Really? Is that all you got out of it? Is that what I said? Or could it be that Ireland might have contributed to painting itself into a corner? And you don't see any parallels here at all? So should Ireland start cutting taxes to fuel its economy and attract more capital? (Is Max your economics tutor?)
Straight from Wikipedia: A 2005 study by The Economist found Ireland to have the best quality of life in the world.[14] The 1995 to 2000 period of high economic growth led many to call the country the Celtic Tiger.[15] One of the keys to this economic growth was a low corporation tax, currently at 12.5% standard rate. The Financial Crisis of 2008 still affects the Irish economy severely, compounding domestic economic problems related the collapse of the Irish property bubble. Ireland was the first country in the EU to officially enter a recession as declared by the Central Statistics Office.[16] The ESRI recently predicted that the Irish economy will not significantly recover until 2011.[17] Ireland now has the highest level of household debt relative to disposable income in the developed world at 190%.[18] The economic climate has led to resumed emigration.[19]
Not only does it have the highest level of household debt relative to disposable income in the developed world, but its national debt is also quite significant. This just in: Ireland was not the only country on the planet affected by the asset bubble. So it would appear that having among the lowest tax rates has not done much for its economy relative to other, higher taxed countries. The good times were relatively illusory and fleeting taken in the context of the bubble that fueled it. And I will ask you again, because you didn't answer the first time: Should Ireland start cutting taxes to fuel its economy and attract more capital? (Since you asked me "specifically" whether tax policy affects decision making.)
Back to OP, Carolla. He has a point about tax incentives keeping businesses in Calif. But, Calif is also one of the highest, if not the highest personal tax States there is. If someone is against taxes, why live in CA in the first place? I bit of irony is all. c
No. They should stop SPENDING!!!! Their tax rates are already low. Once again Gabby, this has been said on here for years. When central banks create bubbles, the consequences of those bubbles far outweigh tax policy. You can't cut taxes to fix a bubble burst. You can't raise taxes either. You have to fix the bubble issue. As long as we have central bank created bubbles, we are going to have unstable economies. But the reason I brought up the Adam rant is because I want to get away from the noise of central banks. Let's look at a local level where central banking is not at play. And the question is, on that level, does tax policy affect decision making of individuals and companies and it most certainly does. I could give you examples all day long. Are you going to tell me people are not leaving CA in droves because of high taxes? Are you going to tell me that people of means are not moving to NV or TX for tax reasons? Are you telling me the max exodus of corporations from the north to the south has nothing to do with tax policy? Are you going to tell me that tax subsidies do not impact people's decisions? Are you going to tell me that people don't make investment decisions around tax policies?
I agree that tax cuts don't fit well with spending increases. But here is the deal. Wherever the companies relocate in the US, they will still remain in the US, thereby paying US federal taxes. It is Obama's federal taxes that you are so much against and are so vocal about. They would be a constant across the country, right? As for moving from state to state, playing one against the other for lower taxes, can you not see the downward spiral that would conceivably follow if all or most of the states vigorously played that game? They would undercut one another to gain advantage, ratcheting spending downward at each iteration to try and balance their respective budgets, in each case taking one step closer to Third World status until finally, they arrive. The road to fiscal anorexia. Exaggeration? Not if all or most states play vigorously and seek to gain advantage over the competition in such a manner. And then the question follows, do the remaining companies go abroad to any number of even more accommodating Third World countries for even further advantage? And can any of the US states compete on that level in a free market across most established industries?