Comments
By kimbernator 2026-03-1114:335 reply I grew up in WA and as much as I enjoyed the lack of income tax, it's factual that until recently they held the title of #1 most regressive state tax system nationwide (recently bumped to #2 by FL). Income taxes are much better distributed among income brackets than consumption taxes are. I grew up just over the river from Portland, where there is no state sales tax; we got to enjoy the best of both worlds by crossing the state line to OR for large purchases and living in WA.
Ironically, my home for the last decade (MO) has recently moved forward with a bill eliminating the statewide income tax in favor of a higher sales tax. This is in a state where the two largest cities are situated on the borders of other states, so it's essentially a guarantee that this will backfire.
By limagnolia 2026-03-1114:541 reply In Missouri, the current proposal is to put it up to a vote, so Missourians will decide what they want. There are safguards builtin where the income tax is only phased out if there is revenue to replace it. Its an interesting experiment setup.
**
The way to make a consumption tax progresive is with a prebate, or if you want to be more complicated, a rebate. With a prebate, every citizen or resident would recieve a check each period for the amount of the consumption tax up to the spending level you set as the curve for regresiveess, such as the federal poverty line.
It would be difficult for Missouri to implement a prebate on its own due to the proximity of the population to other states! (Residents could take the prebate, then travel across state lines to spend it, resulting in a huge loss to the state).
Income taxes are complicated to collect, subject to massive violations of privacy, and generally provide more perverse incentives than consumption taxes.
By kimbernator 2026-03-1114:59 Given the experience I've had with MO's legislature, I don't have a lot of trust in them to do anything that directly reflects the majority desire. Ultimately they have clearly shown a preference towards Republican dogma than democratic norms, so I fully expect the income tax removal to go through regardless of the balance sheet.
The "free" federal tax filing service I use in Florida, makes their money by charging for state filings. It will add an additional hour or two of effort to every resident of the state, even if they are below the state income threshold which is quite an externality.
Also, I would be wary bragging about buying your goods in Oregon, you technically may owe WA use tax https://dor.wa.gov/taxes-rates/use-tax.
By tylerritchie 2026-03-1116:351 reply >It will add an additional hour or two of effort to every resident of the state, even if they are below the state income threshold which is quite an externality.
Nope, that is false. The language of the bill only requires filing if tax is owed. There will be a handful of folks on the cusp who will need to calculate their AGI to determine their state tax liability but everyone else knows offhand if they need to file.
The language is "Individuals not owing tax under this chapter are not required to file a return..."
By TheJoeMan 2026-03-1212:21 Okay, that is good to know thanks for pointing that out.
This is one of those things that I question the legality of, but it will never get answered because nobody is going to the Supreme Court over sales tax. I can understand the argument of me sitting at home in State 1, buying something online, and having it delivered to me in State 1, and owing State 1 some sales tax on that.
It is absolutely no business of State 1's what I do when I travel into State 2. Whether or not I buy something and/or the value of that purchase should not enrich State 1 in any way. The only reasonable exception I can think of is if I'm buying things to bring back and resell.
The Use tax is levied when you bring items from State 1 into State 2 and use it within State 2's jurisdiction.
Not State 2 taxing you for using items within State 1's jurisdiction.
As far as I remember from my tax days they are also limited to the difference between the tax you paid for in the originating state and the state you use the item in, much like US federal taxes for citizens abroad.
In practice as well, no government gives a fuck about regular consumer abuse at that level. You get hit for violating the taxes when you either were A: committing other crimes and this was more of them throwing the book at you, or B: are a company or organization abusing the tax difference at large, such as a laundromat in Massachusetts buying 500k of machines in New Hampshire and thinking your'e so clever for tricking the tax man.
> The Use tax is levied when you bring items from State 1 into State 2 and use it within State 2's jurisdiction. Not State 2 taxing you for using items within State 1's jurisdiction.
That's what I understand it to be as well, sorry if that wasn't clear. But to use your washing machine example what business is it of the state where I bought this washing machine? Why does Massachusetts get a percentage cut of this washing machine's purchase price. The electricity is already taxed, the water is already taxed, so hooking up to the grid doesn't seem to be a very good reason.
> In practice as well, no government gives a fuck about regular consumer abuse at that level.
Oh so this is one of those things where the government can just choose to arbitrarily enforce it against entities it doesn't like.
Maybe the government shouldn't be able to pass tens of thousands of pages of law every single year and not enforce them until they decide that you are Bad and, as you put it yourself, "[throw] the book at you." Maybe laws should be like copyright where if the government has a history of not enforcing them, they go away.
By lovich 2026-03-1216:53 > But to use your washing machine example what business is it of the state where I bought this washing machine?
It’s their jurisdiction and they made a law for it. I don’t subscribe to libertarian beliefs so it’s not very hard for me to grok.
> Oh so this is one of those things where the government can just choose to arbitrarily enforce it against entities it doesn't like.
Not for 99% of cases although there are times I recognized it gets abused. It’s not enforced on the smaller violations as a result of it taking X amount of dollars to enforce to only get >X dollars in tax revenue. It’s not a vice tax where they are trying to stop behavior but a revenue generator so there is no reason to waste the money.
You get similar behavior in large businesses accounting departments where under a certain value they will just accept the loss instead of spending the time trying to fix discrepancies in their accounts.
By tzs 2026-03-1116:20 > This is one of those things that I question the legality of, but it will never get answered because nobody is going to the Supreme Court over sales tax
Someone did go the Supreme Court over sales tax on property bought out of state. Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., Inc., 300 US 577 (1937). Text here [1].
What’s the reasoning? If you were a business, would your opinion change?
Going from a high tax state to a low tax state to purchase goods is not substantially different than going from a state with strict anti-abortion laws to a state with very pro-abortion laws to get an abortion. One is economic, one is healthcare, both boil down to "I shouldn't have to tell the government what I do outside of that government's jurisdiction." I'd rather people have the freedom to vote with their wallets and feet.
Even taking states out of the equation, if I live in a city with a city-specific sales tax, that city doesn't suddenly get the right to lay claim to all my economic activity whether in that city or elsewhere.
By tzs 2026-03-1121:46 That tax is a "use" tax. It is basically for having/using things in the state that you didn't pay state sales tax on.
You don't have to tell the state why no sales tax was paid--maybe you bought it in another state but maybe you bought it at a garage sale or from someone on Craigslist or something like that that doesn't collect sales tax.
The use tax is only legal if it is complementary to the sales tax (which means that the total you pay cannot be more than the sales tax rate) so that if you did buy it out of state and paid sales tax in that state your state can only charge you the difference between what the sales tax would have been in state and what you paid to the other state.
That does mean that you will have to tell the state where you got it if you want to get the reduced use tax rate, but as a practical matter most people only pay use tax on items that they have to tell the state about anyway, such as cars, where they will be telling the state that information even if no use tax is owed.
By kimbernator 2026-03-1114:53 > Also, I would be wary bragging about buying your goods in Oregon, you technically may owe WA use tax
In my experience, this is well-known around Vancouver and elicits nothing but eye rolls when mentioned. If there is any enforcement whatsoever for that rule (a big if), it's clearly toothless and people don't worry much about it. A Best Buy opened a couple miles north of the river in the late 2000s and didn't make it much more than a year because another one existed in Jantzen Beach, immediately across the state line. The Vancouver location amounted to a showroom before people decided if they wanted to drive the extra 15 minutes.
By ihsw 2026-03-1115:01 [dead]
By calvinmorrison 2026-03-1114:343 reply the great thing about sales tax is rich people spend a lot of money on dumb shit
Not relative to their income tho. Sales taxes are regressive and get more money from the poor
By pc86 2026-03-1114:59 They get less money from the poor but it's a higher percentage of that person's income. There is a difference.
By gwbas1c 2026-03-1114:40 The great thing about sales tax is that everyone can bypass it. You don't need to be the kind of person who can hire a tax expert to coach you; all you need to do is drive over the state line!
By kimbernator 2026-03-1114:38 Not enough to make it preferable to income taxes.
When I was a new grad moving to the US and deciding where to live and work, the biggest draw of Seattle was its lack of income tax. Of course this particular $1 million threshold wouldn't apply to me until I'm very late in my career, or have a lucky year, or get married to a high-income person (the $1 million threshold applies to married couples, not just individuals) but Seattle loses a lot of its appeal if it's not financially advantageous. Of the other tech hubs, SF beats Seattle on weather and jobs and New York beats it on urban lifestyle. Or if you want to avoid income taxes, why not go to Florida or Texas.
I wonder if introducing income taxes will impact Seattle's tech hub status going forward. Sometimes people talk about how much these measures will lead to rich people moving away, but discouraging high-income people from moving there I think is a bigger long-term impact.
I live in Texas. People move here and are flabbergasted by our property taxes.
Tax rates under 2% of property value should not "flabbergast" anyone. I prefer a state having a high property tax rate and cheap housing over an income tax. I'm sure most Texans do, too.
By dragonwriter 2026-03-1115:28 > Tax rates under 2% of property value should not "flabbergast" anyone
The national average effective property tax rate is, IIRC, below 1.5% for all property and below 1% for owner-occupied homes. It is really not surprising that people coming to Texas under the popular illusion that it is a tax refuge whose property tax expectations are set by the places they are coming from are flabbergasted by Texas’ property taxes.
By hectdev 2026-03-1114:48 They tend to size up when moving here and are expecting the rates from back home. Not saying it's a logical thing but what tends to happen. This is more of a comment on how people aren't really taking everything into account when just moving because "no income tax".
By pc86 2026-03-1115:00 How about a high property tax rate and expensive housing? Because that's what you'll get in all the desirable areas of Texas.
By adam_arthur 2026-03-1114:381 reply The current governor is proposing cutting property taxes in ~half by eliminating the school district portion and instead funding schools directly via the state's budget surplus.
Remains to be seen, as the next legislative session isn't until 2027.
I mean, most property developers are playing shell games to avoid the requirement of having to build school districts anyway in Texas from my experience living there. Build small developments up to just short of the line where it's required, then continue development as a different legal fiction with what turns out to be ultimately the same beneficent owners. Texas education system leaves much to be desired.
By adam_arthur 2026-03-1115:041 reply I'm not familiar with that specific example, but I do know that independent players in any economic system will follow the incentives.
Expecting companies, people etc to do the "right thing" when it's financially disincentivized usually doesn't work out.
Same will happen in regards to all these new taxes reinforcing existing population migration trends.
The system is simple. Your development hits a certain size, you have to build and fund a school for the community through fees if you're renting. So they go just short of the line, and crap out two developments and no schools, and leave the populace to figure out the rest. That isn't following incentives. That's being an asshat.
By adam_arthur 2026-03-1121:551 reply No, it's bad policy.
Cliffs in policies will always lead to players working around the cliffs.
E.g. in NYC there is an additional 1% sales tax on home sales above 1 million dollars.
So nobody in the market would ever sell a home between 1m and 1.01m as the tax increase is greater than the sales price.
These are failed policy implementations (in the above example the tax should be marginal, not thresholded)
Any policy which does not account for individual actors optimizing financially is a badly designed policy.
There are numerous similar examples re: CRE when requiring subsidized housing units for certain sizes of development. Often it's more lucrative to build smaller and get around subsidized unit requirements.
You can call them "asshats", but I'd rather live and discuss policy in reality.
Many of these new, clearly strictly punitively intended, taxes aimed at the wealthy will have the same logical outcome.
Show me the incentive and I'll show you the result
By salawat 2026-03-122:24 >Show me the incentive and I'll show you the result
Ah, you're one of those.
See, this clever little aphorism of yours is the constantly reached for salve of the "wiseguy". "Everyone would do it if they were in my position; so I'm not going to bother myself about it. Let's work around it."
Problem is, in reality, that isn't the case. Most people will sit there, look at the regulation, realize the development is likely going to attract families or soon-to-be-families, and would realize, yeah. Okay. Need to accommodate that. They approach it in good faith. Then you come along and start acting in bad faith. Your bad faith implementation for maximized extraction creates knock on problems, that create knock on problems, that now are everyone else's problem to solve. Eventually, with a high enough concentration or frequency of such agents, we enter game theory territory, and escalation tends to happen quickly from there.
Historically, this comes with a brand of solutions for people like that. It'd stew to a point, then generally involved an entire community not seeing a damn thing while someone came to physical harm in a tragic accident. Or just straight up Wildcat demonstrations.
Communities/ planners don't want that. So they make regulations that are a good faith attempt at curtailing spirals of reasonably foreseeable problems. A wiseguy comes along and creates reasonably forseen problems through non-compliance.
Are you noticing a pattern yet? You being a bad faith asshat isn't the policy's fault.
That's your fault for being a garbage human being, and maybe just a bit our collective fault for making the world such a comfortable and safe place for humans with garbage mindsets drawn to bad faith in all things business. Nevertheless, the gradient is clear. Do good faith business. Everyone wins. Do bad faith, and you win til it's worth someone's time to ensure you lose.
Too damn smart to learn the virtue of self-restraint, too damn stupid to recognize the threat too many of you pose to everyone else. Or how quickly things go bad once people start catching onto the games you seem to delight in playing.
By reliabilityguy 2026-03-1114:391 reply NJ, in areas with good schools, has higher property taxes.
And I'm sure we can find places with higher property taxes than those New Jersey examples.
I don't understand your point or why you are sure of that? New Jersey consistently ranks as having the highest average property tax rate of any state, and it also has relatively high income tax rates.
This is mainly caused by having a ridiculous number of tiny towns and tiny school districts, each with redundant services and employees.
Redundant may be a strong word. NJ ranks at the top of the states for public schools, e.g. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education
NJ has effectively a publicly operated system of private schools where the tuition is the tax burden.
My small NJ town has its own school district, containing a single K-8 school. Yet it has both a superintendent and a principal.
Grades 9-12 feed into a regional high school, which also has its own school district containing just that school. It also has its own superintendent and principal.
I don't think "redundant" is a strong word for this situation.
How many employees at each of those schools? How much management? Is the manager / employee ratio lower or higher than where you work?
Sorry but I'm not spending an hour doing math on employee counts just to satisfy an HN commenter. There's no universe where it is sane and reasonable to have 4 separate highly-paid school superintendents in a 3-town area (towns feeding into the regional HS) with total population of only 25k, especially as these schools don't even rank particularly well.
And that's not even accounting for the principals. Think of it this way: if a country's navy has only a single boat, does it really need both an admiral and a captain?
By reliabilityguy 2026-03-1123:38 My point was that NJ has places with higher property taxes, and people still move into those places by choice.
By HardCodedBias 2026-03-1114:361 reply AI says:
TX: Average Effective Rate: Approximately 1.36% to 1.6% (some estimates range up to 1.8%) of a property's assessed fair market value. The typical homeowner in Texas pays a median annual property tax of $4,108
WA: Effective Rate: The average effective property tax rate in Washington is approximately 0.75% to 0.79% of the home's value. State mean the median annual property tax payment is roughly $4,361 to $4,729
Take this into account. People move from places with high cost of living where their 2 bedroom house nets them easily $1mil. They sell that and move to Austin where they can afford a much bigger house. They think they win not paying income tax and then their property tax bill drops and they are paying $16k per year. Enter the flabbergast.
$16k per year in total taxes is very cheap for someone with a $1 million house and the income to support it.
By tzs 2026-03-1118:43 If the house is paid off it can be a lot cheaper to support it than you probably expect.
For example my house is paid off. My total yearly spending comes out to under $25k/year. That omits irregular things like the occasional need to replace a broken appliance, or upgrade to a new computer/phone/tablet/watch, or get a new car.
Looking at how often those irregular things happen and how much they cost, another $7k a year reserved for that would be sufficient, assuming in any years where that is not spent the left over is carried forward.
That's $32k/year income needed to live comfortably in my house. My house is worth a little less than half a million according to Zillow. I'd guess a million dollar house would cost about twice as much to insure, and is bigger so costs more to heat or cool. Assuming 2x insurance and 2x electricity costs would add another $3k, suggesting $35k/year income needed for a million dollar house, at least if my standard of living is acceptable.
By hectdev 2026-03-1114:56 It's more nuanced than that. Say someone moves from California where their property taxes were based on the purchase price of the home, they then buy a home in Austin where it based on the property value and they size up. It is a sticker shock of the taxes. Not justifying it, it is just a reality of what happens here.
By ambicapter 2026-03-1114:283 reply The assumption of course being that high-income people moving in is good for everyone.
By garbawarb 2026-03-1114:37 Who are the "good" immigrants? It's a topic that's been talked about a lot recently but most countries, and I imagine states too, prefer that people with more money or income potential move there versus people with less.
If I had to choose I'd probably pick a neighbor who makes 3x what I do than 1/3. But I don't think it matters at all.
By SecretDreams 2026-03-1114:335 reply > The tax would apply only on the amount of income above the $1 million threshold, so a person making $1.5 million, for example, would be taxed on the final $500,000. It would apply to an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 households in the state, with collections beginning in 2029 on the previous year’s income.
It's a sliding scale tax. Someone making a million will barely feel it. Someone making 50 million will feel it a lot. Objectively, anyone making $50 million should feel it a lot and be taxed heavily. Nobody is making $50 million under their own power.
I know numbers are hard for the ultra rich. I've mostly only posted this for all the poor souls only making a mil a year. I want them to know this won't impact them.
By pc86 2026-03-1115:04 Nobody is making $50M a year in W2 income. Maybe a couple pro athletes? But if you're making $50M a year it's all stock and that doesn't fall under this, and once you have enough of it there are ways to actually realize it as income and never pay taxes on it.
This is not about the money at all, it's about getting an income tax on the books. In a year or two they'll lower the limit a few hundred grand. They're start removing exemptions, they'll add more brackets, and before you know it Washington will have California's tax structure and the people who live there will not be any better for it. But the government will be bigger, and the people will be poorer.
It's not about whether rich people should or should not feel it. It's not about whether they should or should not be taxed heavily. This isn't a normative question - it's about incentives and mobility.
It's about what their alternatives are, where they choose to be domiciled, what job-creating businesses they take with them, and what effect that has on the state's economy over the long term.
As it is, California and New York have the highest income tax rates in the nation, and are both experiencing large net domestic out-flows. Florida and Texas have no state income tax and have been the largest net recipients of domestic migrants for several years.
By SecretDreams 2026-03-1114:59 > Florida and Texas have no state income tax and have been the largest net recipients of domestic migrants for several years.
Rich people don't like taxes or paying back into the systems they abused to get rich. Water is also wet.
> Objectively, anyone making $50 million should feel it a lot and be taxed heavily. Nobody is making $50 million under their own power
You’ve got it backwards. The people making $50,000 are the ones who are dependent on someone else to provide all the infrastructure for their job.
By abracadaniel 2026-03-1114:582 reply The person earning $50m a year is profiting on the labor of hundreds of thousands of people. Rent seeking on their labor and skills, relying 100,000x more on the infrastructure that made them rich. No one makes $50m a year in a vacuum, they do so by utilizing the economy they live in and rely on.
If that's the way you see it, you are also free to do so. Labor is a market and the laws of supply and demand are at play just like any other market. Go start a company and hire some people. This is Y Combinator's Hacker News after all. The world needs more founders.
The comment you’re responding to claims that wage labor is exploitation on the part of the employer. That they can become exploiters themselves is usually not a convincing argument to them.
It’s also like telling someone with just eighty bucks to their name and debt up to their ears that they can try to win the lottery.
By cush 2026-03-1117:55 Imagine for a second if supply and demand were actually the only forces at play for these businesses run by billionaires… - forgetting oligopolies, blatant antitrust, lobbying, the revolving door between government and the c-suites, legal tax evasion, etc.
We don’t live in a fantasy world simulation on a frictionless plane where anyone can be a billionaire if they just pull up their bootstraps.
> Rent seeking on their labor and skills
Paying people for their work isn’t “rent seeking.” If I hire someone to replace my roof shingles, is that “rent seeking?”
By abracadaniel 2026-03-1116:151 reply You don’t clear $50m a year by paying people what they’re worth. The wages are unfair, by definition, if there is someone able to skim away that much at the top.
Your definition of “unfair” is quite peculiar. By your logic, the same salary for the same work can go from being “fair” to “unfair” depending on how many employees you have.
By SecretDreams 2026-03-1120:051 reply No, it's as simple as income ratios between the lowest and highest paid employee in a company. Above a threshold starts to be completely divorced from their respective work ethics and general intelligences. It's more just an abuse of systems that have been built up over time specifically to allow for that level of exploitation.
Quoting supply and demand in labour is just insulting and indicative of someone maybe getting a bit too high on their own supply.
By rayiner 2026-03-1120:16 > income ratios between the lowest and highest paid employee in a company
What is the mathematical or economic significance of this ratio?
By fc417fc802 2026-03-1221:55 All parties involved are dependent on society facilitating approximately everything.
By SecretDreams 2026-03-1114:441 reply Ah yes, all the 50k makers are dependent on the very altruistic nature of the 50mil earners who all got there under their own power and without any systematic abuse, grifting, or generational wealth to get them going. Won't anyone think of these poor folks? They'll now have 49x0.099 mil less yearly income to charitably pay their indebted employees bonuses.
By senordevnyc 2026-03-1115:41 The word you’re looking for is “subjectively”, or “in my opinion”.
> Someone making a million will barely feel it.
Easy for you to say.
> Objectively, anyone making $50 million should feel it a lot and be taxed heavily.
How is that objectively true? Why should they?
By pc86 2026-03-1115:05 Well the tax is on income over $1M so yes someone making $1M will pay nothing. Technically that's easy for anyone to say, assuming they actually read the article at least.
By dragonwriter 2026-03-1115:231 reply Raising income taxes for those making over $1 million while cutting taxes paid by people making under $1 million makes it cheaper (in employer cost for the same disposable income; looked at a different way, it provides more disposable income for the same nominal pay) to hire workers across most of the income spectrum of any industry (even in tech—most workers in the field aren’t making over $1 million/yr).
The only people making more than $1M in W2 income are in fields where nearly everyone is going to be making that. Highly specialized physicians come to mind pretty quickly but I'm sure there are "lots of" (relatively speaking) attorneys making that too, and probably some other fields where it's more doable than something like tech or sales.
There is no way this meaningfully changes the income distribution of hires in any industry.
By dragonwriter 2026-03-1116:011 reply I didn't say it changed the income distribution within thr industry, I said it made hiring for the vast majority of roles less expensive in terms of disposable income provided (or, holding nominal pay constant, provides greater disposable income at the same pay.)
That is, its not a negative economic incentive except for people who have a very large amount of income taxed as regular income where that income is not dependent on the ability to have other people with more normal incomes working in close proximity.
By pc86 2026-03-1117:55 Sorry for misunderstanding, yeah I think we're on the same page on that point.
By lostmsu 2026-03-1219:02 This tax will affect about 1 in 10 new Meta hires in WA: https://www.levels.fyi/companies/meta/salaries/software-engi..., probably 2 in 10 currently employed ones. More if you consider families with 2 working SDEs (not uncommon).
By nicpottier 2026-03-1114:351 reply Maybe that's a good thing? I miss the Seattle of the 2000s that was less overflowing with tech and more a mix of incomes.
I for one support the tax. The dichotomy of being a liberal state with a regressive tax structure needs to stop. Slippery slope argument aside this tax is a good first step. Income tax while imperfect seems to be the best system we have to tax the rich and not the poor.
By phyzix5761 2026-03-1114:461 reply The rich don't tend to have much income to tax (proportionally). The bulk of their wealth increase per year comes from capital gains.
By thewebguyd 2026-03-1114:57 Washington also has a capital gains tax now, 7% on long-term capital gains above $270k, and 9.9% on gains above $1 million, exempting real estate and retirement accounts.
Living in Portland I meet SOOOO many tech people that live across the river in Vancouver just because of the income tax - WA has none - OR has a healthily number of them (5 lines worth of various taxes show up on my paystub).
Bigger impact im sure will be Seattle but the impact to Portland is not insignificant. I'm sure the WA tax would be less than the OR one though so I don't see the moves stopping, but probably akin to whats happened in CA where people moved to NV or AZ to escape some of the taxes (not a significant number but ive met enough to wonder). As people retire, they moved away to those places as they think they will be taxed less
By rozap 2026-03-1121:48 These people are literal leeches on society. Like I get it, nobody likes paying tax. But the simple fact is: if society would crumble due to everyone acting the way you act, then you're a leech. Whether it's paying taxes, running scams, or doing crime.
It's frustrating to me that people shirk responsibility for their actions when they act in the way that economic models would predict. As if acting like a rational agent within a system voids any responsibility you have as a member of society.
See any/all of the following and tell me how often you hear similar lines of thinking among techies:
In short: "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."* "Well, I can get rich quick by running this scam, and it's not technically illegal, so, me being a rational agent, I'll run this scam" * "Sure, Facebook may be contributing in large part to the downfall of western society but those RSUs taste so sweet" * "I'll use the Oregon infrastructure but if I live across the river then I don't have to pay for it. And I can buy things without sales tax in Oregon!"
