Re: What would stop growth?
- From: "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:13:00 GMT
"Scott O. Kuznicki" <scottkuznicki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:l86l43hmcimk26ib0tt6dtsieevt67keeh@xxxxxxxxxx
On 14 May 2007 02:56:56 -0700, "pigsty1953@xxxxxxxxx"infrastructure
<rshersh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
North Carolina and other Southeastern states are leading the way in
development as they continue to operate the third largest economy in
the world. The list goes on.
Please tell me how you figure that. The largest private employer in
NC is Wall Mart. Per capita income is well below the national
average. With most everyone working for W-M, I doubt if that will
change anythime soon.
Who cares who the largest private employer is? And the Southeast is
more than just NC. Taken independently, the Southeast has the third
largest economy in the world. Google it. By country unit, however,
the Unites States is first, with Japan, Germany, and China following.
This will all change in short order, though, as China and India are
poised to become 2 and 3 for sure.
Many liberals are against population growth that consumes "new" land
(as am I)--we would perhaps classify them as environmentalists. These
same liberals are likely to support taxes and increasing government
control (which I would not). It's ironic that they could solve one
problem by giving up their love of the other.
Lowering taxes, creating business and housing development incentive
zones in major cities, and investing in roadway and mass-transit
infrastructure would be responsible growth. But it won't happen
because it requires the government to give up control and funding for
the programs that disempower millions. It's a shame that we all have
to live with the consequences no matter where we are.
Righto, give away the store. And why not cut the pay of all of the
engineers the work for the DOT's to maybe what they were making in say
1970. And then you could force the oil companies to cut their prices
and their profits to what they were in 1970.
You wouldn't have to. Read my response to Mr. Powell's post. Cutting
taxes actually *raises* revenues. It's simple economics.
And enough about the "oil companies" If your production utilization
had to increase to 95% from around 80%, you'd need to take in a little
more, too, just to keep up production (and thus guarantee supply) in
the face of rising demand and market instability.
According to The Economist, for the south as a whole, incomes are not
91% of the national average. Given the lower cost of living, they exceed
the national average. And about 7 million people have moved there since
2000, all voluntarily (and this does not count illegals, the magazine
stated).
And IL, MI, etc can join the ranks of the dirt poor states you
celebrate. Just what we need is more poverty.
IL and MI are not dirt-poor yet, but if confiscatory taxes and fees
continue to accumulate the way they have, it won't be long. Granted,
there are other forces at play (the South, for example, has long been
at a disadvantage in the economic workings of our nation, but that is
thankfully changing). And, as I mentioned, Chicago is so much of an
economic powerhouse that significant changes would have to take place
to derail its economy.
Why don't we do that? You want to force the weathiest states in the
US back to 1970, lets force everyone back to 1970, why just those
states.
I don't want to force anyone back to 1970. You won't win arguments by
accusing me of something for which I'm not in favor. But don't feel
limited; perhaps that's the only tactic available to you.
You do realize the weathiest counties in the US remain in the
Northeast and Great Lakes states in those high tax state you decry so
much.
The "wealthiest counties" . . . Cook? Somewhere in New Jersey? A
spot in Massachusetts? Perhaps they are. But let's examine what the
tax structure is like for business in those areas and what forces
other than taxes are driving business retention and growth. Several
major companies have moved their headquarters out of New Jersey in the
past few years. All other factors aside, have rising taxes played a
role? Don't just say "no". Prove it.
If you think Wyoming is so great why don't you move there? See if you
can earn a living there. I can guarantee you, you will not be making
what you made in IL. And the winters at 7000 ft are not enjoyable.
When did I say Wyoming was so great? And what was I making in
Illinois? I don't recall that being germane to the discussion. You
should please be more careful when reading the posts of others;
putting words into people's mouths does a lot to discredit your
arguments.
Moreover, *you* think the winters are not enjoyable. Other people
might. Some people might decide they really are in the face of other
factors. People relocate for various reasons. Growth in the
Southeast and Southwest is more than just about taxes, of course. But
economic decisions on the part of businesses generally don't take the
weather into account; other than for transportation disruptions and
indoor climate management costs, it's not on the balance sheet.
Besides, I'm already living in a State with no income tax, a
reasonable sales tax, and low property tax rates. What does Wyoming
hold? They don't even have a proper 3-di ;-)
You one asked me about my worldview, Scott, why are you so angry? You
were angry about the cancellation of the Crosstown. And now you are
anrgy about the supposed high tax rates of the weathiest states in the
US.
Who says I'm angry? When did I say I was angry about the cancellation
of the Crosstown? Who says I'm angry about supposed high tax rates in
the wealthiest states? If anything, I'm disappointed in our nation's
lack of foresight but there's nothing over which to experience anger.
Projecting seems to be another tactic you employ to "win" arguments.
Please don't use it here in this discussion; I find it insulting. But,
I'm not angry!
Or, hmmmmm, perhaps YOU are angry. But I'm not going to speculate
because I only have your behavior on this newsgroup as a basis and,
quite frankly, I'm not into speculating about other people's
psychological issues.
The post I made was simply an editorial statement. Like New York
Times editorials, it's slanted far to one side and quite possibly
contains several mistakes of fact. :-) Read it and, if possible,
*respectfully* disagree.
John Lansford has posted many time about the funding problems NCDOT
has.
And? That proves we should increase taxes in NC, I suppose.
In the largest counties of FL, 60% of the houses are for sale.
Property taxes are through the roof, as are property and commercial
insurance. There is extreme drought conditions with serious fires in
S Florida and on the FL-GA border. Although a couple of good
hurricanes will change that quickly.
How does that prove that low business and income taxes are bad? The
circumstances you state could be entirely unrelated to business
taxation rates. In fact, they all sound to me as though they might be
related to environmental circumstances.
And you realize Palm Beach county is one of the poorest counties in
the US. Maybe you could move to Belle Glade or South Bay. Then you
could work on designing and constructing a new Herbert Hoover Dike
around Lake Okeechobee, so that is could survive a hurricane. I am
sure the Corps of Engineers could use you, of course there is no money
to pay for it, all of the money is going to Iraq.
I highly doubt the Corps needs a traffic operations engineer in
Florida.
Also as John Lansford pointed out, outside of Charlotte and Raleigh,
NC remains dirt poor.
And that can change; as I said in my response to Mr. Powell's post in
this thread, an untapped workforce exists.
I will let you in on something. There is nothing in those areas you
celebrate except poverty and ignorance.
Do you mean "you" as in "you, Mr. Kuznicki, you evil free-market
capitalist pig" or "you" as in "one might"? Just curious!
And, also, why do you mention "ignorance"? It think it's a shame that
you apparently overlook the potential of people.
They depend on low wages and low energy prices. As gas goes up over
$3 a gal, I wonder...
Well . . . has the world stopped yet? It's not the end result. I
have hope, "audacious" as it might be . . . oh, wait, not sure I want
to go there!
Maybe you could provide the answer. I don't think things will be as
great in the next 20 years as they have been that last 20.
Well, it's quite possible they'll be better. But I also hold that
there is no end to poverty, famine, and war, as long as people fail to
understand the power of economic opportunity and restrain their desire
to control and manipulate the outcome.
--
Scott O. Kuznicki, P.E.
Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
Driving Enthusiast:
'03 BMW 525i 5-speed
'07 BMW R1200GS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What would stop growth?
- From: pigsty1953@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: What would stop growth?
- References:
- What would stop growth?
- From: Scott O . Kuznicki
- Re: What would stop growth?
- From: pigsty1953@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: What would stop growth?
- From: Scott O . Kuznicki
- What would stop growth?
- Prev by Date: Re: Steepest Road
- Next by Date: Indianapolis<-->Wilmington Trip Planning Help
- Previous by thread: Re: What would stop growth?
- Next by thread: Re: What would stop growth?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
