|
Posted by HeyBub on March 17, 2008, 3:58 pm
Please log in for more thread options klunk wrote:
> "HeyBub"
>> N Owen wrote:
>>> "HeyBub" :
>>>
>>>> "When budgets begin to tighten, many state politicians start to
>>>> talk tax hikes. So credit Texas Governor Rick Perry for cutting
>>>> taxes this week as a way to keep his state as a national leader in
>>>> job creation. Mr. Perry suspended the state unemployment insurance
>>>> 'replenishment' tax for the rest of the year on grounds that
>>>> government doesn't need the money but employers do."
>>>>
>>>> It seems as if there's $1.6 billion socked away in the unemployment
>>>> insurance escrow accounts. More than enough, evidently, to pay out
>>>> unemployment benefits like forever. Not only that, but the state is
>>>> rebating $170 million already collected.
>>>>
>>>> It was either suspend the tax or get a bigger sock.
>>>>
>>>>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545140648235095.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
>>>>
>>> Your subject is a little misleading - the state of Texas has only
>>> stopped the extra .12% for replenishment.
>>
>> Right. My bad. Still, a couple hundred mil in reduced taxes is more
>> than chump-change.
>>
>> And if you own a company in Michigan or California where unemployment
>> taxes are significant, Texas, and other low-tax states, seem more
>> attractive every day.
>
>
> I see it as a way for a politician to claim they're "cutting" taxes
> when doing nothing of the sort. If the UI escrow accounts weren't
> at a surplus, this wouldn't be happening.
Yeah, I know. Still, as an employer, the prospect of paying nothing in UI
for the balance of the year is nice.
>
> California annually adjusts the UI rates for employers depending
> on the status of the UI fund. No politician can claim they "cut taxes"
> when it gets adjusted down. Since UI taxable income is capped at
> $7,000, and the average tax-rate is in the 2% range, I hardly call an
> annual UI tax of less than $200 per employee significantly higher
> than other "low-tax" states.
>
> I'd say there are a few more factors than some tax-beans as to where
> a business gets located. Texas is a wonderful place, but I'm not too
> worried about companies fleeing California all of a sudden over
> Perry's decree. Plus, you know that the replenishment charge will be
> tacked right back on when the UI fund gets depleted (which could
> happen a lot sooner than one thinks if the economy takes a big
> dump).
I agree. And I don't expect a wholesale exodus from California to Texas or
Florida (although there is significant movement from California to Nevada).
Still, it would by Pollyanish of state functionaries to think that taxes are
not part of the competitive atmosphere in attracting businesses.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap