PDA

View Full Version : Maryland TRIED raising taxes on the 'rich' ... but the Rich Go Missing !



Pages : [1] 2

Melonie
05-26-2009, 09:14 PM
... this is actually a 'prequel' to attempts by other states, notably New York, New Jersey and California, to balance their budgets via enacting large state / local income tax increases which will 'supposedly' only affect highest income state residents.


(snip)Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."(snip)

from

glambman
05-27-2009, 03:26 AM
lolololol There was an article last week dealing with unemployment stats. The Democratic controlled areas had a rate 20% higher then nonDemocrat areas.

Eric Stoner
05-27-2009, 08:10 AM
... this is actually a 'prequel' to attempts by other states, notably New York, New Jersey and California, to balance their budgets via enacting large state / local income tax increases which will 'supposedly' only affect highest income state residents.


(snip)Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."(snip)

from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

There are a number of reasons for this phenomenon :

1. The "rich" did not make a lot of money last year because of the Market Crash and Financial Crisis.

2. A LOT of "rich" people live in Maryland BUT for tax purposes they are residents of another state. Some of the worst offenders are Democrat Congresspeople and Senators along with a LOT of highly paid appointees, bureaucrats and lobbyists.
George H.W. Bush lived in Washington, D.C. for 12 years but for tax purposes he was a Texas resident. Bill and Hill were residents of Arkansas; Gore, Tennessee; Nixon and Reagan, California ( before fiscal madness set in ), G.W., Texas; Cheney, Wyoming ;etc. etc.

3. The tax lawyers and CPA's of America should send a gigantic Thank You Note and at least a dozen big fruit baskets to the Maryland Legislature. They were working overtime minimizing income; maximizing losses and deductions and using all sorts of other legal means to reduce taxable income for Maryland 's wealthier residents.
What was it Fitzgerald and Hemingway supposedly said : " The rich are different from you and I " - "Yes. They have more money." And now we can add : "They have better lawyers and accountants."

4. Two of the four wealthiest counties in the U.S. are in Maryland. Howard and Montgomery Counties are both suburbs of D.C. As are the other two: Fairfax and Loudon Counties in Virginia.

5. The MOST important reason : Money and PEOPLE are mobile.

hockeybobby
05-27-2009, 03:37 PM
Not everyone gets mad at taxes and runs away to another country Mel....as much as you might like to think they would. Some people see value in the services they pay for.

rlams2000
05-27-2009, 07:54 PM
Those poor oppressed millionaires! They should have a tea party by dumping their gold bars into the ocean in whatever banana republic they live. That'll teach those democrats.

Eric Stoner
05-28-2009, 07:35 AM
Not everyone gets mad at taxes and runs away to another country Mel....as much as you might like to think they would. Some people see value in the services they pay for.

You continually miss the obvious: People are assuaged when paying taxes when they, THEMSELVES, can see a benefit from same. What they don't like and don't want to pay for is having their money taken away to be given to somebody else who is supposedly more "worthy".

Eric Stoner
05-28-2009, 07:36 AM
Those poor oppressed millionaires! They should have a tea party by dumping their gold bars into the ocean in whatever banana republic they live. That'll teach those democrats.

This is the sort of superficial thinking and class envy that breeds disastrous policy.

threlayer
05-28-2009, 09:21 AM
"Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%..."

"One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline...."

"No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised..."

Since the uber-rich have plenty money to hire experts in tax-avoidance techniques, perhaps they have gotten busy doing that.

In any case the progressive marginal tax rate system is due for a huge overhaul with even lower rates reaching a bit fartyher down inincome and higher rates reaching farther up into higher incomes, with fewer loopholes, meaning a LOT of simplification.

There are plenty of cases where lower-middle class people are taxed into the poor class. And many of cases where the uber-rich place greater burdens on the system, especially of local/state resources, than any equivalent (in taxes) collection of the poor ever could.

I'm sure everyone who is in the rich class has made their choices of places to reside, ad where they have their second,third etc homes. They are not going to find any better places to live than in the USA, unless their lifestyles have extenuating circumstances. And if they do, it's probably better that way.

threlayer
05-28-2009, 09:32 AM
In any case I believe the progressive marginal tax rate system for both federal and state taxes must be greatly modified. I'd like to see, on the low end, greater penetration of even lower tax rates (not stopping at 10%) with more realistic considerations of the cost of the essentials of life (food, healthcare, shelter, work expenses). And I'd like to see a much greater increase in marginal rates, but at a lower acceleration, at higher incomes, with vastly fewer loopholes and simplifications.

hockeybobby
05-28-2009, 10:10 AM
You continually miss the obvious: People are assuaged when paying taxes when they, THEMSELVES, can see a benefit from same. What they don't like and don't want to pay for is having their money taken away to be given to somebody else who is supposedly more "worthy".

You miss the point Eric. "Worthy" has got nothing to do with it. Pitching in and helping fellow citizens who need help is only one part of what taxes can do in the best countries. Most of it goes towards services that everyone needs, including the rich.

Eric Stoner
05-28-2009, 11:02 AM
You miss the point Eric. "Worthy" has got nothing to do with it. Pitching in and helping fellow citizens who need help is only one part of what taxes can do in the best countries. Most of it goes towards services that everyone needs, including the rich.

There is a kernel of truth to that. People generally ARE willing to pay higher taxes for BETTER services. Not higher for the same and certainly not more for less.

Deogol
05-28-2009, 12:53 PM
Not everyone gets mad at taxes and runs away to another country Mel....as much as you might like to think they would. Some people see value in the services they pay for.

Only in Canada.

In the US, they will tax you for a new road and then stick a toll booth on it.

Deogol
05-28-2009, 12:55 PM
Those poor oppressed millionaires! They should have a tea party by dumping their gold bars into the ocean in whatever banana republic they live. That'll teach those democrats.

Democratically controlled areas have the highest unemployment rates and asset deflation.

I would say they are getting a lesson already.

glambman
05-28-2009, 12:57 PM
Democratically controlled areas have the highest unemployment rates

I read an article earlier this week about this, unemployment is 20% higher in Democratic controlled areas.

Earl_the_Pearl
05-28-2009, 02:43 PM
I read an article earlier this week about this, unemployment is 20% higher in Democratic controlled areas.
Democratic areas are blue collar working class so of course they would be hit the hardest. It is the horse and sparrow trickle down economics; the horse doesn't have as much hay.

Eric Stoner
05-29-2009, 07:11 AM
Democratic areas are blue collar working class so of course they would be hit the hardest. It is the horse and sparrow trickle down economics; the horse doesn't have as much hay.

Oh ? How about high tax, high tech, "white collar" states like N.Y., N.J. and of course, C A L I F O R N I A ?

Earl_the_Pearl
05-29-2009, 07:34 AM
Oh ? How about high tax, high tech, "white collar" states like N.Y., N.J. and of course, C A L I F O R N I A ?

I don't know as I did not read the article; I was just making a little joke. Very little; poof there it gos.

threlayer
05-29-2009, 09:07 AM
Democratically controlled areas have the highest unemployment rates and asset deflation.

I would say they are getting a lesson already.

Those 'Democratically controlled areas' are the large cities, where the poor tend to congregate, since they cannot make it in the country and can't find places to live in the suburbs. Due to mass exodus a generation or three ago, the cheaper places to live are largely rented out, often by slumlords.

Eric Stoner
05-29-2009, 09:50 AM
Those 'Democratically controlled areas' are the large cities, where the poor tend to congregate, since they cannot make it in the country and can't find places to live in the suburbs. Due to mass exodus a generation or three ago, the cheaper places to live are largely rented out, often by slumlords.

And WHO created the policies that attracted all those poor people and kept them poor ?
Who disincentivized work and incentivized illegitimacy ?
Who created, maintained and defended a school system that perpetuated illiteracy and lack of English proficiency ?
Who taxed, regulated and zoned many employers out of business or into re-locating ?

Earl_the_Pearl
05-29-2009, 01:45 PM
And WHO created the policies that attracted all those poor people and kept them poor ?


It was the people that settled the Americas.

hockeybobby
05-29-2009, 07:14 PM
And WHO created the policies that attracted all those poor people and kept them poor ?
Who disincentivized work and incentivized illegitimacy ?
Who created, maintained and defended a school system that perpetuated illiteracy and lack of English proficiency ?
Who taxed, regulated and zoned many employers out of business or into re-locating ?

Blaming all the poor and uneducated people on Democrats?

That's....rich! lol

Melonie
05-29-2009, 10:14 PM
^^^ ahhh ... if only the Canadian gov't would allow the immigration of 'poor' Americans, as well as international refugees, maybe I wouldn't have been pushed to move out of New York !



For a fact, Canada is much more difficult to immigrate to than the USA ... at least in the case where the would-be immigrant has low level skills. This is of course a logical development in a country that has very generous social welfare benefits and comparatively high tax rates necessary to fund those benefits. In other words, by denying international refugees entry into Canada, and thus forcing the US to 'take up the slack', middle class Canadian taxpayers are spared the expense of providing social welfare benefits to said refugees ... while US / New York taxpayers do NOT escape such expense. Does that make Canada smart or selfish ?

Earl_the_Pearl
05-29-2009, 10:40 PM
^^^ ahhh ... if only the Canadian gov't would allow the immigration of 'poor' Americans, as well as international refugees, maybe I wouldn't have been pushed to move out of New York !


Did you read my comment on who brought the poor to the US of A?

Melonie
05-29-2009, 11:07 PM
It was the people that settled the Americas

There's a major flaw in your 'history'. Again not wanting to swing too far away from the economics and toward the politics, but for a fact the people that settled the Americas did not enact policies that KEPT poor immigrants poor !!! Prior to the 1930's at least ... and prior to the 1960's for certain, 'poor' people living in America had a strong incentive to work their way out of poverty. This began to change under FDR ... and changed in a big way under LBJ ... because they both enacted policies which created a 'moral hazard' for poor Americans who chose to work their asses off ! That 'moral hazard' took the form of an increasing paycheck resulting in a direct loss of social welfare benefits.

Put another way, thanks to FDR / LBJ social welfare programs, the 'compassion' of generous gov't benefits was directly juxtaposed against previous incentives towards hard work. As Stoner has already pointed out, it was these policies which resulted in fatherless families (i.e. single mom is eligible for social welfare benefits but mom & dad household is not). It was these policies which resulted in many 'poor' Americans refusing to work at minimum wage ( or close to minimum wage) jobs, because the resulting after tax paycheck does not offset the lost cash value of subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, medicaid, food stamps, and other lost social welfare benefits once their earnings exceed the $21k per year threshold for full eligibility.

This 'moral hazard' situation regarding social welfare benefit generosity and eligibility is a 'recent' development i.e. it post-dates your American settlers by at least 150 years ! However, the LBJ 'great society' programs and their descendants have been around for three generations now. Arguably, these generous social welfare programs have strongly contributed towards poor Americans remaining poor ... via the culture of public housing, via the culture of fatherless families, by 'penalizing' the work efforts of the poor ( i.e. standard of living will not improve between $21k income level and $35k income level due to loss of gov't benefits which must now be paid for out of pocket), by the lack of a 'work ethic' example in many poor families, by low expectations / low quality education in urban schools with a high concentration of students from poor families, etc. And like it or not, like 'grandfather' FDR and 'father' LBJ, the architects of these generous social welfare programs, public housing programs, urban school systems etc. are almost without exception Democrats !

~

Earl_the_Pearl
05-29-2009, 11:14 PM
There's a major flaw in your 'history'. Again not wanting to swing too far away from the economics and toward the politics, but for a fact the people that settled the Americas did not enact policies that KEPT poor immigrants poor !!!

I will not go into it in an open form. Chech P.M.

hockeybobby
05-30-2009, 07:23 AM
^^^ ahhh ... if only the Canadian gov't would allow the immigration of 'poor' Americans, as well as international refugees, maybe I wouldn't have been pushed to move out of New York !

http://www.ccrweb.ca/Security.htm

For a fact, Canada is much more difficult to immigrate to than the USA ... at least in the case where the would-be immigrant has low level skills. This is of course a logical development in a country that has very generous social welfare benefits and comparatively high tax rates necessary to fund those benefits. In other words, by denying international refugees entry into Canada, and thus forcing the US to 'take up the slack', middle class Canadian taxpayers are spared the expense of providing social welfare benefits to said refugees ... while US / New York taxpayers do NOT escape such expense. Does that make Canada smart or selfish ?

Oh sure Blame Canada!!!

http://camerafraud.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/blamecanada.jpg

threlayer
05-30-2009, 07:59 AM
And WHO created the policies that attracted all those poor people and kept them poor ?
Agriculture became mechanized and big business moved in, putting the poor out of work. Big business needed more labor and they thought they could find jobs in cities. White, middle-class people weren't used to seeing them and their lifestyles, so they moved out of the cities and into the suburbs. These were working class people who initially had low skills needed for this type of work, so income stayed low. City services like police and education were lowered because of low income and ability to pay taxes. Lack of good education and local work opportunities combined with slumlord techniques to lower their expectations.


Who disincentivized work and incentivized illegitimacy ? Our local governments initially thru the process describe above. And when they as a population became destitute, state and federal governments stepped in with welfare. You know where it went after that.


Who created, maintained and defended a school system that perpetuated illiteracy and lack of English proficiency ? As described above.


Who taxed, regulated and zoned many employers out of business or into re-locating ? Employers often did that because they personally moved out of the area and/or couldn't find enough workers for their businesses that remained in the inner cities.

You probably aren't going back far enough to realize the entire process (which I have only barely scratched thru here), so you are only thinking of Johnson et al. You are only looking at the effect, not the cause. Lyndon Johnson was the first president to be sympathetic to these people; I'm sure he's rolling over in his grave from what he's seen of his legacy. Eisenhower's administration initiated giving them their full civil rights, which is the only thing given them since the previous Johnson adinistration in the 1870s.

Earl_the_Pearl
05-30-2009, 08:05 AM
I was disappointed to find that your heads don't split in the middle when you talk;
EHH

.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kG5aLftJ0Kg/SW0vj94X-EI/AAAAAAAAAAk/l1tWsicg9Z0/S660/SouthPark4.jpg

threlayer
05-30-2009, 08:47 AM
...For a fact, Canada is much more difficult to immigrate to than the USA ... at least in the case where the would-be immigrant has low level skills. This is of course a logical development in a country that has very generous social welfare benefits and comparatively high tax rates necessary to fund those benefits. In other words, by denying international refugees entry into Canada, and thus forcing the US to 'take up the slack', middle class Canadian taxpayers are spared the expense of providing social welfare benefits to said refugees ... while US / New York taxpayers do NOT escape such expense. Does that make Canada smart or selfish ?

You are not considering the geography of the system, so you are missing at least half of the issues. Remember Mexico in particular (and the rest of Central America) is much closer to the USA. And the USA is good enough for these illegal inmmigrants. They have no incentive to move north and cross yet another border.

Also Canada has a much smaller population than does the USA. A few hundred thousand from Asia and Europe in the US would be equivalent to a few millions to Canada in terms of impact. So they need to be much more circumspect.

The problem with USA immigration is really the illegal issue, which affects the US because no real screening can be in place, such as skill levels. A long, porous boundary, poorly patrolled (at least on one side), completes the unfortunate southern boundary situation. The northern Canadian boundary has two competent Border Patrols to enforce crossings. In fact terrorists are more likely clandestinely to cross the US southern border. And now we hve the drug wars, deserving of an entirely different border thread.

I have no idea how this Maryland OP issue went so far south.

Earl_the_Pearl
05-30-2009, 09:21 AM
I have no idea how this Maryland OP issue went so far south.

All threads get side tracked, more so when the original topic has run its course.

As for guarding the boarder to keep people in nether Canada or the US of A has a check for people leaving around Buffalo/Toronto. It's like don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

After June 1 a US citizen can leave the US and enter Canada without a passport but can't come back.:stop:
They will have to stay with the draft dodgers I ass/u/me.

hockeybobby
05-30-2009, 10:16 AM
As for guarding the boarder to keep people in nether Canada or the US of A has a check for people leaving around Buffalo/Toronto. It's like don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

After June 1 a US citizen can leave the US and enter Canada without a passport but can't come back.:stop:
They will have to stay with the draft dodgers I ass/u/me.

Check this out:

What passport? Rule surprises Bush, Clinton








May 30, 2009 04:30 AM
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush admitted yesterday they had no idea the U.S. was implementing a new rule Monday that would require Canadians and Americans to have passports to cross the border.
The former presidents were caught off guard during a 90-minute joint appearance in Toronto when moderator Frank McKenna, the former Canadian ambassador to the U.S., spoke about how Canadians feel slighted by the new rule.
"I'll be frank with you Frank, I don't know about the passport issue," Bush told the crowd of 6,000.
"I thought we were making good progress on using a driver's licence to cross the border. What happened to the E-Z card?"
Clinton said he'd only heard about the passport requirement a day earlier, adding that in all likelihood most Americans were completely unaware of it as well.
That could mean far fewer Americans coming to Canada, which would be bad for the economy and our relationship, warned Clinton.
"I promise you, you have got my attention with this, so I'm going back home I'll see if there is anything else I can do," he said to cheers from the audience.
"I'd like to hear Homeland Security's defence of the passport issue."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/642976

Earl_the_Pearl
05-30-2009, 10:39 AM
Check this out:

What passport? Rule surprises Bush, Clinton



Those two trivial on diplomatic passports and are not subject to what the regular traveler has to go through; they are a strange pair. I'll bet they get allot of action though.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v17/earlcamembert/Ihitit.jpg
A passport is only required if one travails by air. A passport or a passport card or travel card or enhanced drivers license may be used for travel by car, boat or foot. Only a few states will be offering enhanced drivers licenses as of now. The travel card is harder to get then a passport. The pass port card is as easy to get as a passport and can be issued at the same time.

Native Americans can get a tibial ID and cross the boarder.

After June 1 no more regular picture ID to cross the boarder.

http://www.getyouhome.gov/html/gpx/img_passport.jpghttp://www.getyouhome.gov/html/gpx/img_passport_card.jpghttp://www.getyouhome.gov/html/gpx/img_ttp1.gifhttp://www.getyouhome.gov/html/gpx/NY_EDL.jpg

Eric Stoner
06-01-2009, 07:44 AM
Agriculture became mechanized andf big business moved in, puttting them out of work. Big business needed more labor and they thought they could find jobs there. White, middle-class people weren't used to seeing tem and their lifestyles, so they move out of the cities and into the suburbs. These were working class people who initially had low skills needed for this type of work, so income stayed low. City services like police and education were lowered because of low income and ability to pay taxes. Lack of good education and local work opportunities combined with slumlord techniques to lower their expectations.

Our local governments initially thru the process describe above. And when they as a population became destitute state and federal governments stepped in with welfare. You know where it went after that.

As described above.

Employers often did that because they personally moved out of the area and/or couldn't find enough workers for their businesses that remained in the inner cities.

You probably aren't going back far enough to realize the entire process (which I have only barely scratched thru here), so you are only thinking of Johnson et al. You are only looking at the effect, not the cause. Lyndon Johnson was the first president to be sympathetic to these people; I'm sure he's rolling over in his grave from what he's seen of his legacy. Eisenhower's administration initiated giving them their full civil rights, which is the only thing given them since the previous Johnson adinistration in the 1870s.

Sorry but one set of facts for everybody. Poor rural Blacks and Puerto Ricans were drawn to major cities like Detroit, Chicago and New York by JOBS and the lack of overt Jim Crow type discrimination. At the time, there were low skilled jobs for them. Today, most of those remaining jobs are filled by ILLEGAL immigrants.

In return for their votes, D E M O C R A T machines provided them with welfare and other benefits. THEY created the welfare system that encouraged illegitimacy. THEY supported the UFT, AFT and NEA that cfreated failures like Bilingual Education, "Black English" and lowered standards for students and teachers alike. They have fought vouchers and Charter schools to perpetuate the failed public school monopoly.

High taxes and over-regulation plus an explosion in Municipal employment raised costs for many businesses and drove them to the cheaper suburbs or down South . They did NOT move out for lack of workers.

Melonie
06-01-2009, 09:09 AM
I have no idea how this Maryland OP issue went so far south.

It seems that we've come full circle in regard to Maryland's increased personal income taxes ... which drove 1000 former Maryland millionaires south LOL !

threlayer
06-01-2009, 12:16 PM
Sorry but one set of facts for everybody....

In return for their votes, D E M O C R A T machines provided them with welfare and other benefits....

High taxes and over-regulation plus an explosion in Municipal employment raised costs for many businesses and drove them to the cheaper suburbs or down South . They did NOT move out for lack of workers.

The set of facts has to be yours? LOL

If you re-read my sketchy 1 para summary, you will find that our are similar. However, I tried to say away from your political agenda. Far as business move-out, there are/were any number of causes: insufficient supply of trainable employees, land requirements for expansion, better access to transportation, etc. Taxes sometimes were an incentive, especially if that's all one concentrates on. (Of course now taxes typically are lower in the cities due to incentives.)

threlayer
06-01-2009, 12:20 PM
^^ Other factors, involving cost of living and traffic, are pretty extreme in areas around DC. I can't help thinking that those are legitimate reasons for moving out too. Not every motivation is tax-oriented.

Eric Stoner
06-01-2009, 12:47 PM
^^ Other factors, involving cost of living and traffic, are pretty extreme in areas around DC. I can't help thinking that those are legitimate reasons for moving out too. Not every motivation is tax-oriented.

The traffic in and around D.C. is nothing compared to N.Y. or L.A.

The cost of living in 4 of D.C.'s surrounding counties is relatively modest compared to a number of other parts of the U.S.

Other than Government and government related business; what do you claim are the major employers in and around the D.C. Beltway ?

Eric Stoner
06-01-2009, 12:50 PM
The set of facts has to be yours? LOL

If you re-read my sketchy 1 para summary, you will find that our are similar. hopwever, I tried to say away from your political agenda. Far as business move-out, there are/were any causes: insufficient supply of trainable employees, land requirements for expansion, better access to transportation, etc. Taxes sometimes were an incentive, especialy if that's all one concentrates on. (Of course now taxes typically are lower in the cities due to incentives.)

Please show me one major employer who bolted Detroit, New York, Newark, Pittsburgh etc. because of a lack of "trainable employees" ? Or more land or better transportation ? Show me one business that relocated so that they could pay HIGHER taxes ?

threlayer
06-01-2009, 02:49 PM
Please show me one major employer who bolted Detroit, New York, Newark, Pittsburgh etc. because of a lack of "trainable employees" ? Or more land or better transportation ?
Chrysler in Syracuse had a plant almost downtown, about a quarter mile. They had a need, probably inabout 1960, to expand, but no land was available and they rail transport they needed was not available, so they built a new plant in Dewitt, a suburb. That suburb plant (New Process Gear) now is owned by Magna from Canada. They union voted three times not to lower wages, benefits etc; Magna now states they will close the plant. (IMO stupid not to take any one of the company's proposals.)

Show me one business that relocated so that they could pay HIGHER taxes ? Higher? I don't know any. Nor did I say I knew any. Taxes in the suburbs are now higher than they would have been in the city.

threlayer
06-01-2009, 03:08 PM
The traffic in and around D.C. is nothing compared to N.Y. or L.A.

The cost of living in 4 of D.C.'s surrounding counties is relatively modest compared to a number of other parts of the U.S.

Other than Government and government related business; what do you claim are the major employers in and around the D.C. Beltway ?

It's been a prestigious place to live for centuries. Beyond government as the employer, it's mostly white collar nearest DC. Lots of consulting outfits, think thanks, and some manufacturing, depending on just how far away one gets. COL is stiff around DC, moreso the closer one gets, even to the edge of Fairfax and Prince George counties and up thru Silver Springs. I'm sure there are a couple of higher COL locations in the USA somewhere. Modest??? I've never heard any of my DC friends call it 'modest.' Maybe their high incomes they'd call modest. LOL

Eric Stoner
06-02-2009, 06:55 AM
It's been a prestigious place to live for centuries. Beyond government as the employer, it's mostly white collar nearest DC. Lots of consulting outfits, think thanks, and some manufacturing, depending on just how far away one gets. COL is stiff around DC, moreso the closer one gets, even to the edge of Fairfax and Prince George counties and up thru Silver Springs. I'm sure there are a couple of higher COL locations in the USA somewhere. Modest??? I've never heard any of my DC friends call it 'modest.' Maybe their high incomes they'd call modest. LOL

In and around D. C. it is ALL Government and Academia. What do you think drives the "consultants" and "think tanks" ?

Compared to the country as a whole the D.C. suburban COL is relatively high. Compared to N.Y. , L.A., N.J. etc. it is LESS. The biggest factor is relatively high local property taxes.

Eric Stoner
06-02-2009, 06:58 AM
Chrysler in Syracuse had a plant almost downtown, about a quarter mile. They had a need, probably inabout 1960, to expand, but no land was available and they rail transport they needed was not available, so they built a new plant in Dewitt, a suburb. That suburb plant (New Process Gear) now is owned by Magna from Canada. They union voted three times not to lower wages, benefits etc; Magna now states they will close the plant. (IMO stupid not to take any one of the company's proposals.)
Higher? I don't know any. Nor did I say I knew any. Taxes in the suburbs are now higher than they would have been in the city.

Thank you for helping prove my point. You had to go all the way back to 1960 and as we both know, DeWitt is within VERY easy driving distance of the 'Cuse. And the union voted three times to whistle past the graveyard. What a shock !

threlayer
06-02-2009, 02:54 PM
Yes. However, Dewitt is not in Syracuse, about 10-12 miles away. It's easy because of roads built since then. Which is my point for that one example I'm most familiar with the details of. The ~1960 proves my point that this is a long-standing social issue, not something you can blame on the Democrats.

threlayer
06-02-2009, 03:03 PM
In and around D. C. it is ALL Government and Academia. What do you think drives the "consultants" and "think tanks" ?

Compared to the country as a whole the D.C. suburban COL is relatively high. Compared to N.Y. , L.A., N.J. etc. it is LESS. The biggest factor is relatively high local property taxes.

Any idiot knows the government funds the consulting and think tank businesses around DC. That's why there are so many of them, and why salaries and COL are so high.

Further the COL is getting higher all the time in the suburbs and thefar suburbs, as that land is being developed for more and more government-parasitic businesses and the government itself. This has been the case for many decades. I'll give you that Manhattan is more expensive simply because of the scarity of land and the inexplicable demand to live there, if you call that living. Each area you mentioned including DC has a guiding force mainly responsible for pushing up the COL to far beyond the country's average.

Eric Stoner
06-03-2009, 07:45 AM
Any idiot knows the government funds the consulting and think tank businesses around DC. That's why there are so many of them, and why salaries and COL are so high.

Further the COL is getting higher all the time in the suburbs and thefar suburbs, as that land is being developed for more and more government-parasitic businesses and the government itself. This has been the case for many decades. I'll give you that Manhattan is more expensive simply because of the scarity of land and the inexplicable demand to live there, if you call that living. Each area you mentioned including DC has a guiding force mainly responsible for pushing up the COL to far beyond the country's average.

Not when you look at COL vs. INCOME. Counties around D.C. with relatively high COL also have the four highest median INCOMES in the country : Fairfax and Loudon in Va. and the two in Md.

What is the "guiding force" that makes San Francisco so expensive and keeps Dallas; Austin; Houston and San Antonio affordable ?

Eric Stoner
06-03-2009, 07:47 AM
Yes. However, Dewitt is not in Syracuse, about 10-12 miles away. It's easy because of roads built since then. Which is my point for that one example I'm most familiar with the details of. The ~1960 proves my point that this is a long-standing social issue, not something you can blame on the Democrats.

While not always exclusive to the Dems, government policy is the prime reason for an area being either hospitable or hostile to business.

threlayer
06-04-2009, 10:10 AM
While not always exclusive to the Dems, government policy is the prime reason for an area being either hospitable or hostile to business.

..plus lack of transportation, climate/terrain, sufficiently educated workers and social development, cohort business development, etc. Lot's more than government alone.

Eric Stoner
06-04-2009, 11:40 AM
..plus lack of transportation, climate/terrain, sufficiently educated workers and social development, cohort business development, etc. Lot's more than government alone.

This is ridiculous. The U.S. hasn't been virgin territory for business in over a century. Businesses stay where they are welcome and if they are being properly run, where costs do not adversely affect their profit margin. They start up or relocate based on the same factors.

If the transportation and supply of workers is not adequate, no sane business will stay in such an area.

As for "climate/terrain" I'm not familiar with any ski resorts in Florida or citrus groves in Minnesota.

Obviously, you are struggling to try and avoid acknowledging the obvious : That California, N.Y., N.J. and other states with a heavy handed government have lost businesses and taxpaying citizens as a direct result of their stupid policies. That their loss has been the gain of states like Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Idaho.

threlayer
06-04-2009, 06:59 PM
Businesses stay where they are welcome and if they are being properly run, where costs do not adversely affect their profit margin. They start up or relocate based on the same factors.You forget that costs and the other factors I listed are not all controlled by federal and state governments. Must be your lack of experience.


That California, N.Y., N.J. and other states with a heavy handed government have lost businesses and taxpaying citizens as a direct result of their stupid policies. That their loss has been the gain of states like Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Idaho. That part is obvious to me. What you are missing is the part of local governments in maitaining a good business climate. Also how you explain the severe loss of jobs in other states like North Carolina?

Eric Stoner
06-05-2009, 06:56 AM
You forget that costs and the other factors I listed are not all controlled by federal and state governments. Must be your lack of experience.

That part is obvious to me. What you are missing is the part of local governments in maitaining a good business climate. Also how you explain the severe loss of jobs in other states like North Carolina?

I hope you're sitting down because I'm going to admit to not knowing something.
While I am aware that both Carolinas have relatively high rates of unemployment, I am not sure what all the specific factors are. I DO know that South Carolina's Governor is struggling trying to maintain fiscal sanity and has turned down part of the Federal stimulus money because his state would be obligated to spend the same money, entirely on its own, in the near future.

Duh, you mean government can't control the climate ? Has anyone told Al Gore ?