10 ms·

As a business owner this crap terrifies me. Washington State was looking at changing their tax code retroactively to get more money from Microsoft, luckily leve

As a business owner this crap terrifies me. Washington State was looking at changing their tax code retroactively to get more money from Microsoft, luckily level heads (and I might presume, extensive lobbying) prevailed. I can't plan today for what yesterday's laws will be tomorrow.

rayiner 14y ago
Unfortunately, I think you'll see more of these problems as states get crushed under their existing debt and new expenditures from pension obligations, etc. See: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2013pZ0d http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2...
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Shove them (States) in between a rock and a hard place, and they pretty much run out of options. Not surprising.
  - tjic 14y ago
    They've got tons of options. They could, for example, cut back the bloated private sector. ...but the governments are on the side of the government workers (most government workers are unionized and these funds lobby the politicians). The result is that it becomes an "us vs them" fight, and while common citizens may theoretically have political power through the ballot box, in practice power is mostly exercised through campaign donations and backroom deals, so the politicians are taking the decisions that they're incentivized to take: stealing seed corn and feeding it to the public sector employees.
    - randallsquared 14y ago
      > They could, for example, cut back the bloated private sector. Isn't that what they're trying to do? :D But I guess this is a typo for "public sector"...
- pc86 14y ago
  Perhaps defined-benefit retirement plans should not be in the public sector since they haven't been in the vast majority of the private sector for quite some time.
  - rkowalick 14y ago
    This is the exact same argument the supporters of Ohio Senate Bill 5[1] used. One reason people in the public sector are willing to be paid less than their private counterparts is because their benefit plans are genuinely better. Saying they should eliminate one of the better benefits public sector employees get is stupid. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Referendum,_Issue_2_%282011%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Refere...
    - clarky07 14y ago
      People say this all the time, but I really don't see it. I really don't think teachers are that underpaid, and I say that as someone married to a teacher. They only work 9 months of the year. If private sector employees only worked 75% of the time, it's likely they'd make less money too. Would I like it if my wife made more money? Sure. Does that mean I think she should, at the expense of everyone else's tax dollars? No. Contrary to what you say, most people don't choose teaching because of the benefit plans. They might do it because they only have to work 75% of the time, but it isn't the benefits. They choose it because that is what they want to do. Help kids, teach, etc. The benefits do not make sense as a reason to do this job. If that's what you're going for, you'd just take a job in the private sector, work more, and make a lot more money.
    - jacoblyles 14y ago
      Unsustainable benefits are stupid. Of course, when legislators pass pension hikes, they do so knowing that it pleases powerful unions now and the costs to tax payers are decades down the road. So it is one of the more appealing ways for a legislator to screw their state. They may even be out of office by the time the bill comes due! Defined-benefit pensions are a huge drag on many state budgets, and paying them does nothing to improve the quality of current government services. The bluer the state, the more they are screwed: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2012/11/08/5-trillion-price-tag-for-public-pensions http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2012/11/08...
- muzz 14y ago
  Government spending has nothing to do with constutionality of law. The law was simply struck down by the courts, in this case. It's not some government plan to increase tax revenues.
iheartc 14y ago
Come to Florida, it may be a red state but they stay out of your business and costs less.
- wallawe 14y ago
  It's a red state and thus they stay out of your business and it costs less.
  - bjcy 14y ago
    Texas isn't too shabby either. Plus, fewer natural disasters means less downtime.
    - techsupporter 14y ago
      Hopefully you aren't fond of electricity[0], water[1], schools[2], or roads[3]. 0 - http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/26375 http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/26375 1 - http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm 2 - http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-budgets-call-for-cuts-despite-sunnier-revenu/nTwm7/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-budgets-call-for-cu... 3 - http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/txdot-director-agency-needs-4-billion-more-for-roa/nTsR7/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-polit... (Texas is my home state. I left, though I keep close ties to it through family and frequent visits.)
      - natrius 14y ago
        Electricity is being worked on, as that press release indicates. On the hottest day or two of the year, the power might go out for a little bit. It's not a big deal. Water is going to be the biggest issue this legislative session. California has similar water problems. Schools... are complicated. That one might not get fixed, but performance is better correlated with household income than education spending. Roads are easy. Tolls. The people who use the roads pay for them. Texas is my home state as well. I went to California for a few years, then came back. I don't plan on leaving.
run4yourlives 14y ago
That will work until one of the Microsofts of the world decides it's more cost effective to move everyone 2 hours drive north to Vancouver than it is to pay this giant bill. The US is quickly going to learn that there is a rather modern country to the north that isn't in the same financial distress as Europe or most states are. I'd imagine given that, this line of thinking would probably play itself out pdq.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  But I thought their financials would be in ruin, what with giving out all of that free healthcare?
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    Don't get me wrong, we will eventually get to the spot Europe is in if we don't make changes to our health care services of one type or another. We have however shown a remarkable ability to vote for people that tell us we can't afford things we can't afford. We took drastic austerity measures in the 90's and we actually voted for it - twice. I'm not too worried about our finances, once people get the numbers in front of them, they tend to be convinced.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      A cohort of reasonable voters? You just keep racking up reasons to move there...
      - mahyarm 14y ago
        Vancouver has horrible housing affordability ratios (housing price : income), income is lower at the entry level for software by almost double compared to WA (MS can change that), cost of goods is about %15-%30 more expensive across the board. Housing prices are just now reversing because of stricter mortgage requirements. Interest rates are really low and an interest rate hike is just waiting to happen. The reason why Vancouver is so bad for housing is because wealthy foreign investors see Vancouver as a stable store of value for their money. It's a complicated bank account for large sums of money. Alberta is the money making place to be in Canada, since the resource industry & banking drives over %50 of the TSX. Rent is also a lot better in Alberta. But Canada is not a country right now to be a techie compared to the USA. It's a great place to be in the oil industry although.
slavak 14y ago
If they're allowed to retroactively change how much they taxed you, can you refile your financial statements? Yeah, didn't think so...

rayiner 14y ago

Unfortunately, I think you'll see more of these problems as states get crushed under their existing debt and new expenditures from pension obligations, etc. See: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2013pZ0d http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2...

sliverstorm 14y ago
Shove them (States) in between a rock and a hard place, and they pretty much run out of options. Not surprising.
- tjic 14y ago
  They've got tons of options. They could, for example, cut back the bloated private sector. ...but the governments are on the side of the government workers (most government workers are unionized and these funds lobby the politicians). The result is that it becomes an "us vs them" fight, and while common citizens may theoretically have political power through the ballot box, in practice power is mostly exercised through campaign donations and backroom deals, so the politicians are taking the decisions that they're incentivized to take: stealing seed corn and feeding it to the public sector employees.
  - randallsquared 14y ago
    > They could, for example, cut back the bloated private sector. Isn't that what they're trying to do? :D But I guess this is a typo for "public sector"...
pc86 14y ago
Perhaps defined-benefit retirement plans should not be in the public sector since they haven't been in the vast majority of the private sector for quite some time.
- rkowalick 14y ago
  This is the exact same argument the supporters of Ohio Senate Bill 5[1] used. One reason people in the public sector are willing to be paid less than their private counterparts is because their benefit plans are genuinely better. Saying they should eliminate one of the better benefits public sector employees get is stupid. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Referendum,_Issue_2_%282011%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Refere...
  - clarky07 14y ago
    People say this all the time, but I really don't see it. I really don't think teachers are that underpaid, and I say that as someone married to a teacher. They only work 9 months of the year. If private sector employees only worked 75% of the time, it's likely they'd make less money too. Would I like it if my wife made more money? Sure. Does that mean I think she should, at the expense of everyone else's tax dollars? No. Contrary to what you say, most people don't choose teaching because of the benefit plans. They might do it because they only have to work 75% of the time, but it isn't the benefits. They choose it because that is what they want to do. Help kids, teach, etc. The benefits do not make sense as a reason to do this job. If that's what you're going for, you'd just take a job in the private sector, work more, and make a lot more money.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    Unsustainable benefits are stupid. Of course, when legislators pass pension hikes, they do so knowing that it pleases powerful unions now and the costs to tax payers are decades down the road. So it is one of the more appealing ways for a legislator to screw their state. They may even be out of office by the time the bill comes due! Defined-benefit pensions are a huge drag on many state budgets, and paying them does nothing to improve the quality of current government services. The bluer the state, the more they are screwed: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2012/11/08/5-trillion-price-tag-for-public-pensions http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2012/11/08...
muzz 14y ago
Government spending has nothing to do with constutionality of law. The law was simply struck down by the courts, in this case. It's not some government plan to increase tax revenues.

iheartc 14y ago

Come to Florida, it may be a red state but they stay out of your business and costs less.

wallawe 14y ago
It's a red state and thus they stay out of your business and it costs less.
- bjcy 14y ago
  Texas isn't too shabby either. Plus, fewer natural disasters means less downtime.
  - techsupporter 14y ago
    Hopefully you aren't fond of electricity[0], water[1], schools[2], or roads[3]. 0 - http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/26375 http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/26375 1 - http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_south.htm 2 - http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-budgets-call-for-cuts-despite-sunnier-revenu/nTwm7/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-budgets-call-for-cu... 3 - http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/txdot-director-agency-needs-4-billion-more-for-roa/nTsR7/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-polit... (Texas is my home state. I left, though I keep close ties to it through family and frequent visits.)
    - natrius 14y ago
      Electricity is being worked on, as that press release indicates. On the hottest day or two of the year, the power might go out for a little bit. It's not a big deal. Water is going to be the biggest issue this legislative session. California has similar water problems. Schools... are complicated. That one might not get fixed, but performance is better correlated with household income than education spending. Roads are easy. Tolls. The people who use the roads pay for them. Texas is my home state as well. I went to California for a few years, then came back. I don't plan on leaving.

run4yourlives 14y ago

That will work until one of the Microsofts of the world decides it's more cost effective to move everyone 2 hours drive north to Vancouver than it is to pay this giant bill. The US is quickly going to learn that there is a rather modern country to the north that isn't in the same financial distress as Europe or most states are. I'd imagine given that, this line of thinking would probably play itself out pdq.

jiggy2011 14y ago
But I thought their financials would be in ruin, what with giving out all of that free healthcare?
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  Don't get me wrong, we will eventually get to the spot Europe is in if we don't make changes to our health care services of one type or another. We have however shown a remarkable ability to vote for people that tell us we can't afford things we can't afford. We took drastic austerity measures in the 90's and we actually voted for it - twice. I'm not too worried about our finances, once people get the numbers in front of them, they tend to be convinced.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    A cohort of reasonable voters? You just keep racking up reasons to move there...
    - mahyarm 14y ago
      Vancouver has horrible housing affordability ratios (housing price : income), income is lower at the entry level for software by almost double compared to WA (MS can change that), cost of goods is about %15-%30 more expensive across the board. Housing prices are just now reversing because of stricter mortgage requirements. Interest rates are really low and an interest rate hike is just waiting to happen. The reason why Vancouver is so bad for housing is because wealthy foreign investors see Vancouver as a stable store of value for their money. It's a complicated bank account for large sums of money. Alberta is the money making place to be in Canada, since the resource industry & banking drives over %50 of the TSX. Rent is also a lot better in Alberta. But Canada is not a country right now to be a techie compared to the USA. It's a great place to be in the oil industry although.

slavak 14y ago

If they're allowed to retroactively change how much they taxed you, can you refile your financial statements? Yeah, didn't think so...