Pennsylvania Tax Incentives Questioned - WSJ.com

Pennsylvania Tax Incentives Questioned - WSJ.com:

"The following quote from the article should be looked at as saying it all: '|The Pennsylvania study found that more jobs were lost to other countries than to other states by a 30-to-1 ratio'.

To compete economically, one has to do exactly that - i.e. 'compete'.

If money has to come from some other entity to fund a job (as believed by the gang currently running Washington), then it's likely a negative sum game.

However, if a state reduces the cost of a company expanding or coming into the state, then they may be offering a discounted cost for a new benefit - i.e. a new taxpaying entity.

What the quote above shows is that America just isn't competitive - be it unionization, employer taxes, investor taxes, etc. Sadly, the situation is growing quickly and markedly worse as the share of GDP is being taken by government to support entitlements and government services.

It would seem as though all of America should be supporting the kind of business efforts that will keep the country's economy competitive; not, the taxation policies that will strip the country of its ability to compete economically and in terms of jobs by paying out benefit after benefit, which is all consumption.

Sadly, a positive business and investor supported policy turn seems ever more remote as populist rhetoric seems to preoccupy the public and Washington.

As the old saying goes - 'sometimes you have be careful what you wish for'. So many people are mad and want to punish someone (read: bankers; but never the scoundrels in Congress) that they may find themselves in the 'law of unexpected consequences' - in other words, less capital going into jobs and more financial services moving offshore!"