

Instead of 'branding,' how about startup-friendly policies for Mass.? - waderoush
http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/02/27/massachusetts-technology-industry-needs-a-new-deal-not-a-new-brand/

======
mdasen
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).

~~~
dhimes
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.

~~~
gamache
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.

------
pg
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.

~~~
fallentimes
Isn't it more a lack of angel investors?

Maybe the problem is when people get rich they think: _off to California!_ and
never _off to Boston!_ :)

Or they got rich in CA, never bothered to leave, and then became angel
investors.

~~~
pg
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.

~~~
ojbyrne
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.

------
paul_houle
I think of Rt 128 as a Boulevard of Broken Dreams.

------
josefresco
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.

~~~
vlad
...and move to Silicon Valley whether or not it succeeds.

------
vlad
I like that the author mentioned colleges outside of Boston. He seemed to name
benefits that are the same throughout Massachusetts.

