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.
“Anchor tenants, or a national tenant like a Starbucks or a Shoppers [Drug Mart], or a No Frills … or a Save-On-Foods — those are the businesses that will draw other businesses to locate there, as well as patrons,” Leung said in an interview.
LedMac owns a strip mall in Maple Ridge with roughly 9,800 square feet of retail space, he said. They were able to anchor the mall with a Starbucks at one end and Mac’s convenience store at the other. Once those two shops were locked-in, several other businesses, including a hair salon, a donair shop and vet clinic, were also keen to sign leases."
Anchor tenant the key to attracting other businesses
Culture
Malls with anchor stores have consistently outperformed those without one, as the anchor helps draw shoppers initially attracted to the anchor to shop at other stores in the mall.[2]
Anchor store - Wikipedia
"Macy’s disappearing stores point up an acute problem for shopping malls, which traditionally have two or three department stores as their anchor tenants. Those anchors help lure shoppers to the benefit of smaller retailers in the mall."
How does a mall cope when a big tenant like Macy's closes?
So there are countless stories that support my claim. Little stores heavily rely on larger anchor stores to survive in a mall or shopping setting.
Perhaps the real question is, does walmart benefit from these stores? Are they making money? If so, why should they receive corporate welfare to build a store? Would it be better if there was a Cosco instead? Why should Walmart be given an upper hand over Costco? The best run company should be winning, not who the government chooses. The gov doesn't choose very well as we learned with Solyndra. The government shouldn't be picking which company goes where.
So who says Costco doesn't get tax abatements? I'm sure they do.
No, Walmart does not benefit from those stores--those stores benefit from Walmart.
What the government "picks" are those industries that most benefit their city or state. And again, tax cuts are not welfare by any stretch of the imagination. It's a liberal term designed to mislead people about the actuality of a situation.
Yes they probably do, but why? That is no way to make good business decisions.
I ment does walmart benefit from building more stores. I think the answer is obviously yes. So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
Do they pick industries that benefit their city or state? How did Solyndra workout? They pick whoever lobbies the most. Why would you think they are good at picking?
It is a liberal term? Charles Koch is a liberal? Ron Paul is a liberal?
So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
They don't pay them anything. They give them tax relief if they do bring their business and money there, create jobs there, and create a new working tax revenue provided by the employees. When everything is said and done, cities and states are at an advantage.
Solyndra did not get a tax abatement. Solyndra got actual corporate welfare; that is to say they got a government check to put into their business. It was not city, it was not state. DumBama gave them that money.
Tax relief for one company, while other companies pay the bill.
/----/ How about a flat rate for income tax? Is that equal protection? Why do I pay a higher rate than 47%?I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
Read our federal Constitution, lately?You just said they can't stay afloat if they offer the deal to everyone. Yet you claim all these great things are coming from this deal. If there are so many great things then they can offer the deal to everyone. Certainly everyone getting this great deal is better than just one great deal.
So you give walmart a great deal and now they have all the advantages of being a huge company as well as the gov has picked them to win. So what happens:
Opinion: Study shows Walmart kills small biz
Or you throw a bunch of money at solyndra and oops, they go under. The government should not be picking winners and losers.
Since you are not a capitalist, what is it you are? What is better than free market capitalism?
Solyndra is an apple and oranges comparison. Solyndra was political and political only. It didn't benefit society or the general public. It only bought votes for the Democrat party.
No, they cannot offer the deal to everybody. It's like anything else, the more you buy, the cheaper it is.
Mom and Pop have their beverage store and pay X amount in taxes. Mom and pop have about four workers. They may not be great paying jobs, but they are jobs.
A company moves in down the street from mom and pop and opens up a northeast warehousing operation. They are going to have 60 docks, they are going to employ about 200 people, they get a tax break from the city to build their warehouse. It doesn't hurt mom and pop one bit.
Okay, so why don't we lower everybody's taxes so that mom and pop pay the same as the new warehouse? Because if they did that, then the new warehouse operation would not be moving there. They would move somewhere that's making a better offer and then you're back to square one. Mom and Pop would still be paying the same taxation, and likely see an increase down the road when the city needs more money.
Solyndra is the government picking winner and losers. You think corporate welfare isn't political? It is lobbyists making deals with politicians for preferential treatment. Yes it is all political. And it is all bad capitalism.
Solyndra was not picking winners and losers because Solyndra was a loser anyway. Solyndra didn't benefit the public not one iota. Therefore it was just DumBama kissing the asses of environmentalist.
If the Chinese government hadn't subsidized competing (their) technology, Solyndra would have done well.
George Kaiser Family Foundation,
U.S. Venture Partners,
CMEA Ventures,
Redpoint Ventures,
Virgin Green Fund,
Madrone Capital Partners,
RockPort Capital Partners,
Argonaut Private Equity,
Masdar and Artis Capital Management.
The US tax payer
ALL lost because of foreign subsidy.
The government shouldn't be subsidizing anybody, and by subsidy, I don't mean tax breaks, I mean the government physically giving a business a check. It's simply not what our federal government is for. Our federal government was created to govern, and that's it.
/----/ How about a flat rate for income tax? Is that equal protection?I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
I prefer solving simple poverty on an at-will basis; That, is Socialism.[
How about "Corporate Socialism"? That's more to the point./----/ So to repeat my self for the libtard challenged: Oh we get it. But until Washington reforms the tax code this crap will continue. My only issue is with the term Corporate Welfare./----/ Oh we get it. But until Washington reforms the tax code this crap will continue. My only issue is with the term Corporate Welfare.micromanaging our tax codes for Individuals, is worse and could be considered, legally unethical, from a laissez-fair perspective. Only the right wing, never gets it./----/ if the government writes a check to a company in exchange for moving to an area then that is corporate welfare. But if the government simply reduces the tax bill for a set time in exchange for the move it is not welfare.
Corporate Welfare is government support or subsidy of private business, such as by tax incentives.
Get it now?
/----/ They already do. Ever hear of Affirmative Action?/----/ How about a flat rate for income tax? Is that equal protection?I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
it's closer. It would still have rich people paying more, which is debatable. But if it included getting rid of all the tax 'incentives' it would be a huge step in the right direction.
What about my question. Should the state be able to grant exemptions to individual or companies for any other laws on the books? Or are these special deals only allowed for taxes? Why, or why not?
/----/ They already do. Ever hear of Affirmative Action?/----/ How about a flat rate for income tax? Is that equal protection?I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
it's closer. It would still have rich people paying more, which is debatable. But if it included getting rid of all the tax 'incentives' it would be a huge step in the right direction.
What about my question. Should the state be able to grant exemptions to individual or companies for any other laws on the books? Or are these special deals only allowed for taxes? Why, or why not?
/----/ Don't get pissie with me. I answered your straight question with a straight answer: ".... for any other laws on the books?"/----/ They already do. Ever hear of Affirmative Action?/----/ How about a flat rate for income tax? Is that equal protection?I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
it's closer. It would still have rich people paying more, which is debatable. But if it included getting rid of all the tax 'incentives' it would be a huge step in the right direction.
What about my question. Should the state be able to grant exemptions to individual or companies for any other laws on the books? Or are these special deals only allowed for taxes? Why, or why not?
Yep. I have. Listen, the tone of your posts suggest you've pigeoned holed me as a liberal democrat or something, but you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm opposed to AA for the same reasons.
/----/ Don't get pissie with me. I answered your straight question with a straight answer: ".... for any other laws on the books?"/----/ They already do. Ever hear of Affirmative Action?/----/ How about a flat rate for income tax? Is that equal protection?I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
it's closer. It would still have rich people paying more, which is debatable. But if it included getting rid of all the tax 'incentives' it would be a huge step in the right direction.
What about my question. Should the state be able to grant exemptions to individual or companies for any other laws on the books? Or are these special deals only allowed for taxes? Why, or why not?
Yep. I have. Listen, the tone of your posts suggest you've pigeoned holed me as a liberal democrat or something, but you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm opposed to AA for the same reasons.
/----/ so what's your incentive for businesses to move to your area and provide jobs and tax revenue even if reduced for a time?Perhaps the real question is, does walmart benefit from these stores? Are they making money? If so, why should they receive corporate welfare to build a store? Would it be better if there was a Cosco instead? Why should Walmart be given an upper hand over Costco? The best run company should be winning, not who the government chooses. The gov doesn't choose very well as we learned with Solyndra. The government shouldn't be picking which company goes where.
So who says Costco doesn't get tax abatements? I'm sure they do.
No, Walmart does not benefit from those stores--those stores benefit from Walmart.
What the government "picks" are those industries that most benefit their city or state. And again, tax cuts are not welfare by any stretch of the imagination. It's a liberal term designed to mislead people about the actuality of a situation.
Yes they probably do, but why? That is no way to make good business decisions.
I ment does walmart benefit from building more stores. I think the answer is obviously yes. So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
Do they pick industries that benefit their city or state? How did Solyndra workout? They pick whoever lobbies the most. Why would you think they are good at picking?
It is a liberal term? Charles Koch is a liberal? Ron Paul is a liberal?
So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
They don't pay them anything. They give them tax relief if they do bring their business and money there, create jobs there, and create a new working tax revenue provided by the employees. When everything is said and done, cities and states are at an advantage.
Solyndra did not get a tax abatement. Solyndra got actual corporate welfare; that is to say they got a government check to put into their business. It was not city, it was not state. DumBama gave them that money.
Tax relief for one company, while other companies pay the bill.
Perhaps the real question is, does walmart benefit from these stores? Are they making money? If so, why should they receive corporate welfare to build a store? Would it be better if there was a Cosco instead? Why should Walmart be given an upper hand over Costco? The best run company should be winning, not who the government chooses. The gov doesn't choose very well as we learned with Solyndra. The government shouldn't be picking which company goes where.
So who says Costco doesn't get tax abatements? I'm sure they do.
No, Walmart does not benefit from those stores--those stores benefit from Walmart.
What the government "picks" are those industries that most benefit their city or state. And again, tax cuts are not welfare by any stretch of the imagination. It's a liberal term designed to mislead people about the actuality of a situation.
Yes they probably do, but why? That is no way to make good business decisions.
I ment does walmart benefit from building more stores. I think the answer is obviously yes. So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
Do they pick industries that benefit their city or state? How did Solyndra workout? They pick whoever lobbies the most. Why would you think they are good at picking?
It is a liberal term? Charles Koch is a liberal? Ron Paul is a liberal?
So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
They don't pay them anything. They give them tax relief if they do bring their business and money there, create jobs there, and create a new working tax revenue provided by the employees. When everything is said and done, cities and states are at an advantage.
Solyndra did not get a tax abatement. Solyndra got actual corporate welfare; that is to say they got a government check to put into their business. It was not city, it was not state. DumBama gave them that money.
Tax relief for one company, while other companies pay the bill.
It goes on all the time on the federal, state, and local levels. What do you think tax write-offs are? They are expenses you deduct to lower your taxes. While the corporate tax rate is 35%, some companies pay no federal tax at all while other companies pay 20 or 30%. Or are you against tax write-offs too?
Anyone building new can apply for an abatement and privates here have used that process also. A ten year property tax abatement really isn't a huge advantage. I know of one that built a small commercial building on that program thinking he could rent or lease the building out within the ten years. It ended up taking thirteen years to get a company in there.What I dislike about these deals is that big guys get theirs while mom-and-pop businesses without deep pockets to twist politicians arms that have been in the state for generations are left to fend for themselves.
From Iowa constitution:
Laws uniform. Section 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
So who says Costco doesn't get tax abatements? I'm sure they do.
No, Walmart does not benefit from those stores--those stores benefit from Walmart.
What the government "picks" are those industries that most benefit their city or state. And again, tax cuts are not welfare by any stretch of the imagination. It's a liberal term designed to mislead people about the actuality of a situation.
Yes they probably do, but why? That is no way to make good business decisions.
I ment does walmart benefit from building more stores. I think the answer is obviously yes. So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
Do they pick industries that benefit their city or state? How did Solyndra workout? They pick whoever lobbies the most. Why would you think they are good at picking?
It is a liberal term? Charles Koch is a liberal? Ron Paul is a liberal?
So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
They don't pay them anything. They give them tax relief if they do bring their business and money there, create jobs there, and create a new working tax revenue provided by the employees. When everything is said and done, cities and states are at an advantage.
Solyndra did not get a tax abatement. Solyndra got actual corporate welfare; that is to say they got a government check to put into their business. It was not city, it was not state. DumBama gave them that money.
Tax relief for one company, while other companies pay the bill.
It goes on all the time on the federal, state, and local levels. What do you think tax write-offs are? They are expenses you deduct to lower your taxes. While the corporate tax rate is 35%, some companies pay no federal tax at all while other companies pay 20 or 30%. Or are you against tax write-offs too?
And those are available to ALL companies. Not special deals available to only one company. You just don't get it.
So who says Costco doesn't get tax abatements? I'm sure they do.
No, Walmart does not benefit from those stores--those stores benefit from Walmart.
What the government "picks" are those industries that most benefit their city or state. And again, tax cuts are not welfare by any stretch of the imagination. It's a liberal term designed to mislead people about the actuality of a situation.
Yes they probably do, but why? That is no way to make good business decisions.
I ment does walmart benefit from building more stores. I think the answer is obviously yes. So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
Do they pick industries that benefit their city or state? How did Solyndra workout? They pick whoever lobbies the most. Why would you think they are good at picking?
It is a liberal term? Charles Koch is a liberal? Ron Paul is a liberal?
So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
They don't pay them anything. They give them tax relief if they do bring their business and money there, create jobs there, and create a new working tax revenue provided by the employees. When everything is said and done, cities and states are at an advantage.
Solyndra did not get a tax abatement. Solyndra got actual corporate welfare; that is to say they got a government check to put into their business. It was not city, it was not state. DumBama gave them that money.
Tax relief for one company, while other companies pay the bill.
It goes on all the time on the federal, state, and local levels. What do you think tax write-offs are? They are expenses you deduct to lower your taxes. While the corporate tax rate is 35%, some companies pay no federal tax at all while other companies pay 20 or 30%. Or are you against tax write-offs too?
And those are available to ALL companies. Not special deals available to only one company. You just don't get it.
I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
They should be but the EPA would never allow that.
Yes they probably do, but why? That is no way to make good business decisions.
I ment does walmart benefit from building more stores. I think the answer is obviously yes. So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
Do they pick industries that benefit their city or state? How did Solyndra workout? They pick whoever lobbies the most. Why would you think they are good at picking?
It is a liberal term? Charles Koch is a liberal? Ron Paul is a liberal?
So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
They don't pay them anything. They give them tax relief if they do bring their business and money there, create jobs there, and create a new working tax revenue provided by the employees. When everything is said and done, cities and states are at an advantage.
Solyndra did not get a tax abatement. Solyndra got actual corporate welfare; that is to say they got a government check to put into their business. It was not city, it was not state. DumBama gave them that money.
Tax relief for one company, while other companies pay the bill.
It goes on all the time on the federal, state, and local levels. What do you think tax write-offs are? They are expenses you deduct to lower your taxes. While the corporate tax rate is 35%, some companies pay no federal tax at all while other companies pay 20 or 30%. Or are you against tax write-offs too?
And those are available to ALL companies. Not special deals available to only one company. You just don't get it.
They are, in most cases, special deals - available only to companies that jump through the specified hoops.
So why should the gov pay for them to grow their business when they make billions?
They don't pay them anything. They give them tax relief if they do bring their business and money there, create jobs there, and create a new working tax revenue provided by the employees. When everything is said and done, cities and states are at an advantage.
Solyndra did not get a tax abatement. Solyndra got actual corporate welfare; that is to say they got a government check to put into their business. It was not city, it was not state. DumBama gave them that money.
Tax relief for one company, while other companies pay the bill.
It goes on all the time on the federal, state, and local levels. What do you think tax write-offs are? They are expenses you deduct to lower your taxes. While the corporate tax rate is 35%, some companies pay no federal tax at all while other companies pay 20 or 30%. Or are you against tax write-offs too?
And those are available to ALL companies. Not special deals available to only one company. You just don't get it.
They are, in most cases, special deals - available only to companies that jump through the specified hoops.
I'm really not a fan of the current system, but it is better than the corp welfare for those individual companies doing the most lobbying. Will be interesting to see what changes are going to be proposed as there is much room for improvement
I wonder if we can even get agreement in this thread that equal protection is an important concern? Do those of you who support tax incentives think that all laws should be subject to such quid-pro-quo haggling? Should a state government, for example, be allowed to offer exemptions to its pollution laws for a company that invests significant capital in the state?
They should be but the EPA would never allow that.
Does the principle apply to everything then? Is there any area of law where government should NOT be allowed to wheel and deal?
