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

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.

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...

[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: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.

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:Born Parasites

[Opportunist]

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

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:"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.