Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-30-2011, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,085,650 times
Reputation: 4365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimC2462 View Post
Huh? Your logic is flying all over the place and you're making it extremely difficult for anyone to follow along.

I haven't even mentioned anything about Fortune 100 or 500 companies, yet you conveniently threw another wrench into the mix.

Where is the list of the Fortune 500 companies that were NOT created in low tax, low service as you assert?

Show me your list of Fortune 500 companies.
No, the logic is rather clear. The Fortune 100/500 list are the most successful US businesses, I'm looking at the ones created recently (last 60 years or so) and identifying where they created. You'll find that the vast majority were created in states with high taxes, again, refuting the idea that high taxes are some how universally bad for businesses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-30-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,085,650 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
I'll keep it short TimC2462 :
2010's #'s (# of Fortune 500 companies sorted) ... Top 3 :
Texas 57
California 56
New York 56

Texas heading the pack is probably why Fortune 500 was left out.
You're not reading again, I was looking at where recent start-ups were founded, not all the companies. If you look at the Fortune 500 you see the same thing, namely that the vast majority of were founded in high tax states.

Most the Fortune 500 companies in Texas either are old or moved their headquarters there after being established.

Again, my claim is about start-up activity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 04:17 PM
 
2,093 posts, read 4,697,746 times
Reputation: 1121
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
No, the logic is rather clear. The Fortune 100/500 list are the most successful US businesses, I'm looking at the ones created recently (last 60 years or so) and identifying where they created. You'll find that the vast majority were created in states with high taxes, again, refuting the idea that high taxes are some how universally bad for businesses.
I'll find what?

SHOW me the list so I can see where you are drawing your conclusion from. Otherwise, you are just being vague and too general without adding anything to the discussion.

I find it interesting that you keep changing the rules of the debate as you go along. First, you stated that there are very few successful start ups that began in low taxes, low services in the last 50 years.

Now you are adding the criteria that they must belong to a Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies -- which I never mentioned about prior to your reply to me.

You've shown some Fortune 100 companies, but I have yet to see your list of Fortune 500 companies showing that they were not created in low tax, low service areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 04:20 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,505,495 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
You continuously distort what I've stated, you've not disproved anything but some straw man you've imagined.

In the comments you are quoting I was speaking about higher education spending. Higher education spending is more closely tied to innovation than K-12, though the latter is a factor. Again, its increased higher education spending that causes both innovation and increased taxes.


It does? How? Again you do nothing but distort. I posted numerous threads about universities and how high quality universities spur innovation in the business sector and now you pretend like I was talking about K-12?! My claims about K-12 were:

1.) California is currently underfunding its K-12, not over-funding as some would have you believe.
2.) California has a cost burden due to being a border state.

The information you just posted supports 1.), its amazing that you post supporting data yet think you're disproving me.

At this point I'm not sure whether you just have some serious reading comprehension problems or are intentionally distorting matters. Plus, I thought you were done?
K, here you go again ... now you're switching from K-12 and onto University spending .. The topic was on Education .. Namely K-12 which is where the majority of California's budget goes.... Logically that's where a conversation on spending would center.. on the areas where the majority of spending is concerned.. But go ahead again and play dumb...

Lets talk State spending on Universities then ... Lets play dumb ...
So we have some perspective. California's spending on public Universities account for ~8.3% of California's expenditures quite near the 7.2% it spends on jails ....

So you don't try yo wiggle out of your statements in subsequent posts. I am going to highlight it for you :

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Again, its increased higher education spending that causes both innovation and increased taxes.
I'll spend more time latter taking a crap on your assertions. Before I do, let me give you a link to US New's latest rankings of universities ...
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...l-universities
PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT ALL OF THE UNIVERSITIES IN THE TOP 10 ARE PRIVATE SCHOOLS
.. Even as you go from page to page .. the universities in the top rankings are private .

Innovation .. happens a great deal at these (Private) .. not (Public) universities.

Last edited by yeahthatguy; 03-30-2011 at 04:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 04:26 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,505,495 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
You're not reading again, I was looking at where recent start-ups were founded, not all the companies. If you look at the Fortune 500 you see the same thing, namely that the vast majority of were founded in high tax states.

Most the Fortune 500 companies in Texas either are old or moved their headquarters there after being established.

Again, my claim is about start-up activity.
Startups go where the VC money is. VS money is private money.
They have to be HQ'd somewhere and often interact directly w/ who they decide to fund.... i.e : Being able to walk out your office into lunch w/ your clients

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) is a world leading venture capital firm located on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park in Silicon Valley.

You seriously are pissing away at 1000's of variables when you try to come to your broad based conclusions.

There are 1000's of variables/weightings of such variables that result in the proper thing necessary for a successful startup to form. Even then there is chance. For instance, If a lot of smart people love good weather/warmth, what the hell does high taxation or even low taxation have to do w/ that heavy weighted variable. I didn't stay in the state where I went to University (#1 for my discipline at the time) namely do to the weather being crap and it being cold....

In my case, so much for the state spending tons of money on Higher ed.. Oh wait, the university i went to was private .... and I left anyway (brain drain) because the weather sucked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 04:55 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,897 posts, read 8,317,746 times
Reputation: 1911
BTW tax cuts do boost the economy ever so slightly but since the decision to move jobs occurs over the course of many years to several decades it often takes a very long time. For instance, Ohio's Republican governor just cut state income taxes by 22% claiming it would help the state's economy and create jobs; in 2005 they eliminated the state corporate income tax again claiming it would create jobs. These two massive tax cuts taken together just about equal the entire current state deficit yet recent studies (like the Upjohn study cited in the article linked to below) say the two tax cuts will only amount to a 2% increase in total employment over a... get this... 20 year period. Tax cuts have a very small very long term positive effect but a very real and very immediate cost.

States broke? Maybe they cut taxes too much | McClatchy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 05:00 PM
 
2,093 posts, read 4,697,746 times
Reputation: 1121
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
No, the logic is rather clear. The Fortune 100/500 list are the most successful US businesses, I'm looking at the ones created recently (last 60 years or so) and identifying where they created. You'll find that the vast majority were created in states with high taxes, again, refuting the idea that high taxes are some how universally bad for businesses.
Here, I'll help you:

Dell, Inc. Founded in 1984 in Austin, TX. Fortune # 38
Sysco, Inc. Founded in 1969 in Houstin, TX. Fortune # 55
Enterprise GP Holdings. Founded in 2005 in Houston, TX. Fortune # 92
Tesoro. Founded in 1968 in San Antonio, TX. Fortune # 139
Southwest Airlines. Founded in 1967 in Dallas, TX. Fortune # 229
XTO Energy. Founded in 1985 in Dallas, TX. Fortune # 258
Whole Foods Market. Founded in 1980 in Austin, TX. Fortune #284
Affiliated Computer Services. Founded in 1988 in Dallas, TX. Fortune 341
Devon Energy. Founded in 1971 in OKC, OK. Fortune 261
Chesapeake Energy. Founded in 1989 in OKC, OK. Fortune 296
FedEx, formerly FedEx Express. Fonded in 1971 in Memphis, Tenn. Fortune 60

Fortune 500 2010: States: Texas Companies - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

I could go on and on and on since I've only covered Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. The ones that made the list above are companies that were founded from the ground-up. Meaning, they were not created as a spin off or as a subsidiary or through mergers NOR were they the ones that relocated from elsewhere (I did not even include four corporations -- that I had came across --that had relocated from California after going through bankruptcy). Many of these, I excluded. Also, the companies above were founded in the last 60 years.

Now I await anxiously on how you'll find a way to refute my findings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,085,650 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimC2462 View Post
SHOW me the list so I can see where you are drawing your conclusion from. Otherwise, you are just being vague and too general without adding anything to the discussion.
I've already told you which list I'm referring to, are you unable to use a search engine or something?

In terms of adding criteria, that isn't the point, the Fortune 100/500 provides you with a list of successful companies and from these you can look at the ones that were started in the last 50~60 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 05:34 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,505,495 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
BTW tax cuts do boost the economy ever so slightly but since the decision to move jobs occurs over the course of many years to several decades it often takes a very long time. For instance, Ohio's Republican governor just cut state income taxes by 22% claiming it would help the state's economy and create jobs; in 2005 they eliminated the state corporate income tax again claiming it would create jobs. These two massive tax cuts taken together just about equal the entire current state deficit yet recent studies (like the Upjohn study cited in the article linked to below) say the two tax cuts will only amount to a 2% increase in total employment over a... get this... 20 year period. Tax cuts have a very small very long term positive effect but a very real and very immediate cost.

States broke? Maybe they cut taxes too much | McClatchy
What people keep on doing on this thread is pulling up data points from all over the spectrum of variables and keep trying to draw very STRONG conclusions from it. Your concluding statement is : UNFOUNDED by your data.

A reasonable level of taxation spent efficiently and intelligently is the holy grail. There is a law of diminishing returns at work w/ almost everything in nature. And in a given equation, you have multiple variables w/ many different weightings on the overall outcome.

What we keep refuting in this thread is that your conclusions are unfounded based on the data that you cite and based on a complete lack of representation of all the variables at play w/ accurate weightings on various discussed outcomes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,085,650 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimC2462 View Post
Here, I'll help you:

Dell, Inc. Founded in 1984 in Austin, TX. Fortune # 38
Sysco, Inc. Founded in 1969 in Houstin, TX. Fortune # 55
Enterprise GP Holdings. Founded in 2005 in Houston, TX. Fortune # 92
Tesoro. Founded in 1968 in San Antonio, TX. Fortune # 139
Southwest Airlines. Founded in 1967 in Dallas, TX. Fortune # 229
XTO Energy. Founded in 1985 in Dallas, TX. Fortune # 258
Whole Foods Market. Founded in 1980 in Austin, TX. Fortune #284
Affiliated Computer Services. Founded in 1988 in Dallas, TX. Fortune 341
Devon Energy. Founded in 1971 in OKC, OK. Fortune 261
Chesapeake Energy. Founded in 1989 in OKC, OK. Fortune 296
FedEx, formerly FedEx Express. Fonded in 1971 in Memphis, Tenn. Fortune 60

Now I await anxiously on how you'll find a way to refute my findings.
Help me with what? Sysco was included in my list, Dell was accidentally excluded. I intentionally excluded Fedex because it wasn't a start-up, it was founded with a massive some and it wasn't created in any particular location.

Some of the companies in your list aren't start-ups, like Fedex they were founded with massive capital. But you'll notice they are mostly companies based on fossil fuels and in Texas, this is the one area where Texas does well due to its history/natural resources. More importantly, this doesn't refute what I stated. I stated that the vast majority of recent companies on the Fortune 100/500 were created in high tax states, I never suggested that no companies were created in low tax states. The fact that you found so view tech companies, etc should demonstrate something to you....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top