Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'd like to see the city (and by "the city", I mean the people of the city, not the f'ing government) build their economy by creating real value, rather than artificial incentives. But yeah, if they can't do that - if their idea of a city isn't viable - I see no point in keeping it afloat with bs tax policy.Okay, so they offer the same tax rate to all the companies, and then the city can no longer stay afloat because they don't have enough money coming in. That's what you'd like to see?
Get a handle? Get a freaking handle? The crazy left wouldn't know a handle if they fell over one. New York State advertises tax breaks or even zero taxes for a couple of years for companies that might risk relocating to the highest taxed state in the Northeast. Last I heard Apple was a pretty stable company but the failing solar panel company, Solyndra, didn't just get tax breaks. Barry Hussein gave away billions in hard earned taxpayer dollars in grants to a company that was dying. Solyndra failed just after the federal grants were awarded and there wasn't a peep of protest from the ignorant radical left.
Get a handle? Get a freaking handle? The crazy left wouldn't know a handle if they fell over one. New York State advertises tax breaks or even zero taxes for a couple of years for companies that might risk relocating to the highest taxed state in the Northeast. Last I heard Apple was a pretty stable company but the failing solar panel company, Solyndra, didn't just get tax breaks. Barry Hussein gave away billions in hard earned taxpayer dollars in grants to a company that was dying. Solyndra failed just after the federal grants were awarded and there wasn't a peep of protest from the ignorant radical left.
Get a handle? Get a freaking handle? The crazy left wouldn't know a handle if they fell over one. New York State advertises tax breaks or even zero taxes for a couple of years for companies that might risk relocating to the highest taxed state in the Northeast. Last I heard Apple was a pretty stable company but the failing solar panel company, Solyndra, didn't just get tax breaks. Barry Hussein gave away billions in hard earned taxpayer dollars in grants to a company that was dying. Solyndra failed just after the federal grants were awarded and there wasn't a peep of protest from the ignorant radical left.
Yes Solyndra is further proof the government isn't good at picking winners and losers. And if you believe in capitalism, they shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
Get a handle? Get a freaking handle? The crazy left wouldn't know a handle if they fell over one. New York State advertises tax breaks or even zero taxes for a couple of years for companies that might risk relocating to the highest taxed state in the Northeast. Last I heard Apple was a pretty stable company but the failing solar panel company, Solyndra, didn't just get tax breaks. Barry Hussein gave away billions in hard earned taxpayer dollars in grants to a company that was dying. Solyndra failed just after the federal grants were awarded and there wasn't a peep of protest from the ignorant radical left.
Yes Solyndra is further proof the government isn't good at picking winners and losers. And if you believe in capitalism, they shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
Neither were the other investors (most were huge) who underestimated the effects/affects of foreign subsidies.
Question; With Airbus' subsidies would you invest in Boeing?
Boeing: Facts About Subsidies to Airbus
This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. This is a foreign government thing. Which makes all who try to swing opinion to 'It's Obama's fault' as suspect of working for Koch et al, or worse, Russia.
Get a handle? Get a freaking handle? The crazy left wouldn't know a handle if they fell over one. New York State advertises tax breaks or even zero taxes for a couple of years for companies that might risk relocating to the highest taxed state in the Northeast. Last I heard Apple was a pretty stable company but the failing solar panel company, Solyndra, didn't just get tax breaks. Barry Hussein gave away billions in hard earned taxpayer dollars in grants to a company that was dying. Solyndra failed just after the federal grants were awarded and there wasn't a peep of protest from the ignorant radical left.
Yes Solyndra is further proof the government isn't good at picking winners and losers. And if you believe in capitalism, they shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
Neither were the other investors (most were huge) who underestimated the effects/affects of foreign subsidies.
Question; With Airbus' subsidies would you invest in Boeing?
Boeing: Facts About Subsidies to Airbus
This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. This is a foreign government thing. Which makes all who try to swing opinion to 'It's Obama's fault' as suspect of working for Koch et al, or worse, Russia.
I'd like to see the city (and by "the city", I mean the people of the city, not the f'ing government) build their economy by creating real value, rather than artificial incentives. But yeah, if they can't do that - if their idea of a city isn't viable - I see no point in keeping it afloat with bs tax policy.Okay, so they offer the same tax rate to all the companies, and then the city can no longer stay afloat because they don't have enough money coming in. That's what you'd like to see?
Yep, cities, towns, even states can go "out of business" if they aren't viable. Forcing the matter with coercion doesn't doesn't really help though. In southeastern Missouri, there are counties where 70% of the people rely on government aid. These counties are so dysfunctional that the state has to subsidize most basic services because there's simply no profit in it for private vendors. Do you consider government keeping these communities afloat a good thing?
So the solution is not to try to bring in new businesses and keep the state subsidizing them?
Only under socialism or communism. In a free market, it's up to the people to maintain their own industry and wealth
No, because people cannot do that on an individual basis. That's why we have government officials, so they can collectively maintain a city or state on behalf of all the people.
When government gives specific people or companies exemptions from laws the rest of us have to follow, it's a blatant violation of equal protection. It's bad law.
If that were the case, all taxation is a violation of equal protection. What do you pay more taxes on, a can of soda or a can of beer? What do you pay more taxes on, a candy bar or a pack of cigarettes?
If these deals are so good for the state they should offer them to all companies, not certain ones picked by the state. You don't seem to understand the importance of keeping the government out of capitalism and free market. Or you just don't like capitalism.
Okay, so they offer the same tax rate to all the companies, and then the city can no longer stay afloat because they don't have enough money coming in. That's what you'd like to see?
Ok so these deals really aren't good? You want the state to make bad deals and make other companies pay for them?
Just those with all the lobbying do well?
Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?
Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?
They are at a competitive disadvantage because their overhead is higher, because they are paying higher taxes. Are you just fucking around, or do you really not get that?
Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?
They are at a competitive disadvantage because their overhead is higher, because they are paying higher taxes. Are you just fucking around, or do you really not get that?
Okay, and what if the new business is different from theirs and there is no competition? Is it still bad?
I sell hats for a living. A new business that doesn't deal in hats moves in. They keep my taxes stagnant and draw in more customers who may stop at my store which increases the revenue for my business. Who is harmed by this?
Get a handle? Get a freaking handle? The crazy left wouldn't know a handle if they fell over one. New York State advertises tax breaks or even zero taxes for a couple of years for companies that might risk relocating to the highest taxed state in the Northeast. Last I heard Apple was a pretty stable company but the failing solar panel company, Solyndra, didn't just get tax breaks. Barry Hussein gave away billions in hard earned taxpayer dollars in grants to a company that was dying. Solyndra failed just after the federal grants were awarded and there wasn't a peep of protest from the ignorant radical left.
Yes Solyndra is further proof the government isn't good at picking winners and losers. And if you believe in capitalism, they shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
Neither were the other investors (most were huge) who underestimated the effects/affects of foreign subsidies.
Question; With Airbus' subsidies would you invest in Boeing?
Boeing: Facts About Subsidies to Airbus
This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. This is a foreign government thing. Which makes all who try to swing opinion to 'It's Obama's fault' as suspect of working for Koch et al, or worse, Russia.
Obama's retired. And it takes two to tango. Foreigner's can't buy if the State House isn't selling. But it is. Always. Selling.
Get a handle? Get a freaking handle? The crazy left wouldn't know a handle if they fell over one. New York State advertises tax breaks or even zero taxes for a couple of years for companies that might risk relocating to the highest taxed state in the Northeast. Last I heard Apple was a pretty stable company but the failing solar panel company, Solyndra, didn't just get tax breaks. Barry Hussein gave away billions in hard earned taxpayer dollars in grants to a company that was dying. Solyndra failed just after the federal grants were awarded and there wasn't a peep of protest from the ignorant radical left.
Yes Solyndra is further proof the government isn't good at picking winners and losers. And if you believe in capitalism, they shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
Neither were the other investors (most were huge) who underestimated the effects/affects of foreign subsidies.
Question; With Airbus' subsidies would you invest in Boeing?
Boeing: Facts About Subsidies to Airbus
This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. This is a foreign government thing. Which makes all who try to swing opinion to 'It's Obama's fault' as suspect of working for Koch et al, or worse, Russia.
The government should not invest in business. By definition capitalism should be separated from state.
Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?
They are at a competitive disadvantage because their overhead is higher, because they are paying higher taxes. Are you just fucking around, or do you really not get that?
Okay, and what if the new business is different from theirs and there is no competition? Is it still bad?
I sell hats for a living. A new business that doesn't deal in hats moves in. They keep my taxes stagnant and draw in more customers who may stop at my store which increases the revenue for my business. Who is harmed by this?
What does the new business do? Anyone who competes with them, or would like to, will be at a disadvantage. But the deeper harm comes in the way these policies promote bad economic decisions.
Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?
They are at a competitive disadvantage because their overhead is higher, because they are paying higher taxes. Are you just fucking around, or do you really not get that?
Okay, and what if the new business is different from theirs and there is no competition? Is it still bad?
I sell hats for a living. A new business that doesn't deal in hats moves in. They keep my taxes stagnant and draw in more customers who may stop at my store which increases the revenue for my business. Who is harmed by this?
What does the new business do? Anyone who competes with them, or would like to, will be at a disadvantage. But the deeper harm comes in the way these policies promote bad economic decisions.
What bad economic decisions? As I stated, everybody wins. The new business moving in wins, the city wins, the state wins, existing businesses win.
Amazon is building a new distribution center here. Who is competing against that distribution center? The suburb of North Randall has been suffering since the decay and eventual closing of the Randall Park Mall. It's vacant land that not only doesn't create taxation or jobs, but an eyesore to boot. Plus there is a lot of land there and Amazon is not using all of it, so it may attract other businesses to the area.
Like I said, a win-win.
Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?
They are at a competitive disadvantage because their overhead is higher, because they are paying higher taxes. Are you just fucking around, or do you really not get that?
Okay, and what if the new business is different from theirs and there is no competition? Is it still bad?
I sell hats for a living. A new business that doesn't deal in hats moves in. They keep my taxes stagnant and draw in more customers who may stop at my store which increases the revenue for my business. Who is harmed by this?
What does the new business do? Anyone who competes with them, or would like to, will be at a disadvantage. But the deeper harm comes in the way these policies promote bad economic decisions.
What bad economic decisions? As I stated, everybody wins. The new business moving in wins, the city wins, the state wins, existing businesses win.
Amazon is building a new distribution center here. Who is competing against that distribution center? The suburb of North Randall has been suffering since the decay and eventual closing of the Randall Park Mall. It's vacant land that not only doesn't create taxation or jobs, but an eyesore to boot. Plus there is a lot of land there and Amazon is not using all of it, so it may attract other businesses to the area.
Like I said, a win-win.
Amazon competes with everyone. They are a massive and profitable company. They do not need any help and they sure shouldn't have the government giving them advantages over competition. Just corporate welfare. It is not a win-win because every other business is now paying for this deal to Amazon. You just don't get it.
Yep, cities, towns, even states can go "out of business" if they aren't viable. Forcing the matter with coercion doesn't doesn't really help though. In southeastern Missouri, there are counties where 70% of the people rely on government aid. These counties are so dysfunctional that the state has to subsidize most basic services because there's simply no profit in it for private vendors. Do you consider government keeping these communities afloat a good thing?
So the solution is not to try to bring in new businesses and keep the state subsidizing them?
Only under socialism or communism. In a free market, it's up to the people to maintain their own industry and wealth
No, because people cannot do that on an individual basis. That's why we have government officials, so they can collectively maintain a city or state on behalf of all the people.
When government gives specific people or companies exemptions from laws the rest of us have to follow, it's a blatant violation of equal protection. It's bad law.
If that were the case, all taxation is a violation of equal protection. What do you pay more taxes on, a can of soda or a can of beer? What do you pay more taxes on, a candy bar or a pack of cigarettes?
If these deals are so good for the state they should offer them to all companies, not certain ones picked by the state. You don't seem to understand the importance of keeping the government out of capitalism and free market. Or you just don't like capitalism.
Okay, so they offer the same tax rate to all the companies, and then the city can no longer stay afloat because they don't have enough money coming in. That's what you'd like to see?
Ok so these deals really aren't good? You want the state to make bad deals and make other companies pay for them?
Just those with all the lobbying do well?
Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?
If I own Ray's antique shop, and I learn that a major operation is moving in which will bring in more consumers to our area, I think I would benefit from that.
Not only would I benefit from that, but when the city or town needs more tax revenue to keep things going, it's less likely they will be increasing my taxes because of the new revenue from the new business.
This is a business floor plan. Walmart moves into an area. Walmart is what's called an anchor store. Smaller businesses open up near Walmart to take advantage of Walmart's ability to draw in large crowds. I won't be paying anymore in taxes and Walmart will draw new customers that I never had before.
So I guess the question is, who loses when a city gives a business tax breaks?
They are at a competitive disadvantage because their overhead is higher, because they are paying higher taxes. Are you just fucking around, or do you really not get that?
Okay, and what if the new business is different from theirs and there is no competition? Is it still bad?
I sell hats for a living. A new business that doesn't deal in hats moves in. They keep my taxes stagnant and draw in more customers who may stop at my store which increases the revenue for my business. Who is harmed by this?
What does the new business do? Anyone who competes with them, or would like to, will be at a disadvantage. But the deeper harm comes in the way these policies promote bad economic decisions.
What bad economic decisions? As I stated, everybody wins. The new business moving in wins, the city wins, the state wins, existing businesses win.
Amazon is building a new distribution center here. Who is competing against that distribution center? The suburb of North Randall has been suffering since the decay and eventual closing of the Randall Park Mall. It's vacant land that not only doesn't create taxation or jobs, but an eyesore to boot. Plus there is a lot of land there and Amazon is not using all of it, so it may attract other businesses to the area.
Like I said, a win-win.
Amazon competes with everyone. They are a massive and profitable company. They do not need any help and they sure shouldn't have the government giving them advantages over competition. Just corporate welfare. It is not a win-win because every other business is now paying for this deal to Amazon. You just don't get it.
Correct, I don't get it. So how are other businesses paying for this deal?
Okay, and what if the new business is different from theirs and there is no competition? Is it still bad?
I sell hats for a living. A new business that doesn't deal in hats moves in. They keep my taxes stagnant and draw in more customers who may stop at my store which increases the revenue for my business. Who is harmed by this?
What does the new business do? Anyone who competes with them, or would like to, will be at a disadvantage. But the deeper harm comes in the way these policies promote bad economic decisions.
What bad economic decisions? As I stated, everybody wins. The new business moving in wins, the city wins, the state wins, existing businesses win.
Amazon is building a new distribution center here. Who is competing against that distribution center? The suburb of North Randall has been suffering since the decay and eventual closing of the Randall Park Mall. It's vacant land that not only doesn't create taxation or jobs, but an eyesore to boot. Plus there is a lot of land there and Amazon is not using all of it, so it may attract other businesses to the area.
Like I said, a win-win.
Amazon competes with everyone. They are a massive and profitable company. They do not need any help and they sure shouldn't have the government giving them advantages over competition. Just corporate welfare. It is not a win-win because every other business is now paying for this deal to Amazon. You just don't get it.
Correct, I don't get it. So how are other businesses paying for this deal?
Well now a small business has a big competitor not paying taxes. The small business goes under. I would say that is really paying...
