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"

[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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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.

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