States should sue republicanist-businesses leaving the state for lower taxes

[diesel driver]

I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.

In the first place, businesses PURCHASE the "productive labor" of the workers.  It's called WAGES.  

Second, sharing is VOLUNTARY and subjected to the whim of the EARNER, not mandated by a government bureaucrat and subjected to the whim of politics.

Third, it's totally "fair" for a business to move to wherever the hell they want to. Despite the best efforts of liberals, it's still a (somewhat) free country, and if a business wants to move to a state to better their bottom line, so be it.  
Come to think of it, just why do you think businesses move offshore?  Could it be the US now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and are regulated past the point of ridiculous?  

Fourth, life ain't fair.  Get over it or wear a helmet.

Maybe governments should rethink their citizens' wants and adjust it to what is practical and necessary, and stop playing Santa Claus.  If the citizens' think they "deserve" more freebies, let THEM move to a state that provides them.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

In the first place, businesses PURCHASE the "productive labor" of the workers.  It's called WAGES.  

Second, sharing is VOLUNTARY and subjected to the whim of the EARNER, not mandated by a government bureaucrat and subjected to the whim of politics.

Third, it's totally "fair" for a business to move to wherever the hell they want to. Despite the best efforts of liberals, it's still a (somewhat) free country, and if a business wants to move to a state to better their bottom line, so be it.  
Come to think of it, just why do you think businesses move offshore?  Could it be the US now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and are regulated past the point of ridiculous?  

Fourth, life ain't fair.  Get over it or wear a helmet.

Maybe governments should rethink their citizens' wants and adjust it to what is practical and necessary, and stop playing Santa Claus.  If the citizens' think they "deserve" more freebies, let THEM move to a state that provides them.

I would also add that since the law should not discriminate based on social status BtG is opening a can of worms he's not prepared to swallow.

His principle is: government provides X, Y and Z ergo businesses are obligated to provide taxes on a return on that investment.

1) the investors provided X, Y and Z and the business owes them first and directly, not in some abstraction.

2) when a business provides training and bonuses to it employees BtG's standard would imply those employees are obligated to serve their employer.

If a business trains an employee to drive a Class A vehicle and the employee is fired for cause can the employer sue the employee for the cost of the licensing?

BtG says, "Yes."

Congratulations, BtG you just brought back indentured servitude and apprenticeships where the master is truly the master.

[Bad Dog]

If they could....

Kalifornia had to be slapped down in court several years back for trying to tax out of state military retired pay for anyone who had ever been stationed in Kalifornia. When I was stationed there, they kept demanding I file state income tax forms even though I never established residency there. Those SOB's would pull your mom's teeth to get the gold.

[NHSparky]

If they could....

At least one state does:

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_exit_tax_has_real_estate_at.html

[USA4ME]

I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.

I pretty sure business owners can determine what they need to do in order to be profitable and effective.  There's any number of reasons a business might choose to relocate, not just because of taxes.  If a state wants their citizens to prosper, then penalizing businesses isn't the way.  Don't give me this "it's not fair" baloney.  States compete against each other all the time for business, tourists dollars, etc...

.

[NHSparky]

Ban, also, consider that states don't have the right to sue anyone for exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT.

Read that word again, Ban...RIGHT.

[Danglars]

I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.

Who are you--or the state--to allow or not allow our freedom of movement across state lines? The states that have higher tax rates are penalizing themselves. And the people who have "enriched themeselves" are the ones who put down the capital investment, and then they paid wages for labor--fair trade, so THAT'S zeroed out. Did they borrrow money from their workers? Are those workers creditors? Even creditors can't stop people and businesses from moving, and creditors ARE actually owed money by your putative business owners. The business owners who move owe NOTHING to either their workers who once worked for them or to the state that taxes them except whatever they legally owe in each fiscal year, and they don't have to "justify" their personal decisions to the state to move with their OWN business that belong to them. And in terms of who profits off whom, it's exactly the reverse, you damned fascist. The state--or the high tax ones you like--is a leech on the back of business, with high taxes and fees, fees, endless, endless fees.

[Jasonw560]

Fourth, life ain't fair.  Get over it or wear a helmet.

That's excellent! May I use that? You get credit here, of course.

[Danglars]

Ban, also, consider that states don't have the right to sue anyone for exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT.

Read that word again, Ban...RIGHT.

He and his kind want to stop it from being a right, any way they can. They openly say so. And, unfortunately, they find ways to do so often enough without amending the Constitution.

[NHSparky]

He and his kind want to stop it from being a right, any way they can. They openly say so. And, unfortunately, they find ways to do so often enough without amending the Constitution.

Look no further than Boeing wanting to open that plant in South Carolina, and the NLRB sued.

[Karin]

It's not fair that a state would be penalized because

Sounds so whiney and babyish.

If Ban would come back, (which he won't), and answer, (which he won't), I'd ask him what on earth he thinks businesses exist for. 

[Carl]

What he wants is where communism always ends up.

[BannedFromDU]

I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.

Where do you get this "our workers" bullshit from? People don't belong to a state, except in the minds of totalitarian statists like yourself.

People can move whenever and wherever the MOTHER**** they want to - that is the essence of FREEDOM, you totalitarian ****nut. That labor you think is owned by the state? It can move, too.

It's called the Tiebout Hypothesis. Voting with one's feet. Look it up. California WILL turn into Michigan for ONE simple reason: it insists that
hundreds of thousands of worthless paper-pushing choads deserve pensions for life for reshelving library books.
     

[delilahmused]

All I can think is that this person is either a very bad mole or learned law when 0bama was a guest marxist instructor.

Cindie

[diesel driver]

That's excellent! May I use that? You get credit here, of course.

Be my guest.   

[obumazombie]

Be my guest.  

Conrad Hilton theme song...

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ses8Z2v0-m4
[/youtube]

edit for content.

[diesel driver]

Conrad Hilton theme song...

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ses8Z2v0-m4
[/youtube]

edit for content.

Paris Hilton on a date.   

[obumazombie]

Paris, the perfect example of why a lineage goes from sandals to sandals in 3 generations.

[98ZJUSMC]

At least one state does:

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_exit_tax_has_real_estate_at.html

Boy, that thing's a mess.  They can't even agree that it even exists.

Typical (D) legislation. 

[98ZJUSMC]

Where do you get this "our workers" bullshit from? People don't belong to a state,
     

Which explains why we get it and they don't.

[GOBUCKS]

For instance, in California, 10 businesses a week leave state

500 per year? I'm not sure where the DUmpmonkey came up with that figure, but it's gotta be a vast underestimate.

Far more than 500 businesses a year disappear from the Peoples' Republic of California.

[Duke Nukum]

I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.

Just...wow.

If you got everything you wanted you would starve to death within 12 hours.

[txradioguy]

I don't see any of your responses that make sense.

Of course you don't. 

Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place.

You just made Marx and Lenin smile.

Making money is not like freedom of movement;

The hell it's not.  IF that stupidity you uttered were true then people owuldn't be allowed to find better paying jobs...move from one company to another or strike out on their own and start their own business.

Under your misguided "logic" people would be locked into one job and one job only for their entire life...kind like they used to do in Russia.

you have to share it properly in order to be effective.

Says who?

It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.

It's not fair that a state refuses to manage it's own checkbook and continues to spend like a drunken sailor and make the hard working citizens of that state pay for the states excess.

[docstew]

It's not fair that a state refuses to manage it's own checkbook and continues to spend like a drunken sailor and make the hard working citizens of that state pay for the states excess.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5aeHF2ay5M[/youtube]