BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:Like I said... cover for "lets' all flee to the lowest tax state".
Except... that doesn't truly promote business. And I DID provide a link referencing that.. but it was even mentioned at one point by greekdog.
No, PLAYER. Most economists would agree that
marginal increases or decreases in tax rates don't have a significant affect on businesses (when discussing varying State taxes within the US, which don't vary that much from one another). But if you compare a state with 10% tax to a state with 70% tax, then the difference is clear on the positive effects that lower taxes have on promoting business.
Since NOBODY is talking about a 50% difference in your tax rate, your point is irrelevant.
There's no need to kick and scream. Delaware's taxes are included within the study, which you use to say that "taxes don't truly promote business," yet taxes do promote business as is evident with Delaware's situation, and even though Delaware's taxes don't vary as much as my example's 60%, still Delaware's small difference matters.
I decided to spend the time writing my previous reply, because it's important for you to understand how certain studies work, and how you can accurately apply their conclusions into other debates.
Besides, your point still doesn't invalidate NS's--namely,
1) "It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments."
For example, "if you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so."
Essentially, he's advocating for a more "vote with your feet" policy. May the best public policies be the most practical, I guess. A federal government's policies instituted over every State denies that possibility.
This is only "good" if you want the changes to happen. The point of our government is that it takes a long time to change things at the federal level.
Some things are too important to be subject to the whims of the "cause du jour". This is particularly true when the benefits to a few are pretty immediate, short term and the harm to many is long term. That is precisely the situation in most of the debates today. Cutting social security, Medicaid, education will cause EXTREME harm down the road. But, keeping taxes low cause immediate benefit to some very powerful people. That equation doesn't change at the state level, in fact it is compounded..... as we can see in PA, elsewhere.
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: It can't be denied that Delaware successfully promoted more business within its borders with its near 0% business tax. .
What I deny is that it truly benefitted the country in the long run. For that marginal benefit, the rest of us effectively lost any control over credit card interest rates, exactly because this was decided by an individual state and not the entire country.
Not "anyone's," but rather the federal government's loss of control. But if you want to understand why credit card interest rates are the way they are, then you have to consider the Federal Reserve's influence on the interest rates of loans and how that most likely affects credit card interest rates.[/quote]BULL. The reason is that banks are in the business of making profits and will whenever allowed to do so. The federal government absolutely dropped the ball.. becuase there has been so much "reduce size of the government" pressure for the past 30 years. That pressure has been around for almost forever, but in the last 30 years, it has gotten a very strong voice.
"]
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, it did not promote as much business as the tech boom did for Califorania. And while California is currently in trouble, its not because their taxes were too high. It is STILL a favorable place to do business. Most people would rather live in the Bay Area, Santa Barbara, even San Diego rather than Delaware.
It is and it isn't. Taxes matter, and so do job opportunities, and so do many other factors... so what's your point?
My point is that we need to look at overall impacts. Delaware might have benefitted to some extent, but did the country as a whole? NO. Economic policies have to be broad (to the extent we need them) because we are not independent economies. In your scenario, one state might gain, but it is at the expense of other states. Further, those gains are temporary because the other states will be forced to follow. BUT... that is where comparing California really comes in. California has been ahead for many, many years precisely because they did invest in things like education. However, becuase other states took different routes, California people and businesses also wound up not paying for the benefits they recieved. That.. getting things you don't pay for, is always a problem. However, to claim that the problem is "too many benefits" ignores the good that came from all those programs. It ignores why they were established and the real positive impacts they had on the economy. Just as an example, I got an exemplary college education for
less than it would cost me to take
one class through Penn State. Now, I have made a lot of errors career-wise, but that part was not one of them. (I could have .. likely should have.. chosen any career, the costs would have been the same).
Corbett is doing the exact opposite of what he should. Many of the recent gains PA has experienced are attributable to investments in education. That Penn state is rated so very highly has had an absolute benefit to our entire area. HOWEVER, in come Marcellus shale and skews it all. Why? Because they are, by law, excused from paying for almost all of the impacts they cause to us. (the EPA has no power over these operations). The natural gas companies were able to infuse HUGE amounts of money, to exert a lot of influence all over the state. But note.. the arguments were not about marcellus shale. At the time of the elections, few people knew much at all about it. Only after did the REAL reasons for all the investment (the fact that they had invested in so many people's campaigns) come out. By rights, we should have been able to rely upon the EPA to defend us, to at least monitor impacts. However, under Bush, with all the "no more regulations, etc." pressure, this "little rule" was slipped in saying that the EPA has no say over this industry. NONE.
Corbett's campaign, the campaigns of most elected this past season said almost nothing about that. Instead, they talked about high taxes and a few right wing issues..ranging from erroneous claims about Obama taking folk's hunting rifles to abortion and homosexuality to the terrorism and immigration. Tot he extent shale was brought up, it was about low taxes = industry.
THAT is what the Tea Party rhetoric does. And... that chameleon-like ability happens because there is no set platform. As long as someone claims to be for lowering taxes.. nothing else matters. BUT... the details do matter. As you all jokingly noted in another thread, you can lower taxes quite well by simply nationalizing everything. You can also cut government by just eliminating each and every regulatory agency out there.
NOW see why I say it is a dangerous movement? Because it is no real movement. It is just a theme that people can use however they wish.. and people very much do.
