Between 1982 and 1995, Louisiana taxpayers paid out $4 billion in corporate welfare that was supposed to create jobs. 26,000 jobs were lost, which means industry robbed Louisiana taxpayers of $154,000 for each job eliminated.
Between 1993 and 1996, the Louisiana chemical industry lost 800 jobs. During that three years we gave them about a $700 million dollars in welfare money. Why should taxpayers have to pay $875,000 in welfare money for each job lost?
Nationally most new jobs are created by small- and medium-sized businesses. In Louisiana, 97 percent of all businesses have 100 employees or less. Yet, the lion's share of corporate welfare is going to the big companies with political clout.

When the article contains things like:
It's easy to see how California got on our list. It has pampered a large army of civil servants while using every imaginable trick to chase private-sector jobs away, the latest being a quixotic scheme to reduce the globe's atmospheric carbon.

I can't take it seriously.

There's a reason Silicon Valley is in California and not North Dakota. Businesses will continue to exist in places where it can attract the best. Nothing against North Dakota, but...

When the L.A. Times endorsed Jerry Brown over e-Meg Whitman in our 2010 gubernatorial election, the editorial specifically cited Whitman's plan to cut public employees - California already has a low number of state employees per resident compared to the rest of the U.S. In absolute numbers, the number of state employees is high because California is the most populous state, and one of the largest geographically; the ratio of state employees to residents is low.

the latest being a quixotic scheme to reduce the globe's atmospheric carbon.

When California set stricter vehicle emission standards than mandated by the feds, there was some corporate complaining, and then changes were made because California is too large a market to ignore.

And jill, we had a thread on the business climate in California before. Far more businesses are leaving California than are moving in.

Some smaller cities have been in a death spiral since I can remember, but some have really gotten bad in the last several years.

High property taxes due to unfunded state mandates have pushed many out of the state, or to neighboring counties, towns, villages, suburban and rural areas.

On a positive note, things that make it tough for others to survive, or do business are often good for us as it creates opportunity and eliminates competition.

How many jobs are involved? What is a "business"? One guy? 40,000 employees? I suppose I could move my internet mustache comb business - November sales: $12.29, to Wyoming and it would count.

For that matter, how many move into California, so that can be compared?

And when I google this, all I see are Texas for moving in, and California for moving out?

As for death spiral stuff, thats how I would have described our school district, but then the never-ever-any-new-taxes fanatics lost the bond issue, and we're going to pay an extra $50 a year in property taxes for a state-of-the-art high school.

How can this not be clear to you? The terminology of your linked article defines "takers" solely as those using government services, but completely ignores the corporations that get vast tax concessions in that same state, also funded by the "makers".

It's completely disingenuous to pretend that "takers" are all individual welfare cases. The use of such language is offensive and jingoistic, anyways, and the article is a political hack job.

That paragraph could have been written by any of the tax cut grubbers!
It's the new paradigm can't beat up welfare anymore ad pensioners & folks who have paid into insurance to the lump of UNDESIREABLES!
You gotta love Forbes myopia here!

How are government employees takers?
Police, fire, water, sewer, streets and sanitation, States attorneys, judges, teachers...
End Medicare and Medicaid and give tax breaks to billionaires?

This is a heap of trash, from another sore loser who supported Bush, the guy who created the deficit.

California, long considered to have the world's eighth-largest economy, has slipped to ninth place, according to the Palo Alto-based Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy.

Blame it on Brazil.

With a fast-growing, $2.1 trillion economy, Brazil has slipped past California ($1.9 trillion) into eighth place, according to the center's calculations from the latest World Bank economic rankings.

California was once as high as seventh but was later surpassed by Italy, which remains No. 7, just ahead of Brazil and just behind No. 6 Great Britain.

The United States, of course, is first at $14.5 trillion, followed by China at $5.9 trillion, Japan at $5.5 trillion, Germany at $3.3 trillion and France at $2.6 trillion.

California is just ahead of India's $1.7 trillion. The Los Angeles area, with a $886 billion economy, would rank 16th in world, just behind Australia and just ahead of the Netherlands. The Sacramento area's economy, incidentally, would rank 59th, just behind Qatar and Kazakhstan.

Sacramento Bee

The state funds the district by the number of students. Fewer students, less funding, less teachers, less activities, so more students leave. The county (up until last election) has steadfastly refused to bump their (absurdly low) property taxes at all for anything, so less money to pay the teachers, so the good teachers leave and the poorer ones stay, which means more kids leave the district, so less money. and so on. "Death Spiral" describes it pretty well.

There are the cash sucker states that get back more than they put in continually year after year

-Ron-

Not picking on Labrea here but, instead, it's a critique of this oft-repeated nonsense about red states and blue states.

States don't vote; people vote.

We don't know what figures these are based on. I would expect states that have more of a federal footprint, such as military installations, federal laboratories, etc. would get more federal money.

For example, Georgia, with 13 military bases and the CDC and whatever else, would get more money than New York State, which has only 5 military bases and 1 or 2 labs.

What counts as federal expenditures? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Veteran's benefits? I would expect highly populated states with an older demographic to have more SS and Medicare recipients. Is that counted as federal money going to states? Where are the retirement states again?

We could create another competing hypothesis that says that so-called Blue States have incompetent representation and their elected officials just can't seem to bring home the bacon, even when they have majorities.

Or, we could say that Red State voters are smarter. They're getting the money, after all. The Blue States just get to whine, which is something they seem to be good at.

But things are a bit more nuanced than that, aren't they? The unexamined claim is just that - unexamined. We can't take this completely manufactured red state/blue state stupidity as an article of faith when we don't know what goes into it. It's really just a platitude.

But things are a bit more nuanced than that, aren't they? The unexamined claim is just that - unexamined. We can't take this completely manufactured red state/blue state taker/maker stupidity as an article of faith when we don't know what goes into it. It's really just a platitude.

Kate

I definitely wouldn't buy, build or renovate a home in many regions due to property taxes alone, yet minutes away property taxes are low, crime is low and school systems are outstanding.

Generally speaking, if you have few rentals, few multi-families and need reliable vehicles to commute to and from work, business, shopping, daycare etc, you're not going to have many welfare recipients and poor people living in the region - at least not long term.

Our poor and low income residents generally live in the urban areas with support systems - subsidized housing, low income landlords, slumlords, transit, taxis, walkable distances to shopping/work/DSS etc.

Renting makes more sense in these regions as property tax liability is shared with other tenants. Generally speaking, the more units, the less tax per unit.

The high number of multi-family and apartment buildings not paying their fair share, plus high number of poor and low income tenants receiving numerous welfare benefits are why property taxes are so high in some regions to begin with.

Many of our unfunded state mandates consume over half of the property tax levy.

These issues have caused many of those with the ability to move, sell or cut and run to flee to neighboring towns, villages, counties, suburbs, rural areas or other states.

>
Who would have thunk when top rates during Ford Presidency 50% when Welfare hadn't been reformed that there would be as much hysteria as there is in these garbage economic stories.
It's garbage economic when Corporate US is recording record profits & Forbes Magazine is wailing about Maker Takers
E I E I O!
Who would have thunk I thought for sure they would have put NY out of it's misery by now, the predictions were that it would be an entirely welfare prison city (by those predictors)! 30 years ago a NY parent might still threaten their child with a future on the BOWERY if they didn't do their home work. Today you can't get an apartment on the Bowery for under a Million!
Like I said these stories attempt to steer & they do herd their target mongrels into neat little packages for the disapproval of the tax cut grubbers (who I personally disapprove of)
DOOM & GLOOM.
Now Goldman Sachs today is predicting potential 13 to 15% rise in stock prices for the year. That pretty good in a year of Record Profits & Death Spirals!
They were also predicting $150-$200 oil in 2008 & never relented on their predictions even after the crash.
How did NY get out of it's financial CRUNCH (it took work bi partisan work in a City that is 3 to 1 Democrat)
This Forbes piece is just a new form a vilification & this maker taker talk is the putrid smell of elitism & of a party that was just trounced!

Indeed.

But the author graduated from Harvard in 1973 with a degree in linguistics and applied math.

-Ron-

Absolutely no depth or credibility to the article.

All government workers are takers? Does that included police, teachers, firefighters, armed forces? All business owners/executives are job makers? Does that include all the companies who out source, pay minimum wages, use part time help and take corporate welfare?

Mrs, do I recall that your DH is a "taker"? Doesn't he work for the LA government? Perhaps I misunderstood but I recall you being quite upset with the Governor's decision to outsource the department he works in. You said it was profitable and was best handled by the government. If I have recalled incorrectly I apologize.

*

Self restraint and personal responsibility.

Not going to happen, mrskjun.

The citizens of this country think they deserve a gravy train.

Actually, it's not. Think about it., For a state whose population is in trouble jobwise, You're going to have more people "taking out" of the system than making money, and putting in. The longer it goes, the worse that it gets, and the less there is, and that's the whole death spiral.

Who said anything about liberals? The article is offensive because it uses derogatory term for those that either work for or are in some way supported by the government.

What needs to be done to turn these states around?

Stop giving such enormous amounts of welfare to companies in those states. Use that money for worker training, childcare and education; you know, the kinds of things that actually give folks a chance to get out of the hopeless cycle.

Just by the by, it's odd to me that Demi thinks there is nothing to be done about those she considers inherently without self-determination; I always thought Christians believed in the salvation of man, not his foregone damnation. But I admit I'm not up on my theism.

It would do us all well to remember that those "takers"....police, firefighters, soldiers, teachers, Mrs DH... are all taxpayers too.

I find the term incredibly insulting and indicative of a societal attitude that is incredibly offensive.

Now, let me ask you, Chase, when trying to describe this situation, and how it comes to be, what terms would YOU use to make your case with any clarity? Those receiving vs those donating by mandate?

From what I saw, gov't employees were mentioned with reference to their numbers being more than those in the private sector, and you have to admit-- when that happens, it's trouble, fiscally speaking, for the state.

Bill you are a better person than I. As soon as I read that sentence the article lost all credibility to me.

I refuse to accept the premise that soldiers, teachers, firefighters etc are "takers".....and only those employeed in the private sector, even those making minimum wage and claiming the tax payer paid for earned income credit are "makers"

Let's take California with their extensive border payroll, huge navy base, the LA police and fire departments all defined by this article as "takers."...and yet the huge numbers of legal migrant agricultural workers all "makers". I think not!

There is so much more to this issue than this simplistic article which in my estimation simply plays off the currently fashionable conservative taking points.

Beautifully said, Chase.

"I refuse to accept the premise that soldiers, teachers, firefighters etc are "takers".....and only those employeed in the private sector, even those making minimum wage and claiming the tax payer paid for earned income credit are "makers"."

From an economic standpoint they are net losses. If they are in the system long enough, many can retire with six figure pensions that are tax-free and wholly taxpayer-funded. Plus, they get to draw social security, which is yet another layer of taxpayer support.

In other words, like my neighbors, you can pull down close to $200k per year between pensions and social security, all in taxpayer-funded dollars. In that regard, they are a double loss - a partial loss while working, an almost complete loss when they are retired.

Are they producing economic value commensurate to their costs? Probably not most of them.

One of my neighbors retired early at a $77K pension, based on $100K salary. Slightly too young to draw social security benefits on top of it, she decided she was bored and went back to work. Now she gets her full pension, plus she went back to working at one of her old taxpayer-funded jobs, at a rate commensurate to her years of service and experience. That's a double draw on the taxpayer.

How many taxpayers does it take to support that scenario and all of the people who take advantage of such a situation?

Public employees are too many and too expensive from an economic perspective. General public employees far outnumber soldiers and firefighters. The vast majority add no real value as a consequence of their jobs because they exist to perpetuate bureaucratic, make-work projects which are fiscal liabilities unto themselves.

They are, as you point out, inflammatory and meant to feed a certain mind set rather than analyze a problem.

IMO