Most startups don't care about taxes or regulations. Taxes are a rounding error (or literally zero) when you're small and not making any money, which will be the first several years of a startup's life. When you get big you can hire an army of lawyers and accountants to keep all your money in Ireland and avoid them. Regulations just get ignored. When you're small, you're too little a fish to go after; the regulators are busy suing Uber and Lyft and Facebook and Google. When you get big, you can hire an army of lobbyists and PR people to change the regulation, just like Uber and Lyft did.

> Most startups don't care about taxes or regulations.

Yes, but they care about cost. And the reason that everything is so expensive in California is regulation and taxes. Acting like these are separate things is not a valid assumption.

I don't believe that the reason everything is so expensive in California is regulation and taxes. Here's why:

The North Coast (Eureka, Crescent City) and Central Valley (Chico, Fresno, Modesto, Bakersfield) are under the same regulatory and tax regime as the rest of California. How expensive is Eureka? Houses average $300K [1]. Restaurant meals are about $10-12. [2][3] How expensive is Bakersfield? Houses are about $250K [4], meals are about $11 [5]. In other words, they're not much different from the rest of America.

I think that much of the contemporary political narrative gets the causality wrong. The Bay Area and LA are expensive because they are home to global monopolies that funnel cash from all over the world into a small region. There's not much land available in these metros, there's a lot of money floating around, there are a lot of people who want to move in to get a piece of this money, and so they bid up the prices of scarce goods. Regulation comes later, to curb the power imbalances from having corporations with more resources than many nation-states, and taxes come so that the state can get a piece of the huge cash flows coming in.

But the primary driver of cost-of-living is being the sink for the disposable income of 7B consumers. Eureka's primary industry is timber, and Bakersfield's is oil. Both of these are commodity markets where the money goes elsewhere in the value chain. Not so with tech and entertainment.

[1] https://www.zillow.com/homes/Eureka,-CA_rb/

[2] http://www.brickandfirebistro.com/menu-.html

[3] https://www.humboldtsmokehouse.com/menu

[4] https://www.zillow.com/homes/Bakersfield,-CA_rb/

[5] https://www.yelp.com/menu/locale-farm-to-table-eatery-bakers...

I lived in Bakersfield for a long time.

You know what they don't have, insane zoning restrictions that prevent housing. For example, the Houston MSA, which has almost no zoning restrictions is within 90% of the population (and 80% population density) of the Bay Area 9 county MSA with an average house price of... $249K at 2,000 sq ft.

And there's a reason I left Bakersfield and moved to Austin. It's because PG&E energy prices are benchmarked at Bay Area temperatures, and they have progressive pricing. Because I had a server rack in a garage in super hot (110+ F) summers, I was paying over $600 a month in energy bills in a tiny 1000 sq foot house in a ghetto. If I had lived in a 4 bedroom house, I would have paid less in energy.

And just on a secondary, personal note. Houses in Houston are way, way nicer than houses in San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco etc. This is one of those things where I know that people have just not experienced living in other places when I hear quality arguments around housing, food, or amenities.

It's just not that nice in San Francisco. Seriously. The food is just downright bad in quality and variety compared to even Austin, much less Houston. The housing stock is dreadful. Service is slow. The quality of things in Houston is better than the Bay Area, irrespective of cost.

I'll grant you that Bay Area zoning is fucked up. That's under local jurisdiction, though: the state keeps trying to override local zoning requirements to build more housing and keeps getting shot down at the ballot box.

My sister lives in Houston (well, Sugarland technically), so I'm well acquainted with the metro area. It's a very different lifestyle. The housing stock in the Bay Area is uniquely terrible - most of it is 3BR Eichlers that were mass-produced in the 60s. But people don't spend all that much time indoors. Pre-COVID, my wife and I were out every weekend to museums, hiking, the beach, picnics, restaurants, etc. There are 4 parks within walking distance of my home, 2 commercial downtowns, then the mountains are 5 minutes away, the beach 20, SF 30, SJC 30, the Bay 5, etc. And the weather cooperates - it's a consistent 70 and sunny for 8 months out of the year. Meanwhile, my sister's place is 50% larger for a quarter of the price - but it better be, because it's 100 degrees with sweltering humidity for 8 months out of the year. They need to take a highway onramp to get anywhere. They have no friends, because everyone they meet is so far away. Downtown Houston is a little different (my sister went to Rice, Rice Village is pretty nice), but also a completely different story in terms of housing prices - you start seeing million dollar homes once you get to the downtown areas of Houston.

Different strokes for different folks. We could've purchased my sister's house for cash at the time they bought it. I floated the idea by my wife, and she was like "But then we'd have to live in Houston!"

> Amazon

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Not California.

Funny to point this out. Bezos literally packed up his car and drove from NYC to Seattle in order to avoid Internet commerce taxes.

Which also does not have state income tax.

nah, we got some of the highest sales tax in the country instead.

Sure, but California has similar levels of sales tax to Washington and the highest state income taxes in addition.

Yea, the stats always say Washington has some of the highest sales tax, but i am shocked at how much i pay when in SF/LA/NYC.

My tax burden has certainly lowered since moving from CA to WA, kinda miss the weather though.

Plenty of company CEO’s know little to nothing about taxes and simply hand relevant details to a different firm. Growth gives exponential returns, taxes give linear returns which is why they can be ignored for years. Regulations are similarly irrelevant for most companies, as long as the competition needs to play by the same rules they tend to zero out as just a cost of doing business.

> taxes give linear returns which is why they can be ignored for years

This isn't true at all. The effect of taxes compound just like anything else. E.g. if Warren Buffet had originally incorporated Berkshire as a Bermuda-based reinsurer, he'd be worth over $400 billion today. If he didn't structure it as an insurer at all he'd only be worth $20 billion.

Tax savings compound at whatever the long-term ROE of the corporate entity. Therefore tax arbitrage is most important for hyper growth companies.

When you’re growing at even 10% per month the difference between 50Billion and 400 billion in 50 years is a rounding error on a rounding error. Further, diminishing returns means your stuck investing in ever less profitable operations as you grow. These will often lose money, just look at say Microsoft or Google to see how little an extra 100 billion 10 years ago would give them now.

Nobody is saying they don’t have any upside, but as always it’s the opportunity cost that kills you.

Corporate entities have to make quarterly payments. Let's assume you're a $10 million company with 10% monthly ROE/growth. Paying an additional 9% in California corporate tax rates will result in the loss of a billion in market cap within five years. Literally a third of the terminal value of the startup.

Point taken about diminishing marginal returns. But you can see that even taking that into account, the impact of lax tax planning for shareholders is humongous. (Plus many startups are in winner-take-all markets, and effectively have increasing returns to scale.)

The opportunity cost is real. Tax arbitrage will take some amount of bandwidth. But it often takes much less effort to raise cash by minimizing taxes than it does to raise additional equity funding. The former can mostly be done by the CFO in the background, whereas the latter requires the attention of the founders.

That a 9% income tax in California corporate tax rates are on profit. A profitable startup has unlimited runway so the classic X month of runway company is facing ~0 income taxes.

Further it assumes your capital constrained, which might apply to some fast growing business but if your the magical unicorn of a profitable fast growing growing company then capital is the easiest problem to solve. Worst case you might trade a little extra equity, but again that’s linear dilution often based on growth at the current rate.

PS: If your growing 10% per month it takes 6 years to go from 1 million per year in revenue to 1 billion per year in revenue. It’s very fast, but hardly instantaneous. Keeping that up for 12 years means 1 trillion in revenue per year which is extremely rare. Growth will slow eventually, and when it does there are a huge number of things to optimize.