused.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by discordia666 · 2011-09-16 15:44 · Score: 2

I think what he meant was if NH has less people then why can't CA balance the budget.
But a quick look on wikipedia shows NH gets most of it's income from property taxes. CA has always had trouble with that income stream due to prop 13. The burst of the housing bubble made it worse. With folks not spending all that much sales tax revenue has declined.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by the_raptor · 2011-09-16 15:59 · Score: 1

I think what he meant was if NH has less people then why can't CA balance the budget.
What is the portion of people in NH earning minimum wage or close to it? Stuff like "average" income can be meaningless depending on how you compile the statistics (eg rich ass Hollywood types balanced out by tons of poor people in CA, vs maybe mostly middle class people in NH). The rich will pay less tax on their fortunes then if that same overall amount of money was being earned by a bunch of middle class people, and the working poor are generally still a drain on the budget.
From what I hear California has caught the brand of bread-and-circuses government where everyone wants awesome programs but no one wants to raise taxes to pay for them. I am all for social programs but you need a solid tax base and frugal government initiatives to make it sustainable. You can't kill the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg just because the voters don't want to foot the bill.

--

========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 16:23 · Score: 0

Because CA is broke. They aren't making it on 1/3 of the money.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 16:33 · Score: 0

Hint: someone is talking about income, not expenditure. Three guesses who it is.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 17:05 · Score: 0

Compare NH and CA per capita out of state customers served by out of state services revenue and you'll see that they are simply living off the proceeds of business done elsewhere by others - but accounted in NH for tax avoidance purposes.
Only so many (small) states can be the tax cheater's friend and leech off that income.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 19:08 · Score: 0

Huh? Are you the stupidest person I've seen on /., or are you trying to make a ridiculously roundabout sarcastic argument (which didn't work at all, if that's what it was)?
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 19:32 · Score: 0

Hiking accident prevention, clearly! How many people have we lost to Half Dome this year already...?
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 23:52 · Score: 0

Umm.....your numbers are right, but check your interpretation. It's more costly per capita in NH.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by luis_a_espinal · 2011-09-16 23:55 · Score: 1

Oh, I may be a little slow but from your numbers it looks like the CA government is 3x more efficient than NH. Why on earth will Californians want to spend 3 times more to service the same population???
Indeed, that was a major arithmetic what-the-fuck moment.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-17 03:39 · Score: 1

Now apply those numbers to something useful. In CA there are 5,132,640 people living in poverty 1,846,994 of them are children. In NH 110,769 people live in poverty 31,278 of them are children. These numbers do not include illegal aliens afraid of taking the senses. I'd willing to be large sums of money NH doesn't have as many illegal aliens as CA.
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/maps/index.html

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by HornWumpus · 2011-09-17 04:14 · Score: 1

CA has a spending problem, not a revenue problem
Giving those morons more money is like giving a teenager with a maxed out credit card a black Am-ex.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by drsquare · 2011-09-17 07:44 · Score: 1

I'm wondering why it costs three times as much money to run New Hampshire, I thought it was some libertarian utopia whilst California was the socialist monstrocity. Looks like it's the other way around.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 12:05 · Score: 0

You want a *higher* budget per capita, not a *lower* one. At least, high enough that you can provide the services required as an institution without going into the red. CA is not able to provide its services at its current buget per capita, and it's not even able to collect *that*. Please re-read the post you are replying to. And whoever marked this insightful, please crawl into a hole.
Re:Get some integrity, guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-18 03:14 · Score: 0

Oh, I may be a little slow but from your numbers it looks like the CA government is 3x more efficient than NH. Why on earth will Californians want to spend 3 times more to service the same population???
... um - maybe to stop 50x the bitching?

Answer: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 12:30 · Score: 0

the reason AIDS spread so fast.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by sdguero · 2011-09-16 12:33 · Score: 1

Cannot agree more. I'm a So-Cal guy and I love it here but I've been watching this state drive out business, particularly in tech, for the last 10 years. My hope is to stay and pay the insane state taxes, but if all the jobs leave (San Diego is still doing OK, largely thanks to Quallcom) I'm going to have to leave too. :(

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 12:41 · Score: 1

Same story, different decade. Every year we hear about how horrible California is for businesses and how state X is being filled with ex-Californian's fleeing the high taxes. There are more people in California than the entire country of Canada. California is the eighth largest economy in the world. California has some of the finest educational facilities in the world. But none of that matters. Why? Because California has hot women. I don't want any stinky Seattle hippies, stoned Portland vegans, religious nutjob Texans, or angry bitch New Yorkers. I want hot, tanned, athletic beach body California women. And that is why there will always be people and businesses in California.

Re:My experience as a Manhattan startup by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2011-09-16 12:44 · Score: 1

Watson hitting a seg fault?

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin

i don't get this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 12:54 · Score: 0

citizens are already supposed to claim sales tax on out of state goods they purchase.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by mspohr · 2011-09-16 13:20 · Score: 1

In California, we are happy when someone leaves. This has the effect of increasing the average IQ of both California and wherever they land. (Not to mention making more space for us.)

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-09-16 13:26 · Score: 1

Ahh, a prime example of the warm and welcoming Portland attitude!

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Uh Huh by Greyfox · 2011-09-16 13:50 · Score: 2

You know, people say that and every time I've been to Seattle it's been 70 and sunny. I think the crappy weather is just rumors spread by residents who don't want anyone else moving there!

Plus the sushi there is fantastic.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:Uh Huh by futuresheep · 2011-09-16 18:23 · Score: 2

Shush!!! You'll ruin it for us!
Re:Uh Huh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 23:27 · Score: 0

It is the National Weather Service reporting this. In July there was rain on 24% of the days, June had over 30% rainy days.
This is not the NWS but it is easier to look through - http://www.beautifulseattle.com/clisumm.htm
Not to complain about something else in the area - but your housing prices are kind of in the high end of things. Even compared to CA.
AVG house is over half a million dollars. Yes, I know there are lower priced areas in the 20 mile radius but if I want a few trees, 2 car garage and decent schools are those options at the lower price areas ?
Re:Uh Huh by Surt · 2011-09-17 05:38 · Score: 1

I've been there 5 times, total of about 30 days. Every one of them was cloudy/rainy, and depressing (that city just LOOKS depressing, probably with or without rain). Oh, and none of those 30 days was in the winter.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Uh Huh by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-17 07:38 · Score: 1

You know, people say that and every time I've been to Seattle it's been 70 and sunny. I think the crappy weather is just rumors spread by residents who don't want anyone else moving there!
Only half true. Those days are very rare. Besides, Seattle is full. Just look at the cost of living and unemployment. Moving to Oregon or Washington serves only to make the cost of living and unemployment rates higher in a part of the world with a static-sized economy.

--
Furries make the internet go.
Re:Uh Huh by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-17 07:39 · Score: 1

The 1990s called, they wanted to remind you that it was ruined over 20 years ago.

--
Furries make the internet go.

Giving back != Bending over by drnb · 2011-09-16 14:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Look, California is one of the largest economies in the world for a reason.

Yes, the policies we had decades ago. Be careful, you are looking backwards, and the GP is looking forwards.

If you don't want to give back to the state that you do business in, bye bye. You won't be missed.

Yes, but up to a point. Both you and the GP may be a little overdramatic but the GP does have a point. For example how much of the economic success you refer to is from the aerospace industry? Bad news on that front:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/examiner-opinion-zone/aerospace-exodus-california

And what of the emerging private space industry that has its roots in Mohave? More bad new:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/14/competitors-are-wooing-california-space-industry/

On a personal note I know some guys who used to shape surf boards. Very small scale shop but respected by locals and profitable for years. They had to give it up due to ever increasing regulations.

Have fun learning the hard way why nobody else is running a software company in South Carolina or whatever.

I don't think US customers know or care where a software company is located, except possibly that it is a US operation. And with the increasing popularity of the digital supply chain -- developer to online store to consumer, no packaged goods or distributors -- this is becoming even more so.

You have to admit the California legislature is out of control and making California a less friendly place to do business than a few decades ago.

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:22 · Score: 0

Portland is where twenty-something douche bags go to retire.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 14:31 · Score: 0

I'm sure the 12% unemployed in CA are happy about it too. 50% higher than the national average. That's quite an achievement. You should be proud.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by KingAlanI · 2011-09-16 14:59 · Score: 1

So y6ou're saying Katy Perry's onto something?

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.

All depends by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 15:11 · Score: 0

There are many software projects that simply wouldn't fly in California. Try writing anything complex but low margin like Mathematica or Maple with every shitty startup poaching your employees.

I'd personally consider nicer places to live, maybe Berlin, Madrid, Milan, Rio, or Buenos Aires way before California. There is a nice stretch of small software companies around Nice, for example. French developers cost far less than Americans and code far better. Or hell move all your developers someplace with nice beaches and no income tax. $80k per year goes rather far when you don't pay income tax. You'll easily find young and sharp talent who want the adventure of living someplace like that.

There are cool things about California, but honestly most people living there never experience them, hell they're totally incompatible with the (upper) middle class ethos.

Re:All depends by hwstar · 2011-09-16 16:06 · Score: 1

Are you willing to run a business where you can't fire someone at-will? Most of those countries have stricter employee protection laws. In fact, only the US (49 of 50 states) has at-will employment. Also most of the countries you mention have single-payer health care and high taxes because of it.
If you are programming in Maple or Mathematica, then you are worth more than $80K/yr as you likely have a Masters or a Doctorate in Engineering or Applied Mathematics. These guys are a rare resource. As soon as something better comes along and/or the economy improves, you'll lose your talent if you aren't careful.

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by Strider- · 2011-09-16 15:16 · Score: 1

Last year, summer was on a Tuesday wasn't it? At last it was up in Lotus Land...

--
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...

NH is the place to be by Okian+Warrior · 2011-09-16 15:31 · Score: 2

New Hampshire has one of the lowest overall tax burdens. Sometimes *the* lowest, depending on the year.

California has one of the highest overall tax burdens - 7th in the nation. (Varies, depending on the year and source)

We raise 3.2x as much money per person than California, while taxing each person much less.

Here's how we do it:

1) We have a hefty property tax. Unlike income and sales taxes, property tax is largely immune to economic swings. When the economy goes up, you pay X. When the economy goes down, you pay X. (Housing values are checked every 10 years or so.)

Basing your revenues on income, sales, and business taxes is a recipe for disaster. You'll always be in "feast or famine" mode, always be flush during the good years and in pain during the bad.

2) The property tax is simple: your house is worth this, you pay that. There is only one point of contention (the value of your house), so collection and enforcement is easy and straightforward. So is contesting the tax - there's only one point to argue: the value of the house.

Income, sales, and business taxes are complicated and require resources for collection and compliance. There are a ton of options, laws, and special rules that require coding, dissemination, interpretation, defense, and so on. All of this adds cost.

The added cost is mirrored in the public as well - the expenses you incur to force compliance are mirrored by similar expenses made by the public. If you audit someone because they took a bad deduction, they have to spend time, effort, and money defending themselves. That's time and money they don't spend productively - it drags down the economy.

The expense of collection and enforcement has a resonating effect as well. If the enforcement branch gets rid of a CPA paid $100,000, not only do they take an immediate $100,000 cost reduction, but the CPA will now pay taxes on wages earned in the private sector. Simple government gets you much more than the base cost comparison will show.

If you could simplify your taxes, the net gain to the state would be enormous.

3) We have one "per person" tax, you have three (income, sales, property).

Consider a tax which requires 40% of the income for collection and enforcement (ie - for every $100 taken in, $40 goes to the revenue department to pay for collection and enforcement). All else being equal, double the *number* of taxes and you double the income. Double the *rate* and you more than double the income.

In the previous example, if $40 is spent on collection you get $60 for revenue. If you double the taxes, you get $120 revenue. If you double the *rate*, you get $160 in revenue.

I could go on, but it's pretty simple from an economic point of view.

California revenue is a twisted tangle of expensive administrative policy which is inefficient and unproductive. They tax their citizens more, but get less revenue.

NH has a simpler system that is less burdensome, requires less government, and nets the state more income.

Re:NH is the place to be by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 15:50 · Score: 0

All of California's tax problems can be traced to Prop 13, which bases your property tax on the value of your home when you bought it, not its current value.
The idea behind this was to avoid kicking Grandma out of her house when the neighborhood became gentrified. In reality, this significantly reduced tax revenue in California. California is now dependent on mainly income taxes, which are much lower during a poor economy. And because of the structure of California's proposition system and the requirement of a 2/3 majority to raise any taxes, there isn't much anyone can do to change things.
Re:NH is the place to be by brokeninside · 2011-09-16 23:30 · Score: 2

I take it NH didn't have a housing bust.
When people stop paying their mortgages, the escrow which goes towards their property taxes stops being paid. Property taxes might dip less than incomes taxes during economic troubles, but state governments all across the US are very aware that during a severe recession with millions of mortgages going TU, less revenue will come in from property taxes.
Moreover, according to the Census bureau, NH has fewer persons per household than CA (2.54 v. 2.91) which suggests more people own property (hence, more payers of a property tax), a higher median household income (60k v. 59k), and proportionately fewer people living below the poverty line (8.6% v. 14.2%). So there is good reason to believe that even /if/ a pure property tax system is better, it is doubtful as to whether CA could raise as much money as NH because on a per capita basis, CA has fewer property owners and the property owners it does have make less money and are more likely to be living in poverty.
Lastly, you're forgetting the problem of scale. California has 37 million households. New Hampshire has 500 thousand households. A system that works well for a few hundreds of thousands of parcels of land is not necessarily going to scale up to a state with tens of millions of parcels.
This is not to say that a good argument can't be made that California might not benefit from reducing non-property taxes and increasing property taxes. It is only to say that the situation is not as simple as you appear to be suggesting. There are factors at play that suggest that California would not be likely to be able to duplicate New Hampshire's success with property taxes. But there is certainly room to argue that California might be able to do better than it is currently doing if it repealed proposition 13 and moved to make property taxes its main source of income.
OTOH, doing so might make the proposition of owning property in CA higher than it already is and send people out of the state in droves.
Re:NH is the place to be by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 05:07 · Score: 0

What about when one retires and the income is much lower? e.g. I just payed off my house 10 years ago, ready for retirement and now I lose my House to Taxes?
Re:NH is the place to be by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 08:15 · Score: 0

so the thing about feast or famine mode is.... shouldn't you be storing up reserves during the feast times, so that you can endure the famine times?
Property and sales taxes are regressive.
Re:NH is the place to be by arkane1234 · 2011-09-17 10:41 · Score: 1

You better think ahead and have your taxes ready... that's been a known financial burden since day one.
It didn't come out of the blue, it existed before the recession as well.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

shopobot founder here.. by davemshopobot · 2011-09-16 15:48 · Score: 0

Hey - This is Dave, the http://www.shopobot.com/ founder from the article. Yup, you're basically right. your points A - D are pretty much spot on.

Except I don't really blame either party for what they're trying to do...
-- California wants sales tax $, that makes sense.
-- Amazon (and other online stores) had a choice of collecting sales tax, or stopping working with their CA affiliates. Seems like an easy choice to me!

So the annoying thing is that this all played out slowly and publicly.. with the law being passed, then the predictable Amazon reaction, then the negotiated agreement last week. For us, it just made more sense to move somewhere with less uncertainty while we were small, instead of hiring people in CA and then having to possible relocate at some time in the future. So we just moved to put the issue behind us.

Not so sure I'd say we're "leaching" off our investors though.. :) Besides our investors are from all over, so it's not really relevant in our case. We chose to start in CA because we got into an awesome accelerator called AngelPad, and that really help get us going. Now that we're up and running and funded, it was a fine time to move to Seattle.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by hwstar · 2011-09-16 15:52 · Score: 1

Some businesses and people may leave. It's their loss. There will always be businesses who will remain in California because a significant portion of the best talent available will not live anywhere else for a number of reasons.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by Technician · 2011-09-16 16:46 · Score: 1

This is a reversal of a trend in the 1960's. It was so bad that there was a billboard that I remember there..

Will the last person leaving Seattle, turn out the lights?

Do a Google search for "Will the last person leaving" and you will find it in the top hits.

On April 16, 1971, real-estate agents Bob McDonald and Jim Youngren put the words, "Will the last person leaving SEATTLE -- Turn out the lights" on a billboard at S 167th Street and Pacific Highway S near Sea-Tac International Airport. The two realtors, who work for Henry Broderick, Inc., put up the billboard as a humorous response to pessimism generated by the national aerospace industry's nosedive, known locally as the Boeing Bust.

This page includes a photo of the billboard. Looks like California is the next to get the billboard.
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=1287

Seattle has tried not to repeat losing major businesses leave.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Re:shopobot founder here.. by HornWumpus · 2011-09-16 17:30 · Score: 1

If you had stayed in CA you would have had to learn how to drive.

Your safely back with all the other rolling hazards now.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by dbIII · 2011-09-16 18:06 · Score: 1

If you could travel would you be unemployed in Alaska when you could be in California? Also a seasonal tourist trade means that at different times of year you have a lot of people whose jobs have vanished for a few months. Also with the large number of illegal migrant workers in the USA and their employers hiding them under the radar the figures are unlikely to resemble anything reliable anyway.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 18:53 · Score: 0

Suuuuure. That's why CA is the 6th largest economy on the planet, even when compared to *countries*. Sure, that's why Silicon Valley is in CA. How much more stupider can you get?

The French don't have a word for it by Hognoxious · 2011-09-16 19:13 · Score: 1

So what did the entreprenurs do?

Maybe they learned how to spell?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Flee to Singapore by Mattpw · 2011-09-16 19:52 · Score: 1

If they were really serious they would have fled to Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_Singapore 0%-max 20% GST 7% corp taxes almost non existent. I laugh when I see the online "raise US taxes" brigade. And a commited well educated workforce. Whats more Singapore is booming like most of East Asia so the real market is just next door. The only thing is they dont have an open immigration door policy like America so getting in the front door could be hard but life is good and if you are in there is zero chance you will become a victim of crime.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 20:41 · Score: 0

Unemployment is -38% in the rest of the US?

Seattle... by Dark+Lord+of+Ohio · 2011-09-16 20:48 · Score: 1

Seattle??? It's cold there, it rains, white bears are walking on the streets, grizzlies are seen from time to time too... I have even heard that if you want to eat fish you have to catch it first! Yourself!! Really! Thats some scary shit, I tell you. You catch a fish in Seattle and second later white bear is chasing you. And Walmartians are usually fully dressed (have you ever seen a picture of a Walmartian from Seattle? No!) - furs and stuff. I think the best place for business is Hawaii. Something is wrong, you throw papers into some volcano and blame local geological conditions for your documents loss. No documents no evidence :)

Right, because big empires can never fail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 20:49 · Score: 0

Go ask the Romans about that, DUMBFUCK COWARD.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 20:53 · Score: 0

> will not live anywhere else for a number of reasons.

One reason. They're faggots.

Re:shopobot founder here.. by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-16 21:53 · Score: 1

So, I guess, the moral is not to make your business dependent on a single company that is much larger than you? That's okay, I'd already learned that lesson - the last two startups I worked with that did that both went bust.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by tapspace · 2011-09-16 22:43 · Score: 1

Video proof of the super high IQs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F57P9C4SAW4 Duh!

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by macshit · 2011-09-16 23:06 · Score: 1

No no no... stay away from Seattle. nothing to see here. it rains all the time!. this is not the city you seek. you want...Portland, yeah! Portland is much more friendly and bike-centric and mellow. Seattlites are all hyper-liberal coffee-drinking zombies... save yourself! stay away! ....aaaaieeeee..... [end of transmission]

Hmm, my seattle-living-friend's big complaint is that Seattlelites are wayyyy too mellow and laid back; it drives her crazy. She's moving to NYC, of course...

[I spent a large part of my youth in Seattle, so I'm not so bothered by it ... but I have utterly no desire to go back...]

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....

I live in Seattle, and have this to say: by Nyder · 2011-09-16 23:13 · Score: 1

Stay the fuck out of seattle. Do NOT move here.

It rains all the time, homeless wander the street, the police beat up small children, gas is expensive, we have a big bed bug problem, there is no public schools for children.

Everything else that is bad, happens here in Seattle. We are overcrowded and have bumper to bumper traffic on our freeways.

Please stay away, we don't need anymore people here.

--
Be seeing you...

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by drinkypoo · 2011-09-17 00:18 · Score: 1

You just failed. The people considering Portland or Seattle can't afford to live in California. At least, not the parts nicer to live in than Portland or Seattle... which are numerous.

Washington Chill
Oregon Nazis
California Hippies
California Assholes

North to south progression, of course. There's something to hate everywhere.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by drinkypoo · 2011-09-17 00:27 · Score: 1

California has what it has because the wild people have always gone out west. There is still massive opportunity in California for those who seize opportunities. Those who sit on ass and wait for them to show up are having an ever-harder time. If a bunch of businesses go then a bunch of people will leave California and it will get cheaper, resulting in a fresh influx of interesting people with ideas. Some of them will start tech companies and they will find people to hire because other interesting people with ideas want to live in California, too. It's how we got the Silicon Valley in the first place.

With that said, global climate change could really nail California's coffin shut. Without the advantage of the nation's best weather, we become a much less desirable place to live.

It's the people (stupid?)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Flamebait? by drinkypoo · 2011-09-17 00:34 · Score: 1

You can fire up Netflix right now and find 232389570 stand-up routines in which a black person talks about how they are proud to be a Nigga. The above question seems valid enough to me, even though we know the answer already.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by drinkypoo · 2011-09-17 00:44 · Score: 1

will not live anywhere else for a number of reasons.

One reason. They're faggots.

The queers are the best employees? That's a great reason to relocate to San Francisco. Actually, I worked at gay.com for a while, and it was actually an incredibly smoothly-working operation from what I could tell, though the powers at the top couldn't figure out how to monetize it sufficiently to persist, victims of their own success in the transition from ISP to web portal.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Only in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 02:04 · Score: 0

Raising taxes instead of cutting entitlements has caused the problem.

It's amazing how you Americans believe that lowering taxes will fuel the economy. There was an election here in Denmark, just a few days ago, we're getting a new red government now... and when I say red, I mean it will include real socialists, not just liberal socialists, but real socialists, the kind that was celebrating DDR back in 1989 :)

However, obscure that sounds I think and hope we'll see tax raises on the riches (those who can afford it), as opposed to reduce welfare system we all enjoy.

Attracting jobs and businesses is not the way to go (they all have to come from somewhere), it's better to make jobs. That said, in the midst of a crisis like this, there's really not much anybody can do, except keep the system stable and make sure the workforce haven't starved to death when the economy is back up (e.g. make sure unemployed workers have basic necessities: food, roof, education and medical care).

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by Technician · 2011-09-17 05:11 · Score: 1

What you say may be true. I work for a startup that started in Santa Clara CA. This is their world headquarters. They have many manufacturing plants world wide. The bean counters decide where it is good to build plants based on the people and the economy. If California were so great, you would expect plenty of new plants to take advantage of the opportunity and resources there.

In reality there are NO new plants in California and resulting jobs for California. This does not mean they are not expanding and building new plants. They have been having record quarters lately with quarters over 20 Billion in revenue.

So where are the manufacturing plants that are recently built or are being built?
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1011245/intel-fab-israel
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/intels_new_hillsboro_factory_w.html
http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2011/02/18/intel-to-invest-more-than-5-billion-to-build-new-factory-in-arizona
http://semimd.com/blog/2011/09/13/intel-mum-about-capex-ireland-fab-plans/

The headquarters is here.
2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549

What have they recently built in California?
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/company-overview/intel-museum.html

California has published their rated for doing business in California. Businesses shop for places that are business friendly.

California may have great opportunities, but for many the pasture is greener elsewhere.

This is only one example. There are many more.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by drsquare · 2011-09-17 06:12 · Score: 1

Interesting. The race to the bottom between countries, whereby they compete to slash taxes and regulations in order to attract businesses, everybody losing except the businesses, has been pretty ridiculous in itself, but America is the only country I've known to have a race to the bottom... with itself! Other countries degrade themselves to compete with foreign rivals, America eats itself from within!

In a nation of fifty states, there can only be one with the lowest taxes and loosest regulations, so this system can only benefit a few states at a time, to the detriment of the rest. The logical conclusion of this is that everyone has to keep slashing taxes and abandoning regulations until there's nothing left to cut.

The problem is, once every state has reduced taxes to zero, destroying essential public services and impoverishing hundreds of millions, and every state has abolished all regulations, letting corporations do what they want, to who they want, what happens next? Not only is there nowhere lower to go, but the resulting collapse of tax revenues means a collapse in government spending, meaning consumers have less money to spend, therefore economic decline, and all the businessmen rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of all the money they'll make in the new tax/regulation haven will suddenly realise that they don't have any customers.

Boeing moving to China? Considering how much money the US government spends on aerospace, and how much the aerospace industry is dependent on government spending, a government that cared about its people would never let that happen.

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by Baloo+Uriza · 2011-09-17 07:44 · Score: 1

Anybody who thinks Portland is friendly clearly hasn't been to the midwest. Portland is a city on the brink, high unemployment, high food prices, high rents, high tuition, and people who are just plain high all the time have pushed Portland from the quirky, well-off city of the 90s to being hungry, homeless and angry. This city is a powderkeg, and it's only going to take a spark to make the Rodney King riots look like a day in Disneyland compared to how badly Portland's going to tear itself apart.

--
Furries make the internet go.

Fear of Amazon, not CA by John+Newman · 2011-09-17 08:03 · Score: 1

These guys aren't fleeing to Seattle because they fear the big-bad regulations of the People's Republic of California. They're fleeing out of fear of Amazon. Amazon's response to the sales tax proposal was to threaten to disown all of its affiliates in California, since the physical presence of affiliates was one of the justifications for asking them to collect sales tax. Amazon would rather stick a knife in the back of all of its partners, putting who knows how many people out of business, than collect a nickel of sales tax from its customers. They can't pull the same thing in Washington because it's hard to deny that giant former hospital on top of a hill with an Amazon logo already constitutes a physical presence.

They left San Francisco because the Bezos bear was gonna swat them out of spite, so they went to cuddle up next to it.

And this "startup" is two guys. Fine, maybe they'll make it big one day, sounds like they got plenty of capital. But it's still two guys. Why does the decision of a two-guy business rate a headline?

Re:Fear of Amazon, not CA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-18 06:20 · Score: 0

These guys aren't fleeing to Seattle because they fear the big-bad regulations of the People's Republic of California. They're fleeing out of fear of Amazon. Amazon's response to the sales tax proposal was to threaten to disown all of its affiliates in California, since the physical presence of affiliates was one of the justifications for asking them to collect sales tax. Amazon would rather stick a knife in the back of all of its partners, putting who knows how many people out of business, than collect a nickel of sales tax from its customers.
I am sure Amazon's attitude weighed in on the decision, but if you are asserting that it is the only reason, I reply with [citation needed].

And this "startup" is two guys. Fine, maybe they'll make it big one day, sounds like they got plenty of capital. But it's still two guys. Why does the decision of a two-guy business rate a headline?
You are applying logic and reason to slashdot editorial policy. Stop that.

Re:In fairness, companies are leaving Cali in drov by arkane1234 · 2011-09-17 10:32 · Score: 1

Not sure if you're seriously questioning that, or you thought he was making it up.
However, the unemployment rate nationally is ~9%. While 12% isn't 50% higher than 9%, 38% is much closer.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

Re:My experience as a Manhattan startup by arkane1234 · 2011-09-17 10:37 · Score: 1

dude, if I could mod this up, i so would.. lol

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

Re:Seattle is a horrible rainy scary place - go 'w by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-18 14:07 · Score: 0

Portland, OR is in the midwest?

Slashdot Mirror

Startup Flees To Seattle Amid Amazon's Tax Fight

235 comments