Minnesotans are willing to pay more taxes for more prosperity

[nain rouge]

Weather isn't the ONLYfactor people will consider when choosing to live in a location.

Right. Yes, so Michigan's economy is still better than the economies in Mississipi, Alabama, and Louisiana. It's hardly a bragging right and doesn't guarantee that Michigan will always be better.

[animatedmartian]

Right. Yes, so Michigan's economy is still better than the economies in Mississipi, Alabama, and Louisiana. It's hardly a bragging right and doesn't guarantee that Michigan will always be better.[/COLOR]

But do they have lower taxes? The whole point of the thread is that there are states with higher taxes than Michigan yet still have growing if not thriving economies. Yet if those three states have lower taxes and better weather than Michigan, then there must be some other reason that their economies aren't thriving. Either way, it means that a state has to have more than low taxes and a warm climate to be economically successful. What would those factors be? My guess is subsidies.

[nain rouge]

You're getting mixed up. I wasn't the one arguing that low taxes and subsidies are inherently good. Earlier in this thread I posted a link to the Wall Street Journal that criticized Michigan for excessive, ineffective subsidies.

[Wesley Mouch]

Right. Yes, so Michigan's economy is still better than the economies in Mississipi, Alabama, and Louisiana. It's hardly a bragging right and doesn't guarantee that Michigan will always be better.[/COLOR]

We know that M, A, & L have smaller economies -- but the important question is whether these States are growing or shrinking NOW. What we do today determines our future. Today's statistics are based on the past. Things are changing. Detroit's not the center of American industry -- and Alabama has a BMW plant.

Remember that China had a smaller economy not so long ago, too. Things change.

[ghettopalmetto]

We know that M, A, & L have smaller economies -- but the important question is whether these States are growing or shrinking NOW. What we do today determines our future. Today's statistics are based on the past. Things are changing. Detroit's not the center of American industry -- and Alabama has a BMW plant.

Remember that China had a smaller economy not so long ago, too. Things change.

That's because the American South is now the Third World labor force for Europe and South Korea. Alabama paid $300 million [[1996 dollars) to land that Mercedes plant...a cool $200,000 for each low-paying, non-union, right-to-work job. Oh--and the state had to pay to train the workers too, since none of them knew how to put a car together.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/01/bu...des-plant.html

I'd rather look at median income, educational attainment, and healthcare outcomes than "growth"--which is easily distorted when comparing a mature economy to one that's just barely getting off the ground.

[Patrick]

I'm not a big fan of Southern developmental patterns. My point is that the South is eating Michigan's lunch right now. Virginia obliterates Michigan. Texas is doing much better. Georgia just passed us. North Carolina will too, if current trends continue. You're living in the past.

Virginia is a special case because of all the Federal jobs. Would NoVA be as wealthy if the government spread its agencies around the nation?

[nain rouge]

Virginia is a special case because of all the Federal jobs. Would NoVA be as wealthy if the government spread its agencies around the nation?

Fair enough, but where would Detroit be without the auto "bailout" and all the aid the government has given the city? The pot can't call the kettle black.

I'd rather look at median income, educational attainment, and healthcare outcomes than "growth"--which is easily distorted when comparing a mature economy to one that's just barely getting off the ground.

Um, median household income? Michigan is 34th. Educational attainment? Michigan ranks 36th for percentage of the population with a bachelor's degree. Health care? According to the Commonwealth Fund's scorecard [[very reputable and widely cited), Michigan is 26th, which is OK. Except we were 15th in 2009. Whoops.

So what do we have to brag about? That we haven't slipped to the bottom yet? The self-mythologizing and general stupor in Michigan is astounding.

[Goose]

the article shows only statistics and falsely draws a conclusion that higher taxes equals more prosperity... they regurgetate numbers but show no direct correlation...

they may as well have said because its colder in Minnesota there is more prosperity
or because Michigan is shaped like a glove its less prosperous

the article references a report put together by those wanting to increase taxes...

[Wesley Mouch]

That's because the American South is now the Third World labor force for Europe and South Korea. Alabama paid $300 million [[1996 dollars) to land that Mercedes plant...a cool $200,000 for each low-paying, non-union, right-to-work job. Oh--and the state had to pay to train the workers too, since none of them knew how to put a car together.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/01/bu...des-plant.html

I'd rather look at median income, educational attainment, and healthcare outcomes than "growth"--which is easily distorted when comparing a mature economy to one that's just barely getting off the ground.

$69,225 doesn't sound like low-paying to me. Sounds like the kind of jobs Detroit needs.

Ahmad Ijaz, director of economic forecasting for the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama, said the average annual wage for people working in motor vehicle and auto parts manufacturing in Alabama in 2011 was $69,225.

At least you didn't say anything about how everyone down there was a red-neck. Although maybe I shouldn't assume someone named Ahmad isn't white trash.

Source: http://www.madeinalabama.com/2013/10...rcedes-worker/

They have a different strategy than we do. We spend our money on social programs. They spend on jobs. Let them try their approach. It seems to be working.

[Hermod]

the article shows only statistics and falsely draws a conclusion that higher taxes equals more prosperity... they regurgetate numbers but show no direct correlation...

they may as well have said because its colder in Minnesota there is more prosperity
or because Michigan is shaped like a glove its less prosperous

the article references a report put together by those wanting to increase taxes...

I think the industries in Minnesota [[farming and food processing) are less susceptible to global competition and outsourcing thus supporting the ability of the state and its subordinate elements to collect taxes.

Michigan north of a line from Bay City to Muskegon is mostly declining extraction industries and second homes. There isn't a whole lot up there to tax any more.

[emu steve]

Demographically comparable areas with divergent tax rates inevitably see wide shifts in growth towards the lower-taxed area. Comparing Minnesota with Michigan is not really accurate, because the demographics aren't the same. Compare West Michigan with Minnesota, without the decimated [[in part, by high taxes) cities of Detroit, Flint, and Pontiac, and you will find a truer comparison.

Actually high taxes are at best a spurious correlation.

I assume places in Northern Virginia would be considered high tax by most standards yet it is a NON-FACTOR.

NoVa has tons of residents employed by the federal government or government contractors so it has a very stable, robust EMPLOYMENT base.

With a stable employment base we have very strong property values and property tax revenues.

cf. Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, etc. Once the employment base disintegrated, folks left, lost houses to foreclosure, property values shrunk, property tax revenues declined badly, etc.

I believe the Freep had an article yesterday on Detroit with a sunning graphic that real [[adj. for inflation) revenues for Detroit was less than 1/2 of what it was 50 years ago.

I feel like a 10th grader discussing in school what I learned: A growing area with more and more good paying jobs tends to attract well educated, highly skilled workers who want to live in the community leading to population growth, upward pressure on housing prices and increased tax revenue to local governments. [deindustrialized communities are the exact opposite. Folks leave, housing values decline, tax revenue to local governments decline, etc.]

I have seen this first hand in both Northern Va and Washtenaw County [[I lived, went to school and worked in Washtenaw County for about four years).

I might mention a good example is Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti: Ann Arbor has a very strong base because of UofM. Ypsilanti has EMU but was also dependent on blue collar employment which left the area. Ypsilanti's population has declined, while Ann Arbors has not.

Deindustrialization is the enemy of the American big city. We need jobs for college graduates and we also need jobs for those who want blue collar jobs which pay decent wages.

We can't survive on an economy which produces six-figure salaries for the most talented but has too many trying to thrive on Walmart wages.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Deindustrialization is the enemy of the American big city. We need jobs for college graduates and we also need jobs for those who want blue collar jobs which pay decent wages.

Deindustrialization may in fact be an enemy of the American Big City, but it is far from the only one. Also, it is not generally an avoidable problem. Jobs are not physical assets which can be moved or kept by a person or city at will. A job is an agreement: someone willing to pay someone else to do something. People elsewhere are willing to work for less money, so people pay them to do the work. There will always be some manufacturing jobs in American cities, but it will never again be a huge source of employment. With that in mind, American cities need to engage in civic behavior conducive to attracting other jobs. Among those behaviors: not taxing the hell out of businesses; not regulating them to the extent that it is just much easier to do your business elsewhere; providing for physical safety for staff and customers; having a large base of potential workers that have at least a basic education. Detroit's failures on those four points has more to do with the city's high unemployment rate than any action by the Big 3 automakers.

[emu steve]

Deindustrialization may in fact be an enemy of the American Big City, but it is far from the only one. Also, it is not generally an avoidable problem. Jobs are not physical assets which can be moved or kept by a person or city at will. A job is an agreement: someone willing to pay someone else to do something. People elsewhere are willing to work for less money, so people pay them to do the work. There will always be some manufacturing jobs in American cities, but it will never again be a huge source of employment. With that in mind, American cities need to engage in civic behavior conducive to attracting other jobs. Among those behaviors: not taxing the hell out of businesses; not regulating them to the extent that it is just much easier to do your business elsewhere; providing for physical safety for staff and customers; having a large base of potential workers that have at least a basic education. Detroit's failures on those four points has more to do with the city's high unemployment rate than any action by the Big 3 automakers.

Sometimes I think it has almost everything to do BUT taxes.

Truth be told the unspoken issue with Detroit, beside de-industrialization, was race and the riots of 1968 [[I was at Wayne State then and remember them) and, of course, suburbanization which encouraged folks to move out to bigger houses [[with smaller families. yep.).

cf. Fairfax County. We are a very diverse county, sometimes more diverse than the U.N. The county hypes its diversity. We have 1M houses and low income rentals a few blocks away.

A person living in a 1M house and someone in a low income rental might both go to same Little Caesars for deep dish pizza.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Sometimes I think it has almost everything to do BUT taxes.

Because there are other relevant issues does not mitigate the fact that high taxes hurt and discourage economic activity [[not just businesses, but individuals as well). High property taxes mean you can buy less house; high income taxes mean you have less money to spend. For reasons I don't understand, people would quit a job if their boss reduced their pay 1%, but they remain silent when the government remains silent when the government takes even more money out of their wallet.

[nain rouge]

Truth be told the unspoken issue with Detroit, beside de-industrialization, was race and the riots of 1968 [[I was at Wayne State then and remember them) and, of course, suburbanization which encouraged folks to move out to bigger houses [[with smaller families. yep.).

As I wrote before, deindustrialization is the biggest red herring in the Detroit story, but people love it because it takes away the blame from the people and places it on some nefarious corporate entities. Bottom line, Detroit had a peak population of 1.8 million, a good chunk of which was housed in modern suburbs with spacious lawns and big driveways. Today, Metro Detroit has 4.3 million people.

Clearly, there are still enough people and jobs to support a big city of 1.8 million, or else how do our 4.3 million people survive? The real problem is we massively overdeveloped, counting on endless economic and population booms to prop the system up. Of course, when that didn't happen, people point the finger at deindustrialization for all of our problems because it's easy and convenient. Please.

Truth is, we chose to make Detroit the way it is by moving everything we could into the suburbs. It was never a completely viable plan, but we did it anyway and now we have to live with the results.

[emu steve]

Because there are other relevant issues does not mitigate the fact that high taxes hurt and discourage economic activity [[not just businesses, but individuals as well). High property taxes mean you can buy less house; high income taxes mean you have less money to spend. For reasons I don't understand, people would quit a job if their boss reduced their pay 1%, but they remain silent when the government remains silent when the government takes even more money out of their wallet.

I can only speak for myself. The ole N=1 [[I am presumably an unrepresentative sample of one).

I am a retired federal employee. IF I would move to a state which exempts all or part of a federal pension from state income taxation, I could save say 6% [[I think Va state income tax is at 6%).

HOWEVER, I choose to live in an area which is close to a dynamic city, D.C., has excellent schools, public safety, a county government ranked #1 in the country.
We have excellent diversity of race, creed, educational attainment, economic statuses, etc.

I believe I'm getting my monies worth. No complaints here.

I sincerely hope Detroit can fix its problems and be a place where people can live, work and play. That is why I post here. I root for job growth to return to Detroit, more housing, more sports and entertainment, etc. [[whatever makes for a great community).

[Wesley Mouch]

More taxes = More Prosperity.

Good sloganeering. Doubtful truth. Sometimes you need more taxes. Sometimes less.

If we want more government, then we need to pay more taxes. If we believe more in freedom rather than society by fiat, then we could pay less.

One thing I'm sure of. More taxes does not drive prosperity. If you increase taxes and don't use the money wisely -- you certainly won't get anything.

[ghettopalmetto]

More taxes = More Prosperity.

Good sloganeering. Doubtful truth. Sometimes you need more taxes. Sometimes less.

If we want more government, then we need to pay more taxes. If we believe more in freedom rather than society by fiat, then we could pay less.

One thing I'm sure of. More taxes does not drive prosperity. If you increase taxes and don't use the money wisely -- you certainly won't get anything.

Where do you get this crap? Less taxes = more freedom? How, exactly? Were people in the 1950's--you know, the ones who defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan--any less "free" than we are now?

If more taxes don't drive prosperity, then maybe we should send you for a visit to Norway, Canada, Sweden...hell, just about any Westernized country outside the United States...where they actually believe in helping people become productive members of society.

Cutting taxes on broke-ass uneducated people is just making us into a laughingstock of a nation. So please, cut with the mindless sloganeering.

[Hypestyles]

Minnesota is looking more attractive all the time, snowy winters notwithstanding.