California Governor Proposes Digital Dividend Aimed At Big Tech (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a "digital dividend" that would let consumers share in the billions of dollars made by technology companies in the most populous U.S. state. In his "State of the State" speech on Tuesday, Newsom said California is proud to be home to tech firms. But he said companies that make billions of dollars "collecting, curating and monetizing our personal data have a duty to protect it. Consumers have a right to know and control how their data is being used." He went further by suggesting the companies share some of those profits, joining other politicians calling for higher levies on the wealthy in U.S. society. "California's consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data," Newsom said. "And so I've asked my team to develop a proposal for a new data dividend for Californians, because we recognize that data has value and it belongs to you." Newsom didn't describe what form the dividend might take, although he said "we can do something bold in this space." He also praised a tough California data-privacy law that will kick in next year.

Comments

"Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

He's gonna tax 'em.

And then, California will watch them leave the state.

"Progressives" just can't stop themselves from killing the goose that lays golden eggs, can they?

Is it any wonder that leftist policies universally have lead to bankruptcy and mass death?

BUT THIS TIME, IT WILL WORK!!!

Yeah, sure it will.

Re: "Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

Most idiotic thing Ive read in a long time. And scaring is not caring

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[Opportunist]

What's a goose laying golden eggs good for if it keeps those golden eggs? I don't get fed by looking at eggs, ya know?

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[parkinglot777]

It is obvious that you, AC, doesn't own or work in a big company. Your comment seems to come from a small (or individually own) company point of view.

It all depends on how deep the big tech companies have their root in where they are. Besides, they will have to look for other locations and that would take some times. I highly doubt it is easy for any big tech companies to simply pack their stuff and go right now. They have to adapt to the situation and may plan to move if necessary, but it wouldn't be in the near future.

Re: "Share some of those profits"

[cayenne8]

Hey, I'd be happy if they'd just make the companies ALL let me opt out.

Or, even better....make companies ask me to OPT IN if they want to use my data.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a goose laying golden eggs good for if it keeps those golden eggs? I don't get fed by looking at eggs, ya know?

The real question is why was your knee-jerk reaction was to claim the goose is keeping the eggs?

The goose doesn't pay taxes already?

The goose doen't employ a lot of people already?

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[PPH]

I don't get fed by looking at eggs, ya know?

You get fed by owning a share of the goose. Not sitting around waiting to be fed by the egg thief.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[lgw]

Those companies employ a lot of people. How much tax does Cali, with the nations highest tax rate, collect on 100,000 people making over $100,000 a year?

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is obvious that you, AC, doesn't own or work in a big company. Your comment seems to come from a small (or individually own) company point of view.

It all depends on how deep the big tech companies have their root in where they are. Besides, they will have to look for other locations and that would take some times. I highly doubt it is easy for any big tech companies to simply pack their stuff and go right now. They have to adapt to the situation and may plan to move if necessary, but it wouldn't be in the near future.

Just like it's obvious that a large company can't create, oh, I dunno, a second headquarters and use it as a threat to move from a high-tax "progressive heaven".

I dunno, maybe they could call it something like HQ2.

What's OBVIOUS is you have your head up your ass so far you can probably count your teeth from the backside.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Liebertarian whine is that all taxes are theft. If all taxes are removed from corporations, it's actually better if they go away, because then they aren't consuming other (real) peoples' taxes. Yeah, some of us are on to your little scam.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[ShanghaiBill]

Tech companies spend way more on payroll than they make in profit. Each of those tech jobs supports 2 more in the wider economy. So the way to "share in the wealth" is to get a job.

Re: "Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Trickle down economics. The classic repubtard fantasy that has never worked.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get fed by looking at eggs, ya know?

You get fed by owning a share of the goose. Not sitting around waiting to be fed by the egg thief.

Steal the goose.
More seriously though, all these tech empires are profiting a little off the populace of CA, but the big money is from ALL the people around the whole world. Maybe such a "tax" would re-distribute the profits to every person alive (hmm, basic income)... You don't even need to sign up, with say FB - as they have a ghost-profile on you.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[Darinbob]

It's a bit of a stretch to say California has the highest tax rate in the nation. It has a bottom rate of 1% which is less than many red states, but a top rate of 13.3% for those making more than a million dollars in income. Different charts put California at different slots because it depends upon how you slice the numbers. You can look at the tax Zuckerberg pays, or the average tax, or the median tax. Then you add in property tax, and California starts to look a lot better than places like New York and New Jersey. If you combine sales and income tax, California probably comes in 5th.

If you're going to debate, then don't just spout campaign style platitudes but use some facts.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[DickBreath]

> The goose doesn't pay taxes already?

Gee, how much did those big tech companies pay in taxes last year? Oh, yeah. None. All of them together paid less taxes than you or I did.

It's true 'cause I read it online somewhere!

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[PPH]

but the big money is from ALL the people around the whole world.

Like CALPERS? Think about this when you try to take profits away from all those 'wealthy' shareholders. The largest class of equity owners are pension funds. You are stealing from the teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc.

Re: "Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you don't need to be libertarian to see this proposal is idiotic. Who is going to put a value on that data that is consistent across entire industries? Because "tech" isn't an industry, and a lot of companies
in a lot of industries collect a lot of user data. Are we going to start taxing individual companies at their own rates?

Meanwhile real people don't need the $0.01 they might get from this scheme which is sure to cost the government (aka all of us) a lot of money to pursue.

We just need to have more rights over what companies do with our data, and rights to demand that they delete all data collected on us and notify us of all partners who they shared it with so we can make the same demands of them.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[lgw]

Oh ho! Not 1st but 5th! Glorious! But we're talking about processionals working for big tech companies, it's the low-six-figure tax rate that matters.

I've lived in 3 stares now with no income tax. All had better roads. All had better street lighting. All had more reliable power. All managed not to run out of water. 2 of the 3 managed not to catch fire and burn half the state. California: top 10% in taxes, bottom 10 in infrastructure.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[serviscope_minor]

Think about this when you try to take profits away from all those 'wealthy' shareholders. The largest class of equity owners are pension funds. You are stealing from the teachers, policemen, firefighters, etc.

No those pensions are going to be worth squat when it's time to cash them out. Pension companies are *the* *worst*.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[PPH]

Pension companies

CALPERS is a branch of the California State Government. Same with most public employee pensions. So if it's bad, you only have your own state voters to blame.

Private companies may have good or bad pension managers. But just saying "They're bad. So lets just go ahead and steal the money now" isn't any more ethical. You sound like a hungry bum, trying to justify the fact that you are about to thump someone over the head for their wallet.

Re:"Share some of those profits"

[ayesnymous]

Where will they go? Not many people would want to leave sunny California. Not many other states would welcome them either, lest they want to see housing prices and homelessness go out of control.

Re: "Share some of those profits"

[Anonymous Coward]

They invest in theft. No sympathy

Re: "Share some of those profits"

[kenh]

People leave CA every year, a lot of them - just ask the folks in Washington state, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

So "something for nothing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how we justify getting the "something for nothing" just because we want it. I could see this working if we made it a law that privacy must be maintained and you must pay if you want to use the private data (opt-in rather than opt-out, where opt-in requires payment.)

Re:So "something for nothing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not for nothing, it's for your data. Google and Facebook have been selling you out for years like a pimp who don't pay his hoes, now you might actually see something for it.

I think this is a great idea. I've been saying for years that the best way to end this data-harvesting and brokering industry is to give everyone automatic intellectual property over their personally identifiable information. If the big boys can't take it without entering into a royalties contract with you, it should be illegal and you should be able to sue them for piracy.

Re:So "something for nothing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's your data. Really, cuz I don't have it on my server. I don't pay to maintain on my server. In fact, I don't back it up on my server.

Your must mean their data. That they collect, pay for, maintain, and backup.

But typical communist talk. Dah comrade, our data, for free. Now all to the bread lines.

Re: So "something for nothing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same can be said for free speech. Your strawman is irrelevant. They CHOOSE to collect that data. Also that data is stored in my brain. I do own my data.

But no, free market, corporations are people, they won't ever cheat you. Fucking another gullible big business idiot.

Re:So "something for nothing"?

[dgatwood]

I think this is a great idea. I've been saying for years that the best way to end this data-harvesting and brokering industry is to give everyone automatic intellectual property over their personally identifiable information. If the big boys can't take it without entering into a royalties contract with you, it should be illegal and you should be able to sue them for piracy.

That's fine. Just be prepared to go back to paying actual money for every phone call, text message, chat app message, web search, and email message you send or receive. Right now, all those ads and all the data collection to support those ads are being shown to you in exchange for actual goods and services, from that website you browsed to the email you sent.

Put another way, the people of California are already getting a *HUGE* data dividend. The problem is that our elected politicians are too technologically clueless to understand it.

I'm fully in agreement with the first part — that consumers should know what is being collected, why it is being collected, and how it is being used, to the maximum extent practical. But taxing the data collection? At best, this will be noise, and at worst, it will raise the cost of advertising, thus lowering the number of advertisers and reducing the amount of ad income for websites that are already struggling to break even. Want to completely kill the newspaper industry? Well, this is a really quick way to do it.

Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Leftist sees a success story. Leftist comes up with some yanked out of the ass reason why he's entitled to collect a vig from the success. Leftist sticks his hand out. Business as usual.

Re:Born Parasites

[sinij]

Parasites doing parasitism on more parasites. Don't delude yourself into thinking that social media tech companies are producers of anything of value.

Re:Born Parasites

[AHuxley]

The rest of the USA needs to tell investors in CA what they have to offer.
Imagine a state with clean streets.
Low tax.
Low power bills.
Fast internet.
No strange new city and state laws about how to run a business.
Lower cost housing in nice communities.
A transport network thats well designed and that gets people to work on time.
Low crime and well paid police than enforce the law.
No strange new taxes on wealth, productivity, profits, innovation, investment, creativity.
Workers who can be hired on merit.
College education that produces skilled workers not protesters.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. No pie to divy up. Just fake "advertising" that suckers pay for. If all that "created-phoney" so-called social wealth went away no one would even care except those companies & government control freaks.

Re:Born Parasites

[Opportunist]

Parasites sucking on parasites. That's somewhat funny if you think about it.

Re:Born Parasites

[Opportunist]

How do you pull all of this off? You want low taxes, but at the same time you want to offer a load of services that would have to be paid for with taxes.

Re:Born Parasites

[cayenne8]

How do you pull all of this off? You want low taxes, but at the same time you want to offer a load of services that would have to be paid for with taxes.

There's plenty of cities in different states, that have MUCH lower taxation, yet are able to provide plenty of city services (police, fire, schools, etc).

These places also don't tell you how to run your business.

Re:Born Parasites

[Opportunist]

Now we're talking. Can you name some of those places, maybe there's something to be learned.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower education in general
Low skilled workers
Tornadoes
bugs the size of fists
Freezing weather in the winter
Closed minded to other ethnicities (and many in IT aren't white)
Noncompete friendly laws

Not going to happen, have fun hating and wishing you weren't freezing

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

you want to offer a load of services

Gibs for homeless bums.

Re:Born Parasites

[pak9rabid]

How do you pull all of this off? You want low taxes, but at the same time you want to offer a load of services that would have to be paid for with taxes.

Easy, drop all the bullshit entitlement programs and focus on services that benefit productive members of society.

Re:Born Parasites

[lgw]

Parasites doing parasitism on more parasites.

Came here to say this. No sympathy. Let the left eat itself.

Re:Born Parasites

[psycho12345]

Except most states enforce non competes, so no, workers can not be hired on merit. And no, you can't run the business how you want, startups are somewhat of a pain if your former employer can lawsuit you out of existence.

And no state has the university system California has. California has 5 different university systems to pull graduates from: Community Colleges, Cal State, UC, private (Stanford, Cal Tech, USC), and private systems (Claremont Colleges, which includes Harvey Mudd). We have more universities and colleges then most of the western US combined.

Also, and here is the real kicker: No you can't say low power bills and clean streets when the streets are getting baked into oblivion by heat, or getting iced over 2-3 months of the year and having to get plowed/salted, and you have to run AC or heaters pretty heavily for anywhere from 2 to 6 months a year, depending on heat and humidity or extreme cold.

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh hi there Ivan, are you busy at work again, trying to stir shit up in America, trying your damnedest to sow chaos, confusion, and divisiveness? Fuck off back to your own country, Ivan, and tell your FSB bosses to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. Maybe we should just nuke Moscow and be done with it. In any event: We're on to you, Ivan, so how about you just GET LOST?

Re:Born Parasites

[Hillie]

Nice to see we still have rational folks on /.

I honestly don't mind paying what I pay now for Internet / power. It's everything else that I don't want, socialism being at the top of that list. Really wish that bunch of poor people with horrible work-ethic and mindset weren't voting for people to destroy the country.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and Iâ(TM)ll be glad to mail you a hanky. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

Re:Born Parasites

[rogoshen1]

yes but then hordes of Californians will flock/invade to said state, thus bringing all of their problems with them.

Arizona Bay can't happen soon enough.

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. If Facebook were taxed to death, nothing bad happened.

But there is no need for the taxman. Instead, make them pay for the data they collect & trade. Let everybody have copyright on their own info (name, age, address & every other detail the advertisers find interesting.) My info. Not some company's info.

If they can monetize such info - then I may be willing to rent out my info this year. But for payment in real money, not merely a facebook account. I don't care that much about social media. Or I may decide I have enough, and not licence any info this year. So no targeted ads directed at me - or someone violated my copyright. . .

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Austin, TX.

https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/austin_tx/sunnyvale_ca/costofliving

If the average US cost of living is 100, Austin is 130 and Sunnyvale (as a model for the Bay Area) is 392. Utilities are slightly more expensive in Austin, but everything else from housing to groceries is much cheaper. It has a growing tech population, plenty of room to expand in nearly every direction, keeping land for housing and buildings cheap, and has a growing cultural side of things for amenities.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Pennsylvania.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, let's get rid of these insane tax breaks for big businesses.

It's just welfar with less steps.

Why are we still giving billion dollar companies tax breaks? Yet the middle class keeps getting absolutely raped when it comes to taxes.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. You have bought in to the narrative hook line and sinker. Yea let's keep blaming poor people. It's all their fault.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL you repubtards are never happy. You have your dream guy as the president and you still bitch.

It's funny you guys are starting to sound just like him, blaming everything on the democrats. Trump created a boogieman for all brainless fucks to be scared of. Yea republicans have controlled the country for 2 years, but it's still those lefities that are to blame.

Let's give big businesses tax breaks at the cost of the middle class, yea that will show those damn lefties.

You are an idiot if you think any of them care about you. To them you are just as poor and lazy as you picture the next man. To them, you are what you fear, funny how that works.

But keep blaming "the left". It makes you look stupid and we can all point and laugh at you.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, we call this the trump family photo.

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you pull all of this off? You want low taxes, but at the same time you want to offer a load of services that would have to be paid for with taxes.

You set priorities, and make government stick to the things government does best.

Re:Born Parasites

[reboot246]

Californians are already leaving or plan to leave.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

Just don't move to my state and fuck things up like you did back home!!

Re:Born Parasites

[Darinbob]

Well, there's Oz for one. Though it's taken a bit of a dive after the Wizard left.

Re:Born Parasites

[Darinbob]

Nobody has been seriously talking about bringing Socialism to this country, that's either just a scare tactic or someone not knowing what Socialism means. Now we might have socialized services but that is not the same thing at all.

The problem is that we have a few generations who were brought up to learn that unions were a gateway to socialism and socialism was a gateway to communism and communism was a gateway to atheism. So any vague hint of worker's rights or government programs will cause some people to cry that Zombie Marx is walking the land looking for brains to eat.

Re:Born Parasites

[cayenne8]

Nobody has been seriously talking about bringing Socialism to this country,

Man, turn on your TV, you must have missed the two leading poster children for bringing the US to socialism:

Bernie Sanders

AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

They are both blatant about it....listen to AOC on recent talk shows...openly professing to want "democratic socialism"...which is....socialism.

There are others that are scarily agreeing largely with this, which is amazing, in that only a few short years ago, no one like this would have even gotten close to power, much less actually elected!!!

Yes, it is something to worry about. It will bring about the destruction of the US as we know it.

Re:Born Parasites

[Darinbob]

Bernie is not really a Socialist. He's more of a social democrat, which is NOT the same thing. He's not pushing for a system where we have a state controlled economy. We already have some state control of some small factors in the economy (or big ones if you count the military which is essentiallly the biggest jobs program in the country). Expanding to have more socialized medicine, expanding medicare, having more safety nets, or even just higher taxes, is not the same as socialism.

If you don't like those ideas, then great. Have a serious debate about them. But to just label them as "socialism" is incorrect and demeans any argument you are trying to make. This is just as wrong as when someone on the left calls a new crime bill "fascist", which is also an incorrect word to use.

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you are correct about sanders you missed the other mention. AOC is a socialist that has brought forward motions to nationalize various industries. Much more than what sanders thinks.

Re: Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not my dream guy. If he was, you'd have disappeared by now.

Re:Born Parasites

[dgatwood]

Austin, TX has the distinct advantage of not being geographically constrained, being mostly just hilly (semi-flat) and not on any major fault lines. By contrast, the Bay Area has mountains surrounding it, plus major earthquakes that limit how high you can safely build.

Without compromising safety, IMO, it really doesn't mater how much you deregulate the Bay Area. Unless you go so far as to allow a developer to buy an entire mountain range, nuke it, and push the resulting debris off into the Pacific Ocean as an artificial peninsula, you aren't going to bring the cost of living down even close to Austin levels.

Note that if you look up Bay Area density, you may be misled. The density measurements for the Bay Area include mountainous areas that are not really suitable for high-density construction. If you take those out of the picture, the Bay Area has anywhere from 1.5x to 8x the average density of Austin, TX. If Austin starts to even approach Bay Area density, your cost of living will probably be high, too. But it won't ever do that, because it isn't land-locked. :-)

Re:Born Parasites

[Opportunist]

Personally I think it was already all over when they melted the chick.

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just silly, social media does produce value. Companies buy ads because ads turn into sales. If you sell more product, make more money, then the ad is valuable. Social media is huge for advertising.

Re:Born Parasites

[Darinbob]

You mean the Project Manager of the West?

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

What!? Care to go over that list with me?
-Low power bills. Power being supplied by private companies, they're not paid by taxes. The high cost of power in some states, e.g., California, are directly traceable to corruption reflected in disastrous contracts (e.g., Enron).
-Fast internet. Again, supplied by private companies; again, corruption. The overt collusion among internet providers to screw over the consumer is ALLOWED by the government you fund with your taxes and promoted by the FTC; again, something that does not cause (and is not helped by) high taxes.
-No strange new city and state laws about how to run a business. Once again, nothing to do with taxes, but only with the political stability of the government.
-Lower cost housing in nice communities. Repeating myself: nothing to do with taxes, the main responsible for high housing costs are regulations that prevent new construction (see NY and San Francisco for the most egregious examples), regulations that are invariably favored by current home owners at the expense of newcomers. For the opposite case see Texas: construction permits are easy to get, perhaps too easy as illustrated by the flooding of Houston and quite a few issues with faulty zoning all over the state.
-A transport network that's well designed and that gets people to work on time. This is a very complicated issue: if you mean a public transport network then yes, you could use taxes to build it and hope it would become self-sustainable through its continued operation, but I'm not sure there's a solution that could cope with the typical American city sprawl (New York is very a-typical on this regard); LA is a perfect example of how bad is the mismatch between city culture and public transit. If you mean a network of roads that allows fluid traffic that's also hard: studies show that the more roads you build, the more cars come to your city and the worse your traffic problem gets. Self-driving cars *might*, perhaps, be the breakthru needed to "solve" the issue, but they might not even if they operated flawlessly and were widely available, both of which they won't in the near term. I'd say solutions are still not in the "just fund with a tax" stage.
-Low crime and well paid police that enforce the law. Yup, takes do pay for this; however, "though on crime" policies sometimes create their own share of problems; see, e.g., the exploding rates of incarceration in California after passing the "three strikes law(s)" that have people serving decades for relatively minor felonies. In other parts of the country, "high paid police that enforces the law" has meant e.g., paramilitary SWAT teams killing unarmed civilians in their homes and cops getting away with regularly killing blacks and other minorities. Not sure that even higher taxes would help alleviate any of these issues.
-No strange new taxes on wealth, productivity, profits, innovation, investment, creativity. So this is a point in favor of LESS taxes, not more ... You definitely got this one backwards!
-Workers who can be hired on merit. Again, what's the tax angle here?
-College education that produces skilled workers not protesters. Partly a tax issue, perhaps; but if it was entirely down to taxes then there wouldn't be an issue with student debt, would it? Sure, NY and CA, high tax states, have probably the best college systems in the US, but Washington State and Texas, low tax states, also have strong educational systems. As for other high tax states, say Hawaii or Rhode Island, I don't think their colleges have much better reputation than, say, low-tax Florida, so again the correlation between high academic achievement and high taxes is not clear to me.
So nope, most of the things on that list actually DO NOT have to be paid for with taxes. The thing is, many of those things are hard to achieve, and the most successful high-tax states have had about as many successes/failures in each of those as the most successful low-tax states, modulo their cultural differences. I don't think you fully thought this one through.

Re:Born Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude! Social democracy is not socialism, don't be an uneducated useful idiot! No one is proposing to abrogate private property rights, centralized planning of the economy by the state or suppression of liberty of expression, vocation or association. Our neighbors to the north, those friendly Canadians, have universal health coverage; if you want to qualify Bernie for proposing the same for the US, you'd be more accurate if you called him a "Canadian" than a Socialist! As for universal education they have for instance in the Scandinavian countries. Repeat after me: in the social-democrat Scandinavian countries, not in Soviet Scandinavia. Honestly I find hard to believe that anybody moderately intelligent can believe that acknowledging the right of citizens to health care and education is the defining feature of a socialist country and that that feature is actually a critical bug.
"Socialism" has been the bugaboo the right waves on the face of the middle-class citizen with aspirations to convince him/her that the cause of all his/her troubles are "those people" and their entitlement programs, while they (the right) pass for themselves massive budget-busting tax cuts. You better stop to think, and think fast, about what you're hearing and what you chose to repeat/retweet, 'coz you're being cheated blind by the people who are using the "socialism" monicker to scare you sh*tless into compliance with the plutocratic agenda.

Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

California is too much their lapdog for them to leave. That state has everything a tech giant wants, be it a burgeoning H-1B population, control of housing, amenities that no other state offers, and the best gun safety laws in the US, ensuring children stay safe.

The governor and state congress will go before the tech companies do.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[AHuxley]

Once the sate and city gov want too much of the profit then staying in CA will be difficult.
Who wants to see most of their profit and wage go to the gov?

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain why you think their gun laws are better than New York's.

Re: Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because now it's been waiting in the same test by then I'll be there around the cruise.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[jellomizer]

I don't follow your logic:

H-1B population, they will go where the jobs are. If major tech companies move to some small rural town in Arkansas, they will move there. Being on a Visa, usually means the Visa holder isn't as settled as citizen are so getting up and moving to where ever the work is, is nearly their lifestyle.

Housing costs is a MAJOR issue in California, such tight control isn't needed in states where you can buy a home with over 2000sq/ft and and acre of land pay less then two thousand dollars a month on a normal 30 year mortgage.

By what other amenities are you talking about? How does this compared to other well populated states, New York, New England states, New Jersey....
New York State, actually has a stricter gun safety law.

California isn't bad, but tech companies are not stuck there, and if California makes life too difficult or unprofitable, companies can move out without major consequences.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[cayenne8]

New York State, actually has a stricter gun safety law.

I think you mean they have more anti-citizen intrusion into your 2A rights.

There's plenty of people that would want to move to more free states where they respect ALL of your rights as a citizen.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[stealth_finger]

California is too much their lapdog for them to leave. That state has everything a tech giant wants, be it a burgeoning H-1B population, control of housing, amenities that no other state offers, and the best gun safety laws in the US, ensuring children stay safe.

The governor and state congress will go before the tech companies do.

Will that be before or after the san andreas fault opens up and swallows the whole lot?

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[jellomizer]

I expect he sees the nation from the California perspective. (like we see in Hollywood)
The Standard Good American life, California. (Full House)
The tough inner city life style with oddly very large appartments, New York City (Friends/Sienfield)
Hillbillies, and struggling lower middle class. The rest of America. (Married with Children/Rosane)

Either that his post was meant to be sarcastic to try to show how Liberal California is, because Fox News is based in New York City, so California is the whipping boy of the LiBeRaL Agenda.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[ShanghaiBill]

California has a gun homicide rate of 3.3/100k. That is above average, worse than 31 other states.

Gun violence in the USA by state

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[ShanghaiBill]

Will that be before or after the san andreas fault opens up and swallows the whole lot?

San Andreas is a transform fault.

It slides laterally. It does not "open up".

It is actually Washington and Oregon that are in danger of being swallowed up. So sell your Microsoft and Amazon stock.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

That will just hasten their already obvious fall, as more efficient businesses compete from elsewhere.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Dru Nemeton]

Well, until the Yellowstone caldera blows then everyone East of Yellowstone is toast.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's being sarcastic. You can tell because of the comment of "control of housing", which clearly California has absolutely no control over.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Darinbob]

Not many states are respecting all rights. Lots of red states are quite happy to restrict or attempt to restrict rights; the right to vote while not being white, the right to due process even if poor, the right to abortion, the right to have an unpopular religion, and so forth. While California has flaws you will not find a flawless place to build a new company. Better to look for the advantages in a location.

And don't forget that California is a huge state. We've got deep blue and deep red and they make lots of noise, but overall it's somewhat centrist with a slight left lean. The previous governor was pretty much a left leaning centrist, and the one before that was a right leaning centrist, and it keeps going that way for awhile.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[cayenne8]

...the right to vote while not being white, the right to due process even if poor, the right to abortion, the right to have an unpopular religion, and so forth."

Err, these are all available in all US states....right to vote is not tied in any way to race, geez, where did you get this from?

You get due process if poor....you just may not get the best lawyer, but that applies to all states.

I will give you that abortions are getting more restricted in a few states, and I disagree with that, however, the ones that trying to truly almost deny you one, are being taken to court and their laws are on hold till adjudicated.

You can have any religion you want in any US state, as long as it doesn't break any laws, I mean, no human sacrifices, but aside from that you can be just about what you want to be in any of the states.

I"m not sure where you're pulling this stuff from....

Hey, we can just keep it simple.

Most of the states fully support and try to make sure their citizens are protected especially for the full Bill of Rights....except a few like CA, NJ and NY and pretty much MA too....for some reason, they pick ONE of the amendments out to try to remove from citizens....the 2nd.

Trouble is...if you get rid of the 2nd...eventually, they'll come for the 1st and others, and there will be nothing there to stop them.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[cayenne8]

Frankly, I feel safer in my state, where the gun laws are not restrictive at all for the legal to own citizens....I can own what I like for protection, and for recreation.

I can assure, you, to date, none of my firearms have spontaneously become animated and caused violence against any person, or animal so far.

I"d be open to hunting, but just never have gone....most people I know have not had any problems with their weapons causing problems either.....

And a 30 round magazine for a rifle is a standard capacity magazine....not "high" capacity...

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Darinbob]

Many states are trying to restrict these. Voter ID laws, disenfranchisement, etc. There are many people who do not want any muslims in the US. I had my mother say "they shouldn't allow those" when we drove past a mosque. Due process in the US is based upon being able to afford a decent lawyer. Black men are more often jailed than white men for the same crime - we give bigger penalties for cheap crack possession than for expensive cocaine possession.

Under your definition, California protects all rights. No state in the US is trying to ban guns, there is a difference between banning and having regulation. But if you're going to be silly and claim that California ignores some rights then I will just apply that same logic to other states where rights are not equally protected for all citizens.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

Smartest thing you've ever said!

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Highdude702]

If you think Friends or Sienfield are tough inner city life... Well. Welcome to the Fabulous Las Vegas!

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Highdude702]

Do you mean west? Because I would imagine that anything close would be gone in a certain radius, but the earth spins east to west. So I would assume that anything west would get the venting and ash and sich.

Re: Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Lockheed a huge employer from 50 years ago? GM had plants in the San Fernando Valley and what is now the Tesla plant. Amazon has formulated the latest in cost reduction by having a bidding war to get a secondhand âoeheadquartersâ which the didnâ(TM)t even attempt to complete the commitment before re-envisioning the possible improvements for their bottom line. Cheers for New York for putting brakes on. Profitable business flees California for Texas, Nevada and Mexico and Asia. Rarely are chips fabricated in California any more. /cheer Gavin. Who needs well paid jobs?

Re: Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "Are businesses..." and see what it suggests for completion of that question. Your theory is off.

Re: Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those two states have the worst gun laws in the nation

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

I will give you that abortions are getting more restricted in a few states, and I disagree with that, however, the ones that trying to truly almost deny you one, are being taken to court and their laws are on hold till adjudicated.

Abortion is a contentious right as it should be because it's the point at which we're talking about trampling one entity's rights over another. It is an argument about at what point(s) in its life cycle is a human organism is due the rights afforded to humans.

Re: Businesses won't leave...

[kenh]

Your right, there's no way an Internet-based software company could relocate, why, how could they possibly do it?

They are actually the easiest company to move - their market is international, their products are location-less/virtual, and they currently have servers deployed around the world.

What keeps them in CA? The astronomical land prices, obscene taxes, and sunshine?

Hey, it's sunny in Texas, and no state income tax... just sayin'

Re: Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you say east to west, wtf does that mean?

Looking down at the Earth's north pole, the earth spins counter clock wise, so from the side to me that's west to east.

Re:Businesses won't leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving to a new city as an H1b holder is extremely difficult.

Besides there are already h1b jobs in the "flyover" states. They're constantly flooding my inbox with fake job listings for places in ohio. When I check out the listings on glassdoor and they say stuff like work 2 shifts worth of work and the company gives them an apartment with co-workers and a shuttle to go to work and the apartment is ok except for the cockroaches.

Yeah it's an h1b scam. Those guys didn't sound rich even though they had to get 60k by law. I'm sure the company was finding creative ways to rake some of it back and extract every drop of blood from those guys.

On that note. Why would they want to leave a tech hub? Sure it's expensive but workers are treated shitty in the flyover states.

Share

[JBMcB]

People who use these services for "free" get to do so because of data collection. I'm assuming that California residents also get to use the services for free. Not sure why they are entitled to get money back from these companies as well as free service.

If the subtext to all of this is the affordable housing crisis in California, then build more damn houses.

Re:Share

[Anonymous Coward]

The "free services" seem to generate a very healthy profit for the tech giants in California so it stands to reason that the data is worth far more than the services being provided.

I hope this goes ahead but not for the reasons one might expect. Let me explain:
(1) CA imposes digital tax on the use of digital identities of its citizens
(2) tech giants scream blue murder and say they will move HQ to evade tax
(3) tech giants are ignored
(4) tech giants move their HQ to another state, taking with them highly paying jobs
(5) all of the people employed by the tech companies there were making mega bucks leave Silicon Valley
(6) housing becomes more affordable in CA
(7) regular people win.

Well that's an ideal outcome. More likely is that tech giants will just increase their fees to shore up their profits.

Re:Share

[pr0t0]

Came here to say this very thing. However, upon reflection, there certainly are plenty of tech companies that monetize data and offer nothing to the generators of that data in exchange. I'm thinking about large ad-tracking networks, paid app creators who grab unnecessary data, department stores, etc., etc. That said, I'm not sure I agree with governor's proposal. Rather than at a state level, I would prefer if each company that had access to and sold my data: a) requested permission to do so, and b) compensated me in a way felt was adequate.

Of course, the answer to A would almost always be "no".

Re:Share

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that the Chinese will just buy up the properties left by the tech companies. Prices wouldn't go down, but you would just see a lot of vacant buildings. NYC has this issue.

Re:Share

[registrations_suck]

The "free services" seem to generate a very healthy profit for the tech giants in California so it stands to reason that the data is worth far more than the services being provided.

Yes, in economics, this is called, "the profit motive" - and it is why people start businesses.

If the service provided were worth the same as benefit for providing it, there would be no point in creating a business as there would be no profit to be made.

Re:Share

[gtall]

It isn't a question of building more damn houses, it is a question of where to build more damn houses. If you can build them just south of East Where-Am-I and it takes two hours to commute to a job, that sort of puts a damper on your plan to build more damn houses.

Re:Share

[Anonymous Coward]

"It isn't a question of building more damn houses"

Unfortunately, yes it is. There are droves of stories about developers buying up defunct laundromats, pharmacies, etc (mostly in California) and trying to build housing on them only to be massively delayed/bankrupted because area landlords/NIMBYs think they have a right to stifle competition/tell others how to use their property. The reason you find housing projects being built miles out from the city centers isn't because its hard to find property (no doubt it is more expensive but it's generally available) it's to escape a certain municipal governing body (usually a city) and lawsuit happy residents.

Re:Share

[Darinbob]

A plan for housing is necessary. A lot of housing developers don't give a shit about that, they just want their profits ASAP. So they want to build either more upscale single family homes or upscale multistory condos. That just makes the housing problem worse. We need places for those lower and middle class people to live, and the free market will NOT solve that problem on its own. The land is scarce so developers want to build outwards but that just makes the problems worse. We need high density housing (affordable or not), building up and not outwards, but we can't do that when there's no transportation infrastructure to support the higher density.

Despite claims that California is not friendly to businesses, most big tech companies don't want to move away and new tech companies want to start here. I wish they were somewhere else, the Bay Area is full and the Los Angeles area is full. Let's be honest here, California is too full and doesn't have enough water for the residents we already have. But then, the US is full, we really have more people that are sustainable. The world is too full as well. We really need to get rid of the grow-grow-grow mentality. We need to stop being prudes and refusing to talk about birth control around the world unless it's abstinence only. Until the world turns around and stops thinking me-me-me all the time we're doomed.

(And of course the whole "doomed" thing will be rejected by the evangelical right who believe that the world can only end by the rapture so any attempt to conserve, reduce, or plan is ungodly. Unfortunately those people have an outweighted influence in government.)

How about this instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about instead, we educate people not to vomit every detail of their lives into Facebook and Google? Not to give Google all their emails, Facebook all their pictures, both of them all their real time locations, their personal messages... or even worse data about people who do not use those company's products.

These huge spy companies exist because people use them. Stop doing that. Stop giving them access to your whole life!

You assholes who use Facebook made Fuckerberg one of the richest men in the world. It's on you.

Re:How about this instead?

[jfdavis668]

But then how will we know what they had for dinner?

Re:How about this instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're advocating personal responsibility as a form of defense against a multi billion dollar corporation who knows how your mind works better than your psychiatrist and is able to manipulate it in ways that would make the CIA jealous?

When people are acting too retarded for their own good, it's time for government to step in and govern people. You can bitch and moan about freedom, personal choice, right to be stupid, corporate sovereignty or whatever angle you want to come at it from, but it's no different than imposing speed limits on roads or getting pharmacies to stop selling Laudinum, both of which are things I'm sure had their share of controversy and backlash at the time, but in hindsight are things we can all agree made sense.

Sometimes you just have to step in for the good of the people, because the people have no damn clue what's good for them.

Re:How about this instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're advocating personal responsibility as a form of defense against a multi billion dollar corporation

That corporation is multi-billion-dollar big *because* people keep giving it access to every last bit of their lives. Facebook didn't get where it is by magic. If you don't do that, it never grows its way out of Zuckerbergs dorm room. Or at this point, it withers and dies.

This is not magic. Facebook lives or dies based on whether people use it or not.

Move your brand

[AHuxley]

To a low tax state that respects your right to innovate.
Lots of other great US states have fast internet and low tax.
Low power costs and an educated workforce that's ready.

Escape the trash, waste, crime, new taxes and find a better state.
They will let you keep your employee cafeterias too.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

NOOOO. THEY VOTED FOR WHAT THEY WANTED! Build a wall around CA, keep the crazies out of the rest of the US.

Re:Move your brand

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

To a low tax state that respects your right to innovate.
Lots of other great US states have fast internet and low tax.
Low power costs and an educated workforce that's ready.

I would just mod you up if I had any points, but I don't. One of the great truths in life that I learned a long time ago is that the rich (including corporations) are really good at protecting their money. This is why things like the "Fair Tax" movement in the USA will fail if it ever gets enacted. The rich have ways to buy things in ways that will avoid them paying tax. Similarly, there are limits to how much California can tax their high earning companies unless they are willing to watch them leave.

Re:Move your brand

[Opportunist]

Well, technically there is a way but I doubt anyone wants to go down that road.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

We refer to them as red shitholes, to use Trump's term

No thanks. I'll stick with a state that has great infrastructure, education, quality of life, and the best job opportunities in the country.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

oh look just another wannabe millionaire... Why are you so bend on taxing the very rich a negligible amount of their revenue that they generate using your society? Do you think that one day you'll become filthy rich like them and you will be taxed? Don't make me laugh. There's no need to protect the rich's interest which go against yours, the middle class, interests. They have AND will have plenty to go by.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Low tax state = reliant on federal subsidies
Right to innovate = desire to exploit people
Low power costs = public subsidy of private enterprise

Employee cafeterias are A-OK, so long as the benefit is declared and tax collected as its supposed to be.

But sure, your state's colleges are probably way better than Stanford, Berkeley or Cal Tech.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

He thinks that keeping taxes low on the rich is the only way to keep taxes low on the poor like himself

This despite the evidence that the rich will fuck him every chance they get. For example, the Trump tax cut, which was a absolute bonanza for rich people, yet only resulted in small, temporary table scraps for tax cuts on the lower and middle classes.

Keep carrying water for billionaires.

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

The "Fair Tax" would be a dream for the rich, resulting in massive savings for them. It's basically a flat sales tax on every damn thing. The rich spend far less than they make, and only a fraction of their spending is done in the US.

Meanwhile the lower classes would be devastated by the sales taxes since they spend most or all of what they make on the basic necessities of living and participating in the economy, and almost all of that spending is local. You'd soon see them take on the kind of spending patterns that are common for people in Latin America and the Caribbean, which would be to do as much of their shopping as possible during an annual trip outside of the country and smuggle back a ton of stuff to avoid getting reamed by ruinous sales taxes.

But the companies won't leave California so easily, and if they do, it would be better for the US as a whole to reduce the geographic income concentration of having all the tech megacorps packed into one region.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

We refer to them as red shitholes, to use Trump's term

No thanks. I'll stick with a state that has great infrastructure, education, quality of life, and the best job opportunities in the country.

Get out of your sheltered white suburban progtard bubble.

California has the highest poverty rate in the US, the highest rate of failure to complete high school, and the highest rates of diseases like tuberculosis.

Of course, those Californians aren't white.

Got the balls to actually look all that up? Because it's all true.

Or are you so fucking close-minded and racist that it's too much to expect you to even notice the brown people?

You're probably too afraid to have your virtue-signalling bubble pierced.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

If all men are created equal then taxes should be applied equally.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Typhus outbreaks. Homeless camps. Highest state income tax in the union. They are inviting more and more uneducated illegal aliens into the state by the day. Can you say in 10-20 years 3rd world hell hole? A beautiful state manged and ran by Republicans for the last 100 years being destroyed in several decades by the evils of socialism and leftism.

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

Why? We don't tax people on their character or humanity. Neither do we pay them for those things, which is why we have everything from decabillionaire hyper-royalty to actual slaves in the world today. We tax people on things like income, sales, square footage of land, etc, and those are far from equal.

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Edukashun fail

Ca is about 15%, around the national average. Which is pretty good considering if you are homeless and want to survive in w in nter you pretty much need to relocate to CA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate#States,_federal_district_and_territories

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be terrible for you, realizing Trump supporters not only understand the difference between withholding and refunds, but also that everyone knows your party of jackboots is the side that wouldn't budge on making permanent cuts.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

The rich spend far less than they make

One might just assume a causal connection there. You know, if one had any interest in becoming a despicable richer.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

Sales taxes are inherently regressive. An actual flat tax - all income, dividends, and gains taxed the same, no exceptions - would be not merely fair, but righteous (make it progressive by sending everyone a check every month). It will never happen, of course, as the richest would pay far more, and the politicians couldn't run every election on spending other people's money.

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

Spending less than you make is only a viable method to getting rich if you already have a very generous income. The rich spend less than they make because they make so much more than they have any need or want to spend.

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

A tax cannot be both flat and fair IMO - to me, fair is progressive. We may disagree on moral grounds.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

Spending less than you make is only a viable method to getting rich if you already have a very generous income.

Proven false by a great many people, including myself when younger. Heck, a buddy of mine was a security guard making $6/hour and saving half his pay (he did work a lot of hours), who inspired me to do the same. It's just a matter of priorities and optimization, assuming you have a full-time job. Not much you can do beyond subsistence if you're stuck with part time work, but that's not most people.

Whether your religion is Rich Dad Poor Dad, or Mr Money Mustache, or one of the many other cults of savings, get the fervor and you can save. Plenty of proven recipes out there, but any way you do it is a matter of working to change your habits and finding pleasure in the abstract activity of saving (abstraction is very hard for some people, but again that's not most people).

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

I see you're not familiar with modern median incomes. That was the case in the past, but not these days. Employees are being squeezed much tighter.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

"Fair" is not the word you want. Any rules, no matter how arbitrary or evil, that apply equally to all people without bias are "fair". It's better to be just than to be fair. It's better to be righteous than to be just. Ancient wisdom.

And of course in the very post you responded to I explained how to make it progressive. But even if it weren't it would still be better than sales taxes.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

Dude, modern median incomes are plenty to save on. Saving significantly when just at the poverty line is hard mode, but possible. Saving at median income is easy - just live like a student and you can save half your pay.

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

"Fair" is not the word you want. Any rules, no matter how arbitrary or evil, that apply equally to all people without bias are "fair". It's better to be just than to be fair. It's better to be righteous than to be just. Ancient wisdom.

Good point, I can agree with this.

And of course in the very post you responded to I explained how to make it progressive. But even if it weren't it would still be better than sales taxes.

I agree a mix of income/dividends/gains would be better than sales taxes. Sales taxes are inherently regressive and the worst form of taxation in use today (unless you count illicit 3rd-world bribe-shakedowns).

But if you write *everyone* a check then it's not progressive, it's still flat. If you just write people below a certain income a check, it might just qualify for the most minimal definition of "progressive" but it would be almost flat...I wouldn't be pleased with it.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for you. Personally I can't wait to leave CA and move to one of your red state shitholes where I can have my 2nd amendment rights and every trip to the grocery store isn't turned to frustration because liberals hate all modern conveniences, even grocery bags.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

Just look at the numbers. Fixed amount - % of earnings = higher effective tax rate the more you make (and negative taxation if you make sufficiently little). It's the same amount as saying the flat rate only applies above a certain income, plus giving money to the poor, but it's much simpler.

Plus, there's no good reason for the government to know how much any citizen gets paid. A payroll tax takes care of taxing all income, without any individual paperwork at all - the average guy never interacts with tax collection. If you invest then you get the government's nose in your business, but you also have your bank or broker to do all the math for you (just like today), unless you own a business or commercial property directly.

Very simple, very hard to cheat, 0 exceptions for the rich to take advantage of (so it will never happen). You can even pretend it's UBI to keep the UBI fans happy (though the yearly fixed amount might not be so high).

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonanza for the rich means they are paying more because of cap on SALT deductions?

Logic fail.

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

Just look at the numbers. Fixed amount - % of earnings = higher effective tax rate the more you make (and negative taxation if you make sufficiently little). It's the same amount as saying the flat rate only applies above a certain income, plus giving money to the poor, but it's much simpler.

Well that's a decent argument for calling it progressive but I'm not sure how many people it would convince. The effect is progressive at mere mortals' incomes, but the numbers are still flat, and the progressiveness would quickly become a rounding error on the silly side of the income scale. The biggest flaw in this system is that it would put the richest people in the lowest tax bracket - the only tax bracket, but still the lowest. With a tax system like that, what rich guy needs loopholes?

Plus, there's no good reason for the government to know how much any citizen gets paid. A payroll tax takes care of taxing all income, without any individual paperwork at all - the average guy never interacts with tax collection.

In terms of pay privacy I think it's better to go in the other direction and make all incomes public, as Finland has done. Allowing the government to know people's pay is very useful for law enforcement and is a minimal invasion of privacy IMO. That information's already floating around in every bank, credit card company, and social media company in existence anyway. No point keeping it from just the government.

Very simple, very hard to cheat, 0 exceptions for the rich to take advantage of (so it will never happen). You can even pretend it's UBI to keep the UBI fans happy (though the yearly fixed amount might not be so high).

Not necessarily harder to cheat, just different. You might see compensation shift to the form of perks or services (like corporate jet/helicopter use, as Elon Musk and IBM's CEO have been caught doing). It might also push people from tax "avoidance" to more clear-cut evasion activity using foreign subsidiaries, which is more risky but would be much harder to catch if the government doesn't know anyone's income. It's already common to shift property off the books and tax free by assigning it to a shell company and then signing over that company's ownership.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

The biggest flaw in this system is that it would put the richest people in the lowest tax bracket - the only tax bracket, but still the lowest. With a tax system like that, what rich guy needs loopholes?

You think the very rich pay income tax today? The top tax brackets have only ever affected those who recently spiked to high income (which is most of the literal 1% - most people only stay there for a year or two). The more you make, the more flexibility you have in when, where, and how you get paid. Any complexity in the tax code can only help you. And if you're multi-generational wealthy, income is secondary and minimized, as you certainly don't work, and already have most everything you need (but that crowd has always been more affected by property tax than income tax).

Not necessarily harder to cheat, just different. You might see compensation shift to the form of perks or services

If you can imagine it, it was done 40 years ago. They do much more clever things now.

It might also push people from tax "avoidance" to more clear-cut evasion activity using foreign subsidiaries, which is more risky but would be much harder to catch if the government doesn't know anyone's income.

As above, old news. Money moving across borders is very heavily tracked (which is why Bitcoin grew so fast). Some CEOs get paid by foreign subsidiaries, in clever ways. But total income of all CEOs is a rounding error in the scheme of things - the goal should be to fund the government, not punish people you don't like.

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

The goal should be to not only fund the government but to keep money from being siphoned out of the economy to various economic oubliettes, otherwise you'll be overtaxing the economy and setting the stage for a future government funding problem. Which is why it's important to make sure CEOs aren't doing that/are being heavily taxed.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

If you're worried about money leaving the US, I think you'll find the total money sent back to family by recent immigrants dwarfs total CEO pay (most of which isn't salary to begin with).

Total federal tax revenue is $3.3 T/year. The combined comp of the CEOs of the fortune 500 is, what, a couple billion/year? Just a distraction. They should pay, like everyone else, but they're not important in the scheme of things.

Re:Move your brand

[GameboyRMH]

CEOs in particular may only pay a few billion (5.2 for the Fortune 500) but looking at CEO pay in particular is too small a piece of the puzzle. There's the whole CxO suite and upper management at larger companies makes silly money too. Pro athletes and celebrities all make ridicululous amounts. The top 1%, which even includes engineers and lawyers in more expensive areas, makes around 1/5th of the income, that's very important in the scheme of things. Letting a few people hide their money away could cost huge chunks of tax revenue that a much larger number of people with much less money to spare would eventually have to make up for.

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you suggest a person with a family do this? What about someone paying off college debt? What about someone making minimum wage living paycheck to paycheck.

That's the problem with you all or nothings, you never consider other people, you think eberyone is like you. Hint, we are all different and life all hands us different starting points. We don't get to choose.

So sure if I make minimum wage I'd have to work for an eternity. Also what about medical bills, etc. you don't factor none of that. You just say "well in 1989 I lived like a student and it worked for me and my friend". So fucking what. This isn't 1989 and the cost of living has sky rocketing while wages and pay increases have remained flat.

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never met a student who was able to save half his pay while making minimum wage or even median wage at that.

Hint:
I'm a professor.

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.

More repubtard fantasies. Blame the democrats. They are the current boogieman.

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Good riddance. Don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya.

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame the democrats. The repubtards favorite boogieman.

Even tho for two years they've had full control. Gotta blame someone.

Re:Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Only problem is that such a move would drawer CA culture to those other locations, which gives them about a generation to enjoy their good circumstances before it's destroyed too.

Re: Move your brand

[lgw]

How do you suggest a person with a family do this? What about someone paying off college debt? What about someone making minimum wage living paycheck to paycheck.

That's the problem with you all or nothings, you never consider other people, you think eberyone is like you. Hint, we are all different and life all hands us different starting points. We don't get to choose.

All or nothing? All I'm claiming is that most people can save a significant portion of their income, if that's their top priority. Not everyone, as I said: if you're only working part time, you're not going to manage much.

If you have a family, financial responsibility is only more important. Paying off debt is a great way (often the best way) to increase your net worth. Reaching a net worth of 0 can be a triumphant moment for many people (I know it was for me). Living paycheck to paycheck is a consequence of not saving. That's what the term means.

If you're working full time, and make it a priority, you can save, or at least most people can.

Why do some people treat the idea that you can save as some sort of personal attack? I think it's not me they're mad at, but their own history of choices leaving them where they are today.

Re: Move your brand

[lgw]

I've never met a student who was able to save half his pay while making minimum wage or even median wage at that.

Hint:
I'm a professor.

You have students that make median wage? That's an odd sort of class. It's rare that a student is actually working full time - and since you're a professor, I'm sure you can read the post you responded too. Wait, I'm not sure of that at all.

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Edukashun fail

Ca is about 15%, around the national average. Which is pretty good considering if you are homeless and want to survive in w in nter you pretty much need to relocate to CA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate#States,_federal_district_and_territories

WRONG

California Has One Of The Nation's Highest Poverty Rates, Again

New data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure shows roughly 7.5 million Californians — about 19 percent of the state population — live in poverty. California is one of the three states tied for highest poverty rate, alongside Florida and Louisiana. The poverty rate is 14 percent for the U.S.

The supplemental poverty measure takes into account factors such as the cost of housing and health care. Under the Census’ standard poverty measure, which is based strictly on income, California’s poverty rate is 13.4 percent, closer to the national average of 12.9 percent.

...

The sad thing is, you're so disconnected from reality that you probably really do believe you're smart.

And that's just ONE of the three points I mentioned that you failed to refute.

Google Dunning-Kruger. Then go look in the mirror for what can only be termed an archetype.

Re:Move your brand

[Darinbob]

I had a boss in the 90s who told me that if you actually pay taxes then you're not making enough money yet.

Re:Move your brand

[Darinbob]

Which taxes? Apply it equally to all income, from wages to capital gains on investments? Or do you mean merely sales tax which already is mostlly a flat tax?

There's an American foible where everyone thinks that someday they will be incredibly wealthy, so that they don't want to tax the wealthy more in case this bites them in the ass in the future. This is bullshit though, when I end up in a higher tax bracket than the previous year because I'm making more money, I say "hurray for me!"

Re:Move your brand

[serviscope_minor]

Proven false by a great many people, including myself when younger. Heck, a buddy of mine was a security guard making $6/hour and saving half his pay (he did work a lot of hours)

No that's proven 100% true. Let's say he saved half his salary, and worked brutal 12 hour days, 365 days a year. In 10 years he'd have managed a grand $130,000. Oh oops! That's before tax.

I have no idea what the tax rate is wherever your buddy is, but $130,000 is not rich.

all you've proven is what you claimed is false is in fact 100% true.

Re:Move your brand

[lgw]

$130k is rich when you're making $6/hour!

That's a big part of the various savings religions: focus on the cheap things that give you pleasure. The goal is financial independence and comfort, not impressing your neighbors.

Re:Move your brand

[_Sharp'r_]

The top 1% of income earners still pay 39.48% of federal income taxes (2x their share of gross income), the top 10% cover 70.88% of them and the top 50% pay 97.25%. So it's not like people with a higher than average income aren't already covering the vast majority of income taxes.

Yeah, there are some super-wealthy who have an ownership model which minimizes their taxes to a certain extent, but when the bottom 50% of income earners only pays 2.75% of the total income taxes, it's going to be tough to make an argument that the "rich" aren't paying income tax.

Re: Move your brand

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do some people treat the idea that you can save as some sort of personal attack? I think it's not me they're mad at, but their own history of choices leaving them where they are today.

Because it's bad advice. You don't end up anywhere except replenishing your savings half the time. You have to identify the money and figure out how to go get it... maybe that involves saving. There is a meme going around, ironically by the bootstraps crowd, that you can go into work every day, work hard, save your money, invest, and then one day you will open up a business and be rich or something.

You have people who believe this shit and they're irritated or guilty because it seems like such a challenge. There are people well below the poverty line getting yanked around that they might be in for a raise next year.

Also there is a cluelessness that comes from some of the guys saying "well you just gotta save!". You can tell they've never seen someone living humbly, going to work every day, and lose a year of careful disciplined savings when their car breaks or they have to ride in an ambulance. That guy is supposed to invest in the stock market?

You gotta quit your job. You have to identify how to get from where your are into a career that pays. Everything else is a distraction. Once you're there you can invest or think about launching a business.

The idea that you should just find cheap hobbies so that you can stay at home and not spend money is garbage. I think it's deliberately spread by people who want to keep the workforce cheap. If you're going to cope with being broke by staying home then you should study at home until you can get a job that gives you wiggle room.

Don't give back

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Just like Microsoft, Red Hat and IBM just taking open-source code without compensating the original developers. If you libtards think I'm going to contribute anything to the commune(ity) then guess again. I'm not even going to fill out a bug report. I'm just going to take and take and take. How you like that beotch? LOL

The "tech" surveillance cancer economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets face it, "tech" is now just a euphemism for automated mass surveillance.
They steal all your personal information, and give you not a lot in return. Toys, distractions, the illusion of dependence that you actually NEED these parasites.

"Social media" only ever removes user-facing features until you're giving them everything in exchange for fuck all. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Facebook would love to gather your data without allowing all that messy human expression if they could.

IoT was such a transparent scam, what a fucking joke, you'd have to have IQ of 2 to fall for this.
"Hey we're going to put a microphone and camera in your house that's connected to our data center"
"What for?"
"Like, you can ask for cookie recipes and sheeeeit"

Everyone is so fucking stupid, and tech bros defend this venomously because their paycheck depend on it. But they know there isn't a single ethical company in Silicon valley and it eats at them.

How about a refund?

[jbmartin6]

Maybe the citizens of the state could get a refund on the multibillion dollar waste on high speed rail line project which was recently canceled.

stock market

[Anonymous Coward]

umm this already exists it's called the stock market.

Yes! Be a sociopathic asshole!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll do away with civilisation. Pesky civilisation.

Do you want to make this a transaction?

[Anonymous Coward]

BigCo profits from your data, and with this bill, BigCo has paid for it. Doesn't this affect your right to not have your data collected? Can't really complain if you're getting paid.
The real issue is massive companies not paying their fair share in taxes.
The other real issue is companies should not even be allowed to gather so much data on us, EULA/"Privacy" policy notwithstanding.

So tax them ?

[RedK]

Why the Newspeak ?

Re:So tax them ?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Why the Newspeak ?

One man's dividend . . . is another man's tax.

Re:So tax them ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were inspired by Big Tech to "invent" something already invented so as to seem innovative.

Re:So tax them ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dividends are paid to stockholders which actually carry risk on the investment. Only way that this would be dividend instead of a tax or operating fee is to consider personal data itself an valuable investment to the company. I think it's quite a stretch to make this interpretation, especially if it's not applied equally to all "investors", of which vast majority are not Californians.

Re:So tax them ?

[novakyu]

Because he wants to model it after a popular program.

But if he thinks that's ... possible, given the vast differences in character, he's stupider than I thought.

State wide Stock Fund?

[ripvlan]

Obviously he's just going to tax them, I doubt he's suggesting the state should buy a big chunk of stock. But one could just buy stocks and directly enjoy the dividend -- and YOU pay taxes on it.

Either way the government is getting your money.

Re:State wide Stock Fund?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The state of California is actually a huge institutional investor, and probably owns billions of dollars of tech stocks.

Re:State wide Stock Fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

The pension system for state employees is that investor. Any growth or dividends there don't go the the general population.

Are there any general income sovereign funds outside the oil states?

Re:State wide Stock Fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you make less than $38,600 a year dividends are not taxed. $38,600-425,800 the tax rate is 15% above 425,800 its 20% tax rate.

Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to have the right to disallow the collection of our data in the first place. California's answer to everything is, 'Bribe 'em!', and then continue the bad behavior unabated. We need the ability to opt out altogether if we wish, and in no way shape or form is it 'ok' that they monetize our data *at all*. That too, has to stop. It isn't our fault their only viable business model is exploiting us. This legislation is a joke.

If you want dividends, buy the stock.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want dividends, buy the stock.

Re:If you want dividends, buy the stock.

[Opportunist]

This is the government, why buy when you can simply take what you...

No, wait, we're talking about taking something from corporations, not mere humans. Ok, then it ain't that easy.

Re:If you want dividends, buy the stock.

[PPH]

As a non-Californian shareholder in a few of these big data companies, I can see numerous lawsuits springing up. The state is producing a new class of 'shareholder' unilaterally that will take a cut of companies revenue before the rest of us get paid. I put shareholder in quotes because I don't see where members of this class will be required to take ownership positions (buy stock) as a condition of receiving the dividend.

Hmmm...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Maybe the fact that companies aren't moving out of California means that the market has already spoken, and that making a shitty state low-tax doesn't make up for being a shitty state. Maybe those low-tax states should raise taxes and become better places to live to attract those companies.

It's so strange to assume that really rich companies (or billionaires) care so much about saving 10% off their taxes that they'll take a heavy hit to their quality of life. I mean, they could save more than that by moving from a private jet to first-class or a 250' yacht to a 200' yacht. And they don't.

Re:Hmmm...

[Syncerus]

This article, taken at face value, suggests otherwise:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/429623-americans-continue-their-march-to-low-tax-states

Re:Hmmm...

[mjwx]

Maybe the fact that companies aren't moving out of California means that the market has already spoken, and that making a shitty state low-tax doesn't make up for being a shitty state. Maybe those low-tax states should raise taxes and become better places to live to attract those companies.

It's so strange to assume that really rich companies (or billionaires) care so much about saving 10% off their taxes that they'll take a heavy hit to their quality of life. I mean, they could save more than that by moving from a private jet to first-class or a 250' yacht to a 200' yacht. And they don't.

This, That low tax state is a low tax state because it's shitty already. Moving out to Bumfuck, Montana sounds good for a tax write off but then you realise how much up front you'd need to spend just getting the basics set up like power, internet, water. The capex in moving alone would kill the tax savings for a decade. Then you realise that 80% of your workforce doesn't want to move to the worst performing schools in the country and are looking for jobs at your competitors.. It costs money to hire people, even more money to hire people in places where they don't want to live.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

the worst performing schools in the country

Pretty hard when they're already there. California's education system is a joke. But do tell us more about how you're beating out Louisiana, you leaking cunt.

Re:Hmmm...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

That article's hyperlinked source (from its first line) says different from the article. Or rather, the article cherry-picked data to make its point. The data says after Texas and Florida, California grew the most. That didn't work with the hill's predetermined narrative, so they switched to different, processed, stats that did.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

This... why save 10% on taxes when you can loophole you way out of paying any taxes to begin with.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

But companies are moving.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/california-companies-leave-taxes/

https://www.connect.media/1800-companies-left-california-in-a-year-texas-remains-top-destination/

https://chiefexecutive.net/business-exodus-california-troubling-sanctuary-policies/

Qualcomm is moving to Austin.
Toyota's US headquarters is moving to Dallas.
Carl's Jr is leaving for Nashville.
Jacobs Engineering ($6.3B revenue engineering consulting firm) moving to Dallas

I mean, that took 5 minutes of google searching to figure out the list. It's not like it's not public knowledge that there's business flight from California. Sacramento doesn't get it; the only thing California had going for it that allowed the State government to do all sorts of stupid was their geographic position being the gateway to Asia, because the Panama canal wasn't big enough for the biggest and most economical ships. Since hte Panama Canal expansion that allows for ships 250% bigger to traverse it, that geographic advantage is gone. The population centers are on the East Coast, the cheap goods are in Asia, and now Asia cna get to the lucrative markets more affordably by bypassing California. So the advantage is gone. Businesses figured it out; the state government has not.

Re:Hmmm...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And none of those people talk about taxes. They talk about housing costs... which are a self-correcting problem.

Also, talk is cheap. I'm considering moving to Paris. I'm also considering doing a lot of things. Let me know when they actually do it, because right now people are moving to California.

Re:Hmmm...

[_Sharp'r_]

American citizens paying taxes are moving out of CA to other States. Non-citizens and some of those citizens who don't pay taxes are moving into CA. The non-citizen part (H1Bs, illegals, etc...) is the part which is growing CA, which is why CA can grow, but still have a net negative migration compared to the rest of the country. The most productive groups are leaving.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

40% of californias gdp is from sucking on the goverment military tit.

another 40% is huge multinationals that nobody at the top actually LIVES in california.

80% isn't going anywhere no matter what.

Socialists...

[Anonymous Coward]

...haven't run out of other people's money, _yet_.

conflating individual rights with socialism

[kbaud]

...a tricky conflation of individual rights with socialism. Privacy with compulsory wealth redistribution.

Californians?

[DontBeAMoran]

"And so I've asked my team to develop a proposal for a new data dividend for Californians, because we recognize that data has value and it belongs to you."

Except that this wealth is not only created by Californians, or even only by Americans. The wealth is created by people all around the world. So that wealth should be split evenly by the number of users in those other countries/states/provinces.

Other people's money

[bradley13]

There they go again: politicians buying votes with other people's money.

If they have a genuine interest in protecting people's data, all they need is to copy the GDPR. It's one of the few truly good things to come out of the EU parliament: companies must have your explicit permission in order to collect and use your data.

But that's not what this proposal in California is about. This is about sounding good, winning political brownie points by promising to hand out someone else's money.

Re:Other people's money

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really crazy is it seems to be based on the premise that all the evil things the "tech companies" are doing is fine, so long as they share in the spoils. Using people's lack of understanding about technology in order to spy on their inner thoughts and rule the world does not a tech company make. And no it's not ok.

Re:Other people's money

[Anonymous Coward]

But GDPR break s the entire structure of the internet. So it is a no-go.

Just buy their stock

[registrations_suck]

If you want a "dividend", buy their stock low and sell it high.

Re:Just buy their stock

[imperious_rex]

As a dividend investor, I couldn't agree more. Want to profit off a company's profits? Buy their stocks. However, most of the CA based big tech companies don't pay dividends. Of the five FAANG (Facebook Apple Amazon Netflix Google) companies, only four are based in California and only Apple (APPL) pays a dividend (a paltry 1.7% at that). For everything else, the "buy low, sell high" strategy is the only option for investors.

Re:Just buy their stock

[Anonymous Coward]

Cisco, IBM, Seagate, Qualcomm all have great dividend rates to name a few.

Re: Just buy their stock

[registrations_suck]

That is why I said to buy their stock low and sell it high.

Leftist mantra

[Anonymous Coward]

"Level the playing field" by punishing success.

No Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

We already got Toyota and State Farm from the (nastiest) bay area. Both have relatively sane blue collar workers. Don't want a bunch of feely feels tech (wannabe) millionaires coming in here and making even more waves, driving up the cost of living and turning the state even more liberal. If ya wanna be a foam speckled progressive, at least try to stay in Austin.

Re:No Thanks

[lgw]

We already got Toyota and State Farm from the (nastiest) bay area. Both have relatively sane blue collar workers. Don't want a bunch of feely feels tech (wannabe) millionaires coming in here and making even more waves, driving up the cost of living and turning the state even more liberal. If ya wanna be a foam speckled progressive, at least try to stay in Austin.

Austin is the designated Californian Containment Zone in Texas. Please respect our boundaries.

Comunism doesn't end well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bye bye, Cuckifornia...

I want my data, not their money

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that it's possible to demand my personal info be deleted entirely, and they actually do(uh-huh) delete all vestiges of "me" in their system(s), I'd much rather have it than their money. I have enough money already, and can get more. My privacy is worth a lot more than they're likely to offer. Bastards...

If they could do that they already would have

[rsilvergun]

companies don't move to high cost of living areas because they want to. They do that because all the talented college grads want to live there.

My Kid is finishing up college and wants to move to one of the pricey cities in Colorado. As an old dude that doesn't make sense to me since I don't want to pay $2k/mo for a decent apartment but if I was young I'd want to live in a big, fun city.

For lower tier jobs workers go where the work is. But for the higher tier stuff it's the other way around. See here

Re:If they could do that they already would have

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing fun about big cities. Or cities in general really. They are where all life dies. They are monuments to all our sins.

What'd I say?

[CaptainDork]

Right here?

Declare private data to be IP and copyrighted by the entity creating the IP.

Calculate the value of the IP by examining the revenue generated from it.

Pay royalties to the owners of the private IP whenever and wherever the data is used/reused, in perpetuity.

For those who don't wish to sell their IP, allow them to opt out. Any private IP harvested will be theft.

I have to think of everything and stuff.

Makes sense to me

[rsilvergun]

the problem with these tech companies (and also the reason they're so popular with investors) is they "scale" too well. You can have a company with 10,000 employees bringing in $5+ billion a year with a $100 billion market cap. This means very little of the money they generate is making it into the community at large.

In the "old" days you'd just tax the income of the investors but they're hiding their money, so we have to get creative if we want to have a civilization around these folks. Otherwise they'll take everything for themselves while making you and me pay for the services they want (teachers, police, fire dept, roads, etc).

Golden Goose

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, Gavin. Kill that golden goose that is giving golden eggs to the golden state.

In a few years, when many of the tech companies have left or are out of business, you can try for president and run on your oh so successful legacy of lost companies and a failed bullet train.

Let's see 'em try a 70% tax on *corporate* profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see the Democrats fall over each other as they introduce legislation on a 70% tax on **corporate** profits and how quickly the corporations will run away or use creative book-keeping to understate profits.

Why not a Hollywood dividend?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every WEEK Hollywood brags about how much money a movie made. It's also popular to brag about how much actors earn and their mansions

Yet, why no call for a Hollywood dividend?

You mean like the stipend Alaskans get for oil?

[Rick Schumann]

A couple problems with this:
1. Alaska population is less than 1 million people. California is almost 40 million.
2. You don't think all the big tech companies in California wouldn't push back on this as hard as they can?
Also, even if they went along with it: this 'dividend' wouldn't amount to much per person.
Also it's just going to inflame Republicans and other Conservative types, who will brand it as 'socialism' -- and they're not wrong, it is socialism.
I'm not sure what Newsome is thinking here, other than wanting to keep in the news.

Re:You mean like the stipend Alaskans get for oil?

[Rick Schumann]

..oh and something I forgot: Even if all the tech companies went along with it? They'd likely either raise their prices, freeze and/or cut wages, or all the above, to offset it, and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it; you'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul, so-to-speak. Really, it doesn't sound like a good idea.

My data belongs to me?

[SoftwareArtist]

If my data really belongs to me, how about letting me control it? I don't want a "dividend" from the money companies make by exploiting my data. I want them to stop exploiting my data. If you really mean what you say about my data belonging to me, I should be able to insist on that.

Re: My data belongs to me?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a commie.
They have no brain.

commies are at it again

[Anonymous Coward]

Greedy socialists want your money. Because they can't earn it themselves.

Maybe stop waiting billions on useless unfinished high-speed rail system. Because if Google gives Kalifornia a trillion dollars the state would invent new ways to fritter it away.

Yeah, that'll make tech companies want to stay

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this governor a moron? When Arizona, NV, and TX is just next door, our government continues to make policies that makes it more difficult and expensive to operate in California.

Re: Yeah, that'll make tech companies want to stay

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a commie.
So, well, yes, he is a moron.

Of course not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gavin's already known for getting his dick wet (One of Trump's kids is married to his ex-wife, because they got divorced after she caught him fucking around on her... Yeah, that bad!)

I forget the specifics, but he's now running alongside Takapoulos's daughter(the lady who introduced him during the State of the State). a really shitty real estate developer in his own right. Newsom is in as a replacement for Brown after his failure with the San Francisco water pipeline, although I haven't paid attention as to what he is being supported there to do.

Hahaha

[DogDude]

Is it any wonder that leftist policies universally have lead to bankruptcy and mass death?

Yeah, look at California and Massachusetts. They're shitholes compared to the splendor of hard right leaning places like South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas..

Re: Hahaha

[kenh]

California is building a high speed rail line between Bakersfield and San bernideno, and it's only going to cost tens of. Illiobs of dollars. They won't stop building this "Train to nowhere" because they want the jobs, despite the fact it will be a drain on CA economy for decades.

Re: Hahaha

[DogDude]

My wife and I are both professionals, with no children, and we choose where to live largely based on the public transit available. We won't move to a place without public transit. I don't think we're alone. I think good public transit is almost always a benefit to an economy.

Hahahaha

[DogDude]

What are these magical low-tax states with educated workforces and low taxes that you speak of? Last I heard, it takes tax money to create educated people.

Re:Hahahaha

[_Sharp'r_]

NC, TX, UT, etc...

Re:Hahahaha

[DogDude]

I'm in NC. The only good part of the state is the liberal RTP area (with high taxes and great education). The rest is a shithole. I suspect the same of TX and UT, too.

Re:Hahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of TX and WA? No personal income tax, plenty of educated people (UT, WSU). FL also is a no personal income tax state and a cool place to live in many ways, but sure, not highly educated.
On the other hand ... California? Not so much: discount all the H1-Bs, foreign PhDs and PostDocs and your "educated" people boils down to aspiring rappers and casting couch starlets. Similarly for NY. The schools in both are top notch, tho, no question about it.

Re:Hahahaha

[_Sharp'r_]

I'm currently in Charlotte, my wife went to H.S. in Durham. NC's not bad. For the population size, NC even has some good universities.

If you look at a good list of educational quality which doesn't substitute cash for education, you'll find NC #12 of 50, with many other low tax States doing just fine.

If you believe tax money creates educated people, let me introduce you to the most expensive education hellhole in the country, Washington, D.C., where they spend $28K/student per year (twice the national average) and are either the worst or second worst school system in terms of educational outcomes, depending on how you rank them (only school system to make the bottom 2 on both reading, last, and math, 2nd to last).

Shear Bolshevism

[Anonymous Coward]

You can share in the wealth. It is called payroll and income taxes as well as...BUYING stock in said companies.

I don't know why the free market hasn't done this

[Anonymous Coward]

I have long thought the fastest way to unseat Facebook would be to promise early adopters of a social network a dividend on all the money the company makes from their presence, with bonuses paid to everyone who clicks through your invitation link.

Keeping up your dividend would require active engagement on the site and updates to your profile info.

Most people do not value their privacy at all, but it's cleary valuable and if you want to bring down Facebook then you need to force them to race to the bottom.

Denver is Fucked

[Anonymous Coward]

That has already happened to Denver. We were overrun by refugees from California. Unsurprisingly, they brought their retarded politics with them, and now tax rates are up, houses are unaffordable, new housing is soulless suburbs with mcmansions on 6' lot lines, and the interstate is a mess. But don't worry, Hick put in 1% lanes so rich people can get to work on time. If you can't afford an hour of minimum wage for the toll each way, well fuck you, stay in the slow lane.

Re:Denver is Fucked

[rogoshen1]

Yeah, we're watching with horror in the PNW. :(

My condolences.

DO IT!

[Anonymous Coward]

And watch all the tech leave the state. It would be glorious!

Socialist CA Governor Newsom

[Anonymous Coward]

CA Governor Gavin Newsom is a socialist clown, so why would anyone be surprised by this proposal?

Don't listen to this guy. Bad advice

[Anonymous Coward]

No that was a waste of time. You could have just filled out your FASFA graduated, and gained endless high earning years.
No your college doesn't have to cost 100k, a cs degree from anywhere accredited is fine as long as they don't have ads on nationally syndicated tv.
You could have just worked half as much and spend the other half of your time studying interview questions and you'd have had at least a 50k salary by the end of the year.

Don't feel bad I saved a bunch of my piddly earnings in a savings account by the time it was an amount worth actually investing with the associated fees of the day I was already in college and would soon be saving that much almost accidently. It would have been worthwhile if I was born knowing how to invest and stuck it into a IRA or something but I was surrounded by financial advice from poor people who were older than me. Even then I'd only be up about 150%.

Poor people have to give up so much just to get a small return the only way to win is to do whatever it takes to be less poor.