Welcome to PatsFans.com

Companies leaving California & Illinois due to excess taxes

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Dec 26, 2011.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,632
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +377 / 3 / -15

    And you can't blame them either.

    Editorial: Even profitable firms fleeing California | california, businesses, business - Opinion - The Orange County Register

    "Democratic reaction to the news that Waste Connections, a $3.6-billion company and major Sacramento-area employer, is headed to Houston to seek a friendlier business climate tells other businesses all they need to know about the attitudes of those who run California's government."

    Illinois companies eyeing an exit - chicagotribune.com

    "Chicago's huge futures exchange owner CME Group has joined a growing list of companies threatening to leave Illinois as a result of the state's corporate tax increase earlier this year. Illinois pushed through the 45 percent corporate tax increase in January, trying to address one of the biggest budget shortfalls of any state in the U.S. But the move proved to be a risky step -- since then, both small and large companies have complained about the increase, and some have received incentives to stay put."

    States may not like this, but they gonna have to get used to it. You want to raise corp taxes, then you better be prepared for increased unemployment.

    California's unemployment rate is 11.3% and 10% in Illinois.
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2011
  2. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,525
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +556 / 7 / -9

    Let's try a thought experiment, PR.

    Let's say Texas creates a negative Corporate tax rate. You get 1% from the "Texas Permanent Fund" if you are a Corporation that has 100 or more jobs in Texas.

    Let's say Texas creates a law where you can get a Corporate license plate if you are in the upper management or executive service of such a corporation, and converts HOV lanes in every urban area into Corporate lanes -- regardless of the number of commuters, only corporate executives can get anywhere on time.

    Let's say Texas declares all EPA regulation to be null and void within the state, and the Supreme Court says "Okay, why not, you can do that."

    Let's say Texas does likewise with OSHA regulations.

    Finally, let's say Texas does away with minimum wage laws (sort of like they did, de facto, by winking and nodding at the practice of Corporate criminals hiring undocumented aliens to facilitate violation of all said laws and regs.)

    While we're at it, since we've identified all the big corporate players for their license plates anyway, let's say that if you are such a player in Texas, you have the right formerly accorded the English king, to spend a night with any woman prior to her wedding day, whether she knows the exec or not.

    Now then: do you think this would be a more attractive climate for employers than that in California and Illinois? I do.

    Would Corporations not move to Texas under these circumstances?

    Of course they would.

    The question is not whether states can race with one another to the bottom. Of course they can.

    The question is whether we have a common national interest in fair treatment of citizens, not to mention employees. It's manifestly clear to me that we do.

    PFnV
  3. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Illinois was nervous about losing Sears to Wisconsin who were offering a more favorable tax situation. How about every state mandating a bottom line on taxing corporations. Then, congress passes legislation levying a yearly tax on corporations which go overseas. This would be simmiliar to a tarriff. The record profits of corporations and the escalating earnings of CEO's and corporate officers dictate these laws. It is not the local mom and pop operation which moves to other states or overseas.
  4. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,632
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +377 / 3 / -15

    It would be nice if our federal, state & local gov'ts got a handle on spending before they worry about revenues. Most of our problems are not due to lack of revenue but too much spending.

    If you had a pile of debt, would you look for ways to make more money so you could continue spending more than you make or would you cut back on your spending to live within your means?
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    Right, because all that is happening. Why not try a different experiment. One called reality. One where governments spend so much, and create such an undesirable environment for either it's people, or businesses, that they leave and look elsewhere.

    If your landlord raises your rent to a point that seems unacceptable, don't you look for a new apartment somewhere else? That's what most people do, and that's exactly what these businesses are doing here.



    Think about what you just typed. Would businesses competing for customers agree to mandate a "bottom line" on pricing? Of course not. Not only wouldn't they, but doing so is illegal. It's called collusion. I know, states rights, just like individual rights, are a damned thing.

    We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. ;)
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,061
    Likes Received:
    189
    Ratings:
    +264 / 10 / -11

    First, I think we should consider that natural affinity that a waste company would have for state like Texas.

    Second, the reality is that more people want to live in a state like California than Texas for a variety of reasons, including weather, location, hospitals, colleges, culture, and effective public services. You pay for the amenities of a liberal state, but you actually get a lot of good stuff. That's why California has one of the highest wealths per capita in the nation (as do many of the liberal states).

    The Secret List of the 10 Wealthiest States in America

    What’s really interesting is the average wealth per capita at the state level. The states with the highest wealth per capita will have the biggest cushion against financial shocks. In times of high unemployment or financial distress, wealthier people can liquidate some of their assets to ride out the tough times.
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    So you like the 1% when it suits you. ;)

    Sure, those states are the wealtheist per capita. They also tend to be the most expensive to live in. Furthermore, their benefits are in large part geographical. Coastal states with highly dense, urban population centers, have a much more dynamic, and stable economic environment, than do land locked states without a difference making resource to speak of. We've long said in this very forum, as have you, that $250k in NY, is a lot different than $250k in say Kentucky.
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,768
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +362 / 11 / -27

    A big issue here is, State A has to raise taxes for any number of reasons.

    Company 1 says they want to move from state A to another state to avoid these taxes.

    Company 1 moves to state B, as state B made a whole bunch of tax deals.

    Fast forward to 5 years from now, State B is whining and bytching about how bad of a deal it was as they are not collecting taxes from this company.

    Company 1 then outsources all of its jobs overseas, and gets tax credits for doing so..

    It is all so f..ed up...
  9. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    45% in one year is a bit much.
  10. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    The government/president can do almost anything they would like when it comes to business. History has proven that. Railroad, coal, air traffic controllers, whatever the situation, the President has stepped in and ordered industry to comply. In regards to economics, the problem will not be solved by cutting programs exclusively. I am in favor of a balanced budget, but know that is not going to happen (ever) with just cutting programs.
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,169
    Likes Received:
    194
    Ratings:
    +662 / 2 / -9

    Civil War, right around the corner.......
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,632
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +377 / 3 / -15

    For whatever it's worth to, nice, rational post SD. I am so used to seeing reply "X" from side "A", followed by reply "Y" from side "B", it's nauseating.

    Nice to see an a surprise such as yours now and then. Maybe someday we'll realize we're all on the same side.
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,525
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +556 / 7 / -9

    I take it from the snarky and poorly reasoned retort that you yield the point: there is, in fact, a race to the bottom for the public good inherent in deals with the corporate interests.

    Your actual line here in our little drama is "but look at how many jobs your state gets, as long as you don't care about people making a living wage!" or some such.

    No, no, the glass is half empty!

    If you are an employer, is it more desirable, for example, for government to restrict your disposal of hazardous waste, or is it less desirable?

    Is it more desirable for government to regulate your treatment of employees through workplace safety rules, or is it less desirable?

    Is it more desirable for government to even tax you 1%, or is it less desirable?

    So the most desirable amount of government regulation, from this perspective, is not the amount necessary to safeguard our environment, to ensure fair treatment of workers, or to pay the corporation's fair share in taxation. It is just the bare minimum needed to grease the skids from the corporation's point of view -- for example, the government (taxpayers) should continue to provide infrastructure like roads, and infrastructure for delivery of water, electricity, phone service, etc. But the government should ask nothing in return for the public good -- for example, even a dollar in tax revenue.

    That's your "reality" -- you don't own a large corporation. You're simply fond of making arguments from their point of view.


    And as has already been mentioned, for many businesses it's just a hop skip and a jump across the border for yet cheaper labor. Maybe we should have the taxpayers build them infrastructure south of the border, so that the burdensome government isn't forcing them to stay in the country at all.

    I do not think states should be competing to "offer better business environments," etc. You simply end up enriching the employer. The states, taken together, lose. Within that calculation, one state perceives itself as winning and one as losing. But the fact remains: you lose jobs in location A, move them to location B, and strike a tougher bargain with state authorities. They ought to have collective bargaining for states, and call it a union. Better yet, THE union. Oh that's right... we did that... but only as relates to threats from different times, not the principle issues that face us today.

    Spoken like a man who has never examined a balance sheet. You have assets and you have liabilities.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2011
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,632
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +377 / 3 / -15

    And if liabilitities are greater than assets, the first thing a business does and analyze WHY that has happened and make the necessary changes to address it.

    Why do you think public corporations have sudden layoffs when their balance sheets don't look as good as the told Wall Street they would?

    The reality is, whether it's a family, a business or a division of gov't, if you're chronically spending more then you take in, the problem is and always will be a spending problem. Spending problems can not be corrected by looking for more revenue because you're not dealing with the issue at hand.

    Honestly PFiVA....even you must admit our gov't (right and left) had no right to continuously spend more than they collected. Only an a fool would believe "heck, it's ok. We'll get to it someday"

    Here's a perfect example...

    There is a barber shop near me that suddenly raised the price of a hair cut by 33% from $15 to $20 in one day. The recession was probably hurting his business as the owner had already laid off the guy working for him. I'm sure he thought raising the price of a cut would increase revenues, but I knew it would hurt him even more. As a matter of fact, as I approaced the door one day and saw the sign on the door that read "Hair cuts now $20", I turned around and walked back to my car. I then went down the street to his competitor to pay $15
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2011
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,525
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +556 / 7 / -9

    ... and that's precisely what I bring here much more often than those who surround me. Recently you advocated "more generalizations" as a cure for what ails us -- that ain't gonna sit well the next time you talk about smart people analyzing thins...

    Really??? So if a company's breaking even essentially, but they're a buck under break-even over earnings of 100 million on the year, the accountants burst into the board room and lay down the law?

    It's the "first thing" they do, even if the building is on fire? Is it the "first thing" they do even if it's a nuclear facility whose balance sheet we're talking about, and temperatures are rising very quickly in the storage pool?

    That's the first thing you do, fix the fact that liabilities are greater than assets.

    Really? So if a company is pursuing a direction the Board approved, and they borrow re-tool or do necessary R&D, they stop after that quarter's report?

    Really? So if a company can sell nothing but vapor-ware, there is no way they could ever become a public company, because they're all loans until that point anyway, with nothing but debt?

    Why would anybody essentially buy stock in a load of debt?

    It's called investment.

    Now, I have no intent to argue that national debt shouldn't be addressed. However, these immature and inexact analogies are ridiculous. If you're capable, talk about the thing itself, on its own merits, not what you'd do with a buck down at the local candy store at age 9.

    This sh1t's more satisfying if it's simple. It ain't simple. Barrages of 30 second spots and slogans aren't reality.

    Generalize much?

    Okay so from your point of view, if I am unemployed and do not collect unemployment, welfare, etc. -- that is, I have no revenue -- yet owe for my rent, my gas, my clothes, and the food that I eat, I just live too high on the hog?

    By your example, I "have a spending problem?"

    Really?


    Revenue problems cannot be corrected by looking for more spending cuts because you're not dealing with the issue at hand. See example above. The person in the example needs a job, he doesn't need to go on a diet.

    No "right" to continuously spend more than they collected?

    Whatever this "even you" formulation means, I should probably remind you that you've just been taken back to school on yet another passel of ridiculous 100% fact-free assertions, and that the fathers of this nation argued vociferously that countries need the ability to incur debt to continue to exist and be taken seriously on the world stage. And that's to say nothing of the unlimited right of the federal gubmit to tax that Hamilton argued for.

    "Have no right to..." is the wrong framework for this, and 2009-present is absolutely the wrong timing for it. Where were you in 2003-2008 when we were squandering trillions on continual war footing, and trillions more on tax giveaways to the rich that didn't work, and that never works, because demand drives economic growth?

    Oh you weren't worried then... but now the "Number 1 most important thing" is to clean up the previous mess, "the first thing we have to do" is get all hot and bothered about debt. Never had to before, nope. Now we do.

    Yep, we have to get the national debt picture in line. Nope, it's not easy to do that especially in a recession.

    And no, we're not doing all of the things we need to, primarily due to some guy named after a Sesame Street character.

    So to sum up: stop hitting the ceiling of lazy thinking on this stuff. We're not an analogy, we're a nation and an economy.

    Our revenue has declined to about 15% of an anemic GDP. The average is more like 19 1/2%, as your buddies on the right wing never tire of trumpeting. We took a supposedly "temporary" tax cut for the wealthy and have yet to let it expire. And the amount we were taxing back then was not in line with projected outlays.

    Get a grip. The something-for-nothing crowd needs to stop with Sesame Street economics. Liabilities are greater than assets; the need for investment, at present, is also greater than the political will to invest. To be clear, it's also greater, at present, than the need to address debt.

    But we're on the "address debt" setting. Meh. I can live with that -- debt costs have become the biggest single chunk of each year's deficit.

    But then jumping over into "not one more penny in taxes!" is where you stop having any currency with a serious analyst. We were under-taxed before the 07-'10 recession. We're using tax breaks as if they're our only tool now.

    And tax cuts directly feed debt.

    "Honestly," PR, at times you show enough sense to think your way past the slogans, but "even you" have to understand that these subjects are best discussed with all inputs and outputs considered, including both spending and revenue.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2011
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,632
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +377 / 3 / -15

    The goal of discussions found on this New England Patriots political board certainly is not to find the solutions to our problems. It is a general discussion board.

    If you feel you're qualified to rationally come up with the solution, you're dreaming again. But hey, let us know when you figure it all out PFiVA.

    Good luck!

    BTW...why aren't Euro-Union countries "investing"? Why are they implementing austerity measures?


    Last edited: Dec 27, 2011
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,525
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +556 / 7 / -9

    Why claim to state the problem if you don't feel rationally qualified to come up with the solution -- or the best guess at the solution given the known data?

    Your argument here is tantamount to saying "Only irrational solutions should be considered, because reason and data are unimportant to this discussion."

    To your question on Europe: let's take it as the simple case you're presenting (i.e., there's austerity measures in Europe, they're going the general direction of austerity, so should we.)

    1) When Europe has "more socialism," we say here "who cares what happens in Europe?" and make great sweeping claims that Europe can't possible be a model for the U.S.

    2) Now Europe has austerity measures, and we say here "Look! Europe is wisely recognizing their dire debt situation, so should we!"

    That said, Europe's present situation is far more analogous to our situation in '08 than in '11, but it's combined with a much less homogeneous economic situation among constituent parts of the Euro-zone. They also have a far more extensive social safety net to cut into in their search for "austerity" -- for example, pre-"austerity" retirement ages of 60, where ours (at a national level) is already 65-67, depending on your age cohort. Pushing the average retirement back to 70 isn't as simple a trick as pushing it from 60 to 63, as Greece recently targeted (in a nation where you can retire at 53 and receive 80% of retirement benefits).

    The point of diminishing returns is already here, in the U.S. -- we've already gotten what we can get out of big changes in retirement age. Living to 80 or 85 doesn't mean you can do the same or similar work during that time, but that's another whole story, inherently bound up with the mobility of succeeding generations (again, the U.S. picture past the 20-year window becomes particularly optimistic, assuming we can produce jobs for the millennials -- and you get 10,000 vacancies a day as the baby boomers retire, for the next 20 years. Does that cost money? Yeah. Does it also address the job shortage? Also yeah, in an indirect way, and with corporate actors trying like hell not to pay for U.S. labor, of course.)

    If you think more deeply elsewhere when you consider such issues, I think it's highly unlikely you'd post such glaring errors online... but as you identify it's hard as hell to engage in long-term thinking.

    So anyhoo. I'm somewhat optimistic about the ability to consider future events, be they good bad or neutral. I like having an idea of historical bounds, although I recognize the possibility that "the new normal" might be that America has fallen.

    I especially like the idea that if we know the characteristics of an America that does not fall, we can influence the likelihood of creating an America of our choosing, rather than consider our little experiment to be doomed until proven otherwise, all dependent on the luck of the draw.

    But that's just me, it seems.

    PFnV
  18. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,632
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +377 / 3 / -15

    So if you feel we should be "investing" now during bad times, then you feel we should have been "saving" during prior booms.

    We can't always be "investing" and never "saving"...just common sense.

  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,525
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +556 / 7 / -9

    Answered this one in the other thread. I agree with you. I'm relatively fiscal conservative in boom times -- whether you're talking about further enhancing a social safety net, tax cuts in an already insufficient revenue environment, or military adventurism or government buildups. I hope that gores everybody's ox.

    So I definitely recognize you don't have to "stimulate" boom-time economies. But we're not in one of those and haven't been for a few years.

    Wistah brought up an interesting challenge in the "growth" poll - basically, who needs growth?

    I kind of answered it, to an extent: just capitalism, that's all. The question is do we say we know how to do capitalism without growth? Or do we say we're now all done with capitalism?

    If so, what exactly are we proposing?

    PFnV
  20. Ilikehappyppl

    Ilikehappyppl Rookie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I take offense to this post and here's why,

    An Idea no matter how big or how small or where is came from is still an Idea! Idea's change our world,Idea's are the reason we have all our luxurys and Idea is why we can travel into space and abroad and an Idea is why all men are created equal.

    No matter where a idea comes from its still an Idea, be it on a message board or in a basement in Alaska, be it in Iraq or Cuba, or in a small house in the Alps. I'm sure a lot of people think that Idea's can only come from what they think is a good source but in reality it can come from anywhere.

    I'm sure those 2 brothers a long time ago thought it was crazy and that they couldn't change the world when they thought about flying.....

    I'm sure those slaves never thought that an underground railroad could change the course of history.

    If people have ideas and want to talk about them let them talk, who are you to say it makes no difference? or that it can't change the world? I bet some of the ideas people think about and talk about on these forums could change the world could help the world, its doesn't matter if its a message board or a basement or a lab. What matters is we are talking about it and that "maybe" is another shape or form it could manifest itself later....

    I like reading things people post and I want to encourage them to post more and put out more ideas and more thoughts! In the end this is just a message board but it doesn't have to be, it can be a place of ideas! And thoughts! And god forbid Solutions!

    If you just want to come here and be all ho-hum and nothing can change anything and the world is ****ed attitude I feel bad for you....Cause life is great and life is amazing and most of all, we can change the world if we choose!!! We can change it everyday we wake up, we can be better everyday, we can be better parents better friends, better workers!

    I know this world will go on, I know this world will survive because I believe with everything in my heart we will not let down the ones that came before us, we will not let down our children and most of all we will not let down ourselves....

    PFiVA is more then qualified to come up with solutions, as is everyone else on this message board! Who are you to say that it can't affect something that their ideas don't matter......Ever heard of the butterfly effect?

    BTW your term of a message board being just a place for conversation is wrong, it can be anything we want or make it to be, it can be just for talk and chatter or it can be a place for ideas and solutions.:rocker:

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>