Even something as simple as not charging $500 per year to create/maintain an LLC would be nice.
As a resident of the Commonwealth, it's a mixed bag. On the one hand, the government is awesome and progressive. On the other hand, they want to be controlling and arbitrary. For example, there's huge biotech subsidies in the state - and it's a growth industry, but at the same time, it's somewhat arbitrary and means that those companies can pay up for things like office space since they're getting the subsidy and so they tend to become more of the economy. Likewise (since the article brings up transit), the Commonwealth decided that since a court ordered them to enhance public transit due to environmental concerns over that the big dig (a highway project) was causing, that it should be the MBTA (public transit authority) that should shoulder the cost rather than the big dig who created the need for the cost. That's simply bad economics to shift costs away from those that incur the costs. Likewise, the Commonwealth likes the double standard of free interstates (paid for by gas taxes) for everyone except those that live west of Boston (who must pay both a gas tax and tolls).
I'd prefer that the legislature tried to be a little less controlling of things on a high level and rather target the roots that they'd like to affect rather than simply deciding something like Industry A is good. Maybe something like, "companies with strong growth can get a discount tax incentive." Why companies with strong growth? Employing a lot of people isn't useful. Progressively employing more is useful. Being large isn't useful, growing larger is. So a company that exhibits strong growth is likely to employ more people in the future - especially if it has more capital to invest in itself. Likewise, if they've shown that they can do good things with capital, those companies will create more profits and more taxes in the future. Heck, even make it something like this: companies that show strong growth can defer (some of) their taxes for 5 years. That's like an interest free loan that gets them to locate in MA and have their growth in MA since that growth comes at a steep discount in cost with little long-term cost to the state.
I'm not complaining. Taxes are reasonable and services are high compared to other states (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html). It's a good place to live, despite the weather (although that's even nice today).
I thought it was rather ironic that the same week Deval Patrick was heading to CA to entice some businesses to head east, the legislature was trying to implement a tax on businesses in other states. It's hard to believe, but if you get your tires changed in NH yet live in MA, MA thinks it deserves the sales tax.
Readers not familiar with this will probably think I am making this up. It's totally absurd.
If state A wants more sales tax revenue, they need to encourage businesses to open shop in state A. If it's to the business's benefit to set up shop across the border in state B, state A needs to rethink its policies.
My problem with MA is that raising taxes seems to be their first answer to every problem. And driving here STILL sucks.
But it's tough when State B is a place like New Hampshire, who are more than happy to keep taxes low at the expense of having relatively poor services. Two different states, two very different sets of priorities.
Most of the politicians that I know that describe themselves as "progressive" are controlling. I think that in politics, the two terms go hand in hand.
Perhaps your definition of "progressive" is different from the politicians definition?
It's may be a bit unfair to suggest that progressive politicians are especially controlling.
I'd argue that the scope of (bad) controlling grows with the scope of govt control. I doubt that the relationship is sub-linear.
One might argue that progressives are more aggressive about expanding the scope of govt. (That's not to say that other types won't try to expand, just that progressives are more interested, or at least more effective, in doing so.)
I wonder what policies MA could actually change that would make a difference. These might be surprisingly far afield. For example, I think Wade is onto something with his suggestions about improving mass transit. Having a good quality of life in a town may attract startup founders more effectively than high-profile boondoggles like "innovation centers."
Of course the real weakness in Boston is not a lack of founders, but a lack of investors. I can't think of any policies that would solve that problem. Tax law changes, wouldn't, for example.
Yes, angels are the weakest point. Though Boston VCs seem to be much slower off the mark than SV ones too.
I think the weather in CA has a lot to do with it. That and the fact that for so long it's been the new, nice place to move that it has affected the composition of the people here. The Bay Area, in particular, is a place a lot of people have moved to in search of a better life. So it ends up being full of the kind of people who'd move for a better life, and people like that are optimistic.
When I visited Hearst Castle, the tour guide characterized California as a place where over the history of the US, people kept moving west to escape convention, bureaucracy, community standards, and so it became the final destination of weirdos and lunatics. Seems about right.
If Boston has an inferiority complex because of Silicon Valley, where does that leave me out on the Cape looking in (enviously) on all the activity 2 hours away in Boston?
Suck it up, launch your startup, and work your butt off to make it work.
As a resident of the Commonwealth, it's a mixed bag. On the one hand, the government is awesome and progressive. On the other hand, they want to be controlling and arbitrary. For example, there's huge biotech subsidies in the state - and it's a growth industry, but at the same time, it's somewhat arbitrary and means that those companies can pay up for things like office space since they're getting the subsidy and so they tend to become more of the economy. Likewise (since the article brings up transit), the Commonwealth decided that since a court ordered them to enhance public transit due to environmental concerns over that the big dig (a highway project) was causing, that it should be the MBTA (public transit authority) that should shoulder the cost rather than the big dig who created the need for the cost. That's simply bad economics to shift costs away from those that incur the costs. Likewise, the Commonwealth likes the double standard of free interstates (paid for by gas taxes) for everyone except those that live west of Boston (who must pay both a gas tax and tolls).
I'd prefer that the legislature tried to be a little less controlling of things on a high level and rather target the roots that they'd like to affect rather than simply deciding something like Industry A is good. Maybe something like, "companies with strong growth can get a discount tax incentive." Why companies with strong growth? Employing a lot of people isn't useful. Progressively employing more is useful. Being large isn't useful, growing larger is. So a company that exhibits strong growth is likely to employ more people in the future - especially if it has more capital to invest in itself. Likewise, if they've shown that they can do good things with capital, those companies will create more profits and more taxes in the future. Heck, even make it something like this: companies that show strong growth can defer (some of) their taxes for 5 years. That's like an interest free loan that gets them to locate in MA and have their growth in MA since that growth comes at a steep discount in cost with little long-term cost to the state.
I'm not complaining. Taxes are reasonable and services are high compared to other states (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html). It's a good place to live, despite the weather (although that's even nice today).