Leftists Never Have Enough Of Our Money...

[seer]

California Democrats want businesses to give half their tax-cut savings to state

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...f-12508742.php

[JimL]

California Democrats want businesses to give half their tax-cut savings to state

That's one way to counteract the tax cut for the wealthy bill. Besides it's not your money seer, you're not a corporation, you live in Conneticutt.

[rogue06]

California Democrats want businesses to give half their tax-cut savings to state

And they wonder why businesses are pulling up stakes and moving out of California.











Smiley squirrel.gif XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx Smiley squirrel.gif

[seer]

That's one way to counteract the tax cut for the wealthy bill. Besides it's not your money seer, you're not a corporation, you live in Connecticut.

Are you kidding Jim, the leftists are ruing my state - the wealthy and businesses are leaving in droves because of confiscatory tax rates. The liberals will wreck this state as well as California.

[carpedm9587]

California Democrats want businesses to give half their tax-cut savings to state

I have not had a chance to examine the bill. I do know that the federal tax bill that was passed in December disproportionately targets blue states over red states. Blue states tend to tax higher (and also get less federal funding) and red states tend to tax lower (and get more federal funding). Therefore, the part of the tax bill that limits the deduction for state and local taxes will primarily hit blue states (and at least one Republican senator gloated over "sticking it to the Northeast") and benefit red ones. It's a politically smart move, but somewhat unscrupulous. The bill also heavily favors large businesses (their tax breaks do not sunset) and not so much smaller businesses (their tax breaks do sunset). Yes, there is a "promise" that they will be extended, but Congress cannot guarantee that because they don't know what future congresses will do, leaving smaller businesses not knowing how long they will have the cuts, but larger businesses better able to plan.

It appears to me that California is looking to rebalance that a bit. So these companies get half as much as they were expecting from the federal bill. Somehow, I doubt it will "ruin" the state. Claims that taxation is going to "ruin the state" have been made for years. The state that came closest to being ruined by tax policy was Kansas, and it was because they CUT taxes to the bone, and the programs those taxes funded with them. Indeed, we have several examples now of what happens in the real world when this "small government, slash taxes" policy is implemented: the economy actually shrivels until a reasonable balance is restored.

Too much taxation is bad. Too little is also bad.

[Mountain Man]

And they wonder why businesses are pulling up stakes and moving out of California.

New York tried the same thing several years ago, attempting to close a budget shortfall by raising taxes on the "rich". This naturally resulted in the "rich" fleeing the state (people with money tend to be the most mobile), and the end result was that New York's budget shortfall was even greater the following year. Liberals always seem surprised when people change their behavior in response to government policy.

[Thoughtful Monk]

New York tried the same thing several years ago, attempting to close a budget shortfall by raising taxes on the "rich". This naturally resulted in the "rich" fleeing the state (people with money tend to be the most mobile), and the end result was that New York's budget shortfall was even greater the following year. Liberals always seem surprised when people change their behavior in response to government policy.

Looking for a repeat in 2019 then. Gov. Cuomo has proposed $1 Billion in new fees in his 2018 budget.

[carpedm9587]

And they wonder why businesses are pulling up stakes and moving out of California.

The "rich fleeing high-tax states" mantra has been repeatedly shown to be largely a myth: https://www.theguardian.com/inequali...naires-threats

[Mountain Man]

The "rich fleeing high-tax states" mantra has been repeatedly shown to be largely a myth: https://www.theguardian.com/inequali...naires-threats

It's not the number of rich that move that's the concern, it's how much money they take with them when they do. It doesn't take many rich folks leaving a high-tax state to have a dramatic impact on a state's bottom line. In extreme cases, it only takes one.

Source: GOPNEws

http://www.gopusa.com/new-jersey-fac...es-to-florida/

© Copyright Original Source

Also, moving out of state is not the only way people can keep the government's hands off their money:

Source: New York Post

wealthy households now have a growing incentive to shelter, defer and move around income in anticipation of federal tax hikes that could raise the combined statewide marginal tax rate in New York to nearly 50 percent.

https://nypost.com/2009/08/03/the-high-tax-trap/

© Copyright Original Source

So bureaucrats can increase taxes on the wealthy all they want. Just don't expect the wealthy to sit idly by while the bureaucrats attempt to take it.

Source: USA Today

(December 2012) American Enterprise Institute economists Kevin Hassett, Andrew Biggs and Matthew Jensen examined the experiences of 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007. They found that countries with successful fiscal reforms, on average, closed 85% of their budget gaps with spending cuts. The countries with failed reforms, on average, relied at least 50% on tax increases. President Obama's strategy falls firmly in the latter camp. After discounting the accounting tricks that create fictitious spending cuts, the president's plan would impose about $3 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts.

That is, his approach would probably land America in the "failed attempt" column. Five years down the line, we would be in the same fiscal mess we are in today, just with higher taxes and a bigger government.

Second, tax hikes aimed at small segments of the population wouldn't raise much in revenues. Consider the "Buffett Rule" that the president spent many months promoting. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would raise about $47 billion over a decade. The federal government currently spends about $4 billion more per day than it takes in. The Buffett Rule, then, would raise about enough next year to cover 28 hours of government overspending. Heritage Foundation economist Curtis Dubay finds that closing the deficit solely by raising the two highest tax brackets would require hiking them to 159% and 166%, respectively.

Third, as economists and business executives have noted repeatedly, raising taxes on families earning over $250,000 per year is effectively a massive tax hike on small businesses. Most small businesses today organize as S-corporations or other pass-through entities; their income is taxed as personal income. A study by Ernst and Young shows that Obama's proposed tax hike would force these small businesses to eliminate about 710,000 jobs. Moreover, these households already bear a great deal of tax liability. According to the most recent Internal Revenue Service data, those earning $250,000 and above -- roughly 2% of all taxpayers -- earn 22% of income, but pay 45% of all federal income taxes.

Simply put, increasing tax rates on the wealthy is not a serious approach to solving America's fiscal woes. The problem is purely one of excessive spending, not inadequate taxing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-work/1746531/

© Copyright Original Source

Long story short: raising taxes on the wealthy is not the answer to bad government budgting; never has been, and never will be.

[rogue06]

The "rich fleeing high-tax states" mantra has been repeatedly shown to be largely a myth: https://www.theguardian.com/inequali...naires-threats

From the California Business Journal:

Source: WHY $15B CORP FLEES CALIFORNIA

For Tax Purposes. What Else?Source

© Copyright Original Source

From the Pasadena Star News

Source: How many businesses have left California? This report claims to have an answer

Source

© Copyright Original Source

From KCRA 3 in Sacramento

Source: Two dozen companies commit to leaving California

Source

© Copyright Original Source

From Investor's Business Daily

Source: Another Big Company Departs California � Will Last One To Leave Shut The Lights?

Nestle USA is moving its headquarters from Glendale, Calif., a pocket suburb just miles from downtown Los Angeles, to Rosslyn, Va., near Washington, D.C., and taking 1,200 California jobs with it. Why? As many companies have found, California is an awful place to do business.

The $26-billion-a-year food conglomerate is discreet, of course, about its reasons, citing a desire to be closer to its core customers and other bland corporate pabulum. But the fact is, Nestle and its corporate brethren in California that actually make things are overtaxed and overregulated, and elected officials treat them not as honored members of the community but as rapacious pirates.

A Glendale official, for instance, blithely insisted Nestle's departure was no big deal, but rather an "opportunity." Some opportunity.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

From the Orange County Register

Source: List names 100 companies leaving California

Source

© Copyright Original Source

From Fox & Hounds^[1]

Source: Misguided State Policies Lead To More Companies Leaving California

Source

© Copyright Original Source

From National Review

Source: Why Businesses Leave California

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Businesses are loathe to tear up their company by the roots and relocate. It is extremely costly. It is just as risky. But when you're essentially being driven out by folks that see you as little more than a bank that they can keep robbing with impunity... They used to call this killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.











1. A blog "designed to discuss and explain the confluence of politics and business in California" that the Washington Post twice named as one of the top California political websites




Smiley squirrel.gif XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx HAPPY SQUIRREL APPRECIATION DAY! XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx Smiley squirrel.gif

[carpedm9587]

It's not the number of rich that move that's the concern, it's how much money they take with them when they do. It doesn't take many rich folks leaving a high-tax state to have a dramatic impact on a state's bottom line. In extreme cases, it only takes one.

Source: GOPNEws

http://www.gopusa.com/new-jersey-fac...es-to-florida/

© Copyright Original Source

Also, moving out of state is not the only way people can keep the government's hands off their money:

Source: New York Post

wealthy households now have a growing incentive to shelter, defer and move around income in anticipation of federal tax hikes that could raise the combined statewide marginal tax rate in New York to nearly 50 percent.

https://nypost.com/2009/08/03/the-high-tax-trap/

© Copyright Original Source

So bureaucrats can increase taxes on the wealthy all they want. Just don't expect the wealthy to sit idly by while the bureaucrats attempt to take it.

Source: USA Today

(December 2012) American Enterprise Institute economists Kevin Hassett, Andrew Biggs and Matthew Jensen examined the experiences of 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007. They found that countries with successful fiscal reforms, on average, closed 85% of their budget gaps with spending cuts. The countries with failed reforms, on average, relied at least 50% on tax increases. President Obama's strategy falls firmly in the latter camp. After discounting the accounting tricks that create fictitious spending cuts, the president's plan would impose about $3 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts.

That is, his approach would probably land America in the "failed attempt" column. Five years down the line, we would be in the same fiscal mess we are in today, just with higher taxes and a bigger government.

Second, tax hikes aimed at small segments of the population wouldn't raise much in revenues. Consider the "Buffett Rule" that the president spent many months promoting. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would raise about $47 billion over a decade. The federal government currently spends about $4 billion more per day than it takes in. The Buffett Rule, then, would raise about enough next year to cover 28 hours of government overspending. Heritage Foundation economist Curtis Dubay finds that closing the deficit solely by raising the two highest tax brackets would require hiking them to 159% and 166%, respectively.

Third, as economists and business executives have noted repeatedly, raising taxes on families earning over $250,000 per year is effectively a massive tax hike on small businesses. Most small businesses today organize as S-corporations or other pass-through entities; their income is taxed as personal income. A study by Ernst and Young shows that Obama's proposed tax hike would force these small businesses to eliminate about 710,000 jobs. Moreover, these households already bear a great deal of tax liability. According to the most recent Internal Revenue Service data, those earning $250,000 and above -- roughly 2% of all taxpayers -- earn 22% of income, but pay 45% of all federal income taxes.

Simply put, increasing tax rates on the wealthy is not a serious approach to solving America's fiscal woes. The problem is purely one of excessive spending, not inadequate taxing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-work/1746531/

© Copyright Original Source

Long story short: raising taxes on the wealthy is not the answer to bad government budgting; never has been, and never will be.

Of course, the right assumes the move was motivated by taxes. Florida also has sunshine, warmer climes, and is one of the predominant retirement locations for poor and rich alike. So did anyone ask the man why he moved?

And few problems are due to a single cause. Too much taxation is a problem. To little taxation is a problem. Too much spending is a problem. Too little spending is a problem.

[carpedm9587]

From the California Business Journal:

Source: WHY $15B CORP FLEES CALIFORNIA

For Tax Purposes. What Else?Source

© Copyright Original Source

From the Pasadena Star News

Source: How many businesses have left California? This report claims to have an answer

Source

© Copyright Original Source

From KCRA 3 in Sacramento

Source: Two dozen companies commit to leaving California

Source

© Copyright Original Source

From Investor's Business Daily

Source: Another Big Company Departs California � Will Last One To Leave Shut The Lights?

Nestle USA is moving its headquarters from Glendale, Calif., a pocket suburb just miles from downtown Los Angeles, to Rosslyn, Va., near Washington, D.C., and taking 1,200 California jobs with it. Why? As many companies have found, California is an awful place to do business.

The $26-billion-a-year food conglomerate is discreet, of course, about its reasons, citing a desire to be closer to its core customers and other bland corporate pabulum. But the fact is, Nestle and its corporate brethren in California that actually make things are overtaxed and overregulated, and elected officials treat them not as honored members of the community but as rapacious pirates.

A Glendale official, for instance, blithely insisted Nestle's departure was no big deal, but rather an "opportunity." Some opportunity.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

From the Orange County Register

Source: List names 100 companies leaving California

Source

© Copyright Original Source

From Fox & Hounds^[1]

Source: Misguided State Policies Lead To More Companies Leaving California

Source

© Copyright Original Source

From National Review

Source: Why Businesses Leave California

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Businesses are loathe to tear up their company by the roots and relocate. It is extremely costly. It is just as risky. But when you're essentially being driven out by folks that see you as little more than a bank that they can keep robbing with impunity... They used to call this killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.











1. A blog "designed to discuss and explain the confluence of politics and business in California" that the Washington Post twice named as one of the top California political websites

And despite ALL of that hype, California's economy continues to rank 6th or 11th, depending on how you count it, in the world. That is to say, if California was an independent economy, it would rank somewhere between 6th and 11th in the world. http://www.politifact.com/california...gest-economy-/

Apparently, they are doing something right.


Bottom line, you will always be able to find stories of companies leaving because of one disaffection or another. They are counterbalanced by all of the companies moving in AND starting up. Your list does not paint a balanced view. California's international standing does...

[Starlight]

Leftists Never Have Enough Of Our Money...

That's true, you haven't given me any of your money yet. Post it all to me please. Thanks.

[Mountain Man]

Of course, the right assumes the move was motivated by taxes. Florida also has sunshine, warmer climes, and is one of the predominant retirement locations for poor and rich alike. So did anyone ask the man why he moved?

And few problems are due to a single cause. Too much taxation is a problem. To little taxation is a problem. Too much spending is a problem. Too little spending is a problem.

I can't help but feel you've missed my point.

[Mountain Man]

And despite ALL of that hype, California's economy continues to rank 6th or 11th, depending on how you count it, in the world. That is to say, if California was an independent economy, it would rank somewhere between 6th and 11th in the world. http://www.politifact.com/california...gest-economy-/

Apparently, they are doing something right.


Bottom line, you will always be able to find stories of companies leaving because of one disaffection or another. They are counterbalanced by all of the companies moving in AND starting up. Your list does not paint a balanced view. California's international standing does...

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ng-bankruptcy/