DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on November 12, 2015, 06:06:03 PM
-
California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, 7-year study says
Nov 11, 2015
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/11/california-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html?ana=fbk
-
I can't imagine why :o
-
I will worry more when we start loosing these jobs to France.
Texas is still USA.
This week.
-
Texas taxes its citizens to BRIBE companies to relocate, they promise not to tax them, they tell them they will not be forced to prevent pollution.
-
Texas taxes its citizens to BRIBE companies to relocate, they promise not to tax them, they tell them they will not be forced to prevent pollution.
So why does not California do this?
Their taxes are higher , can't they bribe more effectively?
-
The California Legislature does not believe in corporate handouts and bribery, I think.
Texas is run by fools who like to suck up to corporations. California is not.
-
Like a shopvac.
Is it foolish to suck up these corporations ?
Does wisdom really repel prosperity?
-
It is unethical to use the taxpayers money to lure corporations away from there they started, yes.
-
Not in the least, since it the goal is to bring in increased revenue to the state, which ultimately helps the tax payer in decreased costs to the consumer
-
It is unethical to use the taxpayers money to lure corporations away from there they started, yes.
Are the Taxpayers of texas complaining about this?
Are the taxpayers of California loosing less in taxes?
It has been said before, money goes where it is wanted , it stays where it is well treated.
-
It is unethical to use the taxpayers money to lure corporations away from there they started, yes.
Are the Taxpayers of texas complaining about this?
Are the taxpayers of California loosing less in taxes?
It has been said before, money goes where it is wanted , it stays where it is well treated.
BINGO!!
-
But are those businesses treated well at a local level. Cost tends to go up when these businesses arrive and the workers naturally bring alittle bit of thier culture. Are texans tolerant of these changes. My friends are still being offered jobs in texas . Alot of businesses in texas are still prefering to hire California techs.
-
But are those businesses treated well at a local level. Cost tends to go up when these businesses arrive and the workers naturally bring alittle bit of thier culture. Are texans tolerant of these changes. My friends are still being offered jobs in texas . Alot of businesses in texas are still prefering to hire California techs.
I have heard this before.
That people leave Massachusetts to find less onerous taxation over the state line, then, when settled, they start to demand the level of services that they were accustomed to getting back in their high tax environment.
As if they were generating a market for the taxes.
-
Massachusetts seems to have lured away a number of Rhode Island jobs. Unemployment in Mass is less than in RI.
A Californian who moves to Texas might discover that education is not up to CA standards, and the weather is far too hot. Houston is far more oppressive than LA when it comes to weather. And it is the ugliest large city in the country.
So the money tat was "saved" on the house was eaten up by the AC and private school tuition.
-
Cost wise texas has always beat California. But soo many factors are involved besides money. California lately shot itself in the foot multiple times and thats is the migration we see now. But nothing says texas cant and won't do the same dumbass things.
-
..................... But nothing says texas cant and won't do the same dumbass things.
I am very sure that Texas will do entirely different dumbass things.
-
Maybe but the bad treatment by locals has been consistant from many states who invite businesses.
-
Maybe but the bad treatment by locals has been consistant from many states who invite businesses.
Oh?
That should not be.
Aren't these locals getting hired and benefiting from better tax base?
-
Tricky to answer . When a business arrives they do need local help but the type of work it provides is likely not entirely what the location can fully provide and a increase in tax money will not exactly help those people. The government of course is happy for all the money but the people may not always care fir the changes.
Ex. A high tech community may require more Chinese restaurant and less burger and steak places. Strip joints will always be in demand. Export car repairs goes up. More organic foods less fastfoods. Etc.
-
The local people will not get any tax breaks. The company that moves in does, When the new company attracts more workers, they move in, raising house prices and putting a burden on local roads and school districts. The new company will normally not be taxed at a rate that will pay for the burden it places on local services.
-
Reduced taxes usually have a limited time span, enough to allow building and hiring and establishment of vendors.
That seems reasonable.
More importantly , the businesses move to places where there is a permanent lower tax rate , and a tolerable level of lesser services.
If they employ a bunch of locals and import a bunch of new residents , the increase in persons paying taxes pretty much makes up the difference to the state, county and city.
-
California still has a bigger economy than Texas.
Better education and less poverty as well.
-
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Texas-vs-California-myth-busting-time-4257744.php
-
Well poverty in California is not that straight forward. People migrate to California for the benefits so poverty is alot more of uncontrollable than the rest of the country
-
not that straight forward.
exactly....many of these comparisons are "not that straight forward"....in other words....it works BOTH ways!
but one thing for sure is more people from the North and from California move to Texas than the other way around.
-
There is little point to migrate to Texas to get a good job.
Employers go to Texas so they can get away with paying low wages.
Texas already has a large number of poor, poorly educated people.
Social mobility in Texas is low. Wages are low. Working conditions suck.
-
The One true advantage to texas is cost. But employee quality and retention will be a factor later on. Remember texas has always been trying to lure businesses to thier state. But conditions and work practices has been a liability.
-
There is little point to migrate to Texas to get a good job.
Employers go to Texas so they can get away with paying low wages.
Texas already has a large number of poor, poorly educated people.
Social mobility in Texas is low. Wages are low. Working conditions suck.
yes booo whoo....it's sooooo terrible and that's why so many have been moving here for 2-3 decades ::)
in fact it is such horrid conditions more Americans have moved to Texas in recent years than any other state!
They must all be deaf and dumb....funny thing...once they get here and see how horrible it is they stay! lol
(http://www.climateminder.com/img/cnnmoney-logo.png)
Why everybody is moving to Texas
http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/29/real_estate/affordable-housing-growth/
-
I don't think the growth in population in Texas is much higher than the growth rate in California.
Texas is a somewhat backward Southern state with low social mobility. California is a high tech state with higher social mobility, and a much nicer climate.
-
I don't think the growth in population in Texas is much higher than the growth rate in California.
Texas is a somewhat backward Southern state with low social mobility. California is a high tech state with higher social mobility, and a much nicer climate.
You should look that up at a source that you trust.
-
California Has Highest Poverty Rate in U.S.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-patrick/when-will-gov-brown-wage-a-war-on-poverty_b_4618256.html
-
as a californian I can only confirm whats going on in this state alone. we get a continual influx of people to maintain the number for poverty so solving will not be possible. 100% employment will not acount for new comers. other states actually import these people here. would not be surprise texas is one of these sources. whats not often brought up is the programs to stop poverty. in san francisco alone the cost that goes to these programs could directly pay each of these people 20+k a year. it really is cheaper to give cash then the present system. what im pointing out is juding by the amount of money spent thier is no reason for these anti-poverty programs to work .
-
Jerry Brown is certainly doing a better job than Arnold did, or Gray Davis before him.
-
Which explains the mass exodus of middle to upper class citizens and the many business that have relocated out of state, supplanted by millions of poverty level legal & illegal immigrants, completely beholden to Government. Yea, "fine" job
-
Is Atlas shrugging in California?
-
In median family income, California is 10th at $60,287
That is above the US average, which is $50,502
Texas is 25th, at $49,392
That is for 2014.
-
In median family income, California is 10th at $60,287
That is above the US average, which is $50,502
Texas is 25th, at $49,392
That is for 2014.
Ok, lets accept these figures.
But does the cost of living in Texas and the taxes in Texas being much lower completely erase the advantage of a higher average wage in California?
Completely as a separate issue, to the likelihood of finding a job in Texas in the first place being easier than finding a job in California.
-
It seems obvious that Texas has been trying to steal jobs from California, so what we are seeing is the propaganda. Of course, California does not have alternative job retaining propaganda. So this is nothing but a sales campaign. Meaningless advertising. Texas apparently does not feel it can create new jobs, so it prefers top loot other places.
Texas has low paying jobs and poor schools. They are unlikely to get better because the Texas School Textbook Selection Committee is against evolution, critical thinking and accurate history.
-
No, what we are seeing are the results of a policies in place....one that rewards and incentivises, and one that punishes & regulates businesses to the point of moving out of state
-
Lots of businesses require more regulation.
Drugstores should be required to reveal the prices of prescriptions over the phone.
Hospitals should have to reveal the prices of procedures and operations, rather than being able to claim that each and every case is so different that it costs more because of this, that and the other, which is what they do.
-
Lots of businesses require more regulation.
No they don't. Some yes. But to the point of being punitive and abusive, NO
-
Lots of businesses require more regulation.
Drugstores should be required to reveal the prices of prescriptions over the phone.
I do not agree.
It is a good idea for a Drug Store to be polite and it is a good idea for a Drugstore to be open with pricing information.
But these kind of things would be lousy to enforce as regulations.
Would you like to be the federal enforcer of corporate use of "Please and thank you"?
There is already a set of regulations for the purpose of preventing Gas stations from colluding to set local prices, if they called each other and compared prices and agreed on a price in conference , they are in violation, but driving around a bit to see what the competition is doing, that, is legal.
So how do you suppose this gets enforced?
-
I noticed that the price of Diesel in my area ranged from $2.27 to $2.99.$22 But stations near one another all had the same (usually lower) price.
I always buy from the cheapest place, because most Diesel fuel is sold to truckers, who pay for it themselves, and buy 50 gallons or more at each fillup.
50 gallons at $2.99.9 IS $149.95, while 50 gallons at $2.27.9 is $113.95. The difference is $36 bucks. So my guess is that the fuel at the most expensive station has been sitting around for quite some time, while the cheaper Diesel is most likely fresh. Water gets condensed in the underground tanks, by the way, so if you fill up while they are filling the tank (which stirs up all the water, rust and crud) you might end up with a clogged filter, or more water in your tank, which means you get fungus of some sort breeding in the layer between the water and the fuel. Yuck!
I think that regulations often get broken, but they tend to be followed when they are in effect.
For example, only VW seems to have been the only auto company cheating on the emission control regs. Prior to that, the ones who used cheater software were big trucks. The cheat was discovered by this one guy at West Virginia University in Morgantown. He knew how to check emissions when the vehicle was on the road because he was monitoring Diesel Coal trucks. I find it amazing that VW thought they would get away with this forever.
-
I have no idea how i found out but learned costco has the overall lowest price for drugs. But thats without insurance. With insurance it's not by drugstore anymore
-
I have heard that Costco has the same profit margin on all their Rx drugs. Other stores lower the prices on the common ones, but really sock it to those who buy the less common ones. Some drugstores quintuple the price. They buy it for $1.00 a pill and sell it for $5.00.
In Spain, France, Mexico and Argentina, you just show the druggist the Rx and she hands you the box. Stamped on the bos are the words "Maximum proce to the Public; €11.00. and that is the price. The same markup is used with every product. And it is LESS than in the US. A LOTT LESS. We are being screwed by Big Pharma.
-
I would bitch more if it wasnt for the fact people want non health related medication covered also
-
...oh, and this just in.....recall all the "promises" and "pledges' that Obamacare was needed to "contain costs"?? Another lie fully exposed (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/24/obamacare-roundup-largest-insurer-architect-polls-n2084705)
-
Texas should do more to create its own businesses, rather than to steal them from other states.
-
Stealing implies something illegal...unless you're playing baseball. Texas is "stealing" nothing. California should do more to create a friendly business enviroment, rather than one that pushes businesses and upper/middle class Californians to leave. Like what Texas is doing
-
You cant blame texas alone. All states does this and before texas seattle washington was popular for taking ca. Businesses.
Im surprise louisiana hasnt tried
-
Exactly. No state is "stealing" anything. They are merely doing what they can to improve their own economies.....such as incentivizing businesses to move in, with the associated citizens that would come along and the increase in job opportunities, for those already living in the state. Which then translates into increased tax revenues to the state itself, in the form of increased income and payroll taxes, withoiut having to raise them, as well as increased monies for people to buy things, thus more revenue in the form of sales taxes, also without having to raise them
It's a win win......for those states that wish to facilitate such creation vs punish them with more taxes & regulations
-
The businesses were established where they originally were because of the government provided services available.
Taxes are not punishment. That is typical rightwing stupidity.
-
Taxes are punishment when you keep raising them on successful people & businesses. And business have no obligation to stay where they started, so the only thing "stupid" here is implying some form of theft by another state
-
You are full of shit, sirs. Taxes is what we pay for civilization.
You think taxes are punishment, go to Somalia, which has no government and see how you fare.
-
No, Professor Misrepresentation...I believe RAISING taxes on businesses and the wealthy is punishment, when they ALREADY are taxed higher than everyone else. Not taxes in general ::)
-
They pay more because they get more.
They use the services of government more, they benefit from public education more, they haul their freight on the highways more.
If you wanna fly first class, it oughta cost you.
You pay for what you get.
-
No, they don't get any more than you or I. Everyone gets the same. The cost of something is just the same for Soros as it is for you or me. So, NO, they don't get taxed more because they get more. They're taxed more because folks like yourself need to try and alleviate some mutated conscience, that "the rich" don't deserve what they've earned, so it must be taken from them, so that folks like yourself can feel better by applying/giving it where you think it should go.
and as its already been pointed out, THEY'RE ALREADY TAXED MORE. It's why upper middle class, "the rich", and businesses are leaving the state in droves, being replaced by poverty riddled legal & illegal immigrants, complete with added debt to an already fractured state economy
-
Goddamn right! Tax their asses!
If Romney pays 14% or 20% or 30% it will not alter his cushy lifestyle in the least.
-
Your envy is almost tangible. As is your overt lack of grasp towards how our economy thrives. To folks like yourselt, its all about tax them because you can, and screw the repercussions. It's why CA is going down the economic dump. Shall we provide a laundry list of every Democrat controlled city, and demonstrate just how "great" your approach is? Shall we start with Detroit? New Orleans? Los Angeles?
-
Every large city in the country either has a Democratic government or a no partisan one. Republicans are unable to get elected to run cities, because they are stupid schmucks, hateful schmucks or both stupid AND hateful schmucks.
If White Texans were so goddamned clever, they would develop their own industries and would have no need to lure anyone away from California.
Tax the Rich! They should pay for their lucky breaks and all the support the government gives them.
-
I think that were it proven beyond any reasonable doubt that very high progressive tax rates were a direct cause of hard times, there would still be a significant voting block in favor of it.
What indeed keeps science out of this question?
Most scientists too smart to stick a hand in that grinder?
-
i never ever once thought the rich had enough money to be taxed to the point it solved problems. I do think thier income levels are high enough to have a negative effect on peoples pay.
Meaning taxes are not the problem. Its the lack of prosperity
-
I want to address taxes paying government services. My old town san francisco used to have a very sizable black homeowning tax paying population and over a decade ago a large portion of them just up and left. One of the reasons is they got fed for all the taxes they pay they get nothing in return. Ex. Police protection. Street repair
L.A. Is known for slow response police for everything but ticket fines.
Speaking of first class lately i hear that service is starting to be lacking also. The lounges are starting to not service thier own guest due to over regulations
-
i never ever once thought the rich had enough money to be taxed to the point it solved problems. I do think thier income levels are high enough to have a negative effect on peoples pay.
Meaning taxes are not the problem. Its the lack of prosperity
Outstanding point, Kimba. No one on the right, outside of anarchists, want to abolish taxes. They absolutely have a function in funding the Government. At what point does trying to raise taxes on "the rich" and businesses cease to provide that primary fiscal function, and instead become an impediment to success & prosperity, and yes, a punitive act. Yea, "the rich" can probably pay more in taxes, but if the intention is to do so, because they can afford it, and not recognize the progressive negative detrimental impact on the economy & jobs, prosperity takes a nosedive. There is indeed a cause & effect, in which the left frequently ignores the latter
-
This is a VERY PROSPEROUS country. there is NO LACK of prosperity. But it is all in the hands of a very few.
-
Ignorance is indeed bliss, if you can't acknowledge that not only are the poor people in this country even poorer, under Obama's current policies, with an exponential increase in those receiving food stamps, and more people no longer even looking for a job, than any other time in modern history. Prosperity is indeed nosediving in this country, in general, and in cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, New Orleans and Chicago, just off the top of my head. And what do those cities all have in common? Yep, Democrat run governments, with excessive taxation and regulation agendas
-
It is exactly and precisely as I said.
\There are NO major cities managed by Republicans.
-
LOL....because Democrats have bitten off more than they can chew. In the grandest effort of procuring the most poverty riddled polices to facilitate more votes for Democrats, its precisely why such cities are rampant in debt, unemployment, and why "the rich" & businesses are leaving in droves. Sorry, you can't tax them to stay.
-
This is a VERY PROSPEROUS country. there is NO LACK of prosperity. But it is all in the hands of a very few.
This could probably be changed.
Most easily by getting rid of all the prosperity.
-
It is exactly and precisely as I said.
\There are NO major cities managed by Republicans.
This turns out to be interesting.
https://www.quora.com/What-US-cities-have-been-primarily-governed-by-Republican-administrations-since-1940
Jacksonville Fl. ,Indianapolis In.
The Democrats are well adapted to Urban concerns, Republicans are more coped to reality.
What can convert an urban center from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one?
Include more suburbs into the city limits, that just about makes it sure.
How to make a Red city into a blue one? Exclude the suburbs and maximize the urban nature of the electorate.
This is just a nice example of the utility of gerrymandering.
-
Im talking about expense has been consistantly rising but income has slowed or simply stopped growing. The expression the rich get richer and the poor get poorer has yet been called outdated.
Taxes will not fix this. Many factors are in play wages,education , businesses practices, hiring practices etc. rising taxes may of been one of the causes.
-
If rising taxes are the cause, it is obliging the middle class to pay MORE percentage wise than rich fatcats like Romney.
The obvious reason that Romney released only one tax form rather than many was because he paid LESS than 14% before this.
All those trips to the Caymans? Not for working on his tan.
-
Thats another matter altogether. If I recall it's not a tax break in those areas but that income is not reported.
Raising taxes will have no effect at all
-
If rising taxes are the cause, it is obliging the middle class to pay MORE
I rest my case.....thank you