California, see a problem here?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9HzwA7Oi6M[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9HzwA7Oi6M[/ame]
Californian
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Oh great, this guy again!
The Last time we saw Mr Whittle lying about the aftermath of the Reno Air Races. This guy said that the "Liberals" were going to ban air racing because some folks were killed in an accident.
Did that happen?
Was he right, did they ban air racing?
Now this guy is saying that California used to be the leader of technology, but not any more, he says they are moving to Texas for tax reasons.
Is that true?
He bases this on one relativly small rocket company.......and 50 years ago, rockets were considered "High Technology".
Obviously this "rocket" company finished all the design and testing here in CA, but the building and flying of these rockets requires very little engeneering, so Texas is perfect!
Al, why did Facebook, move here from the East Coast? They could have moved anywhere, even Texas.....
Was it for tax reasons?
As for Texas, I'm glad that there is a "low end" location for folks who can not make it in California. Not everyone can make it here.
Al, all these companies are located in the South Bay Area, within 20 miles of my home. Not only are they located in California, they are in Nancy Pelosi's district.
Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps its for tax reasons.
Apple, Cupertino
Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto
Intel, Santa Clara
Google, Mountain View
Cisco Systems, San Jose
Oracle, Redwood City
eBay, San Jose
Synnex, Fremont
Gilead Sciences, Foster City
Applied Materials, Santa Clara
Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara
Symantec, Mountain View
NetApp2, Sunnyvale
Sanmina, San Jose
Advanced Micro Devices, Sunnyvale
Facebook, Menlo Park
SanDisk, Milpitas
Yahoo, Sunnyvale
VMware, )Palo Alto
Adobe Systems, San Jose
Net Flicks, San Jose
There are hundreds more, but you get the idea.
*******
And Mr Whittle says we are "going out of business", no longer leading in High tech...........really?
This guy either has no idea what he is taking about or he is lying, it has to be one or the other.
All these companies could be based anywhere..........
Say Al, why are they all here in the Bay Area?
The Last time we saw Mr Whittle lying about the aftermath of the Reno Air Races. This guy said that the "Liberals" were going to ban air racing because some folks were killed in an accident.
Did that happen?
Was he right, did they ban air racing?
Now this guy is saying that California used to be the leader of technology, but not any more, he says they are moving to Texas for tax reasons.
Is that true?
He bases this on one relativly small rocket company.......and 50 years ago, rockets were considered "High Technology".
Obviously this "rocket" company finished all the design and testing here in CA, but the building and flying of these rockets requires very little engeneering, so Texas is perfect!
Al, why did Facebook, move here from the East Coast? They could have moved anywhere, even Texas.....
Was it for tax reasons?
As for Texas, I'm glad that there is a "low end" location for folks who can not make it in California. Not everyone can make it here.
Al, all these companies are located in the South Bay Area, within 20 miles of my home. Not only are they located in California, they are in Nancy Pelosi's district.
Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps its for tax reasons.
Apple, Cupertino
Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto
Intel, Santa Clara
Google, Mountain View
Cisco Systems, San Jose
Oracle, Redwood City
eBay, San Jose
Synnex, Fremont
Gilead Sciences, Foster City
Applied Materials, Santa Clara
Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara
Symantec, Mountain View
NetApp2, Sunnyvale
Sanmina, San Jose
Advanced Micro Devices, Sunnyvale
Facebook, Menlo Park
SanDisk, Milpitas
Yahoo, Sunnyvale
VMware, )Palo Alto
Adobe Systems, San Jose
Net Flicks, San Jose
There are hundreds more, but you get the idea.
*******
And Mr Whittle says we are "going out of business", no longer leading in High tech...........really?
This guy either has no idea what he is taking about or he is lying, it has to be one or the other.
All these companies could be based anywhere..........
Say Al, why are they all here in the Bay Area?
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Yes Rob, you are correct.
Texas has such a great business inviroment that they had to give "a significant set of financial incentives" Including tax breaks and over $10,000,000.....here in CA we call that a bribe!
Al, why do you suppose Mr Whittle failed to mention this?
*******************
But did the little town I grew up in, Menlo Park have to pay Facebook to move there?
No, in fact just the opposite.
Most Towns Would Kill to Host Facebook. So Why Is Menlo Park Playing Hard to Get?
Attracted by the promise of jobs and tax revenue, most towns would offer significant economic incentives to attract a large corporate headquarters. But being the home base of a corporate giant like Facebook has its challenges too. At least that’s the position leadership in the city of Menlo Park, Calif., are taking in asking the social-media behemoth to compensate the city for some of the increased pressure the company’s expansion creates on civic services.
**********************
So lets see........
Texas has to give all sorts of "financial incentives" Including tax breaks and over $10,000,000 to get this low tech company to move to Texas.
But not only did facebook not get incentives, they have to pay for the honor.....to move to California.
*********************
Al, why do you suppose Mr Whittle failed to mention this?
Al you should keep this in mind, Mr Whittle is willing to totally misrepresent the facts in order to push his agenda.
He played loose with the facts and you not only believed him, you brought his lies here.....
Shame on both of you.
Texas has such a great business inviroment that they had to give "a significant set of financial incentives" Including tax breaks and over $10,000,000.....here in CA we call that a bribe!
Al, why do you suppose Mr Whittle failed to mention this?
*******************
But did the little town I grew up in, Menlo Park have to pay Facebook to move there?
No, in fact just the opposite.
Most Towns Would Kill to Host Facebook. So Why Is Menlo Park Playing Hard to Get?
Attracted by the promise of jobs and tax revenue, most towns would offer significant economic incentives to attract a large corporate headquarters. But being the home base of a corporate giant like Facebook has its challenges too. At least that’s the position leadership in the city of Menlo Park, Calif., are taking in asking the social-media behemoth to compensate the city for some of the increased pressure the company’s expansion creates on civic services.
**********************
So lets see........
Texas has to give all sorts of "financial incentives" Including tax breaks and over $10,000,000 to get this low tech company to move to Texas.
But not only did facebook not get incentives, they have to pay for the honor.....to move to California.
*********************
Al, why do you suppose Mr Whittle failed to mention this?
Al you should keep this in mind, Mr Whittle is willing to totally misrepresent the facts in order to push his agenda.
He played loose with the facts and you not only believed him, you brought his lies here.....
Shame on both of you.
Last edited:
Two dozen companies commit to leaving California | News - KCRA Home
Report: 254 companies left California in 2011 - The Orange County Register
High Taxes Mean It's Lights Out For California
The Weekend Interview with Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus - WSJ.com
60 California Companies Relocated to Texas
Civic Report 71 | The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look
Why Are California's Businesses Disappearing? - Businessweek
Companies Are Leaving California in Record Numbers, and It Might Get Worse | AEIdeas
Report: 254 companies left California in 2011 - The Orange County Register
High Taxes Mean It's Lights Out For California
The Weekend Interview with Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus - WSJ.com
60 California Companies Relocated to Texas
Civic Report 71 | The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look
Why Are California's Businesses Disappearing? - Businessweek
Companies Are Leaving California in Record Numbers, and It Might Get Worse | AEIdeas
FWIW, I only knew two independent businessmen personally, here in California. Both of them started with nothing but guts and determination and ideas, and built their respective businesses into successful enterprises; one employed only five people but the other had about 50-60 employees.
Then government regulations started creeping in; seemingly every week some clown was showing up, ordering them to change this and add that and compensate the other. This is an alternate form of taxation; it is basically akin to a shakedown, where a bureaucrat comes in and orders you to spend money you shouldn't have to spend, to fix a problem that didn't exist until he chose to deem it so. Doing so requires hiring external agencies, and 'creates jobs' in the process.
Eventually, both joined the crowd, and shut down their California businesses, putting most of their employees out of work, and pulled up stakes and re-established their businesses in Nevada. Employees were given the choice of keeping their jobs, keeping their existing salaries (which, like Texas, means a 10% raise), and a virtual halving of their cost of living by moving to Reno. Those that had the flexibility to move, did, but those who had strong ties to the local area had to stay behind and seek alternate work (a process that took years in some cases).
Their businesses are both now thriving in Nevada, with a mix of old and new employees.
It really is just that simple. Even the well-established high-tech companies in the silicon valley are divesting and moving more and more of their actual business enterprises to alternate locations. Yes, Apple is located there, but how many Apple products are *manufactured* there? The answer is, close to none...and for good reason!
As a proud union member myself, I'm appalled to see how other unions (not mine I hasten to point out) have commandeered California's political system, and rigged the game to line their pockets while helping to bankrupt the state. We have passed the tipping point where a principled political minority has any chance of averting disaster. It's simply a matter of time before California turns into Greece....
Then government regulations started creeping in; seemingly every week some clown was showing up, ordering them to change this and add that and compensate the other. This is an alternate form of taxation; it is basically akin to a shakedown, where a bureaucrat comes in and orders you to spend money you shouldn't have to spend, to fix a problem that didn't exist until he chose to deem it so. Doing so requires hiring external agencies, and 'creates jobs' in the process.
Eventually, both joined the crowd, and shut down their California businesses, putting most of their employees out of work, and pulled up stakes and re-established their businesses in Nevada. Employees were given the choice of keeping their jobs, keeping their existing salaries (which, like Texas, means a 10% raise), and a virtual halving of their cost of living by moving to Reno. Those that had the flexibility to move, did, but those who had strong ties to the local area had to stay behind and seek alternate work (a process that took years in some cases).
Their businesses are both now thriving in Nevada, with a mix of old and new employees.
It really is just that simple. Even the well-established high-tech companies in the silicon valley are divesting and moving more and more of their actual business enterprises to alternate locations. Yes, Apple is located there, but how many Apple products are *manufactured* there? The answer is, close to none...and for good reason!
As a proud union member myself, I'm appalled to see how other unions (not mine I hasten to point out) have commandeered California's political system, and rigged the game to line their pockets while helping to bankrupt the state. We have passed the tipping point where a principled political minority has any chance of averting disaster. It's simply a matter of time before California turns into Greece....
Top 5 least friendly tax states
5. Rhode Island
> Taxes collected per capita: $2,603 (18th highest)
> Unemployment: 9.1% (3rd highest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $141 (18th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 7.00% (tied for 2nd highest)
Rhode Island received a poor grade in part because of its high corporate income tax rate, as well as some of the nation’s highest effective property tax rates. The state also had the worst-rated unemployment insurance tax policy in the country. According to the Tax Foundation, Rhode Island needs to cut taxes to make it more competitive. Governor Lincoln Chafee proposed cutting the state’s corporate income tax rate from 9% to 7%, but the plan eventually was rejected.
ALSO READ: America’s Richest (and Poorest) States
4. Minnesota
> Taxes collected per capita: $3,557 (6th highest)
> Unemployment: 5.1% (10th lowest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $188 (9th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 6.88% (7th highest)
Minnesota’s legislature increased its top individual income tax rate from 7.85% to 9.85% in May. Along with the state’s already poor rankings for corporate, individual income and unemployment insurance taxes, this change helped make Minnesota one of the least tax-friendly states for business. While Minnesota’s unfriendly tax climate would suggest it could kill business, the state’s economy recovered especially well since the recession. The state’s unemployment rate was 5.1% in August, compared with 7.3% nationally.
3. California
> Taxes collected per capita: $3,111 (11th highest)
> Unemployment: 8.9% (5th highest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $256 (5th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 7.50% (the highest)
California has, according to the Tax Foundation, the worst individual income tax policy in the nation. The state has the highest top income tax in the United States, at 13.3%. It also has a graduated, rather than flat-rate, income tax system. Also, after combining the state sales tax and the average locally set sales taxes, California has the nation’s highest state sales tax rate as well. California was among the most damaged states by the recession. In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown succeeded in winning voter approval of tax increases on the wealthy that prevented massive cuts to school and university funding.
2. New Jersey
> Taxes collected per capita: $3,085 (12th highest)
> Unemployment: 8.5% (tied for 8th highest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $252 (6th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 7.00% (tied for 2nd highest)
New Jersey is usually neck-and-neck with neighboring New York as the least tax-friendly state for business, according to the Tax Foundation. In this year’s ranking, New York fared worse than New Jersey, but only barely. New Jersey’s property tax policy ranked dead last, and the state collected $2,896 per capita in property taxes, the largest sum in the country. Its corporate income tax policies and individual income tax policies also ranked among the worst in the country.
ALSO READ: The Most Tax-Friendly States For Business
1. New York
> Taxes collected per capita: $3,497 (8th highest)
> Unemployment: 7.6% (18th highest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $207 (8th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 4.00% (tied for 7th lowest)
The great irony about New York — the least tax-friendly state for business — is that New York City by itself is a world trade and finance center. However, the according to the Tax Foundation, the state’s tax policies are the worst in the state for keeping or attracting business. New York ranked worst in the country for receiving among the worst grades for unemployment insurance taxes and property taxes. The state’s corporate tax rate was actually rated 25th, but New York is dragged down by one of the worst scores for property, unemployment insurance and individual income taxes. In fiscal 2011, the state collected $1,864 in income taxes per capita. This was more than $1,000 above the U.S. average.
Read more: The Least Tax-Friendly States for Business - 24/7 Wall St. The Least Tax-Friendly States for Business - 24/7 Wall St.
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook
5. Rhode Island
> Taxes collected per capita: $2,603 (18th highest)
> Unemployment: 9.1% (3rd highest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $141 (18th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 7.00% (tied for 2nd highest)
Rhode Island received a poor grade in part because of its high corporate income tax rate, as well as some of the nation’s highest effective property tax rates. The state also had the worst-rated unemployment insurance tax policy in the country. According to the Tax Foundation, Rhode Island needs to cut taxes to make it more competitive. Governor Lincoln Chafee proposed cutting the state’s corporate income tax rate from 9% to 7%, but the plan eventually was rejected.
ALSO READ: America’s Richest (and Poorest) States
4. Minnesota
> Taxes collected per capita: $3,557 (6th highest)
> Unemployment: 5.1% (10th lowest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $188 (9th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 6.88% (7th highest)
Minnesota’s legislature increased its top individual income tax rate from 7.85% to 9.85% in May. Along with the state’s already poor rankings for corporate, individual income and unemployment insurance taxes, this change helped make Minnesota one of the least tax-friendly states for business. While Minnesota’s unfriendly tax climate would suggest it could kill business, the state’s economy recovered especially well since the recession. The state’s unemployment rate was 5.1% in August, compared with 7.3% nationally.
3. California
> Taxes collected per capita: $3,111 (11th highest)
> Unemployment: 8.9% (5th highest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $256 (5th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 7.50% (the highest)
California has, according to the Tax Foundation, the worst individual income tax policy in the nation. The state has the highest top income tax in the United States, at 13.3%. It also has a graduated, rather than flat-rate, income tax system. Also, after combining the state sales tax and the average locally set sales taxes, California has the nation’s highest state sales tax rate as well. California was among the most damaged states by the recession. In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown succeeded in winning voter approval of tax increases on the wealthy that prevented massive cuts to school and university funding.
2. New Jersey
> Taxes collected per capita: $3,085 (12th highest)
> Unemployment: 8.5% (tied for 8th highest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $252 (6th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 7.00% (tied for 2nd highest)
New Jersey is usually neck-and-neck with neighboring New York as the least tax-friendly state for business, according to the Tax Foundation. In this year’s ranking, New York fared worse than New Jersey, but only barely. New Jersey’s property tax policy ranked dead last, and the state collected $2,896 per capita in property taxes, the largest sum in the country. Its corporate income tax policies and individual income tax policies also ranked among the worst in the country.
ALSO READ: The Most Tax-Friendly States For Business
1. New York
> Taxes collected per capita: $3,497 (8th highest)
> Unemployment: 7.6% (18th highest)
> Corporate taxes collected per capita: $207 (8th highest)
> Sales tax rate: 4.00% (tied for 7th lowest)
The great irony about New York — the least tax-friendly state for business — is that New York City by itself is a world trade and finance center. However, the according to the Tax Foundation, the state’s tax policies are the worst in the state for keeping or attracting business. New York ranked worst in the country for receiving among the worst grades for unemployment insurance taxes and property taxes. The state’s corporate tax rate was actually rated 25th, but New York is dragged down by one of the worst scores for property, unemployment insurance and individual income taxes. In fiscal 2011, the state collected $1,864 in income taxes per capita. This was more than $1,000 above the U.S. average.
Read more: The Least Tax-Friendly States for Business - 24/7 Wall St. The Least Tax-Friendly States for Business - 24/7 Wall St.
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
When Mr Whittle was giving all the reasons why Xcor was going to Midland Texas, he completely left out the "financial incentives" with tax breaks and oh yea, $10,000,000 in cash.
We have always had leaders from poor states coming to California offering companies big $ to move and there are always a few who take the money and run.
Its not cheap to live in California and its not cheap to run a business (we run two), some can make it and some can not.
I'm sure the sketchy ones on the edge of making it would jump at "financial incentives" with tax breaks and oh yea, cash.....
I'm happy that there is a place that they can go, I wish them the best.
But then, they are paying financial incentives that we do not....just like facebook, there are always companies that are more than willing to do what it takes to live in California, the successful ones stay.
We have always had leaders from poor states coming to California offering companies big $ to move and there are always a few who take the money and run.
Its not cheap to live in California and its not cheap to run a business (we run two), some can make it and some can not.
I'm sure the sketchy ones on the edge of making it would jump at "financial incentives" with tax breaks and oh yea, cash.....
I'm happy that there is a place that they can go, I wish them the best.
But then, they are paying financial incentives that we do not....just like facebook, there are always companies that are more than willing to do what it takes to live in California, the successful ones stay.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
It seems that Mr Whittle is a bigger lier than I originally thought.
This is an Xcor press release dated 04/03/2014:
XCOR Aerospace is based in Mojave, California. It is currently creating a Research and Development Center in Midland, Texas, and will be establishing an operational and manufacturing site at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. XCOR builds safe, reliable and reusable rocket-powered vehicles.
So it appears that the Xcor is not moving to Texas at all. It's brain trust, engineers and leaders are not moving to Midland Texas, they are staying in California. Perhaps Texas is the best place to test rockets, California does get a little picky about that sort of thing.
Mr Whittle, who lives in California, not only left out the part about huge incentives, he left out the part about them staying in California.
This is great news though, when he is not busy lying Mr Whittle can still go play spaceman
This is an Xcor press release dated 04/03/2014:
XCOR Aerospace is based in Mojave, California. It is currently creating a Research and Development Center in Midland, Texas, and will be establishing an operational and manufacturing site at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. XCOR builds safe, reliable and reusable rocket-powered vehicles.
So it appears that the Xcor is not moving to Texas at all. It's brain trust, engineers and leaders are not moving to Midland Texas, they are staying in California. Perhaps Texas is the best place to test rockets, California does get a little picky about that sort of thing.
Mr Whittle, who lives in California, not only left out the part about huge incentives, he left out the part about them staying in California.
This is great news though, when he is not busy lying Mr Whittle can still go play spaceman
Last edited:
marc
Lifetime Supporter
most of those you mention are also in Texas, but the big problem is they funnel money out of the US to not pay taxes. And most of those companies mentioned are given tax incentives whether you know it or not. Don't think that San Fran area is the only place to be. We all see the incentive ads in Tx to move to CA, MI, NY, NC and probably a dozen other places. Besides, with the exception of some uniqueness and weather, the people in CA are jerks and worse.
I disagree, sir. I know 'a few' people who reside there, and they are all 'salt-of-the-earth'.
They are ALL fed up with the faaaaar left govt down there though, as one might expect...
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Well Larry, your friends are in the minority, Jerry Brown is very popular, he will be re-elected without the need to campaign.
This is from the Sacramento Bee, two days ago.....
Jerry Brown’s public approval rating reaches new high
Gov. Jerry Brown’s public approval rating has risen to a new high, as he pummels a crop of little-known Republicans in his bid for re-election, according to a new Field Poll.
Brown’s 59 percent approval rating among registered voters is nearly identical to the 57 percent of likely voters who would vote for him in June. His closest competitor, Republican Tim Donnelly, trails Brown by 40 percentage points, according to the poll.
Well, OF COURSE they're in the minority, Jim - IT'S A FAAAAAAR LEFT STATE!!!!!!!!
(You DO realize, however, that by saying my friends are in the minority, you've just acknowledged the fact that the MAJORITY of the people in Cali are NOT "salt-of-the-earth" by default?!)
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Larry,
Perhaps you have missed the import of those numbers....
Jerry Brown is favored by 57% of likely voters, the top Republican "trails him by 40 points". That means that the top Republican is favored by only 17%
Something like 35% of Republicans favor Jerry Brown over the best Republican.
We are not that faaaar left, Jerry Brown replaced a Two term Republican.
Only 45% of CA registered voters are Democrats.
Perhaps you have missed the import of those numbers....
Jerry Brown is favored by 57% of likely voters, the top Republican "trails him by 40 points". That means that the top Republican is favored by only 17%
Something like 35% of Republicans favor Jerry Brown over the best Republican.
We are not that faaaar left, Jerry Brown replaced a Two term Republican.
Only 45% of CA registered voters are Democrats.
Last edited:
Jim,
I'm not quite getting your math. As only 28.5% of registered voters are Republicans, how do you assume that 35% of Republicans support JB?
Tom
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Hi Tom,
There was no assumption and its best for all concerned if I do as little math as possible
The data I used was from the Sacramento Bee, dated April 8, 2014:
"While drawing support from California’s large number of Democrats and independent voters, more than one third of Republicans – 35 percent – also rate Brown favorably, according to the poll."
***********
There is lots of similar data, this is from the San Jose Mercury, Jan 29, 2014:
"The Democratic governor's fiscal prudence has won applause from across the aisle, too.
Scores of Republican lawmakers have praised Brown's $106.8 billion spending blueprint, and the poll found 66 percent of Republican voters support the plan, even though only 1 in 3 said they like Brown's job performance. But the Republicans lined up to challenge Brown in the upcoming gubernatorial election have hammered the spending plan".
There was no assumption and its best for all concerned if I do as little math as possible
The data I used was from the Sacramento Bee, dated April 8, 2014:
"While drawing support from California’s large number of Democrats and independent voters, more than one third of Republicans – 35 percent – also rate Brown favorably, according to the poll."
***********
There is lots of similar data, this is from the San Jose Mercury, Jan 29, 2014:
"The Democratic governor's fiscal prudence has won applause from across the aisle, too.
Scores of Republican lawmakers have praised Brown's $106.8 billion spending blueprint, and the poll found 66 percent of Republican voters support the plan, even though only 1 in 3 said they like Brown's job performance. But the Republicans lined up to challenge Brown in the upcoming gubernatorial election have hammered the spending plan".
Last edited:
Similar threads
