Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The PPIC is a liberal think tank. No surprise they would say that California's high taxes and regulation don't cost jobs. What hogwash! Anyone who gives this 30 seconds thought knows that can't be true.
Just look at the many stories of business owners who post on this forum who say that Sacramento's crazy laws and punitive taxation have caused them to move or shrink their business. The company I worked for pulled up stakes and moved to Colorado to be in a more welcoming business climate.
What shameless nerve to create "studies" intended to promote a lie.
The PPIC is a liberal think tank. No surprise they would say that California's high taxes and regulation don't cost jobs. What hogwash! Anyone who gives this 30 seconds thought knows that can't be true.
Just look at the many stories of business owners who post on this forum who say that Sacramento's crazy laws and punitive taxation have caused them to move or shrink their business. The company I worked for pulled up stakes and moved to Colorado to be in a more welcoming business climate.
What shameless nerve to create "studies" intended to promote a lie.
Yeah, I've got to question the validity of such a study as well. It's easy to skew results of a study with loaded questions, poor sample segment, etc... to underestimate the effects of CA's business and tax laws.
The unfortunately reality is jobs are leaving CA from both large and smaller companies. Look at Boeing recently moving B-1 and C-130 work to Oklahoma.
"Making a decision like this is never easy, but as we reviewed our anticipated operating costs for the next several years, it became clear that Boeing needs to take major actions on these programs in order to remain affordable for our customers," said Mark Bass, vice president of Boeing's maintenance modifications and upgrades division, in an Aug 2 company statement. -- Defense News
One may argue that there are other reasons as well which contribute to these companies moving their business elsewhere. But I don't think you can dismiss less desirable tax policies as a contributing factor.
The real question for us now as a state is how do we reduce this bleeding, retain jobs, companies and actually atract new business? Both sides od the aisle need to take a serious look at this and less on playing politics.
The PPIC is a liberal think tank. No surprise they would say that California's high taxes and regulation don't cost jobs. What hogwash! Anyone who gives this 30 seconds thought knows that can't be true.
Just look at the many stories of business owners who post on this forum who say that Sacramento's crazy laws and punitive taxation have caused them to move or shrink their business. The company I worked for pulled up stakes and moved to Colorado to be in a more welcoming business climate.
What shameless nerve to create "studies" intended to promote a lie.
The PPIC was created in 1994 by an initial donation from William Hewlett...the co-founder of Hewlett Packard, one of the most iconic companies in the Silicon Valley. Also, take a look at PPIC's long list of REPUBLICAN donors including Donald Bren and Richard Riordan.
The PPIC has a solid track record of independet, non-partisan analysis.
Despite the naive appeal of the term "tax cut," the aggregate collection of public revenue always stays about the same. The only change is where the predominate burden falls. When Bush eased the tax burden on the wealthy in 2001, a higher portion of the tax burden was shifted to the middle and lower-middle classes. If you're happy with the kind of job creation and economic vitality we've had since 2001, advocate for renewal of the tax burden shift -- we'll get more of the same.
Under the Keynesian view of tax cuts, promoting consumerism among the citizenry improves the economy, presuming that the goods purchased are manufactured and merchandised within the subject country. Most consumerism in the 21st century, though, only goes to build up China, so tax cuts that promote that are macroeconomically negative. The GOP, though, is staunchly opposed to policies that would incentivize domestic job retention and restoration. And while the wealthy could, in theory, create more jobs with higher personal and corporate incomes, there is scant evidence to show this happens on a scale that outweighs the loss of public revenue. Far more of that money gets squirreled away in off-shore bank accounts and other clandestine investing strategies.
Despite the naive appeal of the term "tax cut," the aggregate collection of public revenue always stays about the same. The only change is where the predominate burden falls. When Bush eased the tax burden on the wealthy in 2001, a higher portion of the tax burden was shifted to the middle and lower-middle classes. If you're happy with the kind of job creation and economic vitality we've had since 2001, advocate for renewal of the tax burden shift -- we'll get more of the same.
Under the Keynesian view of tax cuts, promoting consumerism among the citizenry improves the economy, presuming that the goods purchased are manufactured and merchandised within the subject country. Most consumerism in the 21st century, though, only goes to build up China, so tax cuts that promote that are macroeconomically negative. The GOP, though, is staunchly opposed to policies that would incentivize domestic job retention and restoration. And while the wealthy could, in theory, create more jobs with higher personal and corporate incomes, there is scant evidence to show this happens on a scale that outweighs the loss of public revenue. Far more of that money gets squirreled away in off-shore bank accounts and other clandestine investing strategies.
Hmm,
While I see where you are general going with this in theory, I think it breaks down in practice as an overall economic solution. Simply trying to enforce Made in America will not be enough to retain jobs. Take Boeing for example. They are moving from California to Oklahoma - Made in America economics do nothing for California in this and many other business cases. Why, because these jobs are still exist in America. And the plants boost the economy in those regions big time.
Also this idea that companies are the rich and therefore should be taxed Ad Infinitem for the sake of the middle and lower classes is fraught with faulty reasoning. The Robin Hood take from the rich and give to the poor approach ends up biting the hand that feeds the working class. Look at bulldogdad's real world example of his business and all the employees he had to lay off. They lost, not gained overall. And then look at the larger ones like Boeing. This does not work in America or California. Maybe it could work in a commune type society in which companies didn't have choices. But like Boeing or any other company in America they can choose to move elsewhere to more company friendly states in the US - those who actually offer businesses incentives to stay. This in turn provides jobs for the community at large - all class levels benefit. Other states realize this and it is working for them right now. Their economies are growing as a direct result.
Why do you think Obama wants to extent the Bush tax cuts? Doing anything different would speed his demise and undermine what he is trying to do for small businesses and the economy at large. If the left just wants to tax big business for all they can, big business will move on and out plain and simple. Then the working class will be sitting around without any contracts/projects to work on. And they will be forced to move to Ok or go on long term unemployment.
My 2c,
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 09-28-2010 at 08:37 PM..
While I see where you are general going with this in theory, I think it breaks down in practice as an overall economic solution. Simply trying to enforce Made in America will not be enough to retain jobs. Take Boeing for example. They are moving from California to Oklahoma - Made in America economics do nothing for California in this and many other business cases. Why, because these jobs are still exist in America. And the plants boost the economy in those regions big time.
Also this idea that companies are the rich and therefore should be taxed Ad Infinitem for the sake of the middle and lower classes is fraught with faulty reasoning. The Robin Hood take from the rich and give to the poor approach ends up biting the hand that feeds the working class. Look at bulldogdad's real world example of his business and all the employees he had to lay off. They lost, not gained overall. And then look at the larger ones like Boeing. This does not work in America or California. Maybe it could work in a commune type society in which companies didn't have choices. But like Boeing or any other company in America they can choose to move elsewhere to more company friendly states in the US - those who actually offer businesses incentives to stay. This in turn provides jobs for the community at large - all class levels benefit. Other states realize this and it is working for them right now. Their economies are growing as a direct result.
Why do you think Obama wants to extent the Bush tax cuts? Doing anything different would speed his demise and undermine what he is trying to do for small businesses and the economy at large. If the left just wants to tax big business for all they can, big business will move on and out plain and simple. Then the working class will be sitting around without any contracts/projects to work on. And they will be forced to move to Ok or go on long term unemployment.
My 2c,
Derek
Derek: I think I read Brenda-by-the-Sea's post very differently than you did. She never said anything about taxing corporations. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top income bracket will restore tax rates (for wealthy individuals) to the same rate as in the 1990's when job growth was robust and unemployment very low.
Derek: I think I read Brenda-by-the-Sea's post very differently than you did. She never said anything about taxing corporations. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top income bracket will restore tax rates (for wealthy individuals) to the same rate as in the 1990's when job growth was robust and unemployment very low.
Ok, maybe I misinterpreted it. But it sounded like opposition to providing incentives, tax breaks, etc... for small businesses and their owners. Right now retaining companies and growing jobs is one the top priorities for our economy to recover IMO, even if that means giving some breaks to these companies. If we don't become more business friendly other states will take our business and jobs along with them. While I'm not suggesting giving away the farm or wholesale baleouts, I do think we need to get creative in discovering what companies need and providing them the right kinds of incentives to stay here. If we do everyone benefits, not merely the wealthy.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 09-28-2010 at 11:27 PM..
Ok, maybe I misinterpreted it. But it sounded like opposition to providing incentives, tax breaks, etc... for small businesses and their owners. Right now retaining companies and growing jobs is one the top priorities for our economy to recover IMO, even if that means giving some breaks to these companies. If we don't become more business friendly other states will take our business and jobs along with them. While I'm not suggesting giving away the farm or wholesale baleouts, I do think we need to get creative in discovering what companies need and providing them the right kinds of incentives to stay here. If we do everyone benefits, not merely the wealthy.
Derek
I agree with you. The trick is finding the right incentives. I simply don't think the Whitman proposal would spur much new job creation. Certainly not enough to justify the costs.
I don't believe anything that benefits the rich ever "trickles down." Fewer tax breaks for the rich do not translate to more jobs and more job opportunities for the non-rich, as the rich get richer. This is utterly absurd and it's very unfortunate that we live during a time when this type of Neanderthal economic "theory" is still being shoved in our faces by the Right. Whitman's solutions to the problems that plague this multicultural, progressive state, benefit only the privileged few. This Conservative Frankenstein doesn't give a damn about anyone else.
Instead of promoting policies that focus on the differences between us, she needs to do something her party cannot do: find solutions that emphasize the similarities among us and promote policies that facilitate parity. Pubs, rather then condemning the segment of the black race that is unable to find work or get off welfare, attack the system that put them there, you know, the one you perpetuate. Attack bigotry, don't pretend it doesn't exist while practicing it. Instead of condemning illegal latinos while hiring them to do your yards, find some mechanism to help them assimilate and become contributing members of the society as equals.
This idea is yet another indication that Whitman has no business running for office. She stinks and her supporters are absolutely clueless. Quite a shame in this day and age.
Last edited by LexusNexus; 09-29-2010 at 12:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conservative Frankenstein solutions stink
