• chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    7 days ago

    Why would a single resident billionaire continue to remain a resident if this passes? It’s not like they can’t come here and spend time here while being a resident of another state. Hard to see how this would make a meaningful bump to state revenue.

      • chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Ah, I didn’t initially catch that it applies to tax year 2026.

        I did a little reading this morning on case law of retroactive taxes, and while I’m certain this would be litigated, not really sure where it would land. It might depend on the jurisdictions that hear the case. I’m not at all optimistic that they’ll collect what they think they will, but they have sure attempted to craft it to tax people before they can exit.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 days ago

      A state could still claim you as a resident if you meet certain criteria. You don’t get to unilaterally decide if you are a resident or not.

      Plus, what’s the point of wanting billionaires to stay in your state if they aren’t being taxed?

      • chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I’m well aware. California loves to tax people as residents and not give them the benefits of residency. I’ve lived here my whole life. It’s mostly the plebs they get with that, like you don’t get in state tuition, but you get to pay state income tax. But if I were a billionaire, the 50 million I’m not paying the state could fund a lot of careful legal and tax planning.