8 ms·

That Tax Foundation survey would seem to suggest that CA (48), NY(49), and MA (36) aren't good places to start a startup either. http://www.taxfoundation.org/f

That Tax Foundation survey would seem to suggest that CA (48), NY(49), and MA (36) aren't good places to start a startup either. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59_es.pdf http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59_es.pdf I think that the other factors mentioned in the article: innovative incentives for investors, locality to VCs and experienced (successful) startups, and a great community of developers all factor in more heavily than tax policy.

protomyth 16y ago
CA has those in spades (it overcomes the whole tax thing), MN does not.
ianb 16y ago
It would also be wrong to think that lowering taxes would change something dramatically; . The Dakotas were in bad shape economically and could sacrifice existing tax revenue and responsible fiscal oversight (remembering a lot of what they attracted was financial industry drawn to low regulation and low consumer protections -- thanks a lot Dakotas!) Minnesota's economy is going relatively well, and there's no dearth of successful companies. And generally there's a good standard of living and a strong sense of community responsibility, which is why those companies are staying -- there's real people behind any decision to move, and a lot of people aren't willing to move even if there might be financial incentives. Minnesota is missing tech entrepreneurship... well, even that isn't true, as medical technology is doing quite well. Y Combinator style startups aren't. This is unfortunate, but overall changes to the economic structure of the state is hardly called for.
- protomyth 16y ago
  uhm.. North Dakota is doing fine fiscally (budget surplus) and has a lot of money coming in from oil. Perhaps you are referring to South Dakota which is home to a lot of credit card companies? Minnesota is running the 10th worst budget deficit (14.7% of state's general fund).
  - ianb 16y ago
    Yes, I'm referring to those states (at least I believe it's both North and South Dakota, though maybe it's only the South?) being lax on financial regulation of companies.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      I'm pretty sure its only SD, they have all the credit card companies. ND has its own bank though.

protomyth 16y ago

CA has those in spades (it overcomes the whole tax thing), MN does not.

ianb 16y ago

It would also be wrong to think that lowering taxes would change something dramatically; . The Dakotas were in bad shape economically and could sacrifice existing tax revenue and responsible fiscal oversight (remembering a lot of what they attracted was financial industry drawn to low regulation and low consumer protections -- thanks a lot Dakotas!) Minnesota's economy is going relatively well, and there's no dearth of successful companies. And generally there's a good standard of living and a strong sense of community responsibility, which is why those companies are staying -- there's real people behind any decision to move, and a lot of people aren't willing to move even if there might be financial incentives. Minnesota is missing tech entrepreneurship... well, even that isn't true, as medical technology is doing quite well. Y Combinator style startups aren't. This is unfortunate, but overall changes to the economic structure of the state is hardly called for.

protomyth 16y ago
uhm.. North Dakota is doing fine fiscally (budget surplus) and has a lot of money coming in from oil. Perhaps you are referring to South Dakota which is home to a lot of credit card companies? Minnesota is running the 10th worst budget deficit (14.7% of state's general fund).
- ianb 16y ago
  Yes, I'm referring to those states (at least I believe it's both North and South Dakota, though maybe it's only the South?) being lax on financial regulation of companies.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure its only SD, they have all the credit card companies. ND has its own bank though.