Nestles latest business to leave California due to excessive taxes, hostility toward captalism.

[LateForLunch]

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/15/nestles-latest-to-leave-california-due-to-burdensome-tax-rate/

Close to two thousand businesses have left Mexifornia since 2008 (costing about 3 million jobs) and costing in addition nearly $26 billion in income which has been lost due to the workers who would have done those jobs moving out of the state.

[GtHawk]

Moonbeam and his ratsquad are dancing in the aisles as they continue down the path to their dream of eliminating classes, soon they will have achieved the socialist dream of two classes, the ruling class of haves and the class of everyone else, the have nots!

[Hondo69]

California won't have to secede, they are already self-seceding.

Last one out turn out the lights candles.

[Applewood]

Visited California back in the 1970s and already, it stunk.  Had an aunt who lived in Santa Ana, which back then wasn't bad. But San Francisco was creepy, LA was too cluttered, and downtown San Diego was practically non-existent.  San Diego did undergo a facelift some years later, but you couldn't pay me to live in California today. It's a shame because it has so many assets -- chief of which for me is the warm climate -- but the socialists and aging hippies have turned the state into a toilet. 

(Apologies to any of you who live there.)

[Hondo69]

I know it's really confusing to Liberals.  They just can't understand why companies pull up roots and move their operations overseas.  Can't they just pay their fair share?

And all these companies fleeing CA for TX and FL over the past few decades makes no sense either.  What's wrong, don't they like the iron jack boot?

And all these people leaving CA and NY for realville must be whack jobs.  Don't they know it takes a village to screw up your kids?

It's just one big puzzle to the Libs.

[MajorClay]

Why didn't they come to Texas?

[Fishrrman]

Back in the eighties when I was working freight for Conrail, we used to deliver a few carloads to Nestle's R&D facility in New Milford (CT).

That location has since closed, or relocated out of Connecticut.
Wonder if the high-tax environment of CT had anything to do with it?

[ABX]

Why didn't they come to Texas?

16 Million reasons.

...tax incentives worth $16 million....

[geronl]

16 Million reasons.

Virginia business tax is about 6%, Texas is about 1% (Franchise tax)

They would save much more in the long-run in Texas it seems.

[Hondo69]

Tax incentives have been a hot button issue here in Austin for as long as I remember and I've heard all the arguments pro and con.  It typically doesn't take long for these arguments to veer off in all sorts of directions for the simple reason that taxes affect each and everyone one of us in our everyday lives.

In my opinion it is OK to root around in the minutia and beat all the side issues to death, as long as you get the big picture right to begin with.  Which we don't.

[1] Companies and people move away from high tax areas and gravitate towards low tax areas.  Despite a mountain of statistical evidence to back this up Liberals still don't believe this is true.  The reason Liberals don't believe all these statistics are true is because they belong to a cult.  When you refuse to believe irrefutable evidence you belong to a cult.

[2] When a company or a person earns a dollar it is their dollar.  It is not the city's dollar, nor the state's dollar, nor the federal government's dollar.  It is their dollar, and government entities penalize them for earning it by taking away a portion of that dollar.  Taxes are therefore a negative event, a penalty, an encumbrance.  Regardless of your own personal view of using taxes to build roads, libraries and schools it doesn't not take away from the initial action of taking something away.  It is a negative event and we fought a Civil War over it.

[3] Cities that promise tax incentives to companies are removing this negative event.  They are not handing them a check or a suitcase filled with cash.  They simply are promising to not act in a negative manner.  To take this idea to the extreme suppose a company was tied to the whipping post once a month and flogged by the city manager.  As an incentive the city manager may decide to not tie a company to the whipping post at all, thereby removing this negative event.

[geronl]

[3] Cities that promise tax incentives to companies are removing this negative event.  They are not handing them a check or a suitcase filled with cash. 

If you are not offering it to the existing companies then you are playing favorites on the backs of the taxpayers. Why should a company have to fund the importation of a competitor?

[Bigun]

Tax incentives have been a hot button issue here in Austin for as long as I remember and I've heard all the arguments pro and con.  It typically doesn't take long for these arguments to veer off in all sorts of directions for the simple reason that taxes affect each and everyone one of us in our everyday lives.

In my opinion it is OK to root around in the minutia and beat all the side issues to death, as long as you get the big picture right to begin with.  Which we don't.

[1] Companies and people move away from high tax areas and gravitate towards low tax areas.  Despite a mountain of statistical evidence to back this up Liberals still don't believe this is true.  The reason Liberals don't believe all these statistics are true is because they belong to a cult.  When you refuse to believe irrefutable evidence you belong to a cult.

[2] When a company or a person earns a dollar it is their dollar.  It is not the city's dollar, nor the state's dollar, nor the federal government's dollar.  It is their dollar, and government entities penalize them for earning it by taking away a portion of that dollar.  Taxes are therefore a negative event, a penalty, an encumbrance.  Regardless of your own personal view of using taxes to build roads, libraries and schools it doesn't not take away from the initial action of taking something away.  It is a negative event and we fought a Civil War over it.

[3] Cities that promise tax incentives to companies are removing this negative event.  They are not handing them a check or a suitcase filled with cash.  They simply are promising to not act in a negative manner.  To take this idea to the extreme suppose a company was tied to the whipping post once a month and flogged by the city manager.  As an incentive the city manager may decide to not tie a company to the whipping post at all, thereby removing this negative event.

What do you think would happen if you were able to move, start, or expand a business in the USA without having to consider any tax implications?

[EC]

If you are not offering it to the existing companies then you are playing favorites on the backs of the taxpayers. Why should a company have to fund the importation of a competitor?

That seems to be a non-event. I can't find on an (admittedly quick) search any time when a city enticed a company to relocate using tax breaks when they already had a company in the same line of work in town. Same state, yes. Same city, no.