Excellent news for our brothers and sisters in Irving..... (Houston: home, school district)

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by Parhe

Low corporate taxes aren't one of the things RemyLebeau brought up. It may contribute to maximizing corporate profits, although I don't see this as any worse morally than people moving to states with lower tax rates, but has nothing to do with supposedly lowering salaries, especially for people who are relocating with the company from other states.

I think it's ok if people move their company or themselves for lower taxes, but I don't like it when companies broker deals to relocate like Amazon did and states or cities treat them differently from other businesses. I wonder how much, if any, of that monkey business was going on here.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

For people who live in the real world it's great news.

Not necessarily or unequivocally. Plenty of things can be "Good for the Economy" on a macro levels, but bad for groups of individuals on a micro levels.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

Not necessarily or unequivocally. Plenty of things can be "Good for the Economy" on a macro levels, but bad for groups of individuals on a micro levels.

Sure. But on balance companies moving jobs and in this case a good number of very high paying jobs is good for an area.

[RoamingTX]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Sure. But on balance companies moving jobs and in this case a good number of very high paying jobs is good for an area.

At what expense though? Too often, cities are placing the tax load on the residents to attract these “jobs”. That was the point I was alluding to earlier, and failed to explain the tangential reference.

[biafra4life]

Originally Posted by RoamingTX

At what expense though? Too often, cities are placing the tax load on the residents to attract these “jobs”. That was the point I was alluding to earlier, and failed to explain the tangential reference.

I think the critical issue for Texas is the fact that most of the growth has not been organic. Say what you will about California, but that state just seems to have that ability to create home grown companies that go on to grow and thrive...and eventually move away to Texas lol. I don't think anyone here needs a roll call list of firms that started off in California...Apple, Google, Oracle...the list goes on and on.

I struggle to think of any native Texas companies outside of Dell and the oil/gas companies, and the oil companies are here simply because the oil was/is here, at lease initially. It seems every other major company here has been paid to move here. The problem with that approach is that there will eventually be some state who makes a bigger offer. I don't think Texas can indefinitely keep handing out money to companies to come here. Eventually we need to start creating our own companies. But it just doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe being in a liberal mind set is required to be able to think outside the box to create new and unique products?

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by biafra4life

I think the critical issue for Texas is the fact that most of the growth has not been organic. Say what you will about California, but that state just seems to have that ability to create home grown companies that go on to grow and thrive...and eventually move away to Texas lol. I don't think anyone here needs a roll call list of firms that started off in California...Apple, Google, Oracle...the list goes on and on.

I struggle to think of any native Texas companies outside of Dell and the oil/gas companies, and the oil companies are here simply because the oil was/is here, at lease initially. It seems every other major company here has been paid to move here. The problem with that approach is that there will eventually be some state who makes a bigger offer. I don't think Texas can indefinitely keep handing out money to companies to come here. Eventually we need to start creating our own companies. But it just doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe being in a liberal mind set is required to be able to think outside the box to create new and unique products?

AT&T, TI, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Zales, Dr. Pepper, Frito Lay, Flour, Neiman Marcus, Peterbilt Trucks, Plains Capital, Beal Bank, Torchmark, Whole Foods and many more.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

AT&T, TI, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Zales, Dr. Pepper, Frito Lay, Flour, Neiman Marcus, Peterbilt Trucks, Plains Capital, Beal Bank, Torchmark, Whole Foods and many more.

AT&T isn't originally from here It used to be Southwestern Bell which was owned by Bell.

American Airlines wasn't founded here, it moved here for the hub.

Southwest is nice (well, used to be) but it's a regional airline, basically and small potatoes on the national stage.

Local banks are local banks, every local has them, nothing innovative about that.

Torchmark is from Alabama originally.

Whole Foods is from Austin, not Dallas.

Dr Pepper and Frito Lay are junk food companies. That was innovative in the 1930s, but not today. They changed the world for the worse 100 years ago, but now all they are trying to do is stay alive.


Texas Instruments is a local company, thats pretty cool.

What Dallas lacks, and Texas in General, are the big innovative home grown companies. We don't have a silicon valley here. We don't even have what Seattle has with Microsoft and Amazon being huge deal locally grown global companies. It's a good question to ask: Why do we lag California and or Seattle in innovation?

There is a concern that our big draw is corporate tax cuts and low COL to companies. What happens in 20 years when all these roads we have need to be maintained, cost of living has gone up, and the next high growth state offers them a better deal? Wouldn't t be great to be generating an Amazon instead of being part of national contest to bribe them to move here?

[rantanamo]

How selective of a post.

[RoamingTX]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

Southwest is nice (well, used to be) but it's a regional airline, basically and small potatoes on the national stage.

Fortune 142, and revolutionized low-cost air travel. Also, carries more passengers in the US than any other airline. That's not "small potatoes".

What Dallas lacks, and Texas in General, are the big innovative home grown companies. We don't have a silicon valley here. We don't even have what Seattle has with Microsoft and Amazon being huge deal locally grown global companies. It's a good question to ask: Why do we lag California and or Seattle in innovation?

I don't think you can fairly discard the Oil and Gas companies and the innovations and development that they create. There's O/G all over this nation, not just TX. TX was the leader in innovation and has the concentration of talent that has driven this.

There is a concern that our big draw is corporate tax cuts and low COL to companies. What happens in 20 years when all these roads we have need to be maintained, cost of living has gone up, and the next high growth state offers them a better deal? Wouldn't t be great to be generating an Amazon instead of being part of national contest to bribe them to move here?

This is a legit concern. I hate the fact that we give these huge breaks to companies to get them here, then shift that tax load to the local residents. Being "business-friendly" doesn't have to mean "grab your ankles".

[Johnhw2]

I am one who believes incremental cost of adding new jobs and business is not as expensive as the average and total cost burder we all face. As long as the NPV for paying a big company to move jobs here is positive, ie additional taxes and economic growth from this move exceeds the incremental cost of getting them to move here, I am ok with it. But this is hard to quantify and Ive never seen it quantified for a situation.


An effect paying a company to move to your area has that is rarely discussed is when does subsidizing a company's move to a new area make it harder for its competitors to thrive and are those competitors big players in the economy that gave breaks to get these jobs? Amazon going to NYC is an example of this. NYC has HQ of large retailers who face though sledding competiting with the new disruptor of their business Amazon. Giving Amazon a break in cost makes it easier for them to over take more of their competitors which is a negative impacts on city or area in some cases.


High tax states chose to be that way it was not divinely ordained. Business who dont make changes over time to stay competitive will not be all they can be. We are a country are competing with other countries for jobs and growth, why should states not do that same? They should and do as part of business evolution.


Organic growth an issue here? I dont think so, focusing only on the mega companies and ignroing smaller privately owned companies started here and thriving here is missing the overall picture. I can not find data on small business job growth here but know from antidote a few small local companies which are growing rapidly, Four are owned by neighbors on my street alone