Corporate welfare in action ....

[Conservative65]

Republicans show us why it was a bad idea by morphing it to expand corporate profits while screwing workers and consumers?

Government screws workers and consumers, not capitalism. Just look at all the immigrants government is importing into the country. Everyone of them takes an American job. You can't screw the American worker any worse than that.

And yet you are ok with the government picking winners and losers.

I am? Where?

Great, so you are against these corporate welfare deals where government gives special deals to corporations and picks winners and losers.

Yes, I am against tax abatements, and I'm against publicly funded stadiums.

My grandmother, rest her soul, said the same thing about stadiums, arenas, etc. She said that if the people wanted it that much, let those using it pay a higher price for the tickets at events there. At 80, she wasn't likely to go to the one built in our city yet she had to pay the taxes to fund it.

I'm curious to know how many people that want such things would be as willing to build them is their ticket price was higher and it meant spending their money instead of the money of others.

 

[Conservative65]

If this is welfare, can we consider the free college proposal put forth by the left as welfare?

What else would we call it?

The free college concept is nothing but welfare.

Right. I guess I'm not sure what you were getting at.

The people calling free college an investment consider what is being done in the OP as welfare. That's why I asked if they consider it welfare, shouldn't free college be considered the same thing?

So, do the people who consider free college to be welfare recognize that the OP is the same thing?

Depends on whether or not they can tell the difference between welfare and investment.

 

[dblack]

What else would we call it?

The free college concept is nothing but welfare.

Right. I guess I'm not sure what you were getting at.

The people calling free college an investment consider what is being done in the OP as welfare. That's why I asked if they consider it welfare, shouldn't free college be considered the same thing?

So, do the people who consider free college to be welfare recognize that the OP is the same thing?

Depends on whether or not they can tell the difference between welfare and investment.

Afraid to answer? How do you see it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government screws workers and consumers, not capitalism. Just look at all the immigrants government is importing into the country. Everyone of them takes an American job. You can't screw the American worker any worse than that.

And yet you are ok with the government picking winners and losers.

I am? Where?

Great, so you are against these corporate welfare deals where government gives special deals to corporations and picks winners and losers.

Yes, I am against tax abatements, and I'm against publicly funded stadiums.

My grandmother, rest her soul, said the same thing about stadiums, arenas, etc. She said that if the people wanted it that much, let those using it pay a higher price for the tickets at events there. At 80, she wasn't likely to go to the one built in our city yet she had to pay the taxes to fund it.

I'm curious to know how many people that want such things would be as willing to build them is their ticket price was higher and it meant spending their money instead of the money of others.

Over here they used sin taxes to build their new playgrounds. The taxes were set for X amount of years, but when the time came where the taxes repaid the loans, they kept the sin taxes for maintenance and improvements.

Building millionaire playgrounds is immoral, but pitting one group of citizens over the other is even more immoral. If you want a tax paid stadium and put it to a vote, fine with me, but let the taxation be on everybody--not just political enemies.

 

[dblack]

Building millionaire playgrounds is immoral, but pitting one group of citizens over the other is even more immoral. If you want a tax paid stadium and put it to a vote, fine with me, but let the taxation be on everybody--not just political enemies.

Agreed.

Of course, this contradicts your earlier posts in this thread, but hey - it's Hypocrisy Day on USMB! Let's all celebrate!

 

[Conservative65]

The free college concept is nothing but welfare.

Right. I guess I'm not sure what you were getting at.

The people calling free college an investment consider what is being done in the OP as welfare. That's why I asked if they consider it welfare, shouldn't free college be considered the same thing?

So, do the people who consider free college to be welfare recognize that the OP is the same thing?

Depends on whether or not they can tell the difference between welfare and investment.

Afraid to answer? How do you see it?

You didn't ask a question of me.

I can tell the difference between welfare and an investment. It's really easy to tell the difference.

 

[dblack]

Right. I guess I'm not sure what you were getting at.

The people calling free college an investment consider what is being done in the OP as welfare. That's why I asked if they consider it welfare, shouldn't free college be considered the same thing?

So, do the people who consider free college to be welfare recognize that the OP is the same thing?

Depends on whether or not they can tell the difference between welfare and investment.

Afraid to answer? How do you see it?

You didn't ask a question of me.

I can tell the difference between welfare and an investment. It's really easy to tell the difference.

You're almost as good as waffling and equivocation as our Dear Leader.

It's ok. I understand why you don't want to answer. It's Hypocrisy Day!

 

[Conservative65]

The people calling free college an investment consider what is being done in the OP as welfare. That's why I asked if they consider it welfare, shouldn't free college be considered the same thing?

So, do the people who consider free college to be welfare recognize that the OP is the same thing?

Depends on whether or not they can tell the difference between welfare and investment.

Afraid to answer? How do you see it?

You didn't ask a question of me.

I can tell the difference between welfare and an investment. It's really easy to tell the difference.

You're almost as good as waffling and equivocation as our Dear Leader.

It's ok. I understand why you don't want to answer. It's Hypocrisy Day!

It's OK. I understand why you can't tell that I did. It's your usual stupidity.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare is necessary when employers don't pay a living wage.

Why is welfare needed because of what employers pay? Welfare is a benefit to individuals--not employers.

How did it become the employers responsibility to provide a living wage to employees who's work is not worth a living wage? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the employee?

I have some very disappointing news for you. People do not start businesses to pay a living wage. They do not start (or maintain) a business to provide great benefits. People start companies to create a product or service for profit. That's where their responsibility ends. If government decides to subsidize people for being failures in life, that's not the fault of the employers--that's the fault of our government and people who become slaves to the government.

So I can pay you this amount which is a living wage or I can pay you this amount which is a lot lower because I know that the government will step in and not let you starve.

Hmmmmmm, tough decision.

So the government props up shit businesses which undercut legit businesses and its all a race to the bottom.And that is why the working man is screwed at every level.

If your business model doesnt allow you to pay a living wage then its not a business its a welfare dependent.

I don't know about where you live, but in the USA, people have choices. You have the choice to make crap money, you have the choice to become middle-class, you have the choice to do better if you really desire.

As for business, many don't have the choice of paying a living wage. If they pay their employees a living wage, their competitors who don't pay a living wage will put them out of business.

You and I both own widget factories. In my factory, I pay my employees only what they are worth. In your factory, you pay your employees much more than they are worth. Because of my lower labor costs, I can sell more of my widgets than you. After a while, I start taking your customers away because my product costs less than yours. If you allow that to continue, I eventually put you out of business.That's the way it works.

As for the worker, we are only worth what an employer can find somebody else to do the exact same job for with the exact same quality. If you stock shelves for a living, anybody can do that job, so your worth to employer is very little since he (or she) can find anybody to do that job. If you want to make yourself worth more money, you need to be able to do a job that less people can do. The less people that can do a particular job, the more money you can make doing that job. That's why engineers, registered nurses, architects, computer IT people make much more than a living wage. They got training and experience to do jobs many others cannot do.

Ok Ray, lets just expand your analogy here. Rays Crazy Widgets are able to pay less because the government will subsidise their low wages through some form of welfare. The employee still gets x amount.

Because of this crafty Ray can undercut Tommys Top Widgets because Tommy is a good employer and pays a decent wage without government subsidies.

So Tommy can either go bust and Ray can pick up his business or he can follow Ray and pick up some corporate welfare.

The government has created a distorted market and penalised the good employer. If they refused to subsidise Ray then he would have to raise his wages as nobody would work for him.

And that's the way it should be. Government should only pass out social goodies to those who were responsible enough to not put themselves in a bad position in life, but somehow ended up there through no fault of their own.

I'm the employer. I have nothing to do with social programs. It's none of my business. Those programs are between my employee and the government--not between me and the government. I could care less if my employees are on social programs or not.

If we did get rid of social programs, then my employees would want to work more hours, and that's good for me since I would not have to hire more workers.

You have no business now Ray. Your people all work for me rather than starve whilst working for you.

 

[dblack]

So, do the people who consider free college to be welfare recognize that the OP is the same thing?

Depends on whether or not they can tell the difference between welfare and investment.

Afraid to answer? How do you see it?

You didn't ask a question of me.

I can tell the difference between welfare and an investment. It's really easy to tell the difference.

You're almost as good as waffling and equivocation as our Dear Leader.

It's ok. I understand why you don't want to answer. It's Hypocrisy Day!

It's OK. I understand why you can't tell that I did. It's your usual stupidity.

Yeah. I'm pretty dim.

Alright, I'll play your little game. Do you support the corporate welfare posted in the OP? Yes or no please, no more equivocation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is welfare needed because of what employers pay? Welfare is a benefit to individuals--not employers.

How did it become the employers responsibility to provide a living wage to employees who's work is not worth a living wage? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the employee?

I have some very disappointing news for you. People do not start businesses to pay a living wage. They do not start (or maintain) a business to provide great benefits. People start companies to create a product or service for profit. That's where their responsibility ends. If government decides to subsidize people for being failures in life, that's not the fault of the employers--that's the fault of our government and people who become slaves to the government.

So I can pay you this amount which is a living wage or I can pay you this amount which is a lot lower because I know that the government will step in and not let you starve.

Hmmmmmm, tough decision.

So the government props up shit businesses which undercut legit businesses and its all a race to the bottom.And that is why the working man is screwed at every level.

If your business model doesnt allow you to pay a living wage then its not a business its a welfare dependent.

I don't know about where you live, but in the USA, people have choices. You have the choice to make crap money, you have the choice to become middle-class, you have the choice to do better if you really desire.

As for business, many don't have the choice of paying a living wage. If they pay their employees a living wage, their competitors who don't pay a living wage will put them out of business.

You and I both own widget factories. In my factory, I pay my employees only what they are worth. In your factory, you pay your employees much more than they are worth. Because of my lower labor costs, I can sell more of my widgets than you. After a while, I start taking your customers away because my product costs less than yours. If you allow that to continue, I eventually put you out of business.That's the way it works.

As for the worker, we are only worth what an employer can find somebody else to do the exact same job for with the exact same quality. If you stock shelves for a living, anybody can do that job, so your worth to employer is very little since he (or she) can find anybody to do that job. If you want to make yourself worth more money, you need to be able to do a job that less people can do. The less people that can do a particular job, the more money you can make doing that job. That's why engineers, registered nurses, architects, computer IT people make much more than a living wage. They got training and experience to do jobs many others cannot do.

Ok Ray, lets just expand your analogy here. Rays Crazy Widgets are able to pay less because the government will subsidise their low wages through some form of welfare. The employee still gets x amount.

Because of this crafty Ray can undercut Tommys Top Widgets because Tommy is a good employer and pays a decent wage without government subsidies.

So Tommy can either go bust and Ray can pick up his business or he can follow Ray and pick up some corporate welfare.

The government has created a distorted market and penalised the good employer. If they refused to subsidise Ray then he would have to raise his wages as nobody would work for him.

And that's the way it should be. Government should only pass out social goodies to those who were responsible enough to not put themselves in a bad position in life, but somehow ended up there through no fault of their own.

I'm the employer. I have nothing to do with social programs. It's none of my business. Those programs are between my employee and the government--not between me and the government. I could care less if my employees are on social programs or not.

If we did get rid of social programs, then my employees would want to work more hours, and that's good for me since I would not have to hire more workers.

You would care if they bought a soda pop or stick off gum, you have said so! So you do care if they are on assistance.

As a taxpayer, yes, because I go to the store to buy my food and I have to buy theirs as well. But as a business owner, I could care less because it doesn't affect my business one way or the other.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is welfare needed because of what employers pay? Welfare is a benefit to individuals--not employers.

How did it become the employers responsibility to provide a living wage to employees who's work is not worth a living wage? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the employee?

I have some very disappointing news for you. People do not start businesses to pay a living wage. They do not start (or maintain) a business to provide great benefits. People start companies to create a product or service for profit. That's where their responsibility ends. If government decides to subsidize people for being failures in life, that's not the fault of the employers--that's the fault of our government and people who become slaves to the government.

So I can pay you this amount which is a living wage or I can pay you this amount which is a lot lower because I know that the government will step in and not let you starve.

Hmmmmmm, tough decision.

So the government props up shit businesses which undercut legit businesses and its all a race to the bottom.And that is why the working man is screwed at every level.

If your business model doesnt allow you to pay a living wage then its not a business its a welfare dependent.

I don't know about where you live, but in the USA, people have choices. You have the choice to make crap money, you have the choice to become middle-class, you have the choice to do better if you really desire.

As for business, many don't have the choice of paying a living wage. If they pay their employees a living wage, their competitors who don't pay a living wage will put them out of business.

You and I both own widget factories. In my factory, I pay my employees only what they are worth. In your factory, you pay your employees much more than they are worth. Because of my lower labor costs, I can sell more of my widgets than you. After a while, I start taking your customers away because my product costs less than yours. If you allow that to continue, I eventually put you out of business.That's the way it works.

As for the worker, we are only worth what an employer can find somebody else to do the exact same job for with the exact same quality. If you stock shelves for a living, anybody can do that job, so your worth to employer is very little since he (or she) can find anybody to do that job. If you want to make yourself worth more money, you need to be able to do a job that less people can do. The less people that can do a particular job, the more money you can make doing that job. That's why engineers, registered nurses, architects, computer IT people make much more than a living wage. They got training and experience to do jobs many others cannot do.

Ok Ray, lets just expand your analogy here. Rays Crazy Widgets are able to pay less because the government will subsidise their low wages through some form of welfare. The employee still gets x amount.

Because of this crafty Ray can undercut Tommys Top Widgets because Tommy is a good employer and pays a decent wage without government subsidies.

So Tommy can either go bust and Ray can pick up his business or he can follow Ray and pick up some corporate welfare.

The government has created a distorted market and penalised the good employer. If they refused to subsidise Ray then he would have to raise his wages as nobody would work for him.

And that's the way it should be. Government should only pass out social goodies to those who were responsible enough to not put themselves in a bad position in life, but somehow ended up there through no fault of their own.

I'm the employer. I have nothing to do with social programs. It's none of my business. Those programs are between my employee and the government--not between me and the government. I could care less if my employees are on social programs or not.

If we did get rid of social programs, then my employees would want to work more hours, and that's good for me since I would not have to hire more workers.

You have no business now Ray. Your people all work for me rather than starve whilst working for you.

If that were the case all jobs would pay "living" wage, now wouldn't they?

But the truth is people do take lower paying jobs all the time. If your factory is 60 miles from mine, nobody is going to travel that far every morning to work at yours.

 

[bripat9643]

Welfare is when the government takes money from working people and hands it out to people who dont work. Its that simple. Now you can add all the adjectives you want..."corporate" or whatever. Different animal. But I dont think the confusion liberals try to sow with it work anymore. Since Obama came into office welfare spending (look up welfare at Wikipedia if you still dont know what it is) has risen 25% to over 900,000,000,000. LINK That is a lot of zeros. How to do it? Well for eight years you fund your pet liberals in corporations...then you whine that "corporate welfare" means you cant stop the welfare spending. neat trick!

Doesn't matter if liberal at Apple got some money, or Tunisia, or the National Weather Service. Welfare is breaking us. And there is no connection. If you want to cut welfare there is no tie to cutting off sewer funding to insurance agencies in Omaha. It is a liberal scam. "We cant cut welfare because "fill in the blank" welfare....
Bogus.

But more than that it ensures that Democrats can continue their handouts to corporations. it makes corporations complicit in the general theft. To lose that straw man "corporate welfare" would be catastrophic for corp[orate boards, democrat politicians and welfare vote farms.

Welfare is a necessity for when capitalism fails.

Welfare is a necessity when people fail--not capitalism.

Welfare is necessary when employers don't pay a living wage.

Why is welfare needed because of what employers pay? Welfare is a benefit to individuals--not employers.

How did it become the employers responsibility to provide a living wage to employees who's work is not worth a living wage? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the employee?

I have some very disappointing news for you. People do not start businesses to pay a living wage. They do not start (or maintain) a business to provide great benefits. People start companies to create a product or service for profit. That's where their responsibility ends. If government decides to subsidize people for being failures in life, that's not the fault of the employers--that's the fault of our government and people who become slaves to the government.

So I can pay you this amount which is a living wage or I can pay you this amount which is a lot lower because I know that the government will step in and not let you starve.

Hmmmmmm, tough decision.

So the government props up shit businesses which undercut legit businesses and its all a race to the bottom.And that is why the working man is screwed at every level.

If your business model doesnt allow you to pay a living wage then its not a business its a welfare dependent.

You can pay whatever someone is willing to work for. That's called the "market wage." It has nothing to do with government welfare programs.

The term "living wage" is meaningless in terms of economics. It's a term of propaganda.

You turds should learn a few things about economics before you spew your ignorance into the forum.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Building millionaire playgrounds is immoral, but pitting one group of citizens over the other is even more immoral. If you want a tax paid stadium and put it to a vote, fine with me, but let the taxation be on everybody--not just political enemies.

Agreed.

Of course, this contradicts your earlier posts in this thread, but hey - it's Hypocrisy Day on USMB! Let's all celebrate!

How did it contradict my earlier post?

 

[dblack]

Building millionaire playgrounds is immoral, but pitting one group of citizens over the other is even more immoral. If you want a tax paid stadium and put it to a vote, fine with me, but let the taxation be on everybody--not just political enemies.

Agreed.

Of course, this contradicts your earlier posts in this thread, but hey - it's Hypocrisy Day on USMB! Let's all celebrate!

How did it contradict my earlier post?

I'm not going to chase you around the mulberry bush of equivocation and denial, but it seems you're fine with welfare as long as it's going to people you like.

 

[bripat9643]

Welfare is a necessity when people fail--not capitalism.

Welfare is necessary when employers don't pay a living wage.

Why is welfare needed because of what employers pay? Welfare is a benefit to individuals--not employers.

How did it become the employers responsibility to provide a living wage to employees who's work is not worth a living wage? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the employee?

I have some very disappointing news for you. People do not start businesses to pay a living wage. They do not start (or maintain) a business to provide great benefits. People start companies to create a product or service for profit. That's where their responsibility ends. If government decides to subsidize people for being failures in life, that's not the fault of the employers--that's the fault of our government and people who become slaves to the government.

So I can pay you this amount which is a living wage or I can pay you this amount which is a lot lower because I know that the government will step in and not let you starve.

Hmmmmmm, tough decision.

So the government props up shit businesses which undercut legit businesses and its all a race to the bottom.And that is why the working man is screwed at every level.

If your business model doesnt allow you to pay a living wage then its not a business its a welfare dependent.

I don't know about where you live, but in the USA, people have choices. You have the choice to make crap money, you have the choice to become middle-class, you have the choice to do better if you really desire.

As for business, many don't have the choice of paying a living wage. If they pay their employees a living wage, their competitors who don't pay a living wage will put them out of business.

You and I both own widget factories. In my factory, I pay my employees only what they are worth. In your factory, you pay your employees much more than they are worth. Because of my lower labor costs, I can sell more of my widgets than you. After a while, I start taking your customers away because my product costs less than yours. If you allow that to continue, I eventually put you out of business.That's the way it works.

As for the worker, we are only worth what an employer can find somebody else to do the exact same job for with the exact same quality. If you stock shelves for a living, anybody can do that job, so your worth to employer is very little since he (or she) can find anybody to do that job. If you want to make yourself worth more money, you need to be able to do a job that less people can do. The less people that can do a particular job, the more money you can make doing that job. That's why engineers, registered nurses, architects, computer IT people make much more than a living wage. They got training and experience to do jobs many others cannot do.

Ok Ray, lets just expand your analogy here. Rays Crazy Widgets are able to pay less because the government will subsidise their low wages through some form of welfare. The employee still gets x amount.

No they aren't, turd. What a company pays has nothing to do with welfare. It has to do with the market rate for labor - the laws of supply and demand.

Because of this crafty Ray can undercut Tommys Top Widgets because Tommy is a good employer and pays a decent wage without government subsidies.

So Tommy can either go bust and Ray can pick up his business or he can follow Ray and pick up some corporate welfare.

The government has created a distorted market and penalised the good employer. If they refused to subsidise Ray then he would have to raise his wages as nobody would work for him.

Wrong again. Tommy's employees can apply for welfare regardless of weather Ray's employees are collecting welfare. It has no effect on the market rate for labor.

 

[danielpalos]

Apple to build Iowa data center, get $207.8 million in incentives

We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection?

You losers need to get a grip on reality. This is not a welfare program, this is a smart business move by both parties. The state gets a bunch of high paying data processing and maintenance jobs and the business gets a nice incentive


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Seems like welfare, only they are not restricted to EBT card items.

 

[Aldo Raine]

So I can pay you this amount which is a living wage or I can pay you this amount which is a lot lower because I know that the government will step in and not let you starve.

Hmmmmmm, tough decision.

So the government props up shit businesses which undercut legit businesses and its all a race to the bottom.And that is why the working man is screwed at every level.

If your business model doesnt allow you to pay a living wage then its not a business its a welfare dependent.

I don't know about where you live, but in the USA, people have choices. You have the choice to make crap money, you have the choice to become middle-class, you have the choice to do better if you really desire.

As for business, many don't have the choice of paying a living wage. If they pay their employees a living wage, their competitors who don't pay a living wage will put them out of business.

You and I both own widget factories. In my factory, I pay my employees only what they are worth. In your factory, you pay your employees much more than they are worth. Because of my lower labor costs, I can sell more of my widgets than you. After a while, I start taking your customers away because my product costs less than yours. If you allow that to continue, I eventually put you out of business.That's the way it works.

As for the worker, we are only worth what an employer can find somebody else to do the exact same job for with the exact same quality. If you stock shelves for a living, anybody can do that job, so your worth to employer is very little since he (or she) can find anybody to do that job. If you want to make yourself worth more money, you need to be able to do a job that less people can do. The less people that can do a particular job, the more money you can make doing that job. That's why engineers, registered nurses, architects, computer IT people make much more than a living wage. They got training and experience to do jobs many others cannot do.

Ok Ray, lets just expand your analogy here. Rays Crazy Widgets are able to pay less because the government will subsidise their low wages through some form of welfare. The employee still gets x amount.

Because of this crafty Ray can undercut Tommys Top Widgets because Tommy is a good employer and pays a decent wage without government subsidies.

So Tommy can either go bust and Ray can pick up his business or he can follow Ray and pick up some corporate welfare.

The government has created a distorted market and penalised the good employer. If they refused to subsidise Ray then he would have to raise his wages as nobody would work for him.

And that's the way it should be. Government should only pass out social goodies to those who were responsible enough to not put themselves in a bad position in life, but somehow ended up there through no fault of their own.

I'm the employer. I have nothing to do with social programs. It's none of my business. Those programs are between my employee and the government--not between me and the government. I could care less if my employees are on social programs or not.

If we did get rid of social programs, then my employees would want to work more hours, and that's good for me since I would not have to hire more workers.

You would care if they bought a soda pop or stick off gum, you have said so! So you do care if they are on assistance.

As a taxpayer, yes, because I go to the store to buy my food and I have to buy theirs as well. But as a business owner, I could care less because it doesn't affect my business one way or the other.

Az a business owner and a citizen of the UNITED STATES it effects you.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution requires states to ensure equal protection of the law. That means nobody gets special exemptions because of who they are or any quid-pro-quo they may offer.

I understand where you are coming from and why corporate welfare bothers you (corporate welfare bothers me too) but if you think about this particular case in a different way I believe you'll see why this doesn't fit the bill for a case of corporate welfare or have any applicability for equal protection (or Article I section 8 Commerce).

This transaction represents a State Government EXPENDITURE, just like any of the other expenditures that State Governments make, like for example building a road. If the State wants to build a road, it'll follow whatever bidding process is prescribed by it's State Constitution and it's legislative process and award the contract to some company to build it, all of some companies competitors don't have an equal protections case because they didn't win the bid do they? They don't have any commerce clause recourse do they? The only legal recourse they would have is if they could demonstrate the process was rigged, right?

The same case here, Apple put this proposal out for "bid" to some amount of States and the State Government of Iowa decided (based on some criteria) that it was in the best interest of the State to buy it and offered a bid to Apple, this didn't mean that any other company couldn't offer up similar proposals to the State of Iowa, just means Apple offered up the (in the opinions of the Government decision makers) the best deal for the money spent.

Could a smaller company get the same deal?

Could a smaller company offer the same deal?

Remember the State expects to get something in return for the money it's spending, a smaller company definitely could get a similar TYPE deal (i.e. come build your facility here instead of in another State) but the geometry of deal would be commensurate with the size of the return the State expects to receive for the ask.

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time, in fact it's not uncommon that States give preferential treatment to smaller companies under certain circumstances.

So no. Don't you think big companies already have enough advantages?

What advantage are you talking about? This is a TWO sided transaction, Apple is offering value in return for value, that's why there were multiple states trying to win the deal. If you take away the monetary incentives then the States with labor force, infrastructure and regulatory advantages would win ALL the business and leave States with competitive disadvantages in these areas to get steadily poorer.

Do you think a small company should get the same price when they're offering a smaller return to the State? getting LESS in return for the same amount of money, wouldn't that be a stupid ass business decision on the States part?

You trust big gov to make the right deals?

I don't trust government to do anything right but that's irrelevant to whether or not this particular case represents corporate welfare, a violation of equal protections or infringement on the commerce clause.

The right wing only complains about welfare for the poor, not the rich.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Building millionaire playgrounds is immoral, but pitting one group of citizens over the other is even more immoral. If you want a tax paid stadium and put it to a vote, fine with me, but let the taxation be on everybody--not just political enemies.

Agreed.

Of course, this contradicts your earlier posts in this thread, but hey - it's Hypocrisy Day on USMB! Let's all celebrate!

How did it contradict my earlier post?

I'm not going to chase you around the mulberry bush of equivocation and denial, but it seems you're fine with welfare as long as it's going to people you like.

Sorry, never collected welfare in my life.

Very nearby my home, Amazon is taking the land of one of our closed down malls and creating a state of the art distribution center. When it first opened in the 70's, it was the largest mall in the entire US.

I pay property taxes, and I'm probably paying a higher rate of tax than Amazon. I don't care because it doesn't affect me. I could care less if Amazon pays no property taxes. They are bringing technology and jobs to the area, so that's good for all of us. If they decide not to build there, I'm still paying the same rate of property taxes as if they would build there.