What's new
By:
Filters

California....leave if you want but we'll still tax you for 10 years.

In before {gary} :flipoff2:

I was just on WSj 4 minutes ago and didn't see this. Yeah, it's from 6 days ago. Never gonna happin Captain :eek:

Where did you scrape this up from Thumper ?? :flipoff2:
 
One more reason just to stay the hell out of that state.

welcome-to-commiefornia-jpg.91597.jpg
 
From right there in the article:

The California Constitution probably allows a statewide wealth tax on residents, but any effort to create a tax capable of reaching across state borders is likely to run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

It aint gonna happen.
 
Splib said:
In before {gary} :flipoff2:

I was just on WSj 4 minutes ago and didn't see this. Yeah, it's from 6 days ago. Never gonna happin Captain :eek:

Where did you scrape this up from Thumper ?? :flipoff2:
Click to expand...

Lol...I was thinking about addressing Gary in the title. He waited too late. So much for that Z4...:flipoff2:
 
Just the first couple of paragraphs cause I ain't paying for the WSJ
Should be noted this is in the opinion section
A California Plan to Chase Away the Rich, Then Keep Stalking Them

A proposed wealth tax would apply for a decade to anyone who spends 60 days in the state in a single year.



By Hank Adler
Dec. 18, 2020 5:44 pm ET
California’s Legislature is considering a wealth tax on residents, part-year residents, and any person who spends more than 60 days inside the state’s borders in a single year. Even those who move out of state would continue to be subject to the tax for a decade—a provision that calls to mind the Eagles’ famous “Hotel California” lyric: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

The California Constitution probably allows a statewide wealth tax on residents, but any effort to create a tax capable of reaching across state borders is likely to run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Taxing someone who spends only 60 days in the state in any single year—and extending that tax over an ensuing decade—would be something new under the sun.
Click to expand...

Anybody who has listened to Limbaugh has heard talk about anytime he goes to NY city he has to show what he was doing for every minute there because they audit him for taxes
 
Thumping said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-calif...em-11608331448


Maybe a repost...so California is saying even if you leave the state you still owe them for the next 10 years...lol

Sooner or later when many of the state legislators are in a central location...:nuke:
Click to expand...

It's a big R. It's a proposal that'll never fly. IIRC Linkslide parroted that subject a while back. Could be wrong about it being Linkslide, but he does have a hard on for anything about California.
 
Last edited:
Thumping said:
I imagine that cost for an individual to try to fight this (with their mindset of we'll do it until its ruled we can't) would bankrupt many.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt I'd personally have to sue. I'm sure they're be multiple rich people immediately file and any decision would apply to everyone.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
It's a big R. It's a proposal that'll never fly..
Click to expand...
Whether or not it flies is fairly irrelevant. If one says enough stupid shit long enough, one becomes known as a stupid shit. Regardless of whether it passes and goes into effect does not remove the stupidity.
 
HYDRODYNAMIC said:
This could be a great thing for California. California does not need another large corporation or more people showing up. It needs people to leave. It does not need a bunch of empty vacation homes taking up prime land. It does not need the herd of metropolitan lemmings out voting the majority of the state that they know nothing about.
While California is at it, how about all the other states with infestations follow suit and purge all the undesirables to one sacrificial state which will hold them all. It doesn't really need to be scenic as all the skyscrapers and apartment building will block all the views. It doesn't need to be fertile as they will not harvest from the soil. They will need sun and wind so they can power all their green energy. The water can taste like crap because they will all be drinking from bottled sources, and they like the smell of chlorine when they shower cause it makes them feel super disinfected. Maybe New Mexico, because the aliens were not stupid, they were scouting for new territory.
Click to expand...

Fuck off New Mexico is full :flipoff2:
 
bigun said:
Just the first couple of paragraphs cause I ain't paying for the WSJ
Should be noted this is in the opinion section


Anybody who has listened to Limbaugh has heard talk about anytime he goes to NY city he has to show what he was doing for every minute there because they audit him for taxes
Click to expand...

A lot of states have this if you read their tax code. Evreyone on here has probably broken that on an extended work trip at one time or another.

As for 10yrs they can fuck right off.
 
Thumping said:
I imagine that cost for an individual to try to fight this (with their mindset of we'll do it until its ruled we can't) would bankrupt many.
Click to expand...

Elon Musk will fight them for you. He's got the money to fuck with people. And Joe Rogan may weigh in on it as well.
 
Maybe a good idea not to contract with the state via so called income taxes,

Read " the law that never was" Beckman, a book so powerful gov felt the need to silence the authors.

SSA states one has a right to work and live without a number so contract privately with your job and rid yourself of unconscionable contract with government.

Also HALE V HINKEL (1906) The individual has an unlimited right to contract without gov involvement or interference.
 
Slander said:
A lot of states have this if you read their tax code. Evreyone on here has probably broken that on an extended work trip at one time or another.

As for 10yrs they can fuck right off.
Click to expand...

Not just state code, but IRS code. As a US citizen, you are liable for tax to the IRS regardless of where you work, anywhere in the world. If you work in Zanzibar, and their tax rate is less than the rate you would pay here in the US, you are liable for the difference - example only, I have no idea what Zanzibar's tax rate is. IF Zanzibar charges you zero tax rate, you are liable for your full IRS bill even if you did not spend a single day in the US or a US territory during that period.

When I worked in the Caribbean, I was liable for tax in the US IF I was in US waters more than half a year plus one day (non-US citizen, non-green card holder). IF I had been a US citizen or a green card holder at that stage, I would have been liable for tax in the US pro-rated for the number of days I was in US waters or territory. Some of the reason the gin palace stinkpot luxury yachts are registered in the Caymans, or Channel Islands (Guernsey etc) staffed by foreign crews, and moored in non-US waters whenever they are not on charter.

Tax laws may have changed in the last couple decades, but if anything they are more restrictive as the US clamped down on "drug" money and "money laundering", in reality trying to tighten or remove tax loopholes that the really rich were able to exploit. Even the Swiss gave in, and ratted out a bunch of anonymous account holders. The Panama papers just added to the pressure to do so. AFAIK there are only a couple of countries not in binding treaties with the US, so hiding $$$ around the world has become increasingly difficult. Can still be done, but now you need several shell companies, operating in several locations to make it worth the expense, and likely the US state dept or IRS would still be able to come after you if they chose

I know plenty of folks who conduct business in CO, but have most of their business located in WY, and they ain't doing it because they love WY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh