Slashdot Mirror
California's Surreal Retroactive Tax On Tech Startup Investors
waderoush writes "Engineers and hackers don't think much about tax policy, but there's a bizarre development in California that they should know about, since it could reduce the pool of angel-investment money available for tech startups. Under a tax break available since the 1990s, startup founders and other investors in California were allowed to exclude or defer their gains when they sold stock in California-based small businesses. Last year, a California appeals court ruled that the tax break was unconstitutional, since it discriminated against investors in out-of-state companies. Now the Franchise Tax Board, California's version of the IRS, has issued a notice saying how it intends to implement the ruling — and it's a doozie. Not only is the tax break gone, but anyone who claimed an exclusion or deferral on the sale of small-business stock since 2008 is about to get a big retroactive tax bill. Investors, entrepreneurs, and even the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit are up in arms about the FTB's notice, saying that it goes beyond the court's intent and that it will drive investors out of the state. This Xconomy article takes an in-depth look at the history of the court case, the FTB's ruling, and the reaction in the technology and investing communities."
And you expected something else from a state run by "progressives"? They never have enough of other people's money!
Retroactive taxes aren't particularly surreal. An example of surreal taxes would be if you had to submit your check to a giant who was growing out of the floor in a building that's melting.
So let's use the word correctly, please.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
People have been up in arms over ex post facto law, so why do they think they can get away with taxes? Granted, not all retroactive laws are unconstitutional. The tax law shouldn't have been in the books in the first place if it was unconstitutional, but we're not talking slavery here. Repeal the law, if you must, and call it even.
This is just a sad attempt at increasing state revenue
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
As an employee, why would I want to work in states like Texas or Arizona that provide much less in the way of protections for workers? One of the reasons I like working in California is the laws that give me some leverage when dealing with employers, and protections and safety nets when said employer folds due to dumb decisions by management.
And as an employer, why would I want to set up business in a state where my pool of workers is limited to the kind who all they have to offer is their willingness to accept that lack of protection? One of the reasons tech companies locate in California is that that's where the people they need/want to hire are. If I set up business in Texas or Arizona, I do so knowing that the best employees, the ones I'd most want to have, aren't going to be willing to relocate there. I can't see that being a winning strategy long-term.
In that sense, none of the amendments guarantee your right to anything - they're all subject to judicial interpretation, and all were interpreted, and sometimes re-interpreted (like the 1st) over time.
Define "assault weapon". There is not a single "assault weapon" available on the civilian market. You're yet another victim of liberal hype. Talk to a veteran. Talk to almost any veteran, from any service. Some sailors never handled an assault rifle, and maybe some airedales. All marines have handled them, and I think all army soldiers have.
My own assault weapon was an M14. There is a little lever on the side that makes it what it is. That little lever switches the piece from semi-automatic to full automatic. That is the one determining characteristic of an "assault weapon". The bayonet lugs? I'll grant that it is probably unnecessary for civilians. Oversize magazines? Again, I'll grant that is probably unnecessary. But, those two features do not determine that the weapon is an "assault weapon".
However - if you're able to pass a background check, and you're willing to pay the licensing fee, you can purchase a Thompson submachine gun, perfectly legal.
Having spent most of an hour staring down the muzzles of several Thompsons while holding onto my M14, I'm here to tell you that it is a much more effective "assault weapon" than the M14 - or an M15 or an M16.
I don't know how many Thompsons are currently held by private citizens in the United States. Funny thing, you don't hear of them being stolen, and used in criminal activity. Seems that the people who own them, keep them properly secured, and that common criminals just can't get to them.
Maybe THAT is where legislation needs to be aimed. Make the owners of ALL weapons responsible for securing those weapons that they own.
Nuts? There are plenty of nuts on both sides of the issue. None of the nuts want to address the real issues. Those issues include identifying whackos, kooks, and nuts who are likely to commit a mass shooting. Almost always, people step forward after a shooting, to inform the media that the shooter was some kind of mental case. Family and acquaintances are generally unable to "connect" with the guy. He's strange, weird, or whatever - often a "loner".
The real issue here, is identifying such people, and getting help for them - OR, institutionalizing them, so that they most definitely CANNOT access weapons.
But, boo-hoo-hoo - it violates some kind of "rights" if we start institutionalizing mental cases.
Meanwhile, we continue to incarcerate people for possession of natural substances like marijuana. It's alright for corporations to profit from incarcerating perfectly safe people, but we don't want to violate any civil rights of genuinely dangerous people.
This whole controversy borders on insanity.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The Bill of Rights was a compromise to shut up the anti-federalists. The Founders felt it was obvious that if the Constitution hadn't explicitly granted a power to the Federal Government, they didn't have it. The anti-federalists voiced concerns that it wasn't clear.
The Founder's view seems evidenced in the level of detail in the Constitution listing exactly what the Federal Government can do, esp. in Article 1, Section 8.
I don't know the history of Prohibition well, but now it seems rather quaint that as recently as 1919, folks thought it was necessary to actually amend the Constitution (the Eighteenth Amendment) to ban the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors". Now, we seem to accept that if the Federal Government wants to ban a substance nationwide, they can just do it with, at most, Congressional and Executive approval. How far we have fallen in less than 100 years.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to eliminate any possibility that people in the future would interpret the Bill of Rights as a complete list of rights held by the people and the states. As it turns out, these Amendments were obviously insufficient.
Subsequent Amendments and SCOTUS interpretations/decisions (perhaps most notably the Incorporation Doctrine) have altered the landscape of course by imposing restrictions on states as to what rights they can abridge.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Do I want to live in a nanny-state where people try to ban toys in happy meals?
Good point! You should come to Texas where we have a sky-daddy state where the government keeps you from buying cars on Sunday.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
As an outsider reading it, I would say that the second amendment reads pretty clearly that the right to keep and carry weapons cannot be restricted.
Any law in the USA that purports to control weapons should be unconstitutional.
Arguing ethics, morals, need, danger or anything else in regards to weapons is (or should be) irrelevent.
If you don't like that situation you should work to get the second amendment changed, not work to undermine the constitution.
America has, in the past, been an example of freedom and rule of law that has inspired many people. It would be a tragedy if you were to undermine your rule of law and slide into becoming a police state by subverting your constitution.
If you truly believe that the situation and weapons have evolved to the point where that amendment is no longer needed, or needs to be changed, then the constitution contains methods for amending itself.
Please don't throw away the rule of law.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...