New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You say California doesn't do stuff to lure businesses to come to their state, through what, low or no business taxes or tax-payer incentives? I'm sure those exist too, not in a broad sweeping way of course, but California has invested heavily in public projects and green technologies, among other things. Instead of just giving tax payer money to businesses or eliminating taxes, California has reinvested in companies with grants and projects.

California is ranked last in Cost of Doing Business and Business Friendliness in 2019.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amer...ness-2019.html

Cost of Doing Business (350 points)
We look at the competitiveness of each state’s tax climate, as well as state-sponsored incentives that can lower the cost of doing business. Utility costs can add up to a huge expense for business, and they vary widely by state. We also consider the cost of wages, as well as rental costs for office and industrial space.

Business Friendliness (175 points)
We evaluate the legal and regulatory climates of each state, as well as overall economic freedom for businesses and individuals.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/08/how-...s-in-2019.html

This is why Cali is losing major corporations. You can value what you want, but when the business environment turns to shit companies will take it on down the road. We are seeing that happen.

[WolfpackS2k]

Always amusing to see someone attempting to defend the mess that is California. Most of the disasters that occur in CA are manmade (and I'm not referring to anything related to an invisible odorless trace gas).

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You say California doesn't do stuff to lure businesses to come to their state, through what, low or no business taxes or tax-payer incentives?

You do realize that, in a practical sense, no corporation in the history of corporations has ever paid a corporate income tax, right? Ultimately, you and I pay corporate income taxes.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Every state has weird laws. In high school, during our mock congress, at one point each state had to say an amusing law. I recall one town made it illegal to walk downtown with ice cream. Another city made it illegal to walk into town with your pants tucked into your boots. I don’t want to explain why.

Here are some examples, but there are hundreds that can be found online, and I challenge you to name a state that isn’t authoritarian by your lose definition.

https://www.usatoday.com/list/news/n...-0fec193d389e/

I'm not talking about "weird" laws. I'm talking about the leadership of California interpreting/enforcing the law as they please, and acting against the will of the people who they are supposed to represent. When you account for costs of living California has the highest poverty rate in America despite being the 5th largest economy in the world. It's completely overbearing and the government there has become so inflated that they cannot survive without acting like a financial leech on everything they touch. How long have you lived in California, just curious?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

California is ranked last in Cost of Doing Business and Business Friendliness in 2019.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amer...ness-2019.html


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/08/how-...s-in-2019.html

This is why Cali is losing major corporations. You can value what you want, but when the business environment turns to shit companies will take it on down the road. We are seeing that happen.

It has always been this way. Businesses just needed to come here because this was a hotbed of software engineers and innovation. This was also one of the largest markets, so setting up shop next to buyers made logistical sense. Companies that are leaving California may also be the type of companies that eventually leave other states for Mexico or China for cheaper labor, less unions and less taxes. Corporations will do what is in their interests to maximize profits. The only thing that will effect these behaviors is public sentiment/demand and legislation. The US does this by setting up tariffs on importing products. Should California set up a tariff that cars, for instance, sold but not produced in California is subject to a tariff?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Always amusing to see someone attempting to defend the mess that is California. Most of the disasters that occur in CA are manmade (and I'm not referring to anything related to an invisible odorless trace gas).

It is always amusing to see someone single out California. It is cliche.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

You do realize that, in a practical sense, no corporation in the history of corporations has ever paid a corporate income tax, right? Ultimately, you and I pay corporate income taxes.

Awww, they just pass on everything to the customer, so we should do what, give them more?

Where does it stop? We provide tax relief and incentives. We give land away. We provide corporate welfare by giving tax payer’s money to these businesses. They take all the handouts and then keep the money and the profits. They outsource jobs, try to prevent unions, raise executives bonuses, offer crap benefits. The income gap keeps growing.

I really don’t get this line of thinking.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I'm not talking about "weird" laws. I'm talking about the leadership of California interpreting/enforcing the law as they please, and acting against the will of the people who they are supposed to represent. When you account for costs of living California has the highest poverty rate in America despite being the 5th largest economy in the world. It's completely overbearing and the government there has become so inflated that they cannot survive without acting like a financial leech on everything they touch. How long have you lived in California, just curious?

Interpreting the law as they please. Example? Acting against the will of what people? Example?

I work with plenty of coworkers who were traveling nurses who settled here because the pay is so good, even relative to the high cost of living. This isn’t true of everyone. Many areas are saturated because demand is so high and housing supply is so low that workers aren’t staying here. My area has laws to avoid urban sprawl by limiting development. Even if it was more open, housing development is going to be low in a hot housing market that can burst like it did in 2008. There is a simple supply and demand here. Eventually that balance will flatten or even reverse. This is normal market conditions and isn’t a reflection of poor policies. It is natural corrections. What would you suggest?

Lived here my whole life. I have family in other states like Georgia, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, South Dakota and as south as San Diego and north as Mendocino.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Awww, they just pass on everything to the customer, so we should do what, give them more?

Where does it stop? We provide tax relief and incentives. We give land away. We provide corporate welfare by giving tax payer’s money to these businesses. They take all the handouts and then keep the money and the profits. They outsource jobs, try to prevent unions, raise executives bonuses, offer crap benefits. The income gap keeps growing.

I really don’t get this line of thinking.

I was referring to corporate taxes only. Corporate welfare, land giveaways, etc we are in agreement. I'm not a fan of any of that. No company should be big enough to fail, and taxpayers should only subsidize for-profit businesses with their purchases.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I was referring to corporate taxes only. Corporate welfare, land giveaways, etc we are in agreement. I'm not a fan of any of that. No company should be big enough to fail, and taxpayers should only subsidize for-profit businesses with their purchases.

Aww but what is the difference? No corporation has ever paid for their own land, nor has any corporation not been given public money because they all pass this on to the consumer if they don’t. In fact, corporations never fail because we bail them out when ghe market takes a dump with our corporate welfare programs, but we have to, or they will just pass the money onto the consumer.

How do you distinguish between taxation and other things highlighted above using the same logic that the consumer will ultimately pay for everything they impose?

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It has always been this way. Businesses just needed to come here because this was a hotbed of software engineers and innovation. This was also one of the largest markets, so setting up shop next to buyers made logistical sense. Companies that are leaving California may also be the type of companies that eventually leave other states for Mexico or China for cheaper labor, less unions and less taxes. Corporations will do what is in their interests to maximize profits. The only thing that will effect these behaviors is public sentiment/demand and legislation. The US does this by setting up tariffs on importing products. Should California set up a tariff that cars, for instance, sold but not produced in California is subject to a tariff?

I'm not mad that California has a massive workforce. I think its great but I also think that those tech companies can relocate and they won't have any trouble filling seats. My point is, if the state keeps pushing these major corporations out of state, their GDPs are not going to sustain. Especially when you consider the top contributors of Cali's GDP. California can do whatever they want but consistently over-regulating businesses is not going to attract new start ups nor sustain old giants. California only offers certain incentives that are only applicable to certain industries that promote the generally accepted narrative at the time. You took that the entire wrong direction, I want less regulation, not more. If you can't find the benefits of deregulation on the internet, I can't help you.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I'm not mad that California has a massive workforce. I think its great but I also think that those tech companies can relocate and they won't have any trouble filling seats. My point is, if the state keeps pushing these major corporations out of state, their GDPs are not going to sustain. Especially when you consider the top contributors of Cali's GDP. California can do whatever they want but consistently over-regulating businesses is not going to attract new start ups nor sustain old giants. California only offers certain incentives that are only applicable to certain industries that promote the generally accepted narrative at the time. You took that the entire wrong direction, I want less regulation, not more. If you can't find the benefits of deregulation on the internet, I can't help you.

California also ranked 1st in “technology and innovation” and “access to capital”. Of course all the computer scientists, developers and engineers can leave California and set up shop somewhere else. Other states might have open arms for California businesses, but not for Californians to come with those businesses. We see this with businesses and people moving to Texas or Georgia like with those liberal Hollywood folks working in Georgia’s film industry. No one wants their red state turning blue.

California isn’t pushing corporations out of the state. If they are leaving then it is because those corporations have a better offer or want to go to a state where they can pollute more, pay workers less, not have to pay workers healthcare or whatever. Again, the same thing that is driving any corporations to other states will also drive them to other countries. It is a slippery slope. What corporations are leaving?

It is the internet. There is just as much information about the problems of deregulations.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

How do you distinguish between taxation and other things highlighted above using the same logic that the consumer will ultimately pay for everything they impose?

Common sense since all of that is the cost of doing business, not a forced passthrough of my income to the government?

Look, I'm not going to argue it with you other than to say anything can be taken to the extreme you are taking it because ultimately, yes the consumer pays for everything in a quasi-free marketplace.

My point is that if a company has a specific profit margin in mind, they are not going to reduce that if you tax them to pay the tax. They will build it into the cost of their product.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Common sense since all of that is the cost of doing business, not a forced passthrough of my income to the government?

Look, I'm not going to argue it with you or than to say anything can be taken to the extreme you are taking it because ultimately, yes the consumer pays for everything in a quasi-free marketplace.

My point is that if a company has a specific profit margin in mind, they are not going to reduce that if you tax them to pay the tax. They will build it into the cost of their product.

Of course they will unless they can’t because their competition would be cheaper because the competition didn’t raise the price.

The problem is we have a culture problem where we accept this behavior and allow it. The only way around it is through regulations. We do this at the national level all the time. We have a 25% tariff on trucks that are imported. If we didn’t have tariffs pr other regulations then US manufacturing would end or wages would drop to the standards of the lowest bidding country. Right now, other states are catabolizing standards created in other states by luring businesses to their states with substandard offers. It is what it is. If people want to point their finger at California then it is entirely possible to point a finger back at them along the same vein.

It is crazy that a corporation like Amazon with a $2 trillion valuation and with Bezos worth $182 billion needs to have workers on government assistance or needs to have tax-payer incentives to set up shop. Obviously they will pay as little as possible, so why do we allow this? It is crazy. AOC stood up and they left then they came back because being in New York is in their interest regardless because of the economy, work force, market hub, etc. In the end, if they can pay less they will. If someone or some state allows them to avoid taxes or pay less, they will.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...2-fallout.html