Another example of California's economic decline.
Some new ads running in California...for the Nevada Redevelopment Agency,
http://www.latimes.com/business/taxe...,2691725.story
and the comments of a California Enrolled Agent re: this newspaper article,
http://www.taxabletalk.com/posts/1206929035.shtml
Re: Another example of California's economic decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PhaedrusZ
Which states are booming economically and experiencing population growth ?
Texas, Nevada and Idaho. What do they all have in common ? LOW taxes.
Which states are hurting the most ? New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and California. What do they have in common ? HIGH taxes and out of control spending.
Re: Another example of California's economic decline.
^^^ you also forgot to include the differential between the two groups of states on such cost factors as ...
- extra strict environmental laws with extra high compliance costs
- extra strict labor laws limiting the flexibility of employees
- extra generous workmen's comp / disability rulings by the state DOL, resulting in extra high workmen's comp premiums for employers
- extra generous employee / contractor vs employer rulings by the state DOL, resulting in extra high insurance costs for the employer
- subsidized utility cost state social welfare benefits for eligible low income state residents, resulting in extra high electric / natural gas prices for businesses and industries
- 'green power' mandates, resulting in extra high electric bills for everybody in the state
- extra high state minimum wage
what did I leave out ?
I would also add that overall population figures can be misleading. A recent analysis by NY and NJ showed that, even though the overall state population was shrinking slightly, this actually consisted of two components. A LOT of low skill level immigrants were moving into these states, and a LOT of middle class taxpayers were moving out of these states, resulting in a small net decline in population. However, in terms of state tax revenues, tax revenue consumers were moving in while tax revenue generators were leaving !
~
Re: Another example of California's economic decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ you also forgot to include the differential between the two groups of states on such cost factors as ...
- extra strict environmental laws with extra high compliance costs
- extra strict labor laws limiting the flexibility of employees
- extra generous workmen's comp / disability rulings by the state DOL, resulting in extra high workmen's comp premiums for employers
- extra generous employee / contractor vs employer rulings by the state DOL, resulting in extra high insurance costs for the employer
- subsidized utility cost state social welfare benefits for eligible low income state residents, resulting in extra high electric / natural gas prices for businesses and industries
- 'green power' mandates, resulting in extra high electric bills for everybody in the state
- extra high state minimum wage
what did I leave out ?
I would also add that overall population figures can be misleading. A recent analysis by NY and NJ showed that, even though the overall state population was shrinking slightly, this actually consisted of two components. A LOT of low skill level immigrants were moving into these states, and a LOT of middle class taxpayers were moving out of these states, resulting in a small net decline in population. However, in terms of state tax revenues, tax revenue consumers were moving in while tax revenue generators were leaving !
~
All true BUT the BIGGEST factor is TAXES. As for power costs, T.Boone Pickens is investing in WIND in the Mid-West. I always like to look where guys like Buffet and Pickens are putting THEIR money.
Re: Another example of California's economic decline.
Quote:
As for power costs, T.Boone Pickens is investing in WIND in the Mid-West. I always like to look where guys like Buffet and Pickens are putting THEIR money.
well, if you're a multi-millionaire, wind farms are a guaranteed win situation. First the gov't mandates that every kilowatt of wind power must be bought by the power grid, even if it is far more expensive than coal / nuclear power. Second, the gov't hands grant money to the wind farm developer, essentially subsidizing his rate of return on investment. And finally, for gazillionaires like Buffet and Pickens, every kilowatt of wind power is also granted a 'production tax credit' worth X cents, which can be applied on a dollar for dollar basis against other tax liabilities of the uber-rich high tax bracket investors. Still, that whole discussion is beside the point.
Another statistic that never gets any air time is the split out of 'new' jobs included in the state's employment statistics. Lately, where states in the high tax group are concerned, the trend has been for the state and local gov'ts to add new taxpayer funded public service jobs to offset the loss of private sector jobs. California's whole 3 billion dollar stem cell initiative is arguably based on this principle, to provide replacement white collar jobs funded by state stem cell grant money which offsets the loss of white collar private sector jobs at California's well known tech companies and/or financial companies. Unfortunately, these public sector paychecks must be funded by additional (future) tax revenues extracted from the remaining private sector businesses and workers.
California has already ratcheted up the tax burden for middle class white collar workers to the point where their standards of living are declining. Past caps on the rate of increase in property taxes are also providing for an annual increase in these property taxes despite a severe plunge in real estate prices. As cities see their social welfare benefit budgets continue to rise, they are chomping at the bit to increase sales taxes and fees wherever they can. The cumulative result of all this is that the screaming California middle class (or more likely the bankruptcy statistics for the California middle class) have finally conveyed to California politicians that never-ending tax increases on middle class workers isn't going to cut it. However, rather than reducing gov't spending they are now looking to cover their state budget deficit on the back of California business owners. The Nevada ad campaign is targeted at small and medium sized businesses, but the larger California businesses are already aware of the trend and have been planning accordingly for some time ( example Yahoo's huge Asian base of operations developed over the past several years, to name just one ).
Re: Another example of California's economic decline.
The funny thing is Texas is more green in it's power generation these days (wind power/biofuel/solar) than California is. Ca has strayed far from the ideology.
It has promoted punishing the current options instead of making new ones.
Of course, punishing the current options puts more money into the states coffers.
I left California because the work/earnings ration was getting bad. One works their ass off and then the government and COL takes it all. Many people I knew out there have followed me across the country as the compute the effort to reward numbers.
Re: Another example of California's economic decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
well, if you're a multi-millionaire, wind farms are a guaranteed win situation. First the gov't mandates that every kilowatt of wind power must be bought by the power grid, even if it is far more expensive than coal / nuclear power. Second, the gov't hands grant money to the wind farm developer, essentially subsidizing his rate of return on investment. And finally, for gazillionaires like Buffet and Pickens, every kilowatt of wind power is also granted a 'production tax credit' worth X cents, which can be applied on a dollar for dollar basis against other tax liabilities of the uber-rich high tax bracket investors. Still, that whole discussion is beside the point.
Another statistic that never gets any air time is the split out of 'new' jobs included in the state's employment statistics. Lately, where states in the high tax group are concerned, the trend has been for the state and local gov'ts to add new taxpayer funded public service jobs to offset the loss of private sector jobs. California's whole 3 billion dollar stem cell initiative is arguably based on this principle, to provide replacement white collar jobs funded by state stem cell grant money which offsets the loss of white collar private sector jobs at California's well known tech companies and/or financial companies. Unfortunately, these public sector paychecks must be funded by additional (future) tax revenues extracted from the remaining private sector businesses and workers.
California has already ratcheted up the tax burden for middle class white collar workers to the point where their standards of living are declining. Past caps on the rate of increase in property taxes are also providing for an annual increase in these property taxes despite a severe plunge in real estate prices. As cities see their social welfare benefit budgets continue to rise, they are chomping at the bit to increase sales taxes and fees wherever they can. The cumulative result of all this is that the screaming California middle class (or more likely the bankruptcy statistics for the California middle class) have finally conveyed to California politicians that never-ending tax increases on middle class workers isn't going to cut it. However, rather than reducing gov't spending they are now looking to cover their state budget deficit on the back of California business owners. The Nevada ad campaign is targeted at small and medium sized businesses, but the larger California businesses are already aware of the trend and have been planning accordingly for some time ( example Yahoo's huge Asian base of operations developed over the past several years, to name just one ).
Which is WHY you have to carefully differentiate between total new jobs and PRIVATE Sector jobs.
Re: Another example of California's economic decline.
^^^ tell me about it. The flagship newspaper in my own New York county reported a headline touting the fact that the region gained 'jobs' in 2007. When I went digging, it turns out that the region actually lost private sector jobs to the tune of 3% of total employment, but that federal, state and local gov't increased spending to create new public sector jobs in the same region to the tune of 4.5% of total employment ... thus yielding a statistic of 1.5% total job growth. Of course the news story did NOT point out this supposedly unimportant distinction LOL !!! Nor did the news story point out that future taxes will need to be increased to fund these additional public sector paychecks.