3 ms·
Even something as simple as not charging $500 per year to create/maintain an LLC would be nice. As a resident of the Commonwealth, it's a mixed bag. On the on
by mdasen 18y ago
Even something as simple as not charging $500 per year to create/maintain an LLC would be nice.
As a resident of the Commonwealth, it's a mixed bag. On the one hand, the government is awesome and progressive. On the other hand, they want to be controlling and arbitrary. For example, there's huge biotech subsidies in the state - and it's a growth industry, but at the same time, it's somewhat arbitrary and means that those companies can pay up for things like office space since they're getting the subsidy and so they tend to become more of the economy. Likewise (since the article brings up transit), the Commonwealth decided that since a court ordered them to enhance public transit due to environmental concerns over that the big dig (a highway project) was causing, that it should be the MBTA (public transit authority) that should shoulder the cost rather than the big dig who created the need for the cost. That's simply bad economics to shift costs away from those that incur the costs. Likewise, the Commonwealth likes the double standard of free interstates (paid for by gas taxes) for everyone except those that live west of Boston (who must pay both a gas tax and tolls).
I'd prefer that the legislature tried to be a little less controlling of things on a high level and rather target the roots that they'd like to affect rather than simply deciding something like Industry A is good. Maybe something like, "companies with strong growth can get a discount tax incentive." Why companies with strong growth? Employing a lot of people isn't useful. Progressively employing more is useful. Being large isn't useful, growing larger is. So a company that exhibits strong growth is likely to employ more people in the future - especially if it has more capital to invest in itself. Likewise, if they've shown that they can do good things with capital, those companies will create more profits and more taxes in the future. Heck, even make it something like this: companies that show strong growth can defer (some of) their taxes for 5 years. That's like an interest free loan that gets them to locate in MA and have their growth in MA since that growth comes at a steep discount in cost with little long-term cost to the state.
I'm not complaining. Taxes are reasonable and services are high compared to other states (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html). It's a good place to live, despite the weather (although that's even nice today).
- dhimes 18y agoDon't try to run for office here (MA). You are way too reasonable.
- dhimes 18y agoI thought it was rather ironic that the same week Deval Patrick was heading to CA to entice some businesses to head east, the legislature was trying to implement a tax on businesses in other states. It's hard to believe, but if you get your tires changed in NH yet live in MA, MA thinks it deserves the sales tax. Readers not familiar with this will probably think I am making this up. It's totally absurd. If state A wants more sales tax revenue, they need to encourage businesses to open shop in state A. If it's to the business's benefit to set up shop across the border in state B, state A needs to rethink its policies. My problem with MA is that raising taxes seems to be their first answer to every problem. And driving here STILL sucks.
- gamache 18y agoBut it's tough when State B is a place like New Hampshire, who are more than happy to keep taxes low at the expense of having relatively poor services. Two different states, two very different sets of priorities.
- ensignavenger 18y agoMost of the politicians that I know that describe themselves as "progressive" are controlling. I think that in politics, the two terms go hand in hand. Perhaps your definition of "progressive" is different from the politicians definition?
- anamax 18y agoIt's may be a bit unfair to suggest that progressive politicians are especially controlling. I'd argue that the scope of (bad) controlling grows with the scope of govt control. I doubt that the relationship is sub-linear. One might argue that progressives are more aggressive about expanding the scope of govt. (That's not to say that other types won't try to expand, just that progressives are more interested, or at least more effective, in doing so.)