bostonbubble.com Forum Index bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

 
Go to: Boston real estate bubble fact list with references
More Boston Bubble News...
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed. As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.

Patrick victory will spur exodus

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Open Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
On my way out
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:01 pm GMT    Post subject: Patrick victory will spur exodus Reply with quote

The three new polls out today mean a Patrick victory is almost certain. This means an end to Republican moderation of the liberal legislature. It's also a sign that MA is as hostile to business and middle class citizens as NY or CA.

This will not mean a voter backlash. The state is naturally liberal and this will make it more liberal as Republican leaning voters leave.

It won't necessarily be that big an exodus. But it will be enough to depress housing prices further. If Howie Carr is right about Patrick wanting to repeal 2 1/2 it could be a bloodbath.
Back to top
samchady
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:30 pm GMT    Post subject: can't leave Reply with quote

I think you are right. Patrick will make the state a safe-harbor for illegal aliens. I personally support emigrants, as long as they get a visa and pay taxes, then I say, let everyone in who can fill a job.

The problem is that my customer base in MA (I have a small business) are hospitals and other health-care providers and they get killed by having to provide free health-care to people who cannot pay or don't pay or run away after treatment. When my customers are hurt, so am I as they buy less from me and can't provide the care we all need.

My problem is that my business does not easily transport since my customers are here and I need to be local and meet in-person, so it makes moving to a friendlier state very difficult (but I am considering how I would do it.) I also worry about the effects on small business who are seen by the left as "evil capitalists" or "evil corporations" who profit on the backs of the working class.

Right now I rent and am on the side lines waiting for the bubble to deflate more before buying. I can get twice the space for 1/2 the money by renting, but I really want to own to customize and finally feel settled. But now, with Patrick possibly winning, I am even more apprehensive about buying.
Back to top
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:13 pm GMT    Post subject: I just bought Reply with quote

I just bought a house and I share the same concerns you do. I went to Patrick's website and he is very light on specifics and seems to be making promises to too many people which will most likely mean higher taxes.

However, the current Administration hasn't been great keeping a lid on spending in some departments i.e. the Big Dig. The Republicans believe in privatizing. Privatizing weakens the Commonwealth because we lose the competence to challenge private sector contractors who end up just having their way with us. On the other hand, too many public employees and "entitlements" would end up giving us a socialistic state. The public employees seem to like Patrick so there is a risk we get patronage and socialism. If we by some miracle empower the competent segment of public servants we'll all benefit. There are a lot of very hard working and competent public servants.

In the end, the press, and people need to step up and raise a flag whether it be corporate or regular welfare abuse and when they see patronage and graft.

We may be a bit socially accepting but there are enough of us that are financially disciplined to prevent a financial hemorrhage. The Republicans make the appearances that they are financially competent and disciplined, but I often wonder what team they are playing for, Corporations or the Commonwealth. A healthy balance is needed and I don't think either candidate is particularly has that. The Republican's John Wayne grandstanding is costing us a lot of money. Patrick is a complete wildcard because he is not specific about anything. I am very surprised about his lead as how could people feel so comfortable with someone that has no substantive proposals.

We have really smart, hard working, and strong values (lowest divorce rate) here in Massachusetts. It's a good place to do business (as evidenced by the housing bubble- people want to live here). I guess to get elected here you either have to pay off special interests, unions, and public employees like the Democrats do or the private corporate donors and wealthy like the Republicans. I think because the Big Dig contractors were mostly Republican donors, the pendulum is shifting towards a change in the Administration.

As this pertains to the Housing Bubble: If we pay more in State tax, it will not be a Federal tax deductible like property tax is. So the question is is the "shell game" that is being played by the Romney Administration really giving us people in Massachusetts a Federal Tax shelter? Which groups of constituents benefits? I feel bad for Kerry Healy because she is honest about facing cold realities like affordability of housing, smart growth, and even suggesting that it is a bad thing if younger workers have to live outside of a reasonably commutable zone, while we will have many retired people living within the 128 belt. Providing new over 55 housing communities on the outer edge of the suburbs would provide more supply for younger families who could use the existing school structures and facilities and the State wouldn't have to build new schools on the outlying developing towns that are affordable. These realities are hard to face and would require political courage to even mention. Patrick seems too flowerily and fuzzy to exhibit this needed leadership. The general public needs to step up in these next few years....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BillK
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:24 pm GMT    Post subject: Immigrants - and the Middle Class worker Reply with quote

SamChady,

Immigrants do make America more vibrant.

But, the current immigration is predominately illegal immigrants who aren't going through the usual round of proper checks and most are very low skilled.

This influx of low skilled - non tax paying immigrants gives unethical business people a HUGE advantage. Laborers can be hired for Minimum wage or less and the business owner can escape th onerous employment taxes like FICA, STATE Unemployment, and Medicare Taxes.
I have personally seen the Landscaping Company that works in my neighborhood pay his men with $100 Bills.

Meanwhile local taxes soar to support the children of people who don't pay or under pay their taxes. Meanwhile the Poor lower middle-American Laborer and Landscaper and Bricklayer sees his wage pressured lower.


I haven't even touched on the out break of diseases that we erradicated from America twenty years ago. Did anyone hear about the out break of Mumps at the John Hancock building about a year ago. A friend had Viral TB three weeks ago - this is the type of disease that gets brought in by immigrants who don't go through the proper channels.

Regards,
Back to top
SamChady
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:49 am GMT    Post subject: Its the end Reply with quote

Well, its happened. Patrick has won.

Predictions for the state's jobs, taxes, and housing?

I pray that we don't raise taxes and make the "evil" corporations pay more. If so, we'll see an exodus from the state.

If people leave, and those that stay don't make as much money, perhaps the pressure to buy housing will decreased, and prices will fall. I don't want to own something that is decreasing in value. I am not going to catch the falling knife. I won't buy until prices rise. Although I will clearly miss the bottom, I will protect myself against going underwater.

I also want to see how the state does for a while first, and I am putting things in place now to move my corporation out of state. I will still service MA, but I'll do it out of state. I have to pay MA tax on my profits that I generate in MA, but I won't have to worry about all the other costs and the support personnel who can be anywhere. I want to find a state the respects job creators and cuts the red tape. I am really pained about this because I love Boston so much and I dream about my place in the Back Bay or the Waterfront. It hurts to imagine myself living somewhere else.
Back to top
steverino
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:36 pm GMT    Post subject: OMG Reply with quote

The histrionics are hilarious. Somehow I doubt large corporations are more nervous about a former Coca Cola lawyer willing to invest in alternative energy and stem-cell research than an empty hairpiece masquerading as a right-wing nutjob who barely visited his home state. Though, I suppose some of the failing behemoths who can't compete in a fair market will go home disappointed if they're looking for more corporate welfare queen handouts, which is the Republican model of crony capitalism.

Tax policy has almost nothing to do with business location siting. Survey after survey shows CEOs look at other things, including the talent pool. There are already movements afoot to consolidate contacts for state government to make plants and operations easier to move here and streamline the permitting process, something that definitely needs work.

But I laugh at the assertion that Patrick's agenda is to raise property taxes. I hope you folks have a higher regard for facts when it comes to filing your tax returns, or you'll soon be posting here looking for somebody to bake a metal file in a birthday cake.
Back to top
On my way out
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:17 am GMT    Post subject: Re: OMG Reply with quote

steverino wrote:

Tax policy has almost nothing to do with business location siting. Survey after survey shows CEOs look at other things, including the talent pool. There are already movements afoot to consolidate contacts for state government to make plants and operations easier to move here and streamline the permitting process, something that definitely needs work.



If that's true then where's the growth? We've got the talent pool. Why aren't people and businesses flocking to the state rather than leaving it? Where's the new Polaroid, Raytheon or Wang Computer?

National migration patterns show people leaving high tax states for low tax states.
Back to top
vuky



Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:17 pm GMT    Post subject: Re: OMG Reply with quote

On my way out wrote:
steverino wrote:

Tax policy has almost nothing to do with business location siting. Survey after survey shows CEOs look at other things, including the talent pool. There are already movements afoot to consolidate contacts for state government to make plants and operations easier to move here and streamline the permitting process, something that definitely needs work.



If that's true then where's the growth? We've got the talent pool. Why aren't people and businesses flocking to the state rather than leaving it? Where's the new Polaroid, Raytheon or Wang Computer?

National migration patterns show people leaving high tax states for low tax states.


Obviously cost of living needs to be taken into account since that will affect salaries. I think that is a lot bigger issue then taxes since e.g. IT employee will command 30-40% premium then someone in e.g. TX. It is a mix of things not black and white/taxes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anonymous32
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:38 pm GMT    Post subject: macroeconomics 101 Reply with quote

steverino,

I'm not a partisan of the Democrats or the Republicans; I'm for who ever gets the job done. In some regards, the two parties play the American population off each other so that the populace never takes the time to ask the question "Who is that man behind the curtain?" The people who run this country are people you most likely have never heard of and most likely never will.

What I can tell you is that economic factors, including taxes and their kissing cousin financial incentives, play a major role in where CEO's place their bet. I used to work for a mega-billion dollar corporation that relocated operations first to the US southeast and then internationally (Mexico, India, China). These deals were structured so the my company (at the time) broke even before we ever broke ground. It doesn't suprise me that CEO's will not admit this in surveys. It would be a no-win situation for them to do so. Don't look at the surveys, look at what they do.

I read in this morning's Boston Globe that Deval Patrick is rolling out a $120M program for increased law enforcement and kindergarten. Not a bad initiative in and of itself, but the question is how is it going to be paid for. At the end of the day, you need to realize that in today's world all people are fairly enough educated to "vote with their feet". I know, first hand, several people who emigrated to the United States from the UK (a beautiful, modern "Western" country) back when their marginal tax rate was 95% (Yes, that Beatles Taxman song "one for you, nineteen for me" was real). Don't be too cavalier about assuming anyplace, including the great metropolis of Greater Boston that I do love, has something that can't be taken away from it. My own situation is that I am renting right now in Eastern Mass after relocating from NY where I truly owned (i.e. no mortgage) my own home. If the housing market continues to correct and the political powers that be don't put their hands any further into my pocket, I will stay. Otherwise I will "vote with my feet". I hope it is the former and not the latter.
Back to top
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:58 pm GMT    Post subject: What does Deval want? Reply with quote

When Kerry Healy asked Deval Patrick what percentage the local aid was and he answered between 23 and 24 percent, I was shocked that he was off by so much (19.5 was the right answer). This would be like asking someone buying a house what the prevailing 30 year note was and having their answer is off by a point. One would say that the buyer wasn't ready to buy and all the details would come closer into focus as they got serious and ready. The question is how "ready" is Patrick to govern? People will be able to tell if he isn't up to speed and will take advantage of him. People that aren't experienced need to "fake it till they make it". It will be more important for them to have loyal trusted people around them who will not expose them than to have a competent person who will be able to recognize right away that they are over their head. So the incompetence and patronage spreads like a cancer.

When Romney ran, he didn't know what the letters of "MCAS" stood for. His focus was using the role as Governor as a stepping stone to be a candidate for President. I don't think he wanted to be bothered with the trivial details of governing. The only time he seemed to care about learning details was when he was grandstanding with the expansion bolt detail thing for the tunnel ceiling, which he should have left to an engineer. Even though Romney had tremendous potential of being a great Governor, because he didn't seem to be passionate about the details of governing (being Governor) he was an underachiever.

The question is why did Patrick want to be governor? What does he want? If he wants to be a good Governor and embrace the details and doesn't mind looking foolish while he gets up to speed and truly surrounds himself with competence, we could all be in really good shape here because it appears he can get things done. If he ends up caring and working for the Commonwealth as much as he cared for inmates "rights", we could be in good shape. If he cares about the wrong things he could be a destructive force for us. I personally think you put the "justice" in the justice system by keeping grandmother rapists in prison. Deval is a very talented individual, but talented individuals can be on the wrong side of issues and can be more dangerous than the incompetent no-show hack.

For people to be "voting with their feet" already, seems to be premature because he isn't clear what he is going to do. If he makes Massachusetts the most generous welfare state and makes State Police officers deliver pizzas to the inmates, then yes some of you will be right about the exodus. I think he will hope to get back into the Clinton Administration if Hillary runs (maybe a V.P.). If he has greater ambitions like this, he may not want to screw things up too badly and take chances on patronage, so we'll see.

Lastly, think about the role of government in people’s lives. The question is how much policy affects our lives and economy. In Houston, oil is big. If you live in the Middle East, oil is everything. In the Carolinas, tobacco was big. Gerry Studds was more interested in the fishing policy of our Government than being involved in a more powerful role because it directly impacted his district in the New Bedford region (which was rare). What industries does Massachusetts need to have Government's alignment in? Because we have a relatively diverse portfolio of industry/professional services/R&D etc. we really just need a mechanic who is going to tune our engine to optimum performance. Think about Marisa Tomei in "My Cousin Vinny". She knew how many degrees off of top dead center for the firing timing of some old car and our Governor elect doesn't know what the state aid percentage is. If he can become a model governor by bringing in experts in policy which are applicable to our State we'll be fine. He has the potential for this, but it is a matter of whether he wants it.

Take a look at this website, and you'll see pretty bright people working together to help eachother out. Sure some of the weaker people get preyed upon and some industries can feast on weaker people in other parts of the country more easily, that's not the business we want anyway. We've got the fart smellers though and who else would you want to invest your lives and future with?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:19 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Article found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229339,00.html

Which States Are Best for Entrepreneurs?

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

By Leslie Taylor

South Dakota, Nevada, and Wyoming are the most entrepreneur-friendly states, according to a new survey by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

The 11th annual "Small Business Survival Index" evaluated each state's public policy climate for small businesses. Rankings were based on 29 major government-imposed or government-related costs, including state and local property taxes, personal income tax, number of health insurance mandates, crime rate, and electric utility costs.

"Governmental costs among the states will have an impact on where people live, work, and start up businesses," Raymond Keating, the SBE Council's chief economist and the author of the study, said in a statement.

Other states that ranked highly include Alabama (No. 4), Washington (No. 5), and Florida (No. 6).

The purpose of the survival index, according to Keating, is to compare each state's tax, spending, regulatory, and litigation burden, so that entrepreneurs can make informed decisions about where best to invest in their small business. Plus, Keating hopes state lawmakers use the list to evaluate their states competitive position.

"State policy makers need to pay attention for the sake of their own state's competitiveness and economy," Karen Kerrigan, the SBE Council's president and CEO, said in a statement.
The survey found that the District of Columbia has the least friendly policy environment for entrepreneurs. Other states deemed unfriendly to entrepreneurs include Rhode Island (No. 4Cool, California (No. 49) and New Jersey (No. 50).

"Ever-mounting burdens placed on entrepreneurs and small businesses by government negatively affect economic opportunity," Keating wrote in the report.

My comments: As an entrepreneur that has a business in MA, I find that the increasing regulation (even if its just another form to fill out and a check to write) in comparison to other states making leaving the state seem like a possibility. Since I don't want to buy a home and then leave, this "fear of the unknown" from what will happen is causing me to hold off in buying for a house. Additionally, another point made above stated that businesses follow the labor, but it can be the other way around. When Honda opens a new plant, they attract a lot of people into an area because of the jobs they create.

There should be NO corporate taxes whatsoever. NONE. Tax all the profits as regular income to the owners of the company. The reason the state likes taxes is that it gives them control over the company and then they can give tax breaks (called corporate welfare) to control them. Well, they just don't get it. I could take my corporation to Bermuda, and then they could only tax my in-state profits. An example of this is an S-Corp where all the profits go to the individual owners and are taxed as regular income. Except in Massachusetts, where they "tax" me $465 dollars a year on the company (that is the min in MA). This is double taxation and does not occur in other states. $465 does not sound like a lot, but when you are running negative for 3 years running, every dollar counts, and it was a hindrance to me personally before we became profitable.

Another example is the "filing fees" which are $125/year. In Delaware, its only $20. Now again, this is small, but it all adds up and it shows which state is trying to be more attractive, and thus will attract people that produce jobs, and these people will need housing.

I talk to people who are considering relocation to MA all the time and they ask me a lot about housing. I always laugh when they ask me what a 4 bedroom house on the water in Boston would cost. The salaries are not high enough to make up for the extreme cost of living difference, so they don't relocate up here.
Back to top
steverino
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:28 am GMT    Post subject: If we are getting to the point Reply with quote

where we are quoting Fox news reporting yet another lobbying and PR outfit masquerading as a think tank, I think the thread may have outlived its usefulness.

Quote:
South Dakota, Nevada, and Wyoming are the most entrepreneur-friendly states


I'll take Massachusetts' economy over South Dakota's anytime. I'll also take California's, which ranks low on the list, over Alabama's, an apparent entrepreneurial favorite.

I'm sure you can find lots of stem cell research talent willing to move to Birmingham.

Oh, well. At least the press release was good for a laugh.

It is the cost of real estate that is the key driver of Massachusetts' problems. It is too expensive to live here, and too expensive to develop commercial enterprises, all because of land costs.
Back to top
samchady
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:47 pm GMT    Post subject: Attack the message... Reply with quote

If you would like, I could find the same news on any outlet. Money.com had great stories on Virginia and what they are doing to help entrepreneurs. I do agree with you, that Boston has limited land (since its so mature - been around a long time) so values are high.

Attack the message. When you attack the messenger, it shows that you have no argument.

Businessweek had a great article this week on how policy in this country (Federal or State) cannot really do much since the economy is a world economy. Think of it this way. Massachusetts does the "right thing" (this is debatable) by passing the latest health insurance law. Businesses are free to LEAVE Mass, or at least move the corporate/support office out of state, or even out-of-country. So these local laws only force businesses away. These jobs are replaced by low-paying retail/service jobs and these people cannot afford to buy housing.
Back to top
papos
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:26 pm GMT    Post subject: why are they leaving? Reply with quote

people are leaving Massachusetts simply because there are many better places to live where there is greater opportunity, weather, and friendlier people. I lived my life in Mass and never realized what life could be like until I got out.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Open Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group