Debeo Summa Credo: 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?

That's odd. I know coal miners in PA, and they don't make $21 an hour. Oh, wait, what is that at the bottom? Average cost of benefits as percentage of the hourly wage? Are those wages including benefits? It's hard to tell, but if so, that actually puts the number workers see on their paycheck down to $12-15, which is far more in line with what I know of my coal mining friends. I pay about $50-150/hour, depending on employee, and based on a recent massive raise everyone got. Most of them work 10-20 hours a week, with 3 exceptions who are full time. So a little off on the 12*20 example, but if you substitute minimum wage, the fastest growing wage group in the country, it works.

Debeo Summa Credo: Let me clarity - its an excuse used to wish away the incentive that businesses have to operate in low tax jurisdicitons.

Here's another interesting factoid: High-salary businesses are running from CT back to Manhattan, where the cost of operating is significantly higher. Why?

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.

If you could be so kind, please provide charts showing the percentage actually going to infrastructure in a couple of states.

What we NEED to spend money on and what we ACTUALLY spend money on are often rather different. And more money on infrastructure doesn't mean better infrastructure.

Then end the practice of allowing businesses to play states against each other. Once you do that, you can clear a lot of uncertainty. States rights arent meant to be used to effect tyranny like this does with tax law.

Another valid option would be to make it very expensive if not impossible to move a business or scuttle it. Want to move, you have to pay to take the workers over - you also are required to pay their wages until they find equivalent pay/task work with another company for a minimum of 10 years or length of service, whichever is longer.

A third option would be to have the tax cuts follow the worker, no matter what skill level they are, excepting contractors, staffing firms or other sources of indirect/temporary labor. The longer an individual stays with a company as a full time worker, the more of a tax benefit the business gets - but the worker can take it to a better company that will honor at least 10 years or the length of time served at a company(whichever is longer). Finally, reward companies that pay more and treat their lower level employees with respect.

--

How worker-friendly are these "business friendly" states, or is it "bow before me and be glad you have a job"? I dont see any of those states being friendly to workers, and that is a problem.

/Subtard has it wrong.

Real question: what's the average income for those states?

Gonz: 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.

Your state is Patient Zero for the Right To Work For Less disease. It should be no surprise why they are anti-labor.

Thank the businesses that came to the South to indoctrinate a deep hate for labor by appealing to the regional sensitivities regarding slavery & "states rights". You would have to purge the South of any anti-labor sentiment before the states could be set right.

For the RTWtards:
Why is it OK for businesses to organize together but it is evil for regular workers to do same?
Why arent businesses held to the same disclosure standards that unions are held?
Why are businesses allowed to harass and threaten supporters in ways worse than any union?

quoinguy: 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

Are you going to deny that the only thing you mentioned in your post was tax rates? Seriously?

Can you show me in your post where you mentioned *anything* other than tax rates, making my claim that you mentioned only tax rates wrong?

Can you? No? You can't? Do you know why you can't?

Because you only mentioned tax rates, dumbass.

Denying what you just said is pretty pathetic.

What high salaried businesses are moving to NY? UBS? Any others?

I can assume, from this thread, that they are moving back for potable water or for those awesome new york roads or some other laughable reason.

Oh, and $50 per hour isn't 10x what anybody makes, unless you are talking about miners or loggers in Peru. You're full of shiat.

jjorsett: As has been happening because as far as California is concerned



Conservatards pointing out California's recent economic struggles is like third-world assholes cheering the US recession. shiatty backwards conservatard states may not have been hit as hard but only because there wasn't much room to fall.

Like the US, California is still an economic juggernaut, one of the largest economies in the world.

Debeo Summa Credo: What high salaried businesses are moving to NY? UBS? Any others?

I can assume, from this thread, that they are moving back for potable water or for those awesome new york roads or some other laughable reason.

Oh, and $50 per hour isn't 10x what anybody makes, unless you are talking about miners or loggers in Peru. You're full of shiat.

If its UBS, I think i might know why. IT workers in general from India/China are more concentrated in NJ and are in commuting proximity to NYC. So, it helps to attract talent

/ is an Indian IT worker
//lives in CT now. so hard to find decent work here

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.

Sounds like a lie to me. And of course even if true, then like Mitt, you think you're an expert for one reason: because your daddy actually did something.

ghare: 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.

Sounds like a lie to me. And of course even if true, then like Mitt, you think you're an expert for one reason: because your daddy actually did something.


Not a lie, and not an expert, although my dad did do some pretty amazing things. Nice lake home here, and even nicer one in Arizona, seen much of the world, and has more cash and stocks than he'll ever spend.

I simply don't deny how the world works. Don't like the reality money talks? Change the rules.

The only way states won't use taxes to fight against one another is for the feds to acknowledge they do the same thing to ram their policies on the states and ban the whole concept. Of course we all know that will never happen, since most of the power in government is based on money and tax legislation.

Embrace reality and vote for the weasels who can do it better than the weasels in other states.