Where did your $2m figure come from? The WM CEO barely makes more than that (2.48m), so I think you are shooting way too high with that figure. That is not realistic for the average employee, even at the corporate headquarters. If the CEO was moving by himself, then it would make since.
For the average employee, if all other taxes were the same from state, then your hypothesis would be almost correct. The first problem is your figure is based on the gross tax rate and not the effective tax rate. If the employee pays federal income taxes, then their burden would be somewhat lower. That is not a big deal though. The main problem are property tax rates are 2-4x higher than California. People typically spend the same amount on housing despite price differences from region to region. (aka: Someone selling a home in CA would likely spend the same amount on a home in TX based on the same amount of income.)
The difference in tax burden for a family of three making $150,000 is $8,909 or 5.9% lower in Texas vs California, NOT taking into account increased property taxes. That part sounds great, except that incomes are 8% lower for the same positions in Texas. In the future, Waste Management gets to look forward to paying their corporate employees, on average, 8% less than here in California. That is a 2% pay cut. This may not apply to the current employees, but it would most certainly factor into COL increases and new hires from employee attrition. The corporation WINS and the employees LOSE.
P.S. My figure above for incomes being 8% lower is the most conservative figure I could find. Quite a few others pointed towards 30% lower, which would skew even further into the corporations favor and screw the employees more.
I randomly picked a number to show hypothetically how much one could save in State Income taxes if they moved to a state that doesn't have State income taxes. Those of us who are middle class wouldn't see a big enough savings to relocate, but those who have significant incomes, would see a substantial savings on their taxes to make this move.
I see where some on this forum are advocating boycotting certain businesses based upon criteria they feel is important. If they have these beliefs why can't others have the same opportunity to boycott paying state income taxes based upon the cumulative effect of that states politicians passing laws, that some are adamently opposed too and where their tax dollars are being used to pay for programs they are opposed too?
Its mind boggling to me that certain segement of our population think that they can pass laws and force philosophies onto everyone without there being reactions, while they advocate boycotts on certain businesses. In other words, they have the right to take action, but others don't have that same right.
Given the number of Propositions in the works that will all be raising taxes on the wealthy and given the collective recent legislation that has been passed on issues where there are some extremely passionate beliefs on both sides, we should expect to see more and more of the wealthy taking their money and leaving this state!
How will this lost revenue be made up for Government programs? The people who are leaving AREN'T the ones using Government services, they are the ones paying for it!
I read in the Bee recently where it said something to the effect that 50% of the States revenue comes from about 144,000 people. If 10% of these people decide they have had enough and leave the State, the resulting loss in revenue will sink us!
I don't want to demean or belittle my friends on the left, but how do you propose solving this?
