[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Will tea partiers protest the $858 billion tax deal?
Source: AJC
URL Source: http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker ... /?cxntfid=blogs_cynthia_tucker
Published: Dec 10, 2010
Author: Cynthia Tucker
Post Date: 2010-12-10 16:52:41 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 65153
Comments: 104

During the election season, tea party activists declared deficit-reduction one of their primary goals. The nation is swimming in red ink, they noted, posing a huge burden for generations to come. So I’m waiting for those tea party activists to mount a huge protest over the tax deal between President Obama and Republicans. It is expected to cost $858 billion over ten years.

Where’s that tea party protest? Are they headed to Washington to denounce the deal, as they did repeatedly with the health care plan — which will lower the deficit over ten years?

Yes, there are other things in the deal besides tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But extending the tax cuts for all Americans for two years cost $675.2 billion. Extending them for the richest Americans — along with generous cuts to the estate tax — will cost about $50 billion over two years. Are the tea partiers at all concerned about that?

Then were the ethanol subsidies, which most reasonable people agree are a spectacular waste of government resources — a giveaway to corn farmers. But farm state legislators wanted ethanol subsides included in the package, and they are there.

Any day now, I’m sure, tea partiers will gather on the Mall to protest this big addition to the national deficit. Any of you have your bags packed for the party?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-5) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#6. To: go65 (#5)

Lowering taxes adds to the deficit.

You can't have a deficit if you don't spend money.


"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange

jwpegler  posted on  2010-12-10   17:13:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: jwpegler (#6)

You can't have a deficit if you don't spend money.

Fair enough, but if you lower taxes without cutting spending, you increase the deficit, as this bill will do by $858 billion over 2 years.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-10   17:18:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: go65 (#7) (Edited)

but if you lower taxes without cutting spending, you increase the deficit

Yes, so they need to cut spending.

Again, if Obama were smart he would dump his own deficit commission's report right into Boehner's lap and tell him to pass it.

The commission's recommendations further cuts margin tax rates (to a top rate of 23% for individuals and 25% for businesses) while closing tax loop holes. They also cut a bunch of spending, but not enough.

I'm starting to think that Obama is smart enough to do it. We'll see.

If the GOP were smart, they would agree to implement it and add more spending cuts, especially to Obamacare.

Then we would have change that I can believe in.


"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange

jwpegler  posted on  2010-12-10   18:16:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: go65 (#0)

Where’s that tea party protest?

From Rush to Free Republic.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Barrack Hussein Obama
President of the United States of America said that some Americans ; "They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

WhiteSands  posted on  2010-12-10   21:16:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: go65 (#7)

but if you lower taxes...

Income taxes won't be lowered go, they just won't be raised.

without cutting spending, you increase the deficit, as this bill will do by $858 billion over 2 years.

Then cut spending. Spending causes deficits. Period.

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-10   22:11:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Wood_Chopper (#10)

Income taxes won't be lowered go, they just won't be raised.

Part of the deal includes a cut of 2% in the SS payroll tax along with various other tax credits.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-10   22:14:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: jwpegler (#8)

Yes, so they need to cut spending.

Except that Ireland showed that if you cut spending in a recession, the end result is further economic stagnation, meaning lower tax revenues, meaning right back to where you started.

How many times has California cut spending in the last couple of years? Is it helping?

I'm all for cutting spending once the economy is growing, just not now.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-10   22:15:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: go65 (#11)

Part of the deal includes a cut of 2% in the SS payroll tax along with various other tax credits.

Fuck all the bullshit, OK go? Be honest, OK?

When you can't meet your bills at the end of the month, is it because you spent too much, or because that evil rich cocksucker that provided a job for you isn't paying you enough?

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-10   22:21:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: go65 (#12) (Edited)

Except that Ireland showed that if you cut spending in a recession, the end result is further economic stagnation, meaning lower tax revenues, meaning right back to where you started.

How many times has California cut spending in the last couple of years? Is it helping?

I'm all for cutting spending once the economy is growing, just not now.

It's because the parasites sucked enough to finally kill their host, and now that the host is dying and can't provide more blood, the parasites are demanding more, and will cut their demand for blood "once the host is growing, just not now."

It's kinda like, "The beatings will increase until moral improves".

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-10   22:28:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: go65 (#14) (Edited)

Have you seen the news? Tax revenues down everywhere. Governments in trouble. States going bankrupt.

Know why? Because it happened FIRST to the taxpayers who fund the state, at the hands of the state. The fucking HOST was killed by their parasite go. THAT'S why governments are dying. They destroyed their host.

THEY KILLED THEIR HOSTS GO.

And now all they, and YOU, want is more blood from the dead hosts, but "just until things get better."

Fuuuuuuuck.

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-10   22:43:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: jwpegler (#4)

The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending. The extension to the unemployment insurance Obama insisted on does not amount to additional $900 billion than they politicians were already planning on spending.

That's a half truth.

The other half is is decreased income.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-10   22:44:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Wood_Chopper (#13)

When you can't meet your bills at the end of the month, is it because you spent too much, or because that evil rich cocksucker that provided a job for you isn't paying you enough?

It could be either or, and/or both.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-10   22:51:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: lucysmom (#16) (Edited)

That's a half truth.

The other half is is decreased income.

That's wrong lucy.

It is possible have zero income and still not have a deficit, yet impossible to spend and never have the possibility of a deficit.

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-10   22:56:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: lucysmom (#17)

(me) When you can't meet your bills at the end of the month, is it because you spent too much, or because that evil rich cocksucker that provided a job for you isn't paying you enough?

(lucysmom)It could be either or, and/or both.

Really????

Next time someone comes after you for not meeting your bills, tell them to take your boss to court because he's not paying you enough, and he owes them the money.

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-10   23:05:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Wood_Chopper (#13)

When you can't meet your bills at the end of the month, is it because you spent too much, or because that evil rich cocksucker that provided a job for you isn't paying you enough?

Government isn't supposed to balance it's budget, it's supposed to backstop the economy when there's a recession, and run a surplus when there's an expansion.

We had that right until a massive tax cut and spending spree during an expansion in the early 2000's


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-10   23:09:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: go65 (#20) (Edited)

Government isn't supposed to balance it's budget, it's supposed to backstop the economy

wrong. In order to do so, it would HAVE to control the economy, and it can't.

It can only fuck it up.

When are you going to learn that?

Any reply to my #15?????

And you didn't answer the question posed in #13: When you can't meet your bills at the end of the month, is it because you spent too much, or because that evil rich cocksucker that provided a job for you isn't paying you enough?

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-10   23:11:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: lucysmom (#18)

(W_C to lucysmom) It is possible have zero income and still not have a deficit, yet impossible to spend and never have the possibility of a deficit.

Did I hurt your head?

Try it this way: You can have zero income with zero spending, and NEVER have a deficit but you can't spend with zero income and NOT HAVE a deficit.

It ain't income that causes deficits, it's spending.

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-10   23:37:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Wood_Chopper (#22)

It ain't income that causes deficits, it's spending.

it's spending more than income. simple math.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-11   9:28:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Wood_Chopper (#21)

wrong. In order to do so, it would HAVE to control the economy, and it can't.

Whoever said it had to control the economy? The government did a pretty good job, through fiscal policy, of moderating the impacts of recessions for more than 60 years - until Conservatives drove through massive tax cuts and spending hikes during an expansion.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-11   9:29:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Wood_Chopper (#15)

Have you seen the news? Tax revenues down everywhere. Governments in trouble. States going bankrupt.

Know why? Because it happened FIRST to the taxpayers who fund the state, at the hands of the state. The fucking HOST was killed by their parasite go. THAT'S why governments are dying. They destroyed their host.

Virginia just ran a surplus, many other states aren't experiencing the problems of Texas and California.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-11   9:30:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: go65 (#0)

Fuck the TP'ers.

We just lost the White House without an election.

And that speech bu obama last week will live infamy for it's blatant cognitive dissonance.

Blaming the victim. Blessing the Hostage Takers.

mcgowanjm  posted on  2010-12-11   10:36:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Wood_Chopper (#22)

Did I hurt your head?

Try it this way: You can have zero income with zero spending, and NEVER have a deficit but you can't spend with zero income and NOT HAVE a deficit.

It ain't income that causes deficits, it's spending.

So what?

How are you going to apply that to real life in the 21st century?

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-11   11:10:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Wood_Chopper (#21)

And you didn't answer the question posed in #13: When you can't meet your bills at the end of the month, is it because you spent too much, or because that evil rich cocksucker that provided a job for you isn't paying you enough?

Pullman Strike 1894.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-11   11:20:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Wood_Chopper (#21) (Edited)

And the sheep will bleat their submission, Seeing the others as fools, Not knowing nor even caring, They've become no more than tools.

...because that evil rich cocksucker that provided a job for you ...

Spoken like a tool.

"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty."

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-11   11:31:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: go65 (#12) (Edited)

Except that Ireland showed that if you cut spending in a recession, the end result is further economic stagnation, meaning lower tax revenues, meaning right back to where you started.

Ireland's troubles are very similar to ours. Their crash was caused by reckless borrowing and lending. Irish households have the second highest debt burden in the world. The government ran up a huge debt because of their profligate spending. Ireland's credit rating has plummeted. They have no choice but to cut spending.

The only thing that has temporarily saved us is that the dollar is still the world's reserve currency. That won't last long unless the U.S. government cuts spending as well.

How many times has California cut spending in the last couple of years? Is it helping?

They haven't cut spending enough. Their taxes are too high. Businesses are fleeing the state. California needs to shut down all non-essential programs, departments, and services, fire half of the bureaucracy, replace the lavish pensions for the remaining bureaucrats with 401Ks, and cut their income tax rates in half. Otherwise, they will continue to lose businesses to Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, Texas and China.


"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange

jwpegler  posted on  2010-12-11   13:34:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: lucysmom (#16) (Edited)

The other half is is decreased income.

Utter bullshit.

When Clinton left office, federal spending was about 19% of GDP. When Bush left office it was 22.5% of GDP. Today, it's 25% of GDP. If something isn't done it will be 28% of GDP in the next few years.

Since the end of WWII, federal spending has averaged 20% of GDP and tax revenues have averaged 18% of revenue. Tax revenues under Bush were only slightly less than average at 17.6%.

These are called FACTS.

The problem is spending. PERIOD.


"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange

jwpegler  posted on  2010-12-11   13:48:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: jwpegler (#30)

Otherwise, they will continue to lose businesses to Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, Texas and China.

Nevada has no income tax; not for individuals and not for corporations. Why did you leave Nevada off your short list?

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-11   16:38:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: jwpegler (#30)

They have no choice but to cut spending.

True, because unlike us they can't devalue their currency.

But they also propped up their banks, unlike Iceland, and now Iceland is doing far better.

They haven't cut spending enough. Their taxes are too high. Businesses are fleeing the state. California needs to shut down all non-essential programs, departments, and services, fire half of the bureaucracy, replace the lavish pensions for the remaining bureaucrats with 401Ks, and cut their income tax rates in half. Otherwise, they will continue to lose businesses to Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, Texas and China.

Point being that cutting spending in a recession depresses the economy, leading to further reductions in tax revenue.


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-11   19:01:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: lucysmom (#27)

So what?

How are you going to apply that to real life in the 21st century?

Like I did at my house. When my income dropped, I cut my spending.

Unlike me, the government can extort more money from people, at the threat of prison time, with a stoke of a pen and a vote, with morons like you cheering them on.

Problem is, the well has run dry. The more they demand, the less people there are that can pay, so they demand more of those that can pay, until those individuals who can pay are driven into the category of those who can't pay.

And in the end, YOU lose all those things you wanted others to pay for.

They've killed the golden goose.

And the sheep will bleat their submission,
Seeing the others as fools,
Not knowing nor even caring,
They've become no more than tools.

Burma Shave.

Wood_Chopper  posted on  2010-12-11   20:43:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Wood_Chopper (#34)

They've killed the golden goose.

The golden goose, my friend, was the middle class and it wasn't the government that killed it.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-11   21:29:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Wood_Chopper (#19)

Next time someone comes after you for not meeting your bills, tell them to take your boss to court because he's not paying you enough, and he owes them the money.

If my employer is having financial troubles he can lay me off or cut my hours and its all too bad, so sad.

If my utility company is having financial troubles even if its due to bad investments, he can raise my rates. Same for my insurance company.

My doctor and/or dentist needs (wants) more income, they raise their fees.

We accept that every business has the right to make a profit and ask for more money, and we expect that the consumer either finds a cheaper source to meet his needs, pays a higher price, or does without. But for the consumer who is also the employee, where does he turn when the landlord wants more rent, the price of gas goes up, and his employer cuts his hours, and his child fell off his bike, and broke his arm?

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. CIA World Factbook

I don't know how long one can persist in blaming 80% of the population for not keeping up. Maybe after 35 years its time to consider that maybe the problem isn't individual failure, but that it is systemic.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-11   23:22:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: go65 (#5)

Lowering taxes adds to the deficit.

Typical nonsense from someone who doesn't know SHIT about economics.

Do some research on the Laffer Curve, before you make yourself look any more stupid...

Liberal morons NEVER understand money...

Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.

Capitalist Eric  posted on  2010-12-12   0:14:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Capitalist Eric (#37)

Do some research on the Laffer Curve, before you make yourself look any more stupid...

The Laffer Curve is exactly that, a curve.

At some points on the curve lower taxes increases revenue, at some points it decreases revenue. If you are on the left side of the cuve, lowering taxes adds to the deficit.

Meanwhile:


On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.

go65  posted on  2010-12-12   0:38:17 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: lucysmom (#32)

Why did you leave Nevada off your short list?

Over the last couple of decades, Los Vegas was one of the fastest growing cities in the country. But it was mostly the result of uneducated, unskilled people moving into the state to take menial jobs in the tourist industry.

Nevada doesn't have a strong skill base to support the high tech companies that are moving out of California. The states I mentioned do.


"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange

jwpegler  posted on  2010-12-12   9:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: go65 (#33)

Point being that cutting spending in a recession depresses the economy, leading to further reductions in tax revenue.

No, the point is that California has not cut spending enough. They didn't cut taxes at all. That's why they businesses are fleeing the state.


"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange

jwpegler  posted on  2010-12-12   9:17:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: jwpegler (#39)

Nevada doesn't have a strong skill base to support the high tech companies that are moving out of California. The states I mentioned do.

With such a favorable tax situation, and the difference between housing costs in California and Nevada, why don't companies move to Nevada and bring their employees with them?

Nevada's high school dropout rate has increased 21% since 2002 and now has a 51% graduation rate, so the local skill thing ain't likely to improve anytime soon.

Oregon ranks 14th in the "State Business Tax Climate Index" while Nevada ranks 4th.

www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/52.html

Once upon a time Casinos were considered good employers providing well paying jobs, however working conditions and real wages have been declining since the 80s.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-12   12:33:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: jwpegler (#40)

No, the point is that California has not cut spending enough. They didn't cut taxes at all. That's why they businesses are fleeing the state.

Around here, a lot of businesses just disappeared with the bursting of the dot com bubble. Judging from the number of commercial spaces still vacant 10 years later, we have never recovered from that.

Where I live, median income was $89,276 while the average home price was $786,232 and property taxes $5,816 (2007). (Thanks to prop 13 I paid a little over a thousand dollars on a property valued at $1.4 million - worth about half that now)

My guess is that the price of real estate has a lot more to do with people leaving the state than taxes.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-12   13:13:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: lucysmom (#41) (Edited)

With such a favorable tax situation, and the difference between housing costs in California and Nevada, why don't companies move to Nevada and bring their employees with them?

I already gave you one reason -- a skilled work force. Nevada's workforce is largely unskilled.

A second reason is Nevada's reputation (gambling and brothels). A lot of companies don't want to be associated with this, which is why Delaware leads in incorporations over Nevada even though they have very similar corporate privacy laws.


"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange

jwpegler  posted on  2010-12-12   15:37:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: lucysmom (#41) (Edited)

Nevada's high school dropout rate has increased 21% since 2002 and now has a 51% graduation rate, so the local skill thing ain't likely to improve anytime soon.

Irrelevant to this specific discussion on where California companies are relocating, but very relevant in a more macro sense when discussing the rotten performance of America's government monopoly schools and their negative impact our future in general.

What is relevant to attracting California's high tech firms are: A.) a great business climate and B.) world class talent.

How do you seed world class talent? One way is by having a world class research university, which attracts top global talent and spins off technology firms. Silicon Valley was seeded by Stanford University, which is a private university. Specifically, Silicon Valley was seeded by Standford graduates who created Hewlett Packard -- an evil corporation. LOL. Another way is by having a really smart guy who starts a tiny company and grows it into a really big company over the years. That company gives smart people the experiences they need to leave and create their own startups. That's the evil capitalist Bill Gates model in Seattle. Bonus the evil capitalist uses the money he made growing a huge company to seed a world class research university (like Gates and Paul Allen did in bringing world class bio-technology talent to the University of Washington).

In either case, there has to be a center of gravity that creates some dynamic around them.

Nevada creates a dynamic of gambling and hookers. In good times, those may be growth industries but they don't produce anything of lasting value that can be exportable (except for maybe sex slavery). In bad times, they wind up in the ditch because their business is 100% based on people's disposable income.


"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange

jwpegler  posted on  2010-12-12   15:45:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: jwpegler (#43)

I already gave you one reason -- a skilled work force. Nevada's workforce is largely unskilled.

The reason companies don't move to Nevada and bring their skilled workforce with them is because Nevada doesn't have a skilled workforce?

A second reason is Nevada's reputation (gambling and brothels). A lot of companies don't want to be associated with this, which is why Delaware leads in incorporations over Nevada even though they have very similar corporate privacy laws.

Delaware has a franchise tax, Nevada does not.

I know that Delaware was a favorite with banks because it didn't have usury laws.

Companies like Silicon Graphics may be incorporated in Delaware, but located in California.

I do agree that Nevada does have an undercurrent of sleaze. Declining wages paid by Casinos with few worker protections have become a drag on the state. The Casinos depend to a large extent on tourism for income, and a transient population from which to draw employees.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-12   20:55:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: jwpegler (#44)

Specifically, Silicon Valley was seeded by Standford graduates who created Hewlett Packard -- an evil corporation. LOL.

Actually it was Frederick Terman, the Cold War, the creation of Stanford Industrial Park, research grants from the DoD and the CIA that made Stanford and Silicon Valley.

HP had a reputation as THE place to work in this area for decades because it treated employees decently. In return, HP enjoyed immense loyalty from its employees and respect in communities where they were located. Carly Fiorina changed that.

...the evil capitalist...blah, blah, blah

Oh grow up!

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson

lucysmom  posted on  2010-12-12   21:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (47 - 104) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com