I can see this happening, you wouldnt believe the number of people I know who think all money belongs to the government anyway and "your salary is just what the government lets you keep"

Direct quote, swear to god, from half a dozen different people I'm pretty sure dont know each other

Exit taxes imposed on emigrants have a long history, including their use in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. They were imposed under the theory that, since citizens were educated by the government and were either provided benefits or allowed to profit from jobs and business held while living under the government's protection, they were obligated to pay back some of that money on their way out.

You've undoubtedly heard people say "love it or leave it". Did you know that the US does, in fact, impose an exit tax on anyone trying to leave? The IRS figures out what all of your possessions are worth, and taxes you on this essentially as income.

This is imposed on anyone surrendering their citizenship - even if never worked or lived here. This happens more than you think, for example, when the parents have a temporary job in the USA.

ARG, that's in the article --

I like this, though.

Think how much better Arizona or Florida would be if the people who screwed up California or Jersey had to live with themselves, rather than run another state into the ground doing the exact same things!

Sorry, that last bit is false. New York, under Mario Cuomo, tried to tax retirement benefits earned in New York under that very same logic and was shot down in the Supreme Court.

Think how much better Arizona or Florida would be if the people who screwed up California or Jersey had to live with themselves

How do ya figure? From what I've been hearing, it's the business owners sick of taxes who are leaving California. So Florida and the Sunbelt are getting the productive members of California, while the dregs are staying put.

But that's assuming California is ruined. It's not. It's a phoenix (not to be confused with stupid Phoenix, Arizona) rising from the ashes. It's the greatest state in the union, now that there's sane leadership in Sacramento for once.

"It's the greatest state in the union, now that there's sane leadership in Sacramento for once."

I'm guessing, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're not from Kansas or something...

Exit taxes imposed on emigrants ... were imposed under the theory that, since citizens were educated by the government and were either provided benefits or allowed to profit from jobs and business held while living under the government's protection, they were obligated to pay back some of that money on their way out.

That theory is fraught with holes.

What about the income, sales, and property taxes the soon-to-be-emigrés were paying when they were living there?

What about the money the government will save by not having to take care of the emigrants when they're old?

Typical government - like the antebellum planataion owner whose slaves keep running away, the government seeks to punish those slaves won't remain and be content on the plantation rather than to examine why so many might be leaving and what could be done to entice them to stay.

...now that there's sane leadership in Sacramento for once.

Uncontested one-party rule never leads to "sane leadership."

I'm guessing, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're not from Kansas or something...

Well, Kansas was once ranked way up there on the best states in the union, but as the Thomas Frank puts it in "What's the Matter With Kansas?" :

Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

Lawrence, Kansas is still probably the best city in America. Too many tornadoes, though.

Uncontested one-party rule never leads to "sane leadership.

You're probably right. It's not good for democracy, that's for sure.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to let them tax private employees who have left California, but I think it might be entirely possible for California to recapture some of the outlandish public pensions, with a constitutional sur tax, on all pensions paid out of Calpers. (say 75% of all pensions values above 70k)

If that doesnt fly, they will default, and I believe the RTC has a pretty low cap on what they pay. One way or another, it is coming. California can't tax their way out of this.

"How do ya figure?"

Just look what happens when the new people arrive. The successful businesspeople don't come alone.

I just wonder what would happen if a state were to secede from the Union?

Would they be on the hook for the money that the fed had already spent?

Look at Haiti for an example.

But that's assuming California is ruined. It's not. It's a phoenix (not to be confused with stupid Phoenix, Arizona) rising from the ashes. It's the greatest state in the union, now that there's sane leadership in Sacramento for once.

Excuse me? this is the same brain trust that's bringing y'all the 'not-so-high speed rail to nowhere' for how many tens of billions and probably about to reach hundreds of billions at the same time running 15-20 billion in deficeit spending per year.

What's that definition of insanity? doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Also, Florida's governor turned down rail money because of the anticipated cost over runs that the citizens of Florida would be on the hook for. I've heard that the money went to California. You're welcome.

Dick Scott's reasons for turning down that federal money had a lot more to do with appearance than anything else. Those who think he includes the interests of the 'citizens of Florida' in any gubernatorial decisions he makes are tragically mistaken.

I would trade this moron for Gov. Moonbeam any day of the week.

And one party controlling the state government doesn't work any better when it's the red one.

An interesting opportunity could arise: Suppose some state, like California, decided to start doing this. Now, in order to actually prosecute someone who has left the state for this "tax evasion", they have to go to the state where the person has moved to and get them extradited. The other state is under no legal obligation to agree to the extradition. Suppose a state like Texas passed a law stating that it would not extradite based on exit-tax charges from another state?

Cousin Dave, this was sortta covered in my Conflicts of Laws class.
Lets sort out a few things.

Extradition is for Crimimal offenses. So unless California passed a law saying failure to pay the exit taxes was a criminal offense (which would be quickly shot down in Federal court as unconstitutional), they have to pursue you in Civil court.

You don't have to show up when they sue you civilly for non payment of the exit tax, but if you don't and they get a default judgement they can attach any assets (bank accounts, real property) you might have left in California to satisfy the judgement.

Moral of this story... Don't leave any assets in California, and be careful not to create a nexus with your businesses that leaves you vulnerable to their tax collectors.

This is a simplified version of how tax law works. It can get very convoluted to the point where a rich guy can escape darn near anything with the aid of a good CPA, and business attorney, and the small business owner gets himself screwed.

Sigh, more misguided force and interventionism to try paper over the side effects of previous misguided force and interventionism (and theft).

Here's the core of the problem: Government bonds (as implemented) are inherently immoral. They should not exist in the first place, and should be prosecuted as a crime. Why? Because, very simply, the way a government bond works is that party A lends money to party B on the condition that party C pays it back. Party C has no say in the conditions or establishment of the loan - they only get heaped with the obligation to pay it back. (As consumptive entities, the only power a government has to pay any loan back, is using it's power to take money from people by force through taxation.)

When you lend money to a government (i.e. when you purchase government bonds), what you are thus basically doing, is literally purchasing slaves. You are purchasing the right to use force on your behalf to confiscate the fruits of the production of others (who may not even be born yet in many cases!)

This is why I will not own government bonds - no moral person can own a government bond. Owning a government bond is an act of slavery/theft.

There is nowhere, and I mean nowhere in the private sector where you could even remotely get away with something even slightly like this. Any private loan agreement structured like this would be totally laughed out of court, and the courts would say exactly what the right thing to do is: Default the loan (or make B pay it back to A), and let C off the hook.

"There is nowhere, and I mean nowhere in the private sector where you could even remotely get away with something even slightly like this"

To put it in simple terms, the way a government bond works is the equivalent of me lending Amy money on the condition that, say, lujlp must pay me back (and Amy can lose the money at the casino if she likes, whatever, I don't care, because lujlp must pay me back). And if lujlp refuses to pay me back, we'll just use force to confiscate his money.

Wiffle-waffle about how lujlp might have "benefited" is ultimately irrelevant .. there's a good reason why private loan agreements don't function this way ... the implications would be that you could steal people's money as much as you want, provided you could show even a marginal benefit to them - e.g. steal $10,000, buy them an ice-cream cone, and it would be OK because they benefited!

PS things like exit taxes are usually used by shitty 3rd-world despotic tin-pot dictatorship, to artificially keep people in a shitty system that they otherwise want to leave. If we're seriously talking about implementing this in America, it means we're worse shape than I thought. You're supposed to have a city/state/country that people stay in because they want to, not because you steal their money if they try leave. E.g. instead of a bankrupt municipality have one that spends money wisely to create decent living conditions and prosperity.

And one party controlling the state government doesn't work any better when it's the red one.

Simply having a majority does not mean the party "controls" the government. A viable alternative party means the party in power must keep on its toes or risk being replaced.

Florida's Democrats constitute a viable opposition party. California now has no viable opposition party to the Democrats.

The Democrats control California so completely that the Republican party is a social club and little else (and the Republicans bear much of the blame for their own irrelevance).

Democratic gerrymandering of districts (with the complicity of the Republicans) has ensured that the Democrats have had and will have a simple majority in the legislature.

Thanks to the last plebescite, a simple majority vote in the legislature is now all that's required to pass a budget - Republicans have no say at all in budget or taxation matters.

When passing the budget required a 2/3 majority, the non-Democrats at least had some say in budget and taxation matters. The people of California were sold a bill of goods: the budget process was "broken" because Republicans were "obstructing" it and had "hijacked" it; that elminating the 2/3 requirement would "fix" the process.

Dick Scott's reasons for turning down that federal money had a lot more to do with appearance than anything else. Those who think he includes the interests of the 'citizens of Florida' in any gubernatorial decisions he makes are tragically mistaken.

Yeah, 'cause nobody but a Democrat ever has his constituents' interests at heart.

Meanwhile, your state's taxpayers are not on the hook for a spending boondoggle.

California's taxpayers, on the other hand, are on the hook for billions already spent to build a shiny new train (running on rusty old freight rails) between Merced and Bakersfield; one that will take longer than driving and unite several farming communities that are already tied together by two major freeways running between them.

Heaven forbid we had planned the first leg of the route to unite LA and Bakersfield, two sizable cities with fairly strong business and economic ties, but limited physical ones due to heavy traffic, mountains, and distance.

Nope. We're gonna let people take a 2-3 hour train trip from Merced to Bakersfield (a 2-3 hour drive in their own car) and then make 'em rent a car once they get to their destination.

But rest assured, Jerry has his constituents' interest at heart, unlike "Dick" Scott of Florida, who saved his constituents billions of wasted dollars solely for appearances.

I would trade this moron for Gov. Moonbeam any day of the week.

Done.

California's taxpayers, on the other hand, are on the hook for billions already spent to build a shiny new train

Californians voted for it.

Sure, the proposition was based on faulty accounting -- but think of it: we'll have the first high-speed train in the states. Who cares about the costs? Just as long as we catch up to our moral and intellectual superiors in Europe and Asia. Speaking of which, here's an eye-opening investigation of China's corrupt high-speed rail construction:

China’s most famous public-works project was an ecosystem almost perfectly hospitable to corruption—opaque, unsupervised, and overflowing with cash, especially after the government announced a stimulus to mitigate the effects of the 2008 global financial crisis. It boosted funding for railway projects to more than a hundred billion dollars in 2010. In some cases, the bidding period was truncated from five days to thirteen hours. In others, the bids were mere theatre, because construction had already begun. Cash was known to vanish: in one instance, seventy-eight million dollars that had been set aside to compensate people whose homes had been demolished to make way for railroad tracks disappeared. Middlemen expected cuts of between one and six per cent. “If a project is four and a half billion, the middleman is taking home two hundred million,” Wang said. “And, of course, nobody says a word.”

It will be interesting to see any similarities on Calif's train project.

If Amtrak can't even provide high-speed internet access, then an actual high-speed train will be quite impressive.

"Californians voted for it. "

And if that were all it was to it, I'd say live and let live. But it's clear that they voted for it on the expectation that the citizens of the other 49 states (none of whom had the opportunity to vote on it) will pick up a good bit of the tab.

But it's clear that they voted for it on the expectation that the citizens of the other 49 states (none of whom had the opportunity to vote on it) will pick up a good bit of the tab.

True. But...if we can believe the Tax Foundation's data, California does pay a lot of taxes to the federal gov't compared to what it receives in federal funds:

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016.swf

Nonetheless, the project, by most accounts, looks to be a giant boondoggle. Governor Brown and the legislature made a screwy decision, sad to say.