More talk for the rich to get breaks and keep more of the money a flat rate only help those in the 1% bracket.
important thing is to remove any tax incentive for companies to move overseas other countries have the advantage of cheaper labor, so we have to make sure we have every other advantage to make up for that
Are you saying all of the innovation comes from Cali because of expensive taxes? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post but I thought all of the innovation from Cali was because of the geography, weather, entertainment mecca, great universities, highly educated population, etc.. which leads to the main reason being aggregation of large groups of really smart innovative thinkers over a long period of time. The Aristotle quote makes my point, "a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse." In other words, because of all of those advantages, Cali sort of becomes a super-organism that is efficient and has expert level ability at pumping out innovation. That's my long winded explanation only to say high taxes, low taxes, I don't think it's a factor in the innovation production that comes out of Cali. If taxes are, they are way down the list behind many other factors. Oh I almost forgot. My household has a healthy six figure income and we wouldn't mind a tax break. We spend and save, not anywhere close to being considered rich or wealthy. I can guarantee you if you put a bit more in my pocket I'll spend in on something expendable which will help out with some jobs and small business. I'll drive to Houston and go to more Rockets games than I do now that's for sure. That's got to trickle down right?
And it's circular because the high taxes help fund the universities and schools that produce the innovative thinking.
This I can agree with, BUT innovation came first then taxes. Taxes cannot come first or innovation would have been stifled.
Not really. Labor cost = 33% of a companies cost. Moving overseas cuts that in half usually or more - so cuts costs 16%. Taxes = 35% of profit which is on avg is about 5% for a corp so that makes it about a 2% cost. Would you sacrifice 16% to save 2%???? Nope. It won't make a difference. This is all just an excuse to help corporations make more money. It will be good for stocks but do nothing to save jobs.
You may want to take your adoring eyes off of your ideology for a second and look at the actual case of California. The tech boom was born in a high state tax environment. Innovation was not stifled.
I should clarify. it worked in California because of the weather and geography. in other "boring" places it will never happen.
I live in a high tax state (Minnesota) with less than optimal geography (it hit -20 this weekend). We have 3 percent unemployment and the highest number of fortune 500 headquarters per capita. And we're top 5 in the US (as a metro) in median income while having far lower cost of living than the other four cities above us. You can put your fingers in your ears and make up reasons for places like Silicon Valley but the reality is that California has a very well educated pool of workers which is the common theme here as well. Minnesota has historically been near the top when it comes to public education (both in terms of funding and outcomes) and that has a big impact on on the successes of our workforce. Companies put jobs where they can find skilled workers and strong innovators. So I'm happy to pay higher taxes if that means a better quality of life.
