Quote:
Originally Posted by Gainzo
I think you and I are on the same page when it comes to this issue as their are way to many ways for Corporations to hide their incomes.
It doesn't help that States try and lure Corporations from other States with tax breaks, free land, etc.
It seems all 50 States are fighting each other to give a Corporation the best deal ever. Hey, lets take 5,000 jobs from Massachusetts and give 3,000 jobs to New Hampshire. New Hampshire claims a win while 2,000 people say WTF?
|
Yah, I'm a pretty anti-states-rights guy on this subject. I don't know if it's changed but a few years back, just about any credit card had a mailing address in Delaware.
Why? The best structure for these companies was (maybe still is) Delaware.
Let's say I have capital requirements for insurance. That is, let's say that in New York, for every dollar I have pledged to pay for a certain insurable event, I'm required to have a dime I can tap (obviously the events won't happen to everyone all at once.)
Now let's say in Jersey, I only have to have a penny on the dollar.
Where do I move the biz? Jersey.
And who wins? The Corporation, which continue to take in big premiums, and only have a penny on the dollar to do the actual insuring.
Who loses? You and me. We pay that same premium, and the states race to the bottom in letting corporations do the ****tiest possible job on their end of the bargain.
I feel as strongly about this in the financial sector (insurance, banking, etc.) as in other sectors.
The states "competing" to attract businesses really equates to a mechanism to advantage businesses against the general population, whether as workers, consumers, or patients.
PFnV