Prop 30...

http://www.caltax.org/caltaxletter/2013/040513_bizclimate_bleacher.htm

Hope he enjoys paying New York State and NYC taxes. I don't see the savings.

NYCGOBEARS;842112245 said:

---

Hope he enjoys paying New York State and NYC taxes. I don't see the savings.

---

Yes, this explains a lot about Bleacher Report

To be fair this is probably more about the principle of a retroactive tax rather than actual tax savings.

I'm sure those employees [who are far from wealthy] will enjoy moving to a city with an even higher cost of living than SF. And yes, those lovely NYC taxes always did me in. . . .

Not taking a position but just for clarity - it appears he's talking about his new company, not Bleacher Report which was sold to Turner last year.

Not sure what this has to do with Cal Football?

Also, not sure you're allowed to post this information without using the 10 page slideshow format.

socaliganbear;842112254 said:

---

I'm sure those employees [who are far from wealthy] will enjoy moving to a city with an even higher cost of living than SF. And yes, those lovely NYC taxes always did me in. . . .

---

This article, just days before Tax Day, really pisses me off. What a douche! Lol

NYCGOBEARS;842112265 said:

---

This article, just days before Tax Day, really pisses me off. What a douche! Lol

---

I'm not really affected but Prop 30 and the retroactive aspect pisses me off.

NYCGOBEARS;842112265 said:

---

This article, just days before Tax Day, really pisses me off. What a douche! Lol

---

Yep, this year im filing for both CA & NY. Still giving my share to you guys, at least for this year!

socaliganbear;842112267 said:

---

Yep, this year im filing for both CA & NY. Still giving my share to you guys, at least for this year!

---

Did you give up NYC residency? Not coming back?

pingpong2;842112266 said:

---

I'm not really affected but Prop 30 and the retroactive aspect pisses me off.

---

The retroactive part is heinous.

NYCGOBEARS;842112269 said:

---

Did you give up NYC residency? Not coming back?

---

Not moving back full-time. CA is my permanent residence now. We are growing our office their so it might come up later down the line. I like a good 70-30 split between SF & NYC. That summer and half of winter are not for me.

socaliganbear;842112275 said:

---

Not moving back full-time. CA is my permanent residence now. We are growing our office their so it might come up later down the line. I like a good 70-30 split between SF & NYC. That summer and half of winter are not for me.

---

Good for you. Believe me, I understand. As much as I love it here, summer and January/Feb are the worst. Actually, summer bothers me the most.

socaliganbear;842112254 said:

---

I'm sure those employees [who are far from wealthy] will enjoy moving to a city with an even higher cost of living than SF. And yes, those lovely NYC taxes always did me in. . . .

---

Agree that the city tax was a killer. I clerked in NYC back in the 70's. It was steep then.

But IMO many people who cite Prop 2
30 as a reason are looking for some excuse to cover their real reason.

It is interesting to me how incapable some people are of realizing the stupidity and unfairness of Prop 30 but instead rail against the person, their next destination, their alleged selfishness, the rich, etc., whenever someone does the completely understandable and leaves California.

Meh. Idc about 30. I get that. My comment is on nobody moving to nyc to save money. He might. In fact he'll prob set up permanent residence in NJ like everyone else. His non millionaire employees OTOH....

socaliganbear;842112330 said:

---

Mesh. Idc about 30. I get that. My comment is on nobody moving to nyc to save money. He might. In fact he'll prob set up permanent residence in NJ like everyone else. His non millionaire employees OTOH....

---

+1 Though NJ arguably has even higher taxes if you include the exorbitant real estate taxes which are higher than even NY's. You would save @5% on the NYC tax though.

NYCGOBEARS;842112337 said:

---

+1 Though NJ arguably has even higher taxes if you include the exorbitant real estate taxes which are higher than even NY's. You would save @5% on the NYC tax though.

---

Westchester! Mount Kisco sounds nice.

Bleacher Report was purchased by Turner Media and they're becoming more and more integrated into Turner's portfolio (e.g. replacing SI as a sports source within CNN). It only makes sense for them to move back east to join the mothership (NY & ATL).

My guess is that he's just taking an unrelated potshot at Prop. 30 on his way out of the state.

BearBones;842112217 said:

---

Prop 30...

http://www.caltax.org/caltaxletter/2013/040513_bizclimate_bleacher.htm

---

Looked it up, and looks like NYC definitely still has higher taxes than CA even with prop 30. Even outside of NYC, NY state has higher taxes than CA up to 48k (single filers) and then CA has slightly higher taxes from 50k and up.

In addition, even with a 3% increase in state tax payments, some of that increase is going to be offset by federal deductions within itemized deductions... So really it's more like a 2% increase on income and a 1% redistribution from Federal tax to state tax...(I think this is correct, but I am no CPA).

Plus, I just assumed that other cities in NY don't also have income taxes or other taxes to supplement local tax revenues that CA cities don't have. Plus NYC and SF have similar sales taxes with SF being slightly higher and NYC has slightly higher property taxes, so I will assume that evens out.

That said, seems like moving operations from the Bay Area to NYC for tax reasons on personal income is a load of crap, or where am I wrong here?

Furthermore, with prop 30 we are talking about marginal increases on income over $250k only, so no one that is largely affected is going broke over this.

There are states where there are very advantageous tax laws... No income taxes or no sales taxes, which may be more attractive than CA or NYC from a tax perspective, but most companies have a problem in finding highly trained employees in quantity like they can in CA and NYC, which is why costs of living and tax rates are high in the first place.

So quit whining, move your rich ass out of the state, which will simply open opportunities for other entrepreneurs and lower the cost of living for the rest of us... And by rest of us, I don't mean to imply I am a moocher either as my income is within the affected tax rates as well, but I grew up in the Midwest and recognize the benefits that I receive for paying an additional 1% -2% of my income so that I can live in SF rather than Omaha, Indianapolis, Detroit, or Saint Louis

As of July 1, CA will have the highest gas taxes (29.5 cents per), the highest income tax rate, the highest sales tax rate AND currently has the highest unemployment rate.

Mind-boggling and pundits are falling over themselves talking about how well the state is doing...mind-boggling.

He makes some valid points and I understand his frustration. But it is hard to believe some of his statements. For instance:

He said he wouldn't mind paying higher taxes, but rather he is moving simply because of the retroactive aspect of 30. This is not credible. He has already paid the retroactive portion of Prop. 30, so this wouldn't save him any of the retroactively collected money. Are we really expected to believe that he would spend all this money to move his entire company (not to mention uprooting the lives of his California employees) simply to protest the principle of a retroactive tax?

It seems there are two possibilities:

1) He is a vindictive person and is making the move simply for revenge. I say this because he has already paid the retroactive portion which he claims is his motivation for leaving.

2) He certainly objected to Prop 30, but he had other reasons for leaving. This is just a convenient way to flip California the bird before relocating to NY. I love NY. I love SF. Sometimes people just want to relocate from one city to another. Perhaps that is what is happening here, and he is masking his true reasons for relocating in the rhetoric of victimhood.

EIther way, this seems just a very small step up from the behavior of this clown.

I laughed at this useless comment:

“You know what? Rich people … actually do pay the freight in this country,” Mr. Maher said, citing statistics that California millionaires pay nearly 40 percent of their income to the federal government and nearly 15 percent to the state.

(who really likes increased taxes?), but I don't see how moving to the Big Apple is a response to Prop. 30. Then again, I don't see why SC kept going with Lane Kiffen, so what do I know?

wifeisafurd;842112432 said:

---

(who really likes increased taxes?), but I don't see how moving to the Big Apple is a response to Prop. 30. Then again, I don't see why SC kept going with Lane Kiffen, so what do I know?

---

i like how you tied this irrelevant thread back to football...nicely done

The Duke!;842112392 said:

---

He makes some valid points and I understand his frustration. But it is hard to believe some of his statements. For instance:

He said he wouldn't mind paying higher taxes, but rather he is moving simply because of the retroactive aspect of 30. This is not credible. He has already paid the retroactive portion of Prop. 30, so this wouldn't save him any of the retroactively collected money. Are we really expected to believe that he would spend all this money to move his entire company (not to mention uprooting the lives of his California employees) simply to protest the principle of a retroactive tax?

It seems there are two possibilities:

1) He is a vindictive person and is making the move simply for revenge. I say this because he has already paid the retroactive portion which he claims is his motivation for leaving.

2) He certainly objected to Prop 30, but he had other reasons for leaving. This is just a convenient way to flip California the bird before relocating to NY. I love NY. I love SF. Sometimes people just want to relocate from one city to another. Perhaps that is what is happening here, and he is masking his true reasons for relocating in the rhetoric of victimhood.

EIther way, this seems just a very small step up from the behavior of this clown.

---

Thanks Duke. I was going to launch into a long tirade. But you said it all as well or better than I could have.

briloker;842112380 said:

---

Furthermore, with prop 30 we are talking about marginal increases on income over $250k only, so no one that is largely affected is going broke over this.

---

I do not direct this at briloker because he clearly is not the only person to espouse this view, but this perspective rankles me (and no, I don't earn >250K).

tequila4kapp;842113124 said:

---

I do not direct this at briloker because he clearly is not the only person to espouse this view, but this perspective rankles me (and no, I don't earn >250K).

---

I don't get why people disagree with this statement. First, we have a progressive tax system, so everybody pays the same rates on specific money... Everybody pays 0% on some small amount... 4% on some next marginal amount and so forth. Just because your top rate went from 9.3% to 12.3% doesn't mean you didn't pay the lower rate on the first 20k or 40k you earned in AGI.

Second, for those paying higher rates, there is a much higher likelihood that you actually have enough money to take advantage of the tax code and leverage various shelters to pay lower rates to earn income that isn't taxed at normal income rates. For example, you get the capital gains rate on investment income, tax free muni bonds, tax free gains using cash value life insurance, etc., etc. So even if your top income rate is higher, it is highly possible that you may have a much smaller effective tax rate than many who fall below the top tax bracket but whom derive all of their income as W2 wages. (e.g., Romney's 13% rate, as reported)

That being said, I wish politicians would work out a compromise and flatten the tax code.... While that means potentially lower rates, it also means the loss of many tax breaks, such as writing off mortgage interest, treating investment income differently than normal wages, and others... I fundamentally disagree that the government should effectuate policy using the tax code, but it is what it is.

I am just curious about what rankles you about the quoted statement. Do you simply disagree with a progressive tax system, and think that everybody should pay a set percentage of each dollar they earn, and it shouldn't change from the first dollar to the billionth dollar? Is it the misguided view, in my opinion, that the rich in this country pay for a greater share of the public services than they should (i.e., do you have disdain for this fictional "moocher" class that doesn't really exist)? Everybody seems to want to pay the least in taxes, but I don't anybody would want to live in a society without the protections those taxes pay for. A society with clear winners and losers is inherently unsafe, travel to brazil, or a less desirable place to live, travel to China and Russia where income disparity is huge but control is maintained with harsh enforcement of the laws. I agree that we should seek to make taxes fair for all and that raisin taxes too much can be detrimental to the economy and potentially total revenue generation, but the total picture is much more complex than just believing raising the top rates puts the entire burden on the rich. It, in fact, may just be making the overall tax code more fair.

briloker;842113262 said:

---

I don't get why people disagree with this statement. First, we have a progressive tax system, so everybody pays the same rates on specific money... Everybody pays 0% on some small amount... 4% on some next marginal amount and so forth. Just because your top rate went from 9.3% to 12.3% doesn't mean you didn't pay the lower rate on the first 20k or 40k you earned in AGI.

Second, for those paying higher rates, there is a much higher likelihood that you actually have enough money to take advantage of the tax code and leverage various shelters to pay lower rates to earn income that isn't taxed at normal income rates. For example, you get the capital gains rate on investment income, tax free muni bonds, tax free gains using cash value life insurance, etc., etc. So even if your top income rate is higher, it is highly possible that you may have a much smaller effective tax rate than many who fall below the top tax bracket but whom derive all of their income as W2 wages. (e.g., Romney's 13% rate, as reported)

That being said, I wish politicians would work out a compromise and flatten the tax code.... While that means potentially lower rates, it also means the loss of many tax breaks, such as writing off mortgage interest, treating investment income differently than normal wages, and others... I fundamentally disagree that the government should effectuate policy using the tax code, but it is what it is.

I am just curious about what rankles you about the quoted statement. Do you simply disagree with a progressive tax system, and think that everybody should pay a set percentage of each dollar they earn, and it shouldn't change from the first dollar to the billionth dollar? Is it the misguided view, in my opinion, that the rich in this country pay for a greater share of the public services than they should (i.e., do you have disdain for this fictional "moocher" class that doesn't really exist)? Everybody seems to want to pay the least in taxes, but I don't anybody would want to live in a society without the protections those taxes pay for. A society with clear winners and losers is inherently unsafe, travel to brazil, or a less desirable place to live, travel to China and Russia where income disparity is huge but control is maintained with harsh enforcement of the laws. I agree that we should seek to make taxes fair for all and that raisin taxes too much can be detrimental to the economy and potentially total revenue generation, but the total picture is much more complex than just believing raising the top rates puts the entire burden on the rich. It, in fact, may just be making the overall tax code more fair.

---

Retroactive legislation is never fair.

pingpong2;842113266 said:

---

Retroactive legislation is never fair.

---

... and all generalizations are false.

Regardless of tax fairness, cost of living and the impact of relocation on the company, Bleacher Report still sucks ass.

BearyWhite;842113290 said:

---

Regardless of tax fairness, cost of living and the impact of relocation on the company, Bleacher Report still sucks ass.

---

+1

The only reason that they are still in business is that they say stupid sh*t, then people on boards like this get mad and post why it is wrong. Then others click on the link to share in the outrage. Their entire business model (as far as I can tell) is based on pissing people off.

pingpong2;842113266 said:

---

Retroactive legislation is never fair.

---

Fair enough. I also disagree with the retroactive aspect of it. Clearly a play to grab the money from the Facebook IPO. But I don't think my original statement had much to do with the retroactive aspect of prop 30, and more to do with increasing marginal rates above 250k, and I interpreted tequila4kap's comments to be about the same. Certainly, I think someone could challenge the retroactive aspect of the law in court.

CalBear68;842113269 said:

---

... and all generalizations are false.

---

Aren't you generalizing about generalizations? Doesn't that mean your generalization about generalizations being false is itself false?

I can think of plenty of generalizations that are true:

1) Rape is never ok.
2) Elder abuse is never ok
3) Rooting for Stanfurd DEFINITELY is never ever ever ok.