Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

DiMasi Indicates He’ll Fight Closing Tax Loopholes

By

Since I haven’t seen this elsewhere, I’d like to make sure people know that DiMasi is preparing to torpedo the core and heart of the Patrick budget, siding with 4% of really big businesses over the people of the Commonwealth.

In an effort to not shortchange my own blog, I am exerpting instead of posting my post here. For stuff like this, that’s what I’ll be doing from now on. I like my blog, dammit. It’s my content! LOL. Read the rest of my post here.

WBUR reported today that at a breakfast with the Chamber of Commerce (presumably the same Chamber of Commerce that Patrick spoke at in Boston), Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi indicated that he would fight the part of the Patrick budget that will close the corporate tax loophole that allows big corporations to “headquarter” themselves in other states with lower taxes in order to dodge their tax obligation in the Commonwealth.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I gots standards!

    <

    p>
    Plus, I’ve always hated crossposting. It sorta seemed like spamming someone else’s blog. But this one wasn’t being covered here, so far as I could tell…and it has enormous implications.

      • I’ve done it plenty of times, when I think what I’m writing is something that isn’t being said elsewhere or is a perspective that’s different, but I think it’s bad for both my own blog and this blog to have the same thing said on both. Especially because often, it ends up twice on leftyblogs. LOL

        • I’m just saying that on the very first thread of BMG v2.0 you were all excited about cross posting.  I only pulled that comment out because it was the first BMG thread using Soapblox.  đŸ™‚

  3. I heard a state rep last week admit that he wasn’t going to support the tax package because he lost earmarks in the Governor’s budget.  “Why should I do anything for him if he’s going to take MY money away”.  Don’t be surprised if that’s really what’s driving DiMasi.  At least my rep was honest, even if I don’t like his reasoning.

    • Are your earmarks more important than balancing the budget and making sure there aren’t drastic cuts in services?

      <

      p>
      I wish earmarks would be banned. I know it’s the “way of doing business” – ie, reward and punishment system – but if every lege were equally banned from getting them, they’d have to actually do the hard work in order to appeal to their constituants.

  4. The corporate tax increases are the heart and core?

    <

    p>
    For goodness sake, it’s $290 million of $29.9 Billion dollar budget.  So, let’s either bail on the ‘heart and core’ notion, or else embrace it and conclude that the .1% item is the “heart and core” of an otherwise very trivial financial plan.  Your pick.

    <

    p>
    Now as you may well figure, I’m not very keen on the Corporate tax.  Reason being is that when the torch weilding mob storms the walls to “tax the corporation”, pretty much the corporation doesn’t own a money tree from whence it can pluck cash.

    <

    p>
    The corporation won’t say oh well, looks like we must reduce earnings and pay “our fair share,”  They just can’t. A real person must ante up the cash.

    <

    p>
    Who then?

    <

    p>
    Shareholders? Maybe the Corporations will pay the shareholders less in dividends–those evil shareholders.  Shareholders, like say, your pension fund and 401(k).  YOUR pension fund and 401(k).

    <

    p>
    Customers? The Corporation managers may say, let’s charge more for our product.  That won’t usually work, because they’re already charging what the market will bear.  But to the extent possible, the Corporation will raise prices for the products will rise.

    <

    p>
    Workers? The Corporations will pay the workers less, or maybe they’ll hire fewer workers.  I really doubt the CEOs will cut their own salaries first.

    <

    p>
    Your pick: a) or b) or c)

    <

    p>
    Rant over.  Carry on.

    <

    p>

    • As it is, some businesses are able to avoid taxes (by blowing lots of money on accountants, inefficiently) while the businesses that are actually located in state instead of being a transnational that just takes our money have to pay the full boat.  I’m for fairness.  If you want to advocate eliminating this loophole and then cutting corporate taxes across the board, that’s a different story.

      <

      p>
      Plus, we’re already like the 135th least tax-heavy state on corporations or whatever the number was.

      • I think that’s a good point, but I’d be more likely to accept it if the Chamber of Commerce, which is made up mainly of small business, wasn’t also so adamantly against the Patrick proposals.

        <

        p>
        Take just one, the pole-parity tax.  Who’s complaining that the tax isn’t fair?  Not the electric companies who pay tax on them because the electric companies don’t compete against the telephone companies.  The only one complaining about ‘fairness’ is the mayor of boston who wants more money.

        <

        p>
        Increase the tax.  Where’s the money come from?  It has to come in the form of either higher phone rates or lower pay to the employees of Verizon or lower returns to shareholders.

        • You’re mischaracterizing the “pole tax”. Boston gets no additional revenue if the loophole is closed — Proposition 2.5 governs that; what happens is that the burden gets shifted to the other taxpayers. That’s why Menino is saying that he’ll give the money directly to residents as tax relief, because he had to take the money from residents when they incorporated in Bermuda a couple of years ago.

          <

          p>
          What’s better for the Boston economy — charging every household $200 so that Verizon can get a tax windfall and give its executives 50% compensation increases, or giving every household in Boston $200? I’d say the latter will be better for this state.

          • Where does the money come from?  It’s not Verizon. It’s coming from a) every household with a phone b) the shareholders of Verizon or, c) the employees of Verizon so that the the City of Boston can get a few bucks. 

            <

            p>
            So if you think all the users and employees and shareholders of Verizon should pony up some cash, just say so. Why just them?

            • The shareholders got the money when they found the loophole. They should forgo it when the loophole is closed.

              <

              p>
              How about the executives give back some of that 50% increase that they received in 2005?

              • And wasn’t it originally to encourage making electricity available in rural communities?  It’s certainly an exemption more than fifty years old.

                <

                p>
                (BTW – Executives ARE employees).

        • No way!

          <

          p>
          The Chamber of Commerce would love to have you think they are “made up mainly of small businesses.”  Indeed, almost every decent sized town in Massachusetts has a Chamber of Commerce branch that does represent and include members from the town’s “small” businesses.

          <

          p>
          But this is largely an illusion that is shattered by examining the leadership of the Greater Boston Chamber (the leading Chamber): http://www.bostoncha…

          <

          p>
          The GBCC “Executive Committee”, to give just one example includes the Publisher of the Boston Globe, the President of Northeastern, and top Executives at Genzyme,
          Procter & Gamble, Sovereign Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, John Hancock Financial Services, Suffolk Construction, Staples, Cisco,  etc, etc.  Their “Board of Directors” and “Honorary Directors” round out the field of almost every major, large business in the Boston area. 

          <

          p>
          The president of Verizon (which you discuss in other related posts) is Vice Chair of the Board of Directors for the Boston Chamber.

          <

          p>
          To suggest that this group’s opinion of “corporate tax loopholes” is more believable because they really represent the “little guy” in business is laughable and plays right in to the primary myth the Chamber intends to create. 

          <

          p>

          • And there is NOTHING leading about Boston.

            <

            p>
            Case in point – We have the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce and the Hyannis Chamber of Commerce both located in Barnstable – entirely seperate organizations with diffferent membership.  EVERY town has a local Chamber (actually, Brewster had a ‘Board of Trade’), but they have zero connection with one another except on a voluntary basis!  I hardly need to say the Boston Chamber speaks for Cape Cod just about…never.

            <

            p>
            You demonstrate how very unfamilar you are with the fabric of the business community when you say things like this.

    • From Brian McGrory’s column the other day:

      <

      p>

      Which is what I asked Luther when we recently shared, well, a cup of coffee: When do the moving trucks arrive? What I got back was an earful, repeated yesterday, that a lot of other Boston business leaders should hear.

      “We were born in Quincy,” Luther said. “All of the last 50 years, the brand has been built by people from this area, the entrepreneurs. The heritage of the brand comes from this geographical area, and you can’t abandon that.

      “When you make these financial decisions, sometimes you have to say: ‘It’s a higher-priced labor force. It’s more expensive to live here. But this is where we belong, and this is where we’re going to stay.’

      “My conscience would be bothered if I stranded 300 or 400 families who depend on us,” Luther added. “And, you know what? We’ll be OK. It’s as simple as that. The soul and heritage of a corporation is much more important than saving a few bucks.”

      <

      p>
      Look at that, the head of Dunkin Donuts saying that being good to both the employees and the customers of this region “is much more important than saving a few bucks.” 

      <

      p>
      I think I might invest in them.

    • I’m sick of hearing corporations griping and groaning about taxes. Thoroughly sick of it. Why? Because if taxes are what are keeping a business from being profitable, it has more significant problems on its hands. Maybe the higher taxes are even a form of “starving the beast”, and will cause those companies to tighten up. Anyone giving their executives hundreds of millions of dollars a year isn’t exactly fiscally conservative, is it?

      <

      p>
      Where has innovation gone? If a company really needs to come up with higher profits, then how about putting some brainpower into it? Not the “well, we can move our labor force overseas to take advantage of the Communist Chinese Government’s anti-labor policies” kind, the kind that says “Hmm, maybe if I put some money into research and development I can get a leg up on my competitors”, and everyone moves a step forward.

      <

      p>
      Why should we pussyfoot around whiny corporate types who would sell us out for a ham sandwich? Why should we treat them as if they are the second coming of Jesus Christ? Keep in mind that if a 10,000 person business goes under, demand for that businesses’ goods doesn’t evaporate, and that such “churning” (which corporations LOVE to praise when it comes to employees losing jobs) might just make things better. I’d wager that if a large business goes under because of taxes, it’s better than a lot of small businesses going under because of competitive pressure from a large business.

      <

      p>
      If Delta goes under, yes, it’s going to suck for the shareholders, and for the employees, but from what I can tell it already sucks for the employees, and especially the retirees. Maybe their disintegration would allow a number of  smaller players to come up with a revolutionary way of doing things.

      <

      p>
      I’m sick of any position with respect to business that doesn’t bend over and grip its ankles as being considered “anti-business” while screaming “thank you sir, may I have another”. I’m sick of hearing cities and towns saying “well, we HAVE to raise taxes on our residents, because even thinking of shifting taxes to companies would be anti-business”. These tax loopholes are examples of powerful businesses CHEATING the existing rules. This isn’t a case of “going to the business well”. Close ’em and be done with it.

    • …Now as you may well figure, I’m not very keen on the Corporate tax.

      <

      p>
      make use of government-provided facilities (such as roads and other transportation facilities) and services (courts, police, fire departments, etc.).  Why shouldn’t they pay taxes to support them?

      <

      p>
      Besides, if they want to be treated as “persons,” they should pick up a fair share (not an excessive share, but a fair share) of the tax burden.

      <

      p>
      Regarding Verizon, I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the “pole tax” issue, but if it is a property tax, it seems to me that it wouldn’t matter much whether Verizon’s headquarters are a mail drop in Bermuda or Timbukto.

  5. Sounds like we have a real fight on our hands. I’ll be posting more on this subject in the near future (after I, with your kind indulgence, take a short vaca to a warm spot with sandy beaches…).

    <

    p>
    My heart just bleeds when I read gary’s comment. Those poor maligned corporations. Remember, we’re talking about multi-state corporations, not local Massachusetts businesses. What, we’re going to drive Wal-Mart out of MA by asking them to pay their fair share? I don’t think so! And ask me how many tears I would shed if they departed.

    <

    p>
    80% of jobs in Massachusetts are provided by companies with fewer than 500 employees. The vast majority of these companies cannot take advantage of these unintended tax loopholes.

    <

    p>
    Here’s a preview of some of the stuff you can expect to hear from me as the drumbeat loudens to correct the inequities created by the loopholes:

    <

    p>

    Massachusetts ranks 47th among the 50 states on a measure of business taxation as a percentage
    of total tax receipts. The Commonwealth ranks 43rd among the states when businesses tax receipts
    are compared with Gross State Product. These rankings would barely change if the proposed $295
    million were added to the tax rolls, moving up to 44th and 41st, respectively.

    Massachusetts businesses contribute, via state and local taxes, only 4.0% of gross state product,
    compared with the national average for all states of 4.8%. Eliminating these unintended corporate
    tax benefits would raise this contribution only to 4.1%, still well below the national average.

    At the state level, only 12.2% of all tax receipts come from businesses. This compares with a level of
    around 15% to 17% that prevailed during the 1980s, and even higher levels before that.

    The Patrick-Murray Transition Working Group on Economic Development, in its final report filed on
    December 15, 2006, identified two key impediments to job creation in the Commonwealth. The level
    of business taxation was not one of them, and in fact taxes were barely mentioned in the report.

    ?? “The greatest barrier to job growth is finding and retaining talented employees.”
    ?? “The next most significant barrier to job growth is poor infrastructure.”

    These loopholes reduced the total corporate contribution to the state’s coffers in fiscal year 2006
    from an estimated potential $2.520 billion to $2.225 billion, or a reduction of nearly 12%. To put all of
    this in a national context, if Massachusetts businesses paid taxes at the national average (calculated
    as a percentage of gross state product), their share would be about $2.4 billion, or 20%, higher than
    they are currently paying. Another way to say this is that Massachusetts collects business taxes at
    only about 83% of the national average.

    <

    p>
    Sorry for the lack of cites and sources, but I will provide that upon my return. As I said, it’s just a preview. I have lots more. Stay tuned…

    • Look forward to futures. 

      <

      p>
      However, in the name of reality, explain these to me:

      <

      p>
      -When the tax exemption on telephone poles is eliminated in Massachusetts, who do you think will pay it? a) the Verizon Money Tree b) employees in the form of lower wages or less hiring c) the Verizon customers d) shareholders. 

      <

      p>
      -Combined reporting, the biggest of the evil loopholes. Why is it that only 17 states have adopted that method in the past 20 years and 2 states (Florida and Oregon) un-adopted it because it was costing the state money?

      <

      p>
      -Mass is 47th of 50th in some measure or another.  Seriously, if you must use misleading numbers to make your case, how on earth do you believe it yourself?  Visit the Federal Reserve on this topic to see where the 47th of 50th statistic comes from. Hint:  page 21 to see the Federal Reserve dismiss it.

      <

      p>
      -Why, if the tax increases are targeted only multi-state or multi-national corporations is AIM with its broad state-wide membership, opposing Patrick’s plan and endorsing DeMasi’s statement

      <

      p>

      My heart just bleeds when I read gary’s comment. Those poor maligned corporations. Remember, we’re talking about multi-state corporations, not local Massachusetts businesses. What, we’re going to drive Wal-Mart out of MA by asking them to pay their fair share?

      <

      p>
      You didn’t read my post, did you?  Corporations don’t pay tax; people pay tax.  Raise WalMart’s tax. Who will pay? a) Customers, b) Shareholders, c) Employees. d) ________.  Pick one.  Who would you prefer?

      • Staples Moving 175 Jobs Out Of Mass.

        <

        p>
        (WBZ) FRAMINGHAM Staples Inc. is moving 175 financial support jobs from its Framingham and Westborough offices to a new facility in Columbia, South Carolina.

        <

        p>
        A spokesperson for Staples says the move is appealing because of lower costs in South Carolina.

        <

        p>
        Employees impacted by the move can apply for new jobs in South Carolina or elsewhere in the company.

        <

        p>
        Staples plans to open the new office in April.

        <

        p>
        (© MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

        <

        p>
        Those “in the know” predict that Staples, founded and headquartered in  Mass will be gone completely within the next 12 months.

        • …Staples is moving out of Massachusetts due to the closing of tax loopholes?

          <

          p>
          I assume not.  I assume the larger point your trying to make is that, by and large, the cost of doing business is simply more expensive in Massachusetts.  But that’s not because of the tax burden.  It’s largely because the cost of living is so much higher in Massachusetts, and employees demand higher wages and benefits to live here. 

          <

          p>
          What can we do to rectify this problem?  Reinvest in start up housing.  My permitting processes easier to build.  Get us some property tax relief.  Work on infrustructure so that employees can commute easier.  Provide decent schools.  Provide low-cost student loans.

          <

          p>
          These things are less affordable when you leave open tax loopholes.  The business community wants these things – they WANT workers to stay in Massachusetts.  But they’re just going to have to help pay for it.

        • How nice.

          <

          p>
          I prefer a race to the top.

          <

          p>
          As in we finally get “universal health care” done right. Companies are lining up to get into Massachusetts where we have state-level Medicare for All.  It covers everybody, costs less, you get more, and your business’ line item for “health care costs” is stable and predictable. Makes a lot of sense.

          <

          p>
          Staples will come crawling back…

          • that’s probably right.  The first state to go statewide Medicare-for-all is going to see a HUGE influx of companies suddenly wanting to set up shop.  Because while we can quibble all day about whose corporate tax burden is highest, my guess is that the costs of providing health care to employees FAR outweighs any marginal differences between the states with respect to taxes.

            <

            p>
            Unless you’re a company that doesn’t provide health care.  In which case, good riddance to bad rubbish.  [Yes, I’m being flip; don’t go all crazy on that one.  No I don’t really want every company that doesn’t provide health care to leave the state.  Blah blah blah.]

            • This is one possible reading of your suggestion, “The first state to go statewide Medicare-for-all is going to see a HUGE influx of companies suddenly wanting to set up shop.”

              <

              p>
              Just asking đŸ˜‰

      • -Combined reporting, the biggest of the evil loopholes. Why is it that only 17 states have adopted that method in the past 20 years and 2 states (Florida and Oregon) un-adopted it because it was costing the state money?

        <

        p>
        Oregon, to the best of my knowledge, has not un-adopted it.  Any links to support that assertion?

        <

        p>
        Florida adopted combined reporting in 1983, and repealed the law in 1984 under pressure from the federal government (Reagan administration) which was opposed to combined reporting that included international subsidiaries.  The FL legislation included those international subsidiaries.

        <

        p>
        None of the other 17 states to enact the legislation has repealed it.

          • And I dont think that article – from 1984 – addresses the same issue.

            <

            p>
            You can try again though, if you want.

            • Unitary is a varient of Combined.  Unitary reporting combines all mutually owned businesses operating in inter-related methods.  Combined reporting combines all collectively owned business whether “unitary” or not.

              <

              p>
              The google search.  The earlier referenced article is accurate.  Florida unadopted “combined reporting” and Oregon unadopted “unitary” during the Unitary Wars of the 80s.

            • I happen to be a proponent of Combined Reporting.  It’s a significant policy change for a state to adopt.  It’s not a loophole, and shouldn’t be advanced as one to fill a budget hole.

              <

              p>
              Fact it, Unitary or Combined Reporting swings two ways.  You could easily see Corporate revenues fall with the adoption of Combined Reporting.

              • When you leave out the sarcasm, it’s easier to talk to you.

                <

                p>
                With reagrd to your comments:

                <

                p>
                Is it a significant policy change?  State corporate income taxes account for a small percentage of business expenses. (Somewhere around 1% of total costs, I believe). Despite whatever else we’ve read on this thread, Staples is not leaving the state because of combined reporting.

                <

                p>
                Is it a “loophole?”  I say yes, if only because this is tax avoidance, and its unintended.  At least, that’s what the current administration thinks.  I think they’re right. But, have it your way – it’s not a loophole.  So what?  The state needs more revenue, and this is a fair way to get it, for all the reasons I pointed out above.

                <

                p>
                If we’re going to build a better business community in Massachusetts, the money derived from combined reporting could should be reinvested to help grow the economy significantly.

                <

                p>
                We COULD leave the law the way it is and hope the economy picks up.  I see little evidence of this fortuitous develpment on the horizon.  Or, we could work on infrastructure, property tax relief, housing… I’m not talking about pork-barrell policies here. Call it a basic personal philosophy, but it makes sense to me.

                • When you leave out the sarcasm, it’s easier to talk to you.

                  <

                  p>
                  Who said I wanted to make it easier…

                  <

                  p>
                  oh…that sarcasm thing again.

                  <

                  p>

                  But, have it your way – it’s not a loophole.  So what?  The state needs more revenue, and this is a fair way to get it, for all the reasons I pointed out above.

                  <

                  p>
                  That, is the only single argument in favor of the increase–fairness.  And, since fairness is in the eye of the beholder, there’s no debateable answer.

                  <

                  p>
                  So, when the Governor Patrick stands up to proclaim an end to loopholes (which aren’t loopholes), he’s either lying, and figures the taxpayer is stupid or else, he’s stupid himself.

                  <

                  p>
                  I was with one of the large tax consulting firms in the 80s, when the unitary (think combined-lite) wars were underway.  California had adopted unitary and multi-national corps went nuts.  Many other states followed suit with combined or unitary.  Then Oregon figured out, “hey, if we un-adopted” we can suck businesses out of California, and that’s what happened.  Florida adopted unitary and lost revenue then quickly un-adopted it.

                  <

                  p>
                  Then, ironically, the 3rd shoe dropped.  The S&Ls began a recovery in California, but not (yet) in the rest of the US.  Combined reporting cost California money for several years.

                  <

                  p>
                  Under the current “combined reporting” proposal I can easily see NH, CT and RI saying “hey look at us, we don’t have Combined Reporting and Nashua, Hartford and Providence are nice cities, come on down.  Combined reporting is a policy worth debating.  The Governor is lying to you.

                  <

                  p>

                • That, is the only single argument in favor of the increase–fairness.  And, since fairness is in the eye of the beholder, there’s no debateable answer.

                  <

                  p>
                  Wrong. You can judge this on the fairness.

                  <

                  p>
                  Corporation A is a small/medium business, far too small to be able to take advantage of this (and I agree, unintended) consequence. I can’t put my HQ in Deleware or S. Dakota. I pay XYZ amount of tax.

                  <

                  p>
                  Corporation B is huge. It’s multistate. It HQs in Deleware or S. Dakota. It gets a tax break.

                  <

                  p>
                  How can you look at this situation and declare that you can’t judge it? These big businesses are getting plenty of other advantages just by being big…now it’s a matter of perspective whether or not a badly written tax law that gives them another big competative advantage is fair?

                • Why then, if this Patrick plan levels the playing field between large and small, are the Chambers of Commerce and AIM so opposed to the plan, which with your reasoning, should benefit them, the small busines owner?

                  <

                  p>
                  Chambers are primarily made up of small business, who join for the advertising and group health benefits.

                • That’s the reason?

                  <

                  p>
                  They vote against their own best interests.  The members of the Chamber are stupid.  Folks from the South too?

                  <

                  p>
                  Crap.  I’m a Chamber member and I’m also from the South.

                • They vote against their own best interests. YOU said they were stupid.

                  <

                  p>
                  I prefer to think they are gravely mislead, deliberately so, by huge money-backed marketing campaigns.

                  <

                  p>
                  But YOU can call them stupid if you like.

                • I suspect that there are several things that are the matter.

                  <

                  p>
                  One, the Republicans have discovered that they need to be amenable to providing welfare subsidies to Kansas’s main industry–agriculture–in order to be electorally competitive.  And the Republicans do that very well.

                  <

                  p>
                  Two, Democrats haven’t figured out how to counter the Republicans’ discovery through any effort to upgrade the economy of Kansas.

                  <

                  p>
                  And, three, as a result, the people in Kansas figure that it’s a wash as between Republicans and Democrats on economic issues, so the decision as to whom to vote for is made on social issues.  And, like most of the people in Jesusland, Kansans favor the Republicans on social issues.

                  <

                  p>
                  That’s the problem with Kansas.

                • majority of people posting on this thread have never owned and managed a business with over 10 people in it? I have.
                  What I can say is that yes, the taxes aren’t the biggest piece but always significant none the less, as every nickel counts in a business. The tax increase is just another “straw” on the camel’s back.
                  Doing business in Massachusetts  ,as those who have run a businesses here I think will agree, is incredibly difficult and exteremely expensive.
                  For example, Mass has one of the highest unemployment insurance costs in the country ( a huge business cost). Once you’re in the DUA system your house is pretty much “on the line” because that’s what they’ll take if you screw up reporting or payments.Forget about DIY “Quickbooks”. You can not navigate the Mass business requirements without a bookeeper, accountant and lawyer ( add that expense to the bottom line. So, for  a little guy,  Mass is definitely”not a business friendly State”. I san see how businesses would be tempted ( and many do) to go “under the table” with illegals which ,in turn, drives those companies playing by the rules out of business.That’s one reason, in my opinion, why the illegal alien problem is a HUGE problem but that’s a different topic.

                  <

                  p>
                  Certainly,for a Corp there are additional problems that drive up costs i.e , energy, high salaries, plant and equip taxes, Mass permits and inspection fees,etc. I don’t think the State health care thing will matter to them at all as a reason to stay or come here as they all have large “volume” health care agreements with big providers Nationwide or Regional  so what they pay ( what the employee pays is a different story)is pretty uniform State to State. so if you think Staples will come “crawling back”..don’t hold your breath.
                  Unfortunately, I get the impression that many people think that “Corporations and “businesses” are some bottomless bloated money pits that can endure endless taxation and expense. The truth is that they are just like individuals….when it gets to be “too much to bear”, they vote with their feet..vis a vis Staples.
                  What I find dissapointing is that the Leadership makes no visible effort to keep these businesses, let alone attract new ones. One would think that upon hearing that a “Staples” was leaving that Deval would be out in Framingham asking how or what it takes to keep Staples. Instead, 175 employees (the first of more to come), their families, homes, lives are crushed as yet another Mass corp packs its bags

                • are allowed to get away with a tax break you, as a small business, don’t get. That’s fair?

                  <

                  p>
                  It won’t be the reason businesses move out of MA. They’re already doing that – when we have quite a small corporate tax burden already overall.

                • I”m not sure what you mean by 4% of businesses? Also I thought I was clear that I didn’t think the tax thing was THE “big deal” rather it was just another “straw” on the camel’s back. Another factor is the “form of business” ie. LLC, ltd partnership, sole prop, Corp etc…all with different tax ramifications. A lot of “small business” don’t use the “corporate form” of business ….so it becomes really difficult to  compare and say “what’s fair”.
                  As a subsequent poster correctly pointed out, the real challenge for the new administration is to find ways to make Mass a more “business friendly” place. I don’t think a de facto “tax increase” of any kind is a good signal to send right out of the chute, so to speak.. Apparently, Mr Dimasi doesn’t think so either.
                  If it was going to “save the day” for the bufdget deficit you might say we’ve got no choice but where it’s a virtually “microscopic” ( 1% or less?)contribution I think the “signal” it sends to business does far more damage than what the “payback” is to the State.

                • Based on DiMasi’s statement, I’ll go out on a limb and predict the Administration loophole daliance, with the exception of perhaps the pole parity legislation, DOA for this year. 

                  <

                  p>
                  All in all, the new administration didn’t have the credibility to pull it off.  It was (is?) DiMasi’s “tax reform” versus Patrick’s “evil loopholes”.  The former makes so much more sense than the latter.

                • CA –

                  <

                  p>
                  I for one, would like to see the Democratic Party, and the liberal community, become a lot more business friendly.  I think part of that can be accomplished simply through a change in attitude, and a dropping of the whole corporation-as-the-boogeyman mindset.

                  <

                  p>
                  At the same time, another part of what you’re talking about has little to do with the loophole issue, and a lot more to do with the entrenched Massachusetts establishment.  An establishment, I might add, that the Governor has pledged to reform.  The permiting process, the cost of unemployment insurance, high salaries (again, to deal with the high costs of living/housing in Mass) are all issues this administration wants to address.

      • Answer me this: When Verizon reorganized its corporate structure as a Bermuda-based company to avoid millions in telephone pole taxes (resulting in a $200/household tax increase for residents in Boston alone), did it:

        <

        p>
        a) lower its prices for consumers?

        <

        p>
        b) increase its payments to its executives?

        <

        p>
        c) hire more employees?

        <

        p>
        d) provide a good return to its shareholders?

        <

        p>
        Verizon most certainly did NOT lower its prices.

        <

        p>
        I found numerous stories about Verizon laying off employees in 2005.

        <

        p>
        I found a story saying that Verizon’s stock “struggled” all through 2005.

        <

        p>
        However, it DID increase executive compensation by around 50% from 2004 to 2005.

        <

        p>
        So where did those tax savings go? Looks pretty obvious to me.

        • And similarly, if the pole tax, or any tax is levied onto Veriozon, where will the money come from?  NOT, as you pointed out, from the executives, but rather from higher prices, fewer employees, lower dividends.

          <

          p>
          It’s also obvious to me.

          • Isn’t that the free market answer to everything? That you no longer use the services of the company whose services cost too much for the quality you get?

    • But you will advocate increasing welfare benefits for the poor when the average grocery/sundries bill across the Commonwealth doubles. 

      • My grocery bill will double because the state shut down a loophole that a FRACTION of Massachusetts business take advantage of?  And, by the way, that loophole affects a FRACTION of 1% of their total costs?

        <

        p>
        Not likely.

        • Wal-Mart happens to place huge competitive pressure on the price of groceries and sundries.  That is the whole complaint behind “putting Mom and Pop out of business.”  Mom and Pop charge a heck of a lot more for basic necessaries.

          <

          p>
          What happens when the competitive pressure disappears?  What do you think?

          • …Wal-Mart–the company–is a huge welfare queen, oftentimes collecting its welfare–tax breaks and various other subsidies–at the expense of local merchants.  They aren’t really doing anyone much of any favors.

            • Walmart

              <

              p>

              Studies have shown that Wal-Mart’s prices have a huge impact on consumers’ purchasing power. Global Insight, an international research firm, found that Wal-Mart’s growth between 1985 and 2004 resulted in food-at-home prices that were 9.1% lower and overall prices (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) that were 3.1% lower than they would otherwise have been.

              <

              p>
              Walmart has probably done more to save the lower class money (middel and upper too) than the sum of all government programs over the past 2 decades has done for that same class.

              • …(i) Wal-Mart is, indeed a welfare queen sucking off the public (tax-payer) teat, and

                <

                p>
                (ii) that when a city or town grants Wal-Mart substantial tax breaks, oftentimes at the expense of smaller companies and mom-and-pop stores who would have to make up the deficiency in tax revenues that might otherwise have been gained, and further

                <

                p>
                (iii) that when Wal-Mart refuses to grant benefits such as employer-subsidized medical insurance to a substantial number of its employees, meaning that the taxpayer or insured or private payers would have to pick up that increased burden.

                <

                p>
                I further take that as a tacit admission that you believe that (ii) and (iii) are acceptable trade-offs.  I wouldn’t be so sure, if I were you.

                <

                p>
                Gary, it may be that one reason that people become poor is because of Wal-Mart.  Has that ever escaped your attention?

                <

                p>
                BTW, just to let you know, I tend to discount economic “studies” regarding windows in time without knowing who’s sponsoring the studies, and what the results might have been if different begin points and end points had been selected.  The begin points and end points of the windows in these “studies” are oftentimes selected for a reason–to make the sponsors of the studies look good.

          • And if Wal-Mart left, my groceries wouldn’t double.  I live inside 128, and I honestly couldn’t tell you where the nearest Wal-Mart is.  I’m not sweating Wal-Mart.

            • You would.  That is all it takes to keep downward pressure on the retail prices.

              • But am I alone in thinking the controversy, both pro and con, over Wal-Mart is overrated?  They treat their employees crappy but have cheap stuff.  They’re certainly not the only company to treat their employees crappy, and definitely not theonly one with cheap stuff.

                • The issue, both pro and con, is market force.  They really are the 300 pound gorilla, especially in other regions.

                  <

                  p>
                  P&G is a big consumer products company.  Walmart accounts for an astounding portion of their sales, and can therefore dictate price, which forces P&G to cut costs, etc.  They likewise have a big impact on the market for service labor.

                  <

                  p>
                  I agree that this cuts both ways.  My point was just that by running the low-cost provider out oif town, we risk market consequences.

Archives