Yes, I am definitely doing my due diligence as you suggested on my other thread - thank you Always better to be safe than sorry, especially if I’m about to lock myself into the huge financial commitment of home ownership - I am looking into it on my own first and will confirm with our HR and my own accountant (and maybe even a lawyer, just to be super safe) before I make any moves. However, I do know at least 10 people who have relocated to other states and who work for tech companies that previously had or still have offices in CA. None of them are still paying CA taxes, though I’m not sure if their companies have virtual “offices” set up in those states.
Anyway, in the article you link, it appears to be mostly tied to where the work is actually performed:
But what if the employee is a nonresident who never sets foot in California to perform his services? Then the source rule works in the nonresident’s favor, even if the employer is California based. Remember, for employees, the income sourcing of wages is determined by where the employee’s work is actually performed, not the location of the employer. A nonresident programmer who monitors and upgrades satellite dish software for a Los Angeles-based media company, all while sitting comfortably in front of his computer in his Austin, Texas condo, doesn’t earn California-source income and doesn’t have to pay California income taxes, as long as the work is performed outside of California.
I do all of my work 100% on my computer, so as I understand it, my work wouldn’t be considered California-source income - I think (this is why I want to confirm with a lawyer, just in case). Of course also - tax laws change, and CA is getting more aggressive on collecting taxes as people leave, so I would make sure that whatever I buy, I could afford even if (ugh) I ended up having to pay CA taxes again, though at that point I would probably just change jobs if at all possible.