<p>Texaspg,</p>
<p>I think it depends where the employees physically do majority of their work. If the commute to CA most of the time, then they will pay taxes in CA as non-residents. If not, they will pay their residency state taxes rate (if any).</p>
<p>No, if the company has physical presence in the taxpayer’s home state, and they work out of an office in their home state, then they will be taxed in that state. But if they work in one state, and live in another, they will often have to file tax returns in both states, and possibly pay taxes in both as well. One consideration though, is that if the corporation decides to have a presence in another state, they will be subject to corporate taxes in that state too. It’s kind of like the way the state handle sales and use tax. If the company selling a product has a presence in your state, they have to collect sales tax. If they don’t, and your state has sales and use tax, you are supposed to pay use tax. In many states, the use tax is part of the state income tax return - and incidentally, very few people report use tax.</p>
<p>We live on the border of NY and NJ and have worked in NJ in the past while living in NY. The non-resident tax rate is much, much lower so as to be almost negligible. I don’t know what it would be at Mickelson’s tax rate or specifically in California, but in some states non-resident taxes are much easier on the wallet than resident taxes and could make a move worthwhile.</p>
<p>Tiger Woods said he left CA in the 1990s because of high taxes. </p>
<p>Poor people move to states with higher government benefits because it is a logical thing to do. Why would anyone be surprised if rich people leave a high tax state for a low tax state. It is a pretty logical decision to make.</p>
<p>We would leave CA if it weren’t for the good weather and natural beauty that we can afford to live close enough to enjoy. If we could not afford to live near the coast, I cannot think of a reason why I’d stay here.</p>
<p>Unless there’s a mass exodus, I doubt CA will be hugely affected by the loss of a few billionaires. Due to its natural beauty, global economic importance, and for sheer glamour factor, California has always been, and likely remain in the future, a major magnet for the rich. My parents live in a highly desirable area near Los Angeles where rich Asians have been clamoring for housing for years.</p>
<p>I don’t think CA is a “major magnet” for the wealthy.</p>
<p>It just has a couple of industries in it. Nothing more.</p>
<p>Lol !!!</p>
<p>It is number 5 in terms of wealthy individuals, and they are concentrated in the entertainment and tech industry. I’m not sure where that gets an LOL. Wyoming has a higher percentage of wealthy individuals, as do connecticut and montana, for that matter.</p>
<p>People go there for the industries that are there. and the industries that are there offshore most of their profits, or headquarter in nevada in order to avoid state taxes. The tighter the noose is drawn around those groups, we will see what they do. Personally, it matters not at all to me.</p>
<p>Just an interesting thing to watch. It is interesting to see at what point people think it’s too much. It may not even be the same point I think is too much. France was very interesting recently, actually.</p>
<p>But, I don’t actually care that much, one way or the other. I live in a high tax blue state and vote liberal and wouldn’t leave because of taxes, myself, but it doesn’t mean I think people who would are crazy, just different than me, and… interesting.</p>
<p>Los Angeles used to be glamorous. That is why I moved there 30 years ago, but I don’t think it is seen that way any more. Now I see a horribly congested city with bad public schools and not a lot else.</p>
<p>Sorry folks, I’m still LOL-ing. And will continue to do so until I cease hearing about huge numbers of people of means from around the world panting to buy and live in exclusive areas of CA (and there are very many of them.)</p>
<p>you are laughing out loud-ing?</p>
<p>enjoy that.</p>
<p>Thank you, I am. </p>
<p>Honestly now. If California were a country, it’d be among the top 10 richest nations on the planet. To dismiss its importance (and continued allure for many) is downright silly.</p>
<p>People have been predicting its decline for decades. And somehow California remains powerful and very influential.</p>
<p>It’s importance? Really?</p>
<p>See, now there you’ve lost me.</p>
<p>It has a few industries. One of them is important.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. Tiger even held off signing his first Nike endorsement deal until his property in Fl closed. That alone saved several mill in state income taxes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that was not and was never the case. The funds raised by Prop 30 go into the state’s general fund, which pay for K12 education (approx. half of the state budget), state prisons, state parks, state hiways, etc.</p>
<p>
Yeah, but that’s based on, like, twelve wealthy people.</p>
<p>Poetgirl, if CA is so unimportant, pray explain to me why it’s so rich? Why it’s between 8th-10 largest economy in the world. I’m all ears.</p>
<p>PS Many world economies have fewer than “a few” industries. And they’re still very, very rich and very, very powerful. Heck, little old Norway has ONE. (Two, if you count herring.) Yet it’s mighty rich.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, make no mistake, California is a special place.</p>
<p>CA does continue to attract a lot of people, but 2011 census figures showed 100,000 more people leaving CA than moving in. It is a huge piece of land, with a population larger than most countries. Is California still seen as “powerful and influential?” I know it used to be. From here on the inside, it doesn’t feel as relevant and bell-weatherish as it used to be; it feels like it is on the decline.</p>
<p>[America’s</a> Richest States - 24/7 Wall St.](<a href=“http://247wallst.com/2012/09/20/americas-richest-states/]America’s”>http://247wallst.com/2012/09/20/americas-richest-states/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly the high level of income inequality in California would explain the tax differences. Which is interesting.</p>
<p>Is it the high level of income inequality that makes it so important? It’s certainly not the dreck coming out of the “entertainment” industry you think is so important? </p>
<p>Influential, maybe. But not important in any meaningful lasting artistic or intellectual way.</p>