Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see this as being different than people who are from NC or other red states (some will debate that NC isn't a red state although it's recent politics sure looks like it is) who leave and head off to a place that is on the other side of the spectrum such as New York City, San Francisco, etc. because they want a different pace/social climate/political atmosphere, etc..
Some people are just a very poor fit for the political and social climate of where they happen to be from, and for some of those who are really passionate about what they believe or swing to one extreme of the political spectrum, it's enough of a deal breaker that they feel the need to get out of Dodge and go somewhere that they feel is more compatible with their values. Also, because that is such a major factor for those folks, they tend to be very vocal about it and have a strong need to make their opinions known, so that makes it seem as if there's really a larger influx of "refugees" than there probably is.
Yes, quite so. And then they move to NC and vote for every damn bond and project, thereby driving our property taxes up and up. And then they move away, leaving the rest of us with the bill. Lots never even own a home -- they just rent. I fail to see the downside of HB2 if it slows this kind of migration.
At the risk of having to endure one of your infamous 'jiggery-pokery' soliloquies, that may well one of the more mush for brain comments I've seen in awhile.
Let's make this easy. If property taxes go up, do the landlords absorb those costs? No, they raise the rent. When the renter moves, the next tenant pays that higher rate. Same applies with the new owner of a home after acquisition.
Thanks for playing, please feel free not to respond.
Sorry you misunderstood me I mentioned hb2 to emphasize my topic wasn't saying we need more social conservativism but that conservative economic policy seems to be a winner
The so called Conservative economic policy is far from a winner. The county schools in Craven County face a $3.5 million shortfall and that is after school funding being reduced year after year after year. The new tax on car repairs can hardly be considered a winner either. Poor folks pay to keep the clunker running, rich folks just buy a new car.
Your conservative economic policy is gutting the middle class. Yes, some of the policies may be attractive to businesses, but only stockholders and upper management benefit. Look at the roads and infrastructure. Crumbling.
The economy has a certain amount of inertia. The broad gains made in 60s, 70s, and 80s are being derailed in favor of policies designed now to benefit the top 1%.
The so called Conservative economic policy is far from a winner. The county schools in Craven County face a $3.5 million shortfall and that is after school funding being reduced year after year after year. The new tax on car repairs can hardly be considered a winner either. Poor folks pay to keep the clunker running, rich folks just buy a new car.
Your conservative economic policy is gutting the middle class. Yes, some of the policies may be attractive to businesses, but only stockholders and upper management benefit. Look at the roads and infrastructure. Crumbling.
The economy has a certain amount of inertia. The broad gains made in 60s, 70s, and 80s are being derailed in favor of policies designed now to benefit the top 1%.
"Conservative economic policy" is cleverly disguised to make the rich richer by peddling conservative SOCIAL policy. This thread is a perfect example. The OP likely couldn't name a single conservative ECONOMIC policy that has benefited the middle to lower income brackets since the state went Red, yet he uses a HB2 reference. Really?
One hopes people will wake up to this reality come election time, but I'm not holding my breathe.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,834,182 times
Reputation: 10257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid
"Conservative economic policy" is cleverly disguised to make the rich richer by peddling conservative SOCIAL policy. This thread is a perfect example. The OP likely couldn't name a single conservative ECONOMIC policy that has benefited the middle to lower income brackets since the state went Red, yet he uses a HB2 reference. Really?
One hopes people will wake up to this reality come election time, but I'm not holding my breathe.
Yup, social conservatives have been voting against their own interests for decades now. Trickle down economics is a losing proposition. It hasn't worked yet. The recession should have taught people that our economy works best when it bubbles up.
At the risk of having to endure one of your infamous 'jiggery-pokery' soliloquies, that may well one of the more mush for brain comments I've seen in awhile.
Let's make this easy. If property taxes go up, do the landlords absorb those costs? No, they raise the rent. When the renter moves, the next tenant pays that higher rate. Same applies with the new owner of a home after acquisition.
Thanks for playing, please feel free not to respond.
I will try to help you out with this -- clearly, you have never been a landlord.
Rents are set mainly by supply and demand rather than by the landlord's expenses; in other words, local vacancy rates. Yes, the landlord will often absorb increased costs, just as he will often raise rents to all the market will bear in the absence of increased costs. Sometimes additional costs are absorbed in an effort to keep good tenants. Sometimes, rents go up simply to squeeze-out undesirables.
Rents may go up; rents may not go up; rents may go down. The point is that Joe Carrboro votes to increase my taxes, and then moves on. Sort of like a dog who defecates on someone else's yard . . .
North Carolina is experiencing a wave of immigration for folks fleeing high taxes, poor services, overpowered unions and regulations.
Yet it seems with the immigration the voice for the more liberal perspective has grown stronger.
Wasn't it this same mentality that essentially has caused to NY and NJ to fail the middle class?
Isn't our conservative re-worked tax structure the main draw for alot of these folks?
I'm not trying to say you should like HB2 here just that up there they are forging a path further and deeper to the left and the outcome seems to be that life doesn't work for regular folks so why should we want to do those things?
The South, including NC, has been attracting talent from the NE since the mid 1960's when the RTP was built. IBM used to be in NY, but moved South along with many other companies, for the huge tax breaks (property and income), right to work laws and freebee land and infrastructure improvements to support the companies.
A late example of a huge company moving South was Boeing to SC. If you give industry enough tax breaks, free land, and infrastructure improvements, they will move because they are all about making money. Recent example was Carrier moving to Mexico.
And when that happens, the talent, the company’s suppliers and competitors move also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
