Welcome to PatsFans.com

Op-Ed on Deval Patrick's business policies

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Stokes, Jun 18, 2008.

  1. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    This is from the minority leader in the MA Senate. Needless to say he's not a big fan of what Deval is doing. Tough to disagree with him on most of this though.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/18/patricks_summer_sizzle/

    Here's an excerpt:

    "Patrick's inconsistent economic development policy is out of step with the realities and needs of the state. Core industries, from financial services to manufacturing, technology, and defense, are suffering due to the high cost of doing business in Massachusetts.

    Instead of offering giveaways to selected industries, Patrick should introduce legislation that makes Massachusetts more competitive for all businesses, followed by special sessions of the Legislature later this summer dedicated solely to improving Massachusetts' competitiveness. The sessions should address unemployment insurance rates, healthcare costs, and electrical and utility rates - which are all among the highest in the nation. Workers' compensation, homeowners insurance, and taxes, both state and local, should also be addressed.

    And then there is Patrick's soon to be enacted $500 million corporate tax hike. Decisions are being made looking only at the immediate need to increase bottom line revenues without considering the longer view of whether these policies will fairly balance tax policy and state revenue necessities with economic development.

    The corporate tax bill primarily affects large multi-state corporations. These companies - including Fidelity, Bank of America, Citizens Bank, General Electric, Verizon, and many lower profile companies - serve as easy targets. However, these corporations employ 40 percent of the state's workforce and are responsible for a large portion of the state's highest paying jobs, the majority of which are portable and can move to other, less costly states."

    Deval Patrick, Together We Can...
  2. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It's true nationally as well. Look at the companies Obama has targeted--they employ a huge number of Americans. There needs to be a line between coddling business and being hostile to business, but at the end of the day, the equation needs to tilt toward business slightly, simply because everything springs from them--from direct to indirect employment, services etc.

    Unless we want a society where all companies are headquartered in Bermuda and Dubai....
  3. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Right, I would favor low corporate tax rates, maybe even lower than they are now, while at the same time closing some of the loopholes that exist. Boosting taxes on the corporations may only have the effect of sending them and their $$$ abroad, or scurrying to find more loopholes.
  4. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,472
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +294 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    You're on the right track. I'd favor lower corporate tax rates IF the deduction for "Business Entertainment Expenses" (that means YOU, Mr. CEO with 50 of your closest friends in the stadium luxury box on the taxpayer's dime) is 100% eliminated.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
  5. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Kewl!

    Could corporations also use a flat tax, do you think? Close all loopholes, charge them x percent and be done with it?
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    145
    Ratings:
    +307 / 4 / -2

    How is that on the taxpayers dime? Does the state take $$ out of the "revenue" account and send it to the Celtics on Fidelity's behalf?
  7. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    No, but that's money that's written off as "business expenses" which seems to be a little hinky to me.


    You good with it? RW?
  8. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I'm with you 100%, unless I someday become a CEO, then its party time.
  9. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I think I am a CEO...or COO...or something like that...and I still don't have a luxury suite at Gillete.
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,387
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +285 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I guess trade agreements wouldn't allow it but I'm to the point that I would support massive tariffs for items imported from other countries even though it would inflate prices here quite a bit. I was playing catch with my 8 year old last night and it turned me off big time that the mitt I just bought was "Made in China". Admittedly I got it from Wal Mart and didn't bother driving further to the sports store but I'm guessing they aren't Made in America either.
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    145
    Ratings:
    +307 / 4 / -2

    Not in the excess that it's currently done, no. I think some of this stuff has gotten out of whack. The thing is, a business expense is still a cost to the business, and not a complete cost to the taxpayer. If the box costs $200k, then the maximum loss in taxation would be the tax rate against that $200k. Assuming of course that money isn't spent elsewhere. I can understand there being entertainment costs in running a business. Lunches with clients, flights to meet with them, CHRISTmas parties, etc. Believe it or not, a ton of business is actually done on the golf course. The average Joe might not like that, but it's the truth. Gubmit leaders do the very same things. They host dinners, or meet at resorts, entirely because it helps them aquire the business they seek. I think those allowances should absolutely be more scrutinized, which would better serve the public, than simply raising corporate rates. There should be a limitation on what a company can spend on such expenses, with significant penalties for those who abuse it. Whether specific items are prohibited, or a formula is calculated, that would certify how much of it's revenues a company is able to spend, something should be done. Remember that a sizable portion of "Tax breaks & loopholes" are intended to spur spending and investment. If the fed lets you write off $20,000 for each capital improvement, i.e. buying a new truck/bulldozer/computer system/etc. it's doing so because it wants to entice a corp to pump money into an economy. Obvioulsy there is good and bad here, but people seem to be demonizing specific talking point words that people throw around these days. I know that the stimulus package post 9/11 included tax incentives/breaks for capital investment. That inclusion was the exact reason why we replaced an old dump truck with a brand new Ford F-450. I don't have a problem with stuff like that. It's like giving a tax break for buying a hybrid.
  12. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Clearly you are not making the system work to your advantage. You should be able to write-off season tickets to the Pats, as well as the cost of limousine transportation to and from the stadium, and the cost of as much beer and sausage as you can handle.
  13. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Exactly. My general weakness on 'economics' and the 'tax structure' is severely holding me back.
  14. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I am available for hire as a "director of business entertainment expenditures" and I can help you think of plenty of ways to write off pretty much everything you do. We'll have Uncle Sam paying YOU to go see the Pats and Sox.
  15. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    OOOOH! I want to sit right on court at Celtics games too. I want to be able to have Phil Jackson tell me to Sit down and shut the eff up like he did Matt Damon!
  16. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    That would be pretty much the best thing ever. I hate Phil Jackson. I just hope he never gets title #10.
  17. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You can bet if if had been me there'd have been an incident...cause I'd have said something right back to him, the prick.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>