If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   The average job growth rate since June 2009 is 52% higher in states with lower business tax rates than in states with the highest rates. Obvious over interesting by a nose   (news.investors.com) divider line 62
    More: Obvious, corporate income tax, tax rates, Tax Foundation, economic recovery, Wyoming, IBD, Pennsylvania, KPMG  
•       •       •

734 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Mar 2012 at 12:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-01 12:19:14 PM  
So states who are interested in promoting businesses have other initiatives which help job growth. It's correlation, not causation my friends.
 
2012-03-01 12:20:32 PM  
Skimmed the article, no way in Hades would I follow my job to Wyoming.
 
2012-03-01 12:20:33 PM  
/reads article

Yes, all states with either large natural resources brought online on a large scale recently or dependent on less cyclical industries/heavily-subsidized through agriculture.

Plus Ohio, which would be Burma right now if it weren't for the auto bailout.
 
2012-03-01 12:22:06 PM  
1.14% as opposed to 0.74%.

And Texas ranks 12th? For something- ANYTHING- business related? Out of the Top 5 is possible. Out of the top 20%, though?
 
2012-03-01 12:26:58 PM  
Bull. Everyone knows that the more a company pays in taxes, the more jobs they can create.

Tax them at 100% and they'll increase their workforce by 100%.
 
2012-03-01 12:28:54 PM  
a growth rate is easier to increase in a state with lower GDP than it is to increase in a state with a higher GDP. if you build a factory in montana, its GDP will increase by a huge percentage. if you build that same factory in california, GDP will not increase much in percent terms. it you take a look at the nominal increase in GDP instead of the rate, i bet you will find the opposite conclusion of the article.

mother farkin' differential equations, how do they work?
 
2012-03-01 12:32:10 PM  

Gonz: 1.14% as opposed to 0.74%.



Yes, especially when you only compare the extreme top 5 and bottom 5 of the scale, and not bother to include everything in between. We should also apply the this reasoning to national elections, too, like we should only tally the votes from the top 5 states who are pro-life, and the bottom 5 states who are against abortion. That should be a good enough sample size.
 
2012-03-01 12:38:39 PM  

Gonz: And Texas ranks 12th? For something- ANYTHING- business related? Out of the Top 5 is possible. Out of the top 20%, though?


Much of Texas' "business friendly" reputation is so much marketing, bluster, politics and ego. Which isn't to say Texas is hostile to businesses, but any hypothetical gap between Texas' hospitality and that of other states would be hardly extraordinary. Even if we blindly and unquestioningly accept that Texas is the #1 business-friendly state in the nation, it wouldn't be by much and in an honest list there'd be more "blue" states in the top ten than any dittohead would ever suspect. Texas has their own gummint and other problems that -- in typical southern tradition -- are addressed by simply not talking about them.

On the flip side, Washington is portrayed in the media as an uber-liberal state full of coffee-drinking geeks and vegan hipsters. I have no idea where it'd land on some bullshiat list of how "business friendly" states are, but what does it have in common with Texas? No corporate or personal income taxes. Actually seven states do this, but Texas is the one that thinks it's a HUGE FARKING DEAL and makes its state extra speshul. OK, seven out of 50 makes it rare, but it does blow up any notion that Texas is a unique snowflake in that regard. What, you think Microsoft, Intel and a bunch of other household names set up shop in the Pac NW because of the view?
 
2012-03-01 12:42:37 PM  

balial: So states who are interested in promoting businesses have other initiatives which help job growth. It's correlation, not causation my friends.


No way! It's a proven fact that lots of companies would love to hire more people, but those darn tax rates are stopping them.

See, if your business is really booming and you've got order requests coming out of your ears, if your tax rates are high, you just won't be able to hire anybody to help fill those orders, because you'll be worried about paying taxes in April.

And if your business is slow and you've got workers sitting around with not much to do, if the government lowers your taxes, then the logical thing to do would be to hire a few more workers to sit around.
 
2012-03-01 12:44:25 PM  

lazyguineapig33: a growth rate is easier to increase in a state with lower GDP than it is to increase in a state with a higher GDP. if you build a factory in montana, its GDP will increase by a huge percentage. if you build that same factory in california, GDP will not increase much in percent terms. it you take a look at the nominal increase in GDP instead of the rate, i bet you will find the opposite conclusion of the article.

mother farkin' differential equations, how do they work?


And you REALLY get a big differential if you take a company out of California and move it to some low GDP state. As has been happening because as far as California is concerned, "business" is synonymous with "flesh-eating bacteria".
 
2012-03-01 12:44:52 PM  

snowshovel: Yes, especially when you only compare the extreme top 5 and bottom 5 of the scale, and not bother to include everything in between.


I'm also going to go out on a limb and say it's easier to move the needle in Wyoming, population ~560,000 than it is in Pennsylvania, which contains all or part of 6 Metropolitan Statistical Areas of that size or larger, with Philly's MSA alone being over 10 times more populous.
 
2012-03-01 12:48:07 PM  
Cherry-picked data is cherry-picked. But I'd expect nothing else from a conservative rag like IBD.
 
2012-03-01 12:52:01 PM  
Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

All the arguing is where that point lies. The Laffer Curve, if you will. (I know, I know--the issue is way more complex than a simple curve. This a short-format thread.)

Even beyond income tax rates I see the problem of getting increased revenues being how do we agree on which big corporate shenanigans to close? "Too big to fail" screams we should be breaking up companies via anti-trust laws. Both parties love "Too big to fail" way too much. Smaller companies competing the way they should leaves many smaller entities that have less-dramatic impacts on the economy if they screw up.

And Glass-Steagall should be brought back with a vengeance.
 
2012-03-01 12:56:15 PM  

quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.


True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.
 
2012-03-01 01:08:59 PM  
I own 3, yes, 3 companies in the worst state, Pennsylvania; taxes company paid directly to the state since founding ...........ZERO.
 
2012-03-01 01:12:51 PM  

Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.



Correct--overall demand within a healthy economy is important

Tax rates spur employment in areas where a company is looking to expand. Companies with many locations will expand where taxes are lower.

My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball.
 
2012-03-01 01:16:18 PM  

dragonchild: Much of Texas' "business friendly" reputation is so much marketing, bluster, politics and ego.


Nah, it's real. Outside of the taxes, there's also the complete hostility towards organized labor, the environmental apathy, and the low wages. You combine those factors and similar with lox taxes and a state government that will suck up to any corporate interest, and you have a GREAT place to do business.

//Lives in Texas, not a Texan.
 
2012-03-01 01:17:08 PM  
"Low" taxes, not "lox" taxes. The state is pro-business, not anti-Semite.
 
2012-03-01 01:20:01 PM  

quoinguy: Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball.


This is exactly the problem with this line of thinking.

"We need to fund our government." is equated with anti-business "not playing ball."
 
2012-03-01 01:25:55 PM  

Gonz: Nah, it's real. Outside of the taxes, there's also the complete hostility towards organized labor, the environmental apathy, and the low wages.


I didn't say it's not real; I said it's overrated. "Overrated" doesn't mean "bad"; it just means the reputation is overhyped. The distinction I'm making here is that Texas thinks it's special when it really isn't. It's a corporatist whore -- no one's arguing that -- but there are plenty of other states that wouldn't hesitate to get on their knees and take it in deep for a corporation.
 
2012-03-01 01:26:26 PM  
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
 
2012-03-01 01:27:53 PM  

quoinguy: Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.


Correct--overall demand within a healthy economy is important

Tax rates spur employment in areas where a company is looking to expand. Companies with many locations will expand where taxes are lower.

My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball.


or states that justifiably thought that roads, educated workforce, modern water treatment, power grid, etc should be supported by those that use it.
 
2012-03-01 01:40:10 PM  

whither_apophis: quoinguy: Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.


Correct--overall demand within a healthy economy is important

Tax rates spur employment in areas where a company is looking to expand. Companies with many locations will expand where taxes are lower.

My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball.

or states that justifiably thought that roads, educated workforce, modern water treatment, power grid, etc should be supported by those that use it.


And there they are trying to fund roads, education, water treatment, and a power grid with almost a thousand fewer taxpaying jobs. How's that working out for them?

It isn't difficult - all else equal, why wouldn't a company choose to expand in a state with lower taxes? In fact, company management might be breaching their fiduciary duty to shareholders if they fail to optimize their corporate structure, which would include consideration of local and state tax expense.
 
2012-03-01 01:42:59 PM  
Correllation != Causation when it hurts Dims
 
2012-03-01 01:52:26 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: It isn't difficult - all else equal, why wouldn't a company choose to expand in a state with lower taxes?


Because there aren't any good roads, educated workers, potable water, or adequate electric infrastructure? We're letting all of those things crumble while modern conservatives scream taxes are too high, often in complete ignorance of the tax rates that built the existing infrastructure. Can't have it both ways.
 
2012-03-01 01:56:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: all else equal, why wouldn't a company choose to expand in a state with lower taxes?


Because well, "all else equal" is a downright fallacy in the myriad world of a modern society.

I've known cases where people shot themselves in the foot for focusing too much on taxes. For example, because Washington doesn't have income tax, the sales tax is high. Oregon doesn't have a sales tax. So a lot of Washingtonians would cross the state border to do their shopping. Now, this makes perfect sense if you live in Vancouver, WA or are making a major (four-figure) purchase. . . except everyone knows someone who'd drive 4, 5, 6 hours on a weekend to buy some clothes or shiat tax-free. Because they're not exactly buying a new washing machine every time, when all's said and done, they often spent more money on gas etc. just to stick it to teh Man. I guess that's their right but I don't see how it's smart.

Now, if a state had higher corporate taxes but also, say, subsidized utilities for businesses such that the utilities + tax combination was cheaper, if you pick the state with lower taxes you're a farking dumbass. Not saying that was the case here, but the point is there is no "all else equal" in real life.
 
2012-03-01 01:59:03 PM  
Interestingly, this only held true for existing companies, not new companies. Here in Florida, we traded aerospace jobs for call center jobs. Statistically we are low tax and higher than average job creation. I have to believe we are net negative payroll.
 
2012-03-01 02:12:33 PM  
Does it surprise anyone that job growth tends to be highest in fark-all middle of nowhere? That's a good thing though; you want things to be spread out a little so that development happens all around, not just in a couple locations.
 
2012-03-01 02:39:08 PM  

Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.


Tax rates can spur unemployment and tax rates do determine where a business expands and can drive a business to relocate their headquarters to a different state. Rotten tax policy in Illinois prompted Sears, Motorola Mobility, Caterpillar, Navistar, Mitsubishi, US Cellular, Jimmy John's, and Continental Tire to investigate moving some amount of their operations out of state. Now Illinois is in the position of having to selectively offer bribes to companies we want to keep in this state. $100 million to Motorola and 275 million to Sears, who then laid off 100 workers as a thank you. Caterpillar decided to not build a new plant in Illinois. They have official reasons besides "Illinois sucks" and they are careful to not state the obvious since they need to remain friendly with corrupt Illinois government, but the Illinois tax/ business climate is certainly a factor.

Illinois also makes you wait around 45 days for your FOID card and then another 3 days before picking up a firearm you just bought, even though you may already own 10 guns. This is to help us cool down. Because if anything makes me cool down it's driving nearly an hour to shop for a pistol, filling out all the paperwork, paying $4 for an Illinois instant check, and then being told after I passed the instant check I get to spend another $12 in gas and two hours of my time so that I can pick up the firearm I have a constitutional right to possess. Just another Illinois fail among the many.
 
2012-03-01 02:40:42 PM  
I'd like to see a comparison of the actual value of the jobs being created, as in the wages being paid.
 
2012-03-01 02:59:52 PM  

AiryAnne: Bull. Everyone knows that the more a company pays in taxes, the more jobs they can create.

Tax them at 100% and they'll increase their workforce by 100%.


i51.tinypic.com
 
2012-03-01 03:08:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: whither_apophis: quoinguy: Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.


Correct--overall demand within a healthy economy is important

Tax rates spur employment in areas where a company is looking to expand. Companies with many locations will expand where taxes are lower.

My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball.

or states that justifiably thought that roads, educated workforce, modern water treatment, power grid, etc should be supported by those that use it.

And there they are trying to fund roads, education, water treatment, and a power grid with almost a thousand fewer taxpaying jobs. How's that working out for them?

It isn't difficult - all else equal, why wouldn't a company choose to expand in a state with lower taxes? In fact, company management might be breaching their fiduciary duty to shareholders if they fail to optimize their corporate structure, which would include consideration of local and state tax expense.


Because all other things are not equal. Some states have access to roads, an educated workforce, strong infrastructure, etc... If the only decision point your dad made was on corporate tax rate, rather than what that tax rate enabled for the company, then he's as big a dumb ass as you.
 
2012-03-01 03:28:06 PM  

Rent Party: Debeo Summa Credo: whither_apophis: quoinguy: Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.


Correct--overall demand within a healthy economy is important

Tax rates spur employment in areas where a company is looking to expand. Companies with many locations will expand where taxes are lower.

My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball.

or states that justifiably thought that roads, educated workforce, modern water treatment, power grid, etc should be supported by those that use it.

And there they are trying to fund roads, education, water treatment, and a power grid with almost a thousand fewer taxpaying jobs. How's that working out for them?

It isn't difficult - all else equal, why wouldn't a company choose to expand in a state with lower taxes? In fact, company management might be breaching their fiduciary duty to shareholders if they fail to optimize their corporate structure, which would include consideration of local and state tax expense.

Because all other things are not equal. Some states have access to roads, an educated workforce, strong infrastructure, etc... If the only decision point your dad made was on corporate tax rate, rather than what that tax rate enabled for the company, then he's as big a dumb ass as you.



Wow.

Who's the bigger dumbass, the guy, and his co-workers, who took many factors into account for approximately $700,000,000 worth of construction costs and almost 1,000 jobs, or the d-bag FARKER who erroneously thought I said "only factor"?

Do you really think the breweries were built in areas that had dirt roads, spotty power distribution, and Cletus the slack-jawed yokel just for reduced taxation? Or were the areas from which to choose pretty similar, and one major point of difference was the huge savings of lower taxes that didn't get passed on to the consumer (because corporations don't pay taxes--the product's purchasers do)?

The areas that have the breweries now have many employees and the affiliated commerce to tax, and the areas that didn't play ball with the employers don't. That's how life works, like it not.
 
2012-03-01 03:36:30 PM  

quoinguy:
Who's the bigger dumbass, the guy, and his co-workers, who took many factors into account for approximately $700,000,000 worth of construction costs and almost 1,000 jobs, or the d-bag FARKER who erroneously thought I said "only factor"?



Lets look at *exactly* what you said.

"My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball."

Are you going to deny that, or are you going to move the goalposts around now that you've been beaten over the head with your own words.

So the dumbass vote goes to you.
 
2012-03-01 03:55:51 PM  
I started a company last year. This year, we're looking to expand in a big way. If my company employed dirt farmers and buffoons who stood on an assembly line for 8 hours a day pushing a button, I might consider moving to one of those low-tax states. Since my company actually relies on highly-skilled, very knowledgeable, well-educated employees, My choices of where to move are pretty much limited to about 10 major metropolitan areas, mostly in the "anti-business" states.

I know multiple companies like my own. Sure, we don't employ 100 people. We employ 10. On the other hand, we pay 10-20 times more per hour than a brewery or a coal mine, or a logging camp, or the vast majority of jobs that are booming in the shiathole states that routinely top these kinds of lists.

The wages I pay are also more steady over time and employee cohort. Take Wyoming, for example: The first 1000 people that showed up at the tar sands with shovels in hand made a killing. The next 1000 that come in will be paid less. The next 1000 even less. As the boom progresses, each cohort of employees that ditch everything and move to the middle of that frigid desert will make less money. And if oil prices drop back down to around $100 per barrel or lower, a whole lot of them will find themselves out of a job and stuck in Wyoming, where your odds of finding non-oil boom employment are somewhat bellow 0%.

So keep telling me how many people the backwater states have employed over the last several years. I'll continue to not care since jobs are not created equal. One of my employees pays more in taxes than 100 of theirs.

/comparing apples to turds
//end rant
 
2012-03-01 03:58:32 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: It isn't difficult - all else equal, why wouldn't a company choose to expand in a state with lower taxes?

Because there aren't any good roads, educated workers, potable water, or adequate electric infrastructure? We're letting all of those things crumble while modern conservatives scream taxes are too high, often in complete ignorance of the tax rates that built the existing infrastructure. Can't have it both ways.


Right. Because the roads are much worse in Texas and New Hampshire than they are in New York City or Massachusetts, LOL. And if you drink tap water in South Dakota, Tennessee, or Alaska, you have a 10% of getting cholera. And don't bother going for the light switch in Florida or New Hampshire or Delaware. No electricity.

"Better infrastructure' is just a liberal excuse for high taxes. In reality, it's bullshiat. The infrastructure in Texas isn't any worse than New York or New Jersey or Washington. Kids in Massachusetts might get a better education than people in the south or midwest, but if that's not crucial to my business why the fark would I care?

Many factors go into the decision of where to start/expand a business. Infrastructure plays into that. Costs play into it. Access to markets. But tax rates do as well. You guys overstate the importance of infrastructure and relative quality of infrastructure to fool yourselves into ignoring the obvious fact that higher taxes are going to make a state less attractive to business relative to low tax states.

I'm not arguing here whether taxes or infrastructure or education should be higher/lower, just stating the obvious point that lower tax states are going to attract business from higher tax states.
 
2012-03-01 04:02:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: "Better infrastructure' is just a liberal excuse for high taxes.


Is it an excuse if that's what we really need to spend the tax money on?
This is one of the more stupid things I've ever heard you say.
 
2012-03-01 04:06:32 PM  

Lusiphur: I know multiple companies like my own. Sure, we don't employ 100 people. We employ 10. On the other hand, we pay 10-20 times more per hour than a brewery or a coal mine, or a logging camp, or the vast majority of jobs that are booming in the shiathole states that routinely top these kinds of lists.


Per this Link (new window), a 'laborer' at a coal mine makes $21 per hour. (lowest wage on the page). So taking the low end of your range, you pay your employees 10*$21= $210 per hour*2080 hours per year = $439k per year. That's some business. Are you a personal injury lawyer? Brain surgery outfit? Hedge fund?
 
2012-03-01 04:14:05 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: "Better infrastructure' is just a liberal excuse for high taxes.

Is it an excuse if that's what we really need to spend the tax money on?
This is one of the more stupid things I've ever heard you say.


Let me clarity - its an excuse used to wish away the incentive that businesses have to operate in low tax jurisdicitons. Like I said, I'm not arguing whether taxes should be lower or higher, just pointing out that infrastructure isn't going to offset the tax incentive for business in all cases.

Level headed individual: "If we raise taxes, won't that make us less attractive to business, hurting employment, our economy, and reducing the benefit to revenues from the tax hike?"

Liberal: "No, no way! We have higher taxes but we have better infrastructure, so we'll attract business"

Of course, a) the infrastructure in high tax areas really isn't much better and b) higher taxes can be a disincentive to business even if local infrastructure is better than in lower tax states.
 
2012-03-01 04:18:40 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: "Better infrastructure' is just a liberal excuse for high taxes. In reality, it's bullshiat.


Well if the federal government was a proper steward I'm inclined to agree, but state and local governments are revenue-constrained and them Texas roads ain't free. Someone got passed the bill; if it ain't business, then somewhere there's a zero-sum game at work.

Not to mention the roads in the northeast are in bad shape for a reason. Freezing temperatures are absolute murder on asphalt. Must be the liberals' fault somehow.
 
2012-03-01 04:48:44 PM  

dragonchild: Debeo Summa Credo: "Better infrastructure' is just a liberal excuse for high taxes. In reality, it's bullshiat.

Well if the federal government was a proper steward I'm inclined to agree, but state and local governments are revenue-constrained and them Texas roads ain't free. Someone got passed the bill; if it ain't business, then somewhere there's a zero-sum game at work.

Not to mention the roads in the northeast are in bad shape for a reason. Freezing temperatures are absolute murder on asphalt. Must be the liberals' fault somehow.


How do New Hampshire and South Dakota manage to pay for their roads in freezing temperatures with low taxes? Must be those damn fundies and their power of prayer.

But to your first point, you are probably right -there is a zero sum game involved. Texas might pay for first class roads and electrical grid, but skimp on poverty programs or community development. You may have an issue with that but cutting expenditures allows Texas to have low taxes which is, objectively and empirically, attractive to business.

Whether this is moral or ethical or not I'm not saying. We also haven't discussed the fact that some states (primarily blue) subsidize others (primarily red) via federal taxation/spending. But you can jump up and down and whine about it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it is happening and low taxes make states more attractive to business than high taxes do.
 
2012-03-01 05:00:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: How do New Hampshire and South Dakota manage to pay for their roads in freezing temperatures with low taxes?


By not having much of them, really, and getting far less wear. The highway stretching across a state might be a significant portion of a rural state's roads, but cities have far more.

Debeo Summa Credo: Texas might pay for first class roads and electrical grid, but skimp on poverty programs or community development. You may have an issue with that but cutting expenditures allows Texas to have low taxes which is, objectively and empirically, attractive to business.


I won't speak for others but I never once disputed that Texas was attractive to businesses. I have my own opinions about whether it's the best strategy for every business and the difference between reputation and reality, but I'm not the one jumping up and down about that.
 
2012-03-01 05:11:50 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But to your first point, you are probably right -there is a zero sum game involved. Texas might pay for first class roads and electrical grid, but skimp on poverty programs or community development. You may have an issue with that but cutting expenditures allows Texas to have low taxes which is, objectively and empirically, attractive to business.


And it drives out or kills off poor people, sounds like a win/win!
 
2012-03-01 05:15:01 PM  

dragonchild: Debeo Summa Credo: How do New Hampshire and South Dakota manage to pay for their roads in freezing temperatures with low taxes?

By not having much of them, really, and getting far less wear. The highway stretching across a state might be a significant portion of a rural state's roads, but cities have far more


Well, they have fewer taxpayers as well to spread the cost over NYC roads get more wear, but the population of NY is, i don't know 30x South Dakota or New Hampshire?

Per this Link (new window)(I don't vouch for its completeness or accuracy), New York has 50% more 'lane miles' than South Dakota. It's population is arond 30x South Dakota's. So that's 20 NY taxpayers to support the same amount of roads as one South Dakotan. Now, granted the NY miles probably get a great deal more use, but I can't imagine the incremental wear and tear from additoinal use makes up for the 20x difference, especially considering weather, which is a major factor in road deterioriation, doesn't know how many people are on the road per day. NY has 8x the lane miles as New Hampshire.
 
2012-03-01 05:16:42 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: But to your first point, you are probably right -there is a zero sum game involved. Texas might pay for first class roads and electrical grid, but skimp on poverty programs or community development. You may have an issue with that but cutting expenditures allows Texas to have low taxes which is, objectively and empirically, attractive to business.

And it drives out or kills off poor people, sounds like a win/win!


It does. Race to the bottom. Again, I'm not saying its ethically right, just that it happens and it is undeniable that high tax states lose business to low tax states, because of taxes.
 
2012-03-01 05:24:32 PM  

quoinguy: Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.


Correct--overall demand within a healthy economy is important

Tax rates spur employment in areas where a company is looking to expand. Companies with many locations will expand where taxes are lower.

My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball.


Imagine what our country would be like if the states didn't use tax rates to bid against each other in order to attract businesses to come to their states.
 
2012-03-01 06:01:05 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Per this Link (new window)(I don't vouch for its completeness or accuracy), New York has 50% more 'lane miles' than South Dakota. It's population is arond 30x South Dakota's. So that's 20 NY taxpayers to support the same amount of roads as one South Dakotan. Now, granted the NY miles probably get a great deal more use, but I can't imagine the incremental wear and tear from additoinal use makes up for the 20x difference, especially considering weather, which is a major factor in road deterioriation, doesn't know how many people are on the road per day. NY has 8x the lane miles as New Hampshire.


I don't know about those numbers but you can ignore them anyway because it's not about "lane miles"; it's about complexity. The northeast doesn't necessarily have more miles of roads; they have MOAR ROADS. If South Dakota or Texas wants to repair a highway, with some exceptions of those crazy ramps in Dallas, you've got options. Re-routing traffic and plopping down heavy equipment is simple. One reason why the Big Dig was so expensive was because they had to build it right in the middle of the ghastly problem it was designed to solve. It was an absolutely mind-blowing complex and incremental project of closing roads here, here and here, working on roads here, moving equipment from here to here. . . there just isn't much room to work with and meanwhile you've got thousands of vehicles to re-route when every other intersection is already jammed to the gills. It's not just wear & tear traffic puts on those roads; it's that if you close a stretch of highway in SD, just have the everyone drive on packed dirt for a few miles. In cities there's incomparably more traffic and often literally no room to work except the lane you're digging up. And all that extra preparation and logistics and complexity costs money -- for the same length of road if the work is ten times as complex, it'll take ten times as long to repair and cost ten times the money assuming ZERO corruption, which we know of course never happens.

I'm getting sidetracked, but this is really why rural folk and urban folk hate each other. They just that they have completely opposite ways of doing things. If you have garbage out in the country, it makes sense to just burn it or bury it -- waste disposal laws are a PITA; it's your own goddamn backyard. If everyone did that in the city, within days the entire place would be choked with unbearable stench. You shoot a gun into the air in Iowa, the bullet lands in a cornfield somewhere -- who gives a fark. Guns are a constitutional right in case they try to arrest you for burning garbage again. You shoot a gun into the air in Times Square it could pass through several buildings, shatter several windows and cause a panicked stampede. Guns are people killers that need to be controlled. If your city street is flooded, you wait for the government to show up -- where the fark are you gonna go? If your house in the country is flooded, if anyone bothers to show up it's your neighbor and he won't charge you taxes for it.

It's not like urban folk LIKE paying taxes, but they more readily identify with their importance to how they see society run. Taxes keep idiots from firing guns in crowds and make the smelly garbage go away. To someone who lives on his own out in the country, taxes are just the government taking a pound of flesh and giving nothing in return. Neither's right or wrong, but they also shouldn't jump to conclusions about how wrong the other's ways are.
 
2012-03-01 06:04:52 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Imagine what our country would be like if the states didn't use tax rates to bid against each other in order to attract businesses to come to their states.


They'd turn around and start offering bribes subsidies. It's amazing how much a Tier 1 company can get away with raping local governments; they can demand so many concessions because it's such a political win to rope them in that the people don't realize the deal they cut means the company could stay there for 20 years and the City Treasury would never see an RoI. And yes, this is fully taking the effect of any job creation into account. That's the company's bargaining chip, after all.

So of course the company moves out in 5 when another city offers a sweeter deal.
 
2012-03-01 06:14:36 PM  

Rent Party: quoinguy:
Who's the bigger dumbass, the guy, and his co-workers, who took many factors into account for approximately $700,000,000 worth of construction costs and almost 1,000 jobs, or the d-bag FARKER who erroneously thought I said "only factor"?



Lets look at *exactly* what you said.

"My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball."

Are you going to deny that, or are you going to move the goalposts around now that you've been beaten over the head with your own words.

So the dumbass vote goes to you.



Apparently you don't know how committees work.

They look at many factors and come up with a consensus. There wouldn't be a need for meetings if, according to you, the ONLY factor was tax rate. Assuming the reader had the slightest bit of logic and intuition might have been asking a little much, granted, but the dumbass vote definitely remains with you.

If you're going to quote me, please make sure I actually said "only" in my original comment.

/Dumbass
 
2012-03-01 06:18:22 PM  

Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lando Lincoln: quoinguy: Lower taxes produce higher revenues--to a point. We all learned this in Econ. 101.

True. Also from Econ 101: Demand spurs employment. Tax rates do not.


Correct--overall demand within a healthy economy is important

Tax rates spur employment in areas where a company is looking to expand. Companies with many locations will expand where taxes are lower.

My father was on the committee to decide where to build a brand new brewery, and chose a state with lower corporate tax rates. Twice. Almost a thousand jobs didn't go to two states who refused to play ball.

Imagine what our country would be like if the states didn't use tax rates to bid against each other in order to attract businesses to come to their states.




I actually agree with you.

State's rights allow it and that's the game we all have to play.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report