Anyone want to move to VT?

[sull1102]

Those tax cuts are a race to the bottom. Numerous states offered them. Massachusetts didn't offer them because they wanted to. They offered them because they had to.

Oh honey, you think Massachusetts NEEDED GE? Oh sweetie you are so silly and out of you have with reality, stay up in the NEK bubble you got. The only thing I see coming out this or the other thread where you are spewing crap and running your agenda is that you are one stubborn guy and we won't be agreeing on much of anything.

Sent from my Pixel using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[VTKilarney]

Oh honey, you think Massachusetts NEEDED GE? Oh sweetie you are so silly and out of you have with reality, stay up in the NEK bubble you got. The only thing I see coming out this or the other thread where you are spewing crap and running your agenda is that you are one stubborn guy and we won't be agreeing on much of anything.

Why insert a caustic tone into this thread? Surely you know how to discuss things without resorting to that grade-school tactic? Or are you just angry that you got called out on your airfare lie?

It would also be helpful if you did not misrepresent what I said. I was not referring specifically to GE. I commented on the statement that tax breaks were given to "GE, Fidelity, are willing [sic] to give [sic] Amazon, etc, etc."

Hint: "etc" means "and others; and so forth."

I stand by my comment that Massachusetts has to generally play the tax-break game or they are in trouble. It's not me saying this, it's the researchers. If you want to take it up with them, but all means have at it.

 

[abc]

For years they assured their membership that Republicans were wrong & that corporate tax incentives do absolutely nothing to create jobs or attract business.

No, it doesn't.

Yet quietly (very quietly), most of these liberal states have been doing just that over the last 5 years, .

What that does it trying to "lure" existing business to move into the state. Or, new business which would otherwise be lured AWAY to neighboring states to come to their own state.

It IS a race to the bottom. The end result is no state gets the tax money. The big corporation wins, by playing one state against the next until they can drive the tax incentive to next to no tax.

None of it "creates" business. All the states and politicians are playing a zero-sum game. Same game VT is playing trying to steal tax paying human capitals from other states.

Creation takes innovation, knowledge. The kind of stuff MIT and CalTech and Stanford are doing well at. So despite MA and CA are both "liberal and high tax" states, they still lead the way on business CREATION!

 

[BenedictGomez]

To add one more real life example to the list here, my company was going to move several manufacturing lines from New York to both a red state and to Ireland, both with significantly lower taxes than New York State. Then Uncle Chucky came begging with a big ol' bag of cash, which was rejected initially, prompting Chucky to come back with an even bigger bag o'cash.

 

[BenedictGomez]

No, it doesn't. What that does it trying to "lure" existing business to move into the state. Or, new business which would otherwise be lured AWAY to neighboring states to come to their own state.

Do you not see the implicit contradiction in your own writing?

 

[abc]

Do you not see the implicit contradiction in your own writing?

The only contradiction is your inability to distinguish creation from re-distribution.

Next sentence you say, the "liberal" states are "creating money for the poor" by taxing the rich.

Go grab your neighbor's trash can. It's "free".

 

[BenedictGomez]

The only contradiction is your inability to distinguish creation from re-distribution.

What exactly is being, "created" here to be re-distributed?

Next sentence you say, the "liberal" states are "creating money for the poor" by taxing the rich.

Go grab your neighbor's trash can. It's "free".

Huh?

 

[abc]

I can't believe this needs to be explained:

Create: 0 --> 1
Redistribute: 1 --> 1

What exactly is being, "created" here to be re-distributed?

When Facebook was "created", it went from zero to millions of users. Jobs and revenues as part of the process. But when it moved from MA to CA, the jobs in MA disappeared to reappear in CA. That's redistribution.

When Apple moved its headquarter to Ireland, the US treasury lost all of the tax income. Ireland got a portion of it. Apple got to keep the rest. No new money was earned/generated. Just re-distributed from the US treasury to Ireland & Apple. When Apple again moved from Ireland to the island of Jersey, Ireland lost out in another re-distribution. In all of those processes, few new job or revenue was "created". When Apple move their factories to China, the jobs disappeared from the US and reappeared in China! Again, not new jobs, just jobs being moved around: redistribution.

That's what VT is trying to do, MOVING (re-distributing) worker from other state to VT. Nothing is created. Whatever tax the worker WAS paying to their original state, they now pay to VT -- re-distribution.

Huh?

If the above is too difficult to comprehend, when you buy a new garbage can, it was "created" from raw material to become a can. Now there're TWO garbage can in your block. But when you grab your neighbor's garbage can, you're merely moving the 1 single can from your neighbor's yard to yours. Nothing has been created.

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

I agree that VT is not highly ranked for colleges, especially for engineering majors. When my kids were looking at colleges, nothing in VT was on the radar.

Dartmouth would be the good choice for some, but on the NH side of the line...

 

[drjeff]

In summary, VT as we all know, has some up sides, especially if you have the income, as a place to live. VT, along with many other states, have some serious issues with education, poverty and business climate. VT has a high tax burden as well. How one feels about taxes and who should pay what seems to be what this thread is turning into....

 

[thetrailboss]

Dartmouth would be the good choice for some, but on the NH side of the line...

Middlebury.

 

[speden]

Since tourism is a big part of the Vermont economy, I think they should ease up a little on the speeding tickets for out of state drivers. I like what NH did with raising the speed limit to 70 on I-93. It effectively brought ski areas in the White Mountains closer to Boston and reduces the stress while driving there. I've been doing 75 and been passed by cops who now have a lot less interest in writing tickets on that stretch. Driving in VT is a different story.

 

[slatham]

Wow, we digress. I plan to move to Vt eventually. I do not plan to read this thread any longer......

 

[deadheadskier]

Since tourism is a big part of the Vermont economy, I think they should ease up a little on the speeding tickets for out of state drivers. I like what NH did with raising the speed limit to 70 on I-93. It effectively brought ski areas in the White Mountains closer to Boston and reduces the stress while driving there. I've been doing 75 and been passed by cops who now have a lot less interest in writing tickets on that stretch. Driving in VT is a different story.

In regards to 89, I don't think you will see the limit raised like it has been on 93 due to safety concerns. IIRC NH looked at raising 89 to 70 as well and determined it had too many areas where travel will be unsafe at faster average speeds. 89 in VT has even more hills and turns, so it would suprise me to see that limit raised.

The speed traps in the Villages of VT will likely not change to accommodate faster tourist travel. State highways don't seem to be an issue in regards to enforcement anymore than NH. In fact, it's probably easier in VT to put the peddle down. You don't really have gauntlets over there like 16 in NH as an example.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[BenedictGomez]

I can't believe this needs to be explained:

When Facebook was "created", it went from zero to millions of users. Jobs and revenues as part of the process. But when it moved from MA to CA, the jobs in MA disappeared to reappear in CA. That's redistribution.

When Apple moved its headquarter to Ireland, the US treasury lost all of the tax income. Ireland got a portion of it. Apple got to keep the rest. No new money was earned/generated. Just re-distributed from the US treasury to Ireland & Apple. When Apple again moved from Ireland to the island of Jersey, Ireland lost out in another re-distribution. In all of those processes, few new job or revenue was "created". When Apple move their factories to China, the jobs disappeared from the US and reappeared in China! Again, not new jobs, just jobs being moved around: redistribution.

That's what VT is trying to do, MOVING (re-distributing) worker from other state to VT. Nothing is created. Whatever tax the worker WAS paying to their original state, they now pay to VT -- re-distribution.


If the above is too difficult to comprehend, when you buy a new garbage can, it was "created" from raw material to become a can. Now there're TWO garbage can in your block. But when you grab your neighbor's garbage can, you're merely moving the 1 single can from your neighbor's yard to yours. Nothing has been created.

You seem to think you're making some deep profound point, but you're not.

If 1000 jobs leave a state with high taxes to go to a state with low taxes, I'd first suggest you rethink the logic of high corporate taxes.

But the larger folly you're making is by ending your analysis there & suggesting everything is just "redistributed" and not understanding that the millions of dollars in corporate savings will be reinvested in further financial activities that increase economic activity and directly leads to more jobs. In economics, that's called growth.

And "if the above is too difficult to comprehend", I suggest you simply look at where startups are booming and businesses are growing (HINT: Generally speaking, low-tax states are doing better). And take a look at Business Insider (link below), which puts out this best/worst states to start a business every year; with a few exceptions, typically the high tax states are all ranked 25 to 50 in the back half of the nation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-best-and-worst-states-to-start-a-business-2016-10

 

[Hawk]

What exactly are you looking at?

New York State is dead last in America in this category. Without looking, I know MA & NJ are bottom 5 as well.

I believe Texas is still #1 (too lazy to look right now), suburbs of places like Austin are booming.



Yup. Just a weeeee important detail to leave out. LOL



Agreed; and I find this recent tax policy capitulation by very left-leaning states (NY, NJ, CA, IL, MA) both amusing & bemusing.

For years they assured their membership that Republicans were wrong & that corporate tax incentives do absolutely nothing to create jobs or attract business. Yet quietly (very quietly), most of these liberal states have been doing just that over the last 5 years, but as you note, they're doing it wrong, by "picking the winners" & generally only offering these juicy tax incentives to the largest companies. A lowering of the corporate taxes holistically in concert with spending cuts (for balance) would be best economically, but unfortunately it's easier to get a cat to take a bath than get those states to decrease spending! In NJ, we're spending ourselves into oblivion.

Not entirely True in Mass. We have a Republican Governor Charlie Baker. In fact our state has elected a republican Governors more than once recently. At any rate the tax credits to several large companies have benefited our state immensely with job growth. We are just waiting for our conservative leader to bring the taxes down and then everybody is happy. Someone else mentioned Fidelity but they are not a good example as they have been moving operations out of Mass to NH, RI, NC and TX over the last 15 years.

 

[mister moose]

If 1000 jobs leave a state with high taxes to go to a state with low taxes, I'd first suggest you rethink the logic of high corporate taxes.

But the larger folly you're making is by ending your analysis there & suggesting everything is just "redistributed" and not understanding that the millions of dollars in corporate savings will be reinvested in further financial activities that increase economic activity and directly leads to more jobs. In economics, that's called growth.

It's interesting that the same folks that fully understand it's cheaper for Vermonters to shop in NH don't get that companies do the same thing. They go where their costs are lower to the extent they are able. Or they send divisions to the low cost site, and the high cost site sees growth stagnate or shrink.

I disagree on the source of growth. Your example comes from a self driven willingness to reinvest profits. That happens sometimes, but is not the rule. Most companies are just keeping up with the competition who also moved to achieve lower costs, there is no necessarily added revenue. Growth comes from the incentive to do more. Work more, produce more, take risks, innovate. That comes from a sufficiently non punishing environment that motivates you to do all that. So if the new location brings you that (other than just lower costs needed to compete), then yes moving might create growth. You can talk about local growth (States) or national growth. The latter comes from proper incentives on a national level, not the local tax bribery we both railed against earlier.

 

[CoolMike]

Since tourism is a big part of the Vermont economy, I think they should ease up a little on the speeding tickets for out of state drivers. I like what NH did with raising the speed limit to 70 on I-93. It effectively brought ski areas in the White Mountains closer to Boston and reduces the stress while driving there. I've been doing 75 and been passed by cops who now have a lot less interest in writing tickets on that stretch. Driving in VT is a different story.

I got a ticket for doing 73 in that section of 93 that the limit is 70.

No way to fight it since its far enough North that its not worth the time. Ticket cost was small (120$? - can't remember) but its sitting on my insurance record now and would seriously raise my rates if I get another ticket in the next 3-4 years.

 

[VTKilarney]

I got a ticket for doing 73 in that section of 93 that the limit is 70.

Are you kidding me? I assumed that you had at least a 5 mph leeway. Was there something else wrong with your vehicle that led to your getting pulled over?

 

[CoolMike]

Are you kidding me? I assumed that you had at least a 5 mph leeway. Was there something else wrong with your vehicle that led to your getting pulled over?

No other issues with my car. On this day there were 3-4 cruisers along that stretch of highway and they were pulling over everyone going over the limit by any amount. I was one of 3 cars pulled over in rapid succession. If I had the time to drive up and fight it at the local courts I would easily have won but no luck for me.