3 ms·

This. Great advice. I often wonder why people never associate "start-ups" with "small business". There are plenty of states who talk about having very favorabl

This. Great advice. I often wonder why people never associate "start-ups" with "small business". There are plenty of states who talk about having very favorable tax structures for small businesses, none of which include California. Reno is a great example of being able to leverage favorable tax structures and still being close to "the action" so to speak. This is such an obvious win-win on so many levels, I'm not sure why more people talk about utilizing states like Nevada for these advantages. If you look at this map, Nevada has one of the best business climates, which is right next to California, which has one of the worst: http://taxfoundation.org/article/2015-state-business-tax-climate-index http://taxfoundation.org/article/2015-state-business-tax-cli...

gamblor956 12y ago
Compare the success of Nevada's businesses with those of California's. Can you think of any major Nevada success stories outside of the casinos or Zappos? (Even Zappos found success as a Cali company before it moved to Nevada.) As it turns out, having one of the "best business climates" is usually not correlated with actual business success. States with "favorable" business climates have such climates precisely because businesses would not otherwise succeed in those states. This puts such businesses at a disadvantage when they try to expand to non-favorable states: without the tax subsidies, they simply aren't efficient enough to succeed in a cutthroat, capitalist environment. Tax Foundation's "best business climates" ranking is based purely on tax rates. It doesn't even take into account tax incentives! If they're going to rank states based on tax policies, they should be ranking based on effective tax rates, not hypothetical maximum marginal tax rates. The other major flaw with the rankings is that they don't take into account the other factors that matter far more to a small business: such as market opportunities, customer availability, employee quality, and support services, none of which you will find in any meaningful qualities in any of the states ranked in the top 10 of the Tax Foundation rankings.

gamblor956 12y ago

Compare the success of Nevada's businesses with those of California's. Can you think of any major Nevada success stories outside of the casinos or Zappos? (Even Zappos found success as a Cali company before it moved to Nevada.) As it turns out, having one of the "best business climates" is usually not correlated with actual business success. States with "favorable" business climates have such climates precisely because businesses would not otherwise succeed in those states. This puts such businesses at a disadvantage when they try to expand to non-favorable states: without the tax subsidies, they simply aren't efficient enough to succeed in a cutthroat, capitalist environment. Tax Foundation's "best business climates" ranking is based purely on tax rates. It doesn't even take into account tax incentives! If they're going to rank states based on tax policies, they should be ranking based on effective tax rates, not hypothetical maximum marginal tax rates. The other major flaw with the rankings is that they don't take into account the other factors that matter far more to a small business: such as market opportunities, customer availability, employee quality, and support services, none of which you will find in any meaningful qualities in any of the states ranked in the top 10 of the Tax Foundation rankings.