55 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

We'll be seeing a lot more businesses moving out of state due to the way our gov't is taxing businesses to death and forcing them to move away.

I read last week there are maybe 5 possible propositions being considered, during the next year, that would raise taxes on the wealthy.

I'm amazed that there are people out there in this day and age who think you can target raising taxes on those who have the ability to take action to avoid paying this increase and that these wealthy are just going to look the other way and pay additional taxes to support policies they are opposed too!

You would think at some point these people, who are pushing raising taxes, would get it and realize they are doing more harm than good!

[tsukiji]

Maybe this is CA's way of trimming the population....

BTW, I'm not sure but doesn't an incorporated entity pay taxes (if any) in the state of incorporation. So, while HQ might be in state A, the company would pay state taxes for state B (state of incorporation).

[Harold]

Maybe this is CA's way of trimming the population....

BTW, I'm not sure but doesn't an incorporated entity pay taxes (if any) in the state of incorporation. So, while HQ might be in state A, the company would pay state taxes for state B (state of incorporation).

Nope, many companies incorporate in states other than where they exist because other states make it easier. HP was incorporated originally in CA, but then changed their state of Incorporation to MA or some other state back east. The company I work for has always been in CA, but we incorporated in the state of Nevada. We pay CA taxes for the profits we make.

[Thinkingoutloud]

Good article in the Bee. http://www.sacbee.co...onnections.html

Basically moving just the headquarters, not book of biz. Will take all ~150 empolyees with them.
Citied lower cost of living for their ee's as a factor. I totally believe that - my comnpany does the same.

[Robert Giacometti]

Are there facts to back this up? I haven't seen a comparison of California business taxes to other states.

I do think California is very regulation-heavy -- judging from the size of the code books I deal with in my work.

I personally know of people who have moved their businesses out of this state when voters passed Proposition 63( ?)(Steinbergs measure raising taxes on those making over $1 million to pay for mental health services while enriching his Brother-in-laws organization). When this happens NOT only do we NOT get the additioal taxes, but we loose out on the significant amount we were originally collecting!

Its NO coincidence that our State's revenues have slowed since this Proposition was passed. Sadly the recession has hid the realities of the effects of this law.

EVERY time we pass another law there is a cost involved!

There is the cost to pass the law, the cost to make people aware of the law, the cost to administer the law, the cost to enforce the law and the cost to defend the new law from all types of litigation.

Until a majority of people in this state understand that there is a cost to pass additional laws and to grant special rights to select certain groups of people, businesses and people with the ability to do so will continue to leave.

[bordercolliefan]

As noted above, I DO think there are too many regulations in California.

However, we need to be careful about assuming the grass is greener in "low regulation, low tax" states. If I'm not mistaken Texas ranks near the worst in terms of education, poverty levels, etc. There's a reason most of us wouldn't choose to live there!

In contrast, Connecticut is a high-tax state, yet I'd live there in a minute -- it's highly educated, has excellent schools, etc.

Sometimes you get what you pay for.

Also, there are other factors in these debates. California is such a desirable place to live that the cost of housing is through the roof. I know Intel pays a significant cost-of-living bonus (maybe 10-15%) to its employees in Silicon Valley in order to attract/retain them. Otherwise, hot young engineers would go somewhere else where they had a prayer of being able to afford a house. So, it's not all about the corporate taxes.

[SunshineServices]

how many of them are indoors?

13! :-)

[ducky]

Good article in the Bee. http://www.sacbee.co...onnections.html

Basically moving just the headquarters, not book of biz. Will take all ~150 empolyees with them.
Citied lower cost of living for their ee's as a factor. I totally believe that - my comnpany does the same.

In that article they also cite being unhappy with the business climate in California.
This isn't good for Folsom or for the state. Used to be businesses were willing to pay a little more to locate here because of our climate. That's no longer the case. The sooner California politicians wake up to that fact, the better.

[4thgenFolsomite]

In that article they also cite being unhappy with the business climate in California.
This isn't good for Folsom or for the state. Used to be businesses were willing to pay a little more to locate here because of our climate. That's no longer the case. The sooner California politicians wake up to that fact, the better.

Dan Walters just did a very interesting op ed piece on California's future. Read the one on Demography determines California's Destiny. Not looking too bright ahead.

http://www.sacbee.com/walters/

[ducky]

As noted above, I DO think there are too many regulations in California.

However, we need to be careful about assuming the grass is greener in "low regulation, low tax" states. If I'm not mistaken Texas ranks near the worst in terms of education, poverty levels, etc. There's a reason most of us wouldn't choose to live there!

In contrast, Connecticut is a high-tax state, yet I'd live there in a minute -- it's highly educated, has excellent schools, etc.

Sometimes you get what you pay for.

Also, there are other factors in these debates. California is such a desirable place to live that the cost of housing is through the roof. I know Intel pays a significant cost-of-living bonus (maybe 10-15%) to its employees in Silicon Valley in order to attract/retain them. Otherwise, hot young engineers would go somewhere else where they had a prayer of being able to afford a house. So, it's not all about the corporate taxes.

Are you sure about those education claims? Maybe Texas as a whole doesn't compare, but one of the place that seems to be picking up companies from California is Austin, Texas, and they seem to be doing fine education-wise as the link below shows. They are a vibrant city with music festivals and, frankly, I expect we will be losing a lot of our university graduates, including those Cal Grant recipients, to jobs there and elsewhere unless something changes.

http://www.bestplaces.net/city/default.aspx?cat=EDUCATE&city=Sacramento_CA&ccity=Austin_TX&p=0664000&op=4805000

[Robert Giacometti]

As noted above, I DO think there are too many regulations in California.

However, we need to be careful about assuming the grass is greener in "low regulation, low tax" states. If I'm not mistaken Texas ranks near the worst in terms of education, poverty levels, etc. There's a reason most of us wouldn't choose to live there!

In contrast, Connecticut is a high-tax state, yet I'd live there in a minute -- it's highly educated, has excellent schools, etc.

Sometimes you get what you pay for.

Also, there are other factors in these debates. California is such a desirable place to live that the cost of housing is through the roof. I know Intel pays a significant cost-of-living bonus (maybe 10-15%) to its employees in Silicon Valley in order to attract/retain them. Otherwise, hot young engineers would go somewhere else where they had a prayer of being able to afford a house. So, it's not all about the corporate taxes.

BCF, I'm sorry I didn't intend for my previuous post to come across as attacking you. Some of the things I said weren't related to your post at all. They were simply part of my thoughts, so I included them in the post attaching your comments.

Its great we live in a country where we do have the freedoms to move from state to state based upon what we individually feel are important to us. In a sense States do compete for people and businesses based upon the policies each state adopts. What might be important to me, may NOT be as important to the Dude or DaveB.

Some may choose to leave CALI and take their businesses with them because of the revision in the education code.

The most important thing to remember is there will be reactions from the actions that are taken. IMO, its crucial we look at the complete picture when we pass laws and/or change policies. I believe we are seeing some repurcussions of some of the collective actions that have been taken.

Loosing jobs to another state is never a good thing, but maybe this will serve as a wake up call to some to reconsider how their beliefs affect our quality of life in this State!

[Dave Burrell]

You would think at some point these people, who are pushing raising taxes, would get it and realize they are doing more harm than good!

You'd think....

[bordercolliefan]

BCF, I'm sorry I didn't intend for my previuous post to come across as attacking you. Some of the things I said weren't related to your post at all. They were simply part of my thoughts, so I included them in the post attaching your comments.

Its great we live in a country where we do have the freedoms to move from state to state based upon what we individually feel are important to us. In a sense States do compete for people and businesses based upon the policies each state adopts. What might be important to me, may NOT be as important to the Dude or DaveB.

Some may choose to leave CALI and take their businesses with them because of the revision in the education code.

The most important thing to remember is there will be reactions from the actions that are taken. IMO, its crucial we look at the complete picture when we pass laws and/or change policies. I believe we are seeing some repurcussions of some of the collective actions that have been taken.

Loosing jobs to another state is never a good thing, but maybe this will serve as a wake up call to some to reconsider how their beliefs affect our quality of life in this State!

Robert-- I didn't at all feel you were attacking me.

I do agree we don't want to lose jobs to other states. I just think it's bad when states compete to "race to the bottom" -- choking off public spending so they can claim they have the lowest taxes.

Here is a snippet about Texas:

The study was based in part on U.S. Census data, which shows that Texas continues to be -- as the Texas Medical Association put it a few years ago -- "the uninsured capital of the United States."

More than 26 percent of Texans are uninsured, the highest rate in the country. That means that about 6.3 million Texas -- men, women and children -- have no health insurance. An analysis by the Texas Medical Association a few years ago showed that children were especially disadvantaged in Texas: a full 30 percent of Texas kids were uninsured in 2006-2007.

Also:

But here’s the thing: While low spending may sound good in the abstract, what it amounts to in practice is low spending on children, who account directly or indirectly for a large part of government outlays at the state and local level.

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.
(this was from the New York Times)

[The Average Joe]

California has been losing population for quite some time now...the only reason it is going up at all is from immigration. I have linked studies several times on the outflow of earners and their replacement with a lower educated, lower income populace (which also is more demanding of services). States compete for business. California has decided to do just the opposite and strangle business with legislation.
You have AB 32 (which was based on fraudulent science) that will kill any hope of manufacturing in this state. it will also dramatically drive the price up of any goods brought into the state by semi, as well as construction costs, because of new requirements.

You have the ADA grubbing lawyers.

You have a million different codes, agencies, mandates and requirements to comply with from CALOSHA to local boards.

It does not have to be this way! States that are grabbing our companies WANT business. they make it easy to create and expand business.

An example of why you won't see any new Carl's Jrs in CA(and they have relocated from CA to Texas):

"It costs us $250,000 more to build one California restaurant than in Texas," he said. "And once it is opened, we're not allowed to run it." This explains why Carl's is opening 300 restaurants in Texas and only maintaining its presence in California. Texas has lower taxes than California, but the reason for the shift has more to do with regulation and with the attitude of the respective governments.

Puzder complained about the permitting process here, where it takes eight months to two years to open a new restaurant compared to an average of 1 1/2 months in Texas. In California, restaurants have to provide new curb cuts, new traffic lights, you name it. The company must endure so many requirements and must submit to so many inspections that it becomes excessively costly – and the bureaucrats are in charge of the project.

They are just one of many companies fleeing the least business friendly state...elections have consequences folks.

[ducky]

California has been losing population for quite some time now...the only reason it is going up at all is from immigration. I have linked studies several times on the outflow of earners and their replacement with a lower educated, lower income populace (which also is more demanding of services). States compete for business. California has decided to do just the opposite and strangle business with legislation.
You have AB 32 (which was based on fraudulent science) that will kill any hope of manufacturing in this state. it will also dramatically drive the price up of any goods brought into the state by semi, as well as construction costs, because of new requirements.

You have the ADA grubbing lawyers.

You have a million different codes, agencies, mandates and requirements to comply with from CALOSHA to local boards.

It does not have to be this way! States that are grabbing our companies WANT business. they make it easy to create and expand business.

An example of why you won't see any new Carl's Jrs in CA(and they have relocated from CA to Texas):

"It costs us $250,000 more to build one California restaurant than in Texas," he said. "And once it is opened, we're not allowed to run it." This explains why Carl's is opening 300 restaurants in Texas and only maintaining its presence in California. Texas has lower taxes than California, but the reason for the shift has more to do with regulation and with the attitude of the respective governments.

Puzder complained about the permitting process here, where it takes eight months to two years to open a new restaurant compared to an average of 1 1/2 months in Texas. In California, restaurants have to provide new curb cuts, new traffic lights, you name it. The company must endure so many requirements and must submit to so many inspections that it becomes excessively costly – and the bureaucrats are in charge of the project.

They are just one of many companies fleeing the least business friendly state...elections have consequences folks.

He also said something like "It would be easier to open a restaurant in Shanghai than California." Are they called Hardees in Texas or is it still Carls Jr.?

I understand the reasons for the move. What's sad is those who have small businesses here have to say farewell to their possible customers, clients, and, for youth sports teams and charities, one less sponsor.