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.
Sure, but like welfare for individuals it exists to varying degrees from state to state.
California has some needless and stupid regulations, but I think its odd that people think its good that Texas allows businesses more freedom to pollute.
Okay, I think the government should provide an environment that empowers people and not mega-corporations. The Texan model has not produced good results for every day people.
Right, this recession has hit California much harder than Texas. Before the recession the two states had similar unemployment rates.
But why? Shouldn't Texans be self-reliant? Why have public universities at all? This just demonstrates that there are actually people in Texas that understand the importance of strong social systems.
I do not equate "social services" per se with education. Maybe you do. I am a believer in public education.
No and if you actually read what I said you'd know that. I said that you can't compare a profit tax with a gross-profit tax, it makes absolutely no sense. You can't even compare corporate tax rates as the deductions, etc always differ.
Well, at least you aren't making the ridiculous claim that the CA overall business tax burden is lower than Texas. In your previous replies, it sure seemed like you were implying that, and using deductions to back up the claim. Glad to know that is not the case.
However, let's get back to the more salient point here -- the one we initially disagreed on. Regarding VC investment (again, only a minor component in this discussion, but something you seem unable to understand) you wrote:
Quote:
Texas does not do "A lot better" than the rest of the US. Its level of VC is about average, it does better than say the rust-belt but does worse than much of the west and New England.
and
Quote:
why [does Texas get] so little Venture Capital compared to other areas
This is false. When presented with evidence that Texas consistently scores in the top 5 for total VC $$, you brushed that off claiming that per-capita VC was the more important metric. Well, here is a ranking of per-capita VC:
State-by-state comparison of per capita venture capital spending | Mixed Media | STLtoday (http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/multimedia-archive/2010/05/21/state-by-state-comparison-of-per-capita-venture-capital-spending/ - broken link)
Texas is not in the top 5 on that list... but it is #6. Perhaps math is not your strong point, so I am compelled to spell it out for you: better than 44 out of 50 states = better than "most states".
Credibility check here: Will you now admit that Texas does better than most states in VC investment?
Because if we can't get past that simple error on your part, there really is no reason to continue this discussion.
Sure, but like welfare for individuals it exists to varying degrees from state to state.
California has some needless and stupid regulations, but I think its odd that people think its good that Texas allows businesses more freedom to pollute.
It's just a matter of where states, and the citizens they represent, feel they can best use their money.
I do not equate "social services" per se with education. Maybe you do. I am a believer in public education.
Public education is a social service, but regardless you said that you think people should be "self-reliant". How is government provided education self-reliance?
Well, at least you aren't making the ridiculous claim that the CA overall business tax burden is lower than Texas.
I never suggested that, rather I suggested that looking at aggregate tax rates is not helpful for a particular business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxcio
State-by-state comparison of per capita venture capital spending | Mixed Media | STLtoday (http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/multimedia-archive/2010/05/21/state-by-state-comparison-of-per-capita-venture-capital-spending/ - broken link)
I actually looked this up and crunched the numbers before I even commented on it and I have no idea what this article is basing its numbers on (and they don't say), in fact it conflicts with the very sources it pretends to use. Take the Colorado vs Texas example, in 2008 the numbers are such:
Colorado: $190/per capita
Texas: $50/per capita.
The numbers are similar for other years as well (except for a spike during the dot-com bubble).
SSTI State Venture Capital Dashboard (http://www.ssti.org/vc/colorado/all.php - broken link)
SSTI State Venture Capital Dashboard (http://www.ssti.org/vc/texas/all.php - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxcio
Credibility check here: Will you now admit that Texas does better than most states in VC investment?
Will you actually look at the data instead of trying to search the web for empty articles that merely confirm what you want to believe? They claim their source is ssti, yet the ssti data is much different. I checked with the ssti data before I made my original assertion.
I guess Texas businesses will depend on a brain drain from other states.
I know I have thought a lot about moving to Dallas.
Exactly, Texas is not making enough investments in its social systems but is able to lure some people with its lower cost of living. It would be interesting to know the ratio of Texas natives vs transplants in high-skilled jobs.
Public education is a social service, but regardless you said that you think people should be "self-reliant". How is government provided education self-reliance?
This is a silly argument. Self reliant doesn't mean educate yourself. Public education is a long standing collection of programs that most accept is a reasonable role for government. The government doesn't provide higher education for free. They fund it - and it is up to you to qualify and pay for it.
This is a silly argument. Self reliant doesn't mean educate yourself.
That would be a silly argument, nobody could educate themselves. Fortunately that is not the point at all, rather should education be a private service (like most things in this country) or provided by the government? How exactly is government provided education "self-reliant" when the vast majority of people don't pay the full costs of this education? Lower income folks are able to go to school (or send their kids to school) at the cost of higher income folks, how is that self-reliance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
The government doesn't provide higher education for free. They fund it - and it is up to you to qualify and pay for it.
Huh? The tuition at public universities is subsidized by the state/feds, kids going to public universities are not paying the full costs of attendance.
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.
