esf

It's a revenue raiser because it does raise the taxes of people outside this range. Primarily people in 500k - 1m range were hitting AMT before, especially if married or with children.

Don't misunderstand me: I am responding only to the parent comment that the new tax law will massively change things for a 500k couple due to deductions. For that specific range for a married couple it won't (because they likely already were paying higher taxes due to AMT).

To your second point, that's also highly individual. My household income is ~800k. That makes my California effective tax rate 8.9%. I personally would have a hard time finding jobs for both my husband and myself in a new state taking only an 8.9% pay cut.

The phenomenon discussed in the article of continuing net inflow of high earners to California and out flow of middle and lower earners is not new: https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article13647809...

I am not saying this is good! But the simplistic "everyone is fleeing high CA taxes" narrative is not supported by the data. What is happening is not good for California but also more complicated than that.

I would say the burden of high housing costs absolutely dwarfs the effect of taxes for most people.

Sure, but the status quo in California didn't really change with the new tax law for this income group, contra the comment. If the taxes didn't deter you before, they aren't different now.

Am half of a high earning couple in a bit above this range in California. Surprisingly, my taxes changed very little this year. In years prior, I always had to pay AMT, in which SALT deductions were already disallowed. The new tax law is basically a wash. I don't pay AMT, just pay higher regular. I didn't check exactly but my effective rate this year may even have gone down a little. Many people in this income range will find similar.

The question and references are specifically about domestic state to state migration patterns. That was was obvious from context.

Illegal immigration to Texas btw is much higher than to California: https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article174373...

California migration is disproportionate this way. In-migration to CA is high income and high educated vs out-migration is middle to low income and less educated.

I believe I've seen these trend analyzed in other states as well (low and middle income earners have the most to gain by moving to lower cost of living states, so it's a common pattern).

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article13647809... https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/article/detail/265 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-migration-2...

No it is many more than that. From the percent I remember seeing and the number of engineers Google employs, more like 1500+? 7 is a high, difficult to get to level, average employees are not expected to pass 5, but Google is so large that's a lot of people.

Google stock grants vest over 4 years, so 8 years ago doesn't matter, but there is something to just tenure in that yearly refresh grants really add up, and used to be similar size to the first grant, so pay would really escalate over the first four years for many (most?) people.

Kaposi Sarcoma is caused by HHV-8, a completely different virus than HSV-1/2. They are in the herpes virus family, but this is a huge virus group including eg chicken pox (HHV-3) and Epstein Barr virus that causes mono (HHV-4).

The pill was already part of HIV trratment, it does nothing to change the effectiveness of HIV tests.

The only unknown would be whether if you are one of the very, very few people that manages to contract HIV while taking prep, your antibody response is different during that initial window.

But: Anyone in that situation is already covered by the questions about recent partners and already is not donating if answering the existing questions in good faith. If they are donating in this situation at all they are already just ignoring the questions.

It's not a pure logical argument. What you are describing has never been observed though in anyone taking any type of antiretroviral therapy in the now 20+ years of the HAART era. This is a completely unfounded what-if.

The donors you don't want donating are already excluded by existing questions. And if you are that concerned about completely hypothetical unknowns then you might as well also not trust any of the batch testing done on the donors blood anyway. The questions can only ever be a useful prefilter, not a perfect safety net.

Truvada does nothing to change identification of HIV+ donors. Truvada does not change response to HIV tests, an HIV+ person taking Truvada as part of treatment does not stop testing positive for HIV antibodies. Nothing changes from the existing blood donation situation due to Truvada.