  Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 3555 Registered: 02-2007 |
for all you "we are taxed too much" bs'ers, Michigan is the 7th lowest tax-cost state - this is from the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council: http://www.sbsc.org/news/displ ay.cfm?ID=2450 Michigan is also ranked as the 6th friendliest state to small businesses, up from 10th last year: http://sbecouncil.org/Media/pd f/SBSI_2007.pdf?CFID=503687&CF TOKEN=51283165 | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1277 Registered: 12-2005 |
Here is some interesting data from the Milken Institute, which produces an annual report that measures the economic vitality of America's cities. In their 2007 list of the 200 Best Performing Large Metro Cities in the USA, Michigan has eight cities that make the list. All of them fall into the bottom 8%, with Ann Arbor coming in the highest at number 184. [source] On their list of the Best Performing 179 Small Communities in the USA, Michigan has seven cities that are ranked. They are all in the bottom 10%, with Bay City coming in highest at number 161. [source] We may be "friendly", but that doesn't seem to matter much when it comes to results, even for those Michigan cities with a non-automotive economic base. As for that "7th lowest tax-cost" ranking, they tried to survey Michigan and its Single Business Tax, which is the only value added tax scheme in the nation. Trying to compare the SBT to the other state's taxation elements is like comparing apples and oranges. For example, nowhere could I find where they took into account the SBT's tax on payroll. I think your supporting data is flawed when it comes to the Michigan part of the study and the resulting ranking is very suspect. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 253 Registered: 07-2007 |
If that's the case, shouldn't the new MBT result in a better outcome for the state? | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1280 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Doubtful. The MBT is still being revised upward as a result of the Legislature's "selective" service tax fiasco. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1604 Registered: 11-2003 |
It completely depends on what a company is looking for, Chicago and Illinois are not considered low tax states, yet look at all the growth in those cities, same for New York. It completely depends on what a company is looking for when looking at an area. Higher taxes may be a trade off for some businesses so be in an area with higher education and great universities. Some companies just want the cheapest place. Some go where the workforce is. I would imagine plentiful water is going to start becoming more of an issue in the coming years, which could be a major plus for our region. | ||
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy Post Number: 150 Registered: 04-2007 |
Michigan Future, Inc., an Ann Arbor think tank, has a report that shows that the high-economic-growth states are those with high levels of academic and creative talent, regardless of the tax level. It also shows that Michigan has a below-average tax burden per capita, per employee, and as a percentage of personal income. Taxes don't mean that much when real value is created by talented people and you have to be where the talent is. Here's a link to the report. http://www.michiganfuture.org/ Reports/NewAgendaFINAL.pdf | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 267 Registered: 07-2007 |
If taxes drove business location decisions, Silicon Valley would be located in South Dakota or Mississippi. As noted above, the more accurate answer is "it depends". Taxes can matter when all other factors are equal. But a low tax state with an absence of an educated workforce can't attract knowledge industry jobs and a Silicon Valley isn't going to attract manufacturing jobs. But saying "it depends" doesn't fit into the "I'm right, you're wrong" debate that our political parties, special interest groups and Internet hotheads like to peddle to us all day, everyday. |
