Corporate welfare in action ....

[frigidweirdo]

Taxation is variable whereas laws are written in stone in most all cases. It's a bad comparison because unfortunately, the feds control the EPA. Nobody knows that more than somebody that lives where I do. The feds forced us to have this idiotic E-Check program. We didn't need the stupid thing and we don't need it now. But the feds claimed that our pollution level was too high on the meter, like it was any of their business. So they forced us into this E-check thing, tested the air again after ten years, and there was no change in the polltuion. So what did they do? They forced us to keep it.

What you are suggesting is that we have an overlord to stop states or cities from offering tax breaks. Remember that the federal government has more different tax laws for different industries than anybody. Taxes are not (and never were) equal for everybody. That's why only about half of the people in this country pay federal income tax. Half of the country is supporting the other half that don't pay any income taxes. Is that fair?

Have you seen how government works? The rich getting away with murder is right around the corner.

Getting away with murder how?

If you pay up enough money the sky is the limit. Look at foxconn. WI giving away tons of tax dollars and letting them avoid regulations. Eventually they will be able to do anything.

I see you still don't understand the difference between "giving away" and "taking less." Maybe if you understood that, you would understand why cities and states do the things they do.

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

Ray is extremely partisan in such matters. He thinks that if a company gains a massive advantage from the govt that this is okay, and he justifies it based on the English language more than on what is real. He sees different words, and is able to make these words appear different in order to make his argument then fit his partisan politics.

He thinks that if a large company gets given massive tax breaks then this is a good thing. He doesn't seem to think that other businesses will be impacted by this company being able to be uber-competitive, meaning larger profits, which means more money. Which is in essence the same as being given tax money.

And he'll be a stubborn as hell about it because it's all about winning the partisan game rather than thinking about things sensibly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Getting away with murder how?

If you pay up enough money the sky is the limit. Look at foxconn. WI giving away tons of tax dollars and letting them avoid regulations. Eventually they will be able to do anything.

I see you still don't understand the difference between "giving away" and "taking less." Maybe if you understood that, you would understand why cities and states do the things they do.

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Tax payers lose massively, and so too do smaller businesses.

This is why the EU has forbidden this to happen. As a country you can set a tax rate and everyone has to pay this tax rate, no messing around with giving favors. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. It means companies aren't in the position to control the govt. The govt is supposed to be elected to do what the electors want. Not what the large companies want.

 

[Clementine]

Corporate welfare produces jobs and a desired product.

Social welfare produces urine and feces.

You make the call.

If the tax incentives are merely reducing taxes to a reasonable level, fine. There are legitimate expenses for the necessary evil called government. As it is, we all pay too much because of all these crazy ideas. Welfare is a good idea but the fraud, waste and abuse has only made more people end up in poverty because too many come to depend on it over making more effort to help themselves. Even social security sucks because it's not enough to live on and yet people depend on government for their retirement and don't do much on their own to ensure financial stability.

Letting people keep more of what they earn by cutting foolish spending is great and should be a goal.

Welfare means giving people things they did not earn.

 

[Brain357]

Corporate welfare produces jobs and a desired product.

Social welfare produces urine and feces.

You make the call.

If the tax incentives are merely reducing taxes to a reasonable level, fine. There are legitimate expenses for the necessary evil called government. As it is, we all pay too much because of all these crazy ideas. Welfare is a good idea but the fraud, waste and abuse has only made more people end up in poverty because too many come to depend on it over making more effort to help themselves. Even social security sucks because it's not enough to live on and yet people depend on government for their retirement and don't do much on their own to ensure financial stability.

Letting people keep more of what they earn by cutting foolish spending is great and should be a goal.

Welfare means giving people things they did not earn.

Tax incentives for everyone is fine. Tax incentives for big corporations that do the most lobbying is not fine. It is against capitalism and the free market When did repub throw out capitialism?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Corporate welfare produces jobs and a desired product.

Social welfare produces urine and feces.

You make the call.

If the tax incentives are merely reducing taxes to a reasonable level, fine. There are legitimate expenses for the necessary evil called government. As it is, we all pay too much because of all these crazy ideas. Welfare is a good idea but the fraud, waste and abuse has only made more people end up in poverty because too many come to depend on it over making more effort to help themselves. Even social security sucks because it's not enough to live on and yet people depend on government for their retirement and don't do much on their own to ensure financial stability.

Letting people keep more of what they earn by cutting foolish spending is great and should be a goal.

Welfare means giving people things they did not earn.

The question here is, does what people earn get impacted by the govt?

The answer is yes, especially when the govt is allowing some to pay no tax or almost no tax while others with less chances at bribing the govt, are having to pay more in tax, making them less competitive.

 

[Brain357]

The strength of capitalism is that companies compete for the customer. They compete to be the most efficient and best company. Now they are just competing for the governments favor. That cheats the tax payer and weakens our companies on a global scale.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Getting away with murder how?

If you pay up enough money the sky is the limit. Look at foxconn. WI giving away tons of tax dollars and letting them avoid regulations. Eventually they will be able to do anything.

I see you still don't understand the difference between "giving away" and "taking less." Maybe if you understood that, you would understand why cities and states do the things they do.

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

 

[Brain357]

If you pay up enough money the sky is the limit. Look at foxconn. WI giving away tons of tax dollars and letting them avoid regulations. Eventually they will be able to do anything.

I see you still don't understand the difference between "giving away" and "taking less." Maybe if you understood that, you would understand why cities and states do the things they do.

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

They won't be paying for services they receive. Those services are not free so other companies will have to pick up the slack. WI might even be taking out a loan to pay for this package.

You sure work hard to make up silly explanations to go against capitalism and the free market. The government should not pick winners and losers.

 

[Brain357]

If you pay up enough money the sky is the limit. Look at foxconn. WI giving away tons of tax dollars and letting them avoid regulations. Eventually they will be able to do anything.

I see you still don't understand the difference between "giving away" and "taking less." Maybe if you understood that, you would understand why cities and states do the things they do.

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

I really think you would like communism ray. Then the gov can just put up a business wherever they want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see you still don't understand the difference between "giving away" and "taking less." Maybe if you understood that, you would understand why cities and states do the things they do.

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

They won't be paying for services they receive. Those services are not free so other companies will have to pick up the slack. WI might even be taking out a loan to pay for this package.

You sure work hard to make up silly explanations to go against capitalism and the free market. The government should not pick winners and losers.

They are not picking anything. They are bringing industry and jobs to their city or state. That's what we elect them for.

One of our customers wanted to build a new plant because they were expanding. They found a large property in a nearby suburb that was basically farm land. The city spent the money to widen and expand the road to the new business. The state even created a new exit ramp for easier access to the new facility of 52 docks. The new business created hundreds of jobs that workers pay taxes to the city on. Even with the abatements, the city still made out like a bandit because other businesses began to move in as well.

This is called economic development, and there is nothing wrong with a city or state doing whatever they can to create such development.

True story: the owner of our convenient store sold out. The building and property were sold for over a million dollars. Because of the value of that building and property, our city makes out very well in property taxes. On the other hand, I could fit four or five of their stores on my property if they wanted to buy it, and I'm less than a half-mile away from the convenient store.

Even if the new owners got a tax abatement from our city, they would still be paying much more in property taxes than I am, and I have five times the size of their property. Bottom line: the city and state still make out even with tax abatements.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

They won't be paying for services they receive. Those services are not free so other companies will have to pick up the slack. WI might even be taking out a loan to pay for this package.

You sure work hard to make up silly explanations to go against capitalism and the free market. The government should not pick winners and losers.

They are not picking anything. They are bringing industry and jobs to their city or state. That's what we elect them for.

One of our customers wanted to build a new plant because they were expanding. They found a large property in a nearby suburb that was basically farm land. The city spent the money to widen and expand the road to the new business. The state even created a new exit ramp for easier access to the new facility of 52 docks. The new business created hundreds of jobs that workers pay taxes to the city on. Even with the abatements, the city still made out like a bandit because other businesses began to move in as well.

This is called economic development, and there is nothing wrong with a city or state doing whatever they can to create such development.

True story: the owner of our convenient store sold out. The building and property were sold for over a million dollars. Because of the value of that building and property, our city makes out very well in property taxes. On the other hand, I could fit four or five of their stores on my property if they wanted to buy it, and I'm less than a half-mile away from the convenient store.

Even if the new owners got a tax abatement from our city, they would still be paying much more in property taxes than I am, and I have five times the size of their property. Bottom line: the city and state still make out even with tax abatements.

Here you go with made up stories again. Sure ray. We are the largest economy in the world, your claimed experience means nothing in such a big economy. And even in your examples if these are really good profitable companies they don't need that help. The taxpayer shouldn't be helping to make the company owners rich.

Yes they are picking winners and losers. Company A spends a ton on lobbying and gets a sweet deal from the government. Company B is a competitor and doesn't get a sweet deal. Company A runs company B out of business.

What is it you stand for? Clearly not capitalism and the free market. And clearly you don't care about the tax payer. You should be a democrat.

 

[dblack]

Do you see any problem with states exempting specific people from laws as a matter of "horse-trading"?

No, again, I don't. What part of "all rights reserved for the states" is hard to grasp?

The part where state governments violate individual rights. I values "states' rights" because it decentralizes government and keeps the inevitable abuses isolated. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it when the abuses do happen.

We have to control everyone. We can't let people make their own choices! They might make choices we don't like!

Yeah, you know me. That's just how I roll.

So if the state of... I don't know... Utah wants to grant such and such exemption for some polution regulation, that should be their choice. Now I would think the people of Utah should debate the pros and cons of that. Because quite frankly some of the polution regulations are absolute stupidity, and if they are exempting companies from really stupid regulations, I don't have a problem with this (assuming I lived there).

But if it's a bad exemption, it should be up to THOSE PEOPLE.... IN THAT STATE... that debates it. Not mindless idiots, 1000 of miles away, who have no idea if that regulation is important, or if it would matter, or what problems the regulation is causing,.... just demanding that others follow their edicts.

You're equivocating here and I want to be clear what we're talking about. We're not talking about a state's rights to pass its own laws. And we're not talking about whether various laws are good or bad. We're talking about the any government's responsibility to enforce those laws in a sane way. The rule of law depends on the concept that no one is above the law - no matter how rich or connected, no matter what they promise to do for a state's bank account.

We're not supposed to be peasants working the land for the good of the elite rules in Washington. Yet no matter how much people talk about Freedom, we keep coming up with every possible justification for authoritarianism, in the name of "well we can't let them offer tax abatement".... .yeah we can. I as an individual might be against it here in Ohio... but I'm not a dictator, thinking Utah has to follow my rules. They don't. They are their own state, and the people of that state have rights according to the constitution of the united STATES. We are nation of individual states. It's the United States of America, not the United States of Washington DC.

The irony here is that government's power to dictate our economic decisions is what makes us peasants.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you see any problem with states exempting specific people from laws as a matter of "horse-trading"?

No, again, I don't. What part of "all rights reserved for the states" is hard to grasp?

The part where state governments violate individual rights. I values "states' rights" because it decentralizes government and keeps the inevitable abuses isolated. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it when the abuses do happen.

We have to control everyone. We can't let people make their own choices! They might make choices we don't like!

Yeah, you know me. That's just how I roll.

So if the state of... I don't know... Utah wants to grant such and such exemption for some polution regulation, that should be their choice. Now I would think the people of Utah should debate the pros and cons of that. Because quite frankly some of the polution regulations are absolute stupidity, and if they are exempting companies from really stupid regulations, I don't have a problem with this (assuming I lived there).

But if it's a bad exemption, it should be up to THOSE PEOPLE.... IN THAT STATE... that debates it. Not mindless idiots, 1000 of miles away, who have no idea if that regulation is important, or if it would matter, or what problems the regulation is causing,.... just demanding that others follow their edicts.

You're equivocating here and I want to be clear what we're talking about. We're not talking about a state's rights to pass its own laws. And we're not talking about whether various laws are good or bad. We're talking about the any government's responsibility to enforce those laws in a sane way. The rule of law depends on the concept that no one is above the law - no matter how rich or connected, no matter what they promise to do for a state's bank account.

We're not supposed to be peasants working the land for the good of the elite rules in Washington. Yet no matter how much people talk about Freedom, we keep coming up with every possible justification for authoritarianism, in the name of "well we can't let them offer tax abatement".... .yeah we can. I as an individual might be against it here in Ohio... but I'm not a dictator, thinking Utah has to follow my rules. They don't. They are their own state, and the people of that state have rights according to the constitution of the united STATES. We are nation of individual states. It's the United States of America, not the United States of Washington DC.

The irony here is that government's power to dictate our economic decisions is what makes us peasants.

Nothing that pertains to the discussion, is an abuse of individual rights.

A tax abatement, isn't a violation of law.

No, a tax abatement, doesn't dictate my economic decisions.

Honda had many years ago, a tax abatement. While I still opposed it, it didn't dictate my economic choices, nor did it magically "keep me a peasant". That is a ridiculous claim.

 

[Andylusion]

I see you still don't understand the difference between "giving away" and "taking less." Maybe if you understood that, you would understand why cities and states do the things they do.

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

I really think you would like communism ray. Then the gov can just put up a business wherever they want.

No, they can't. We've seen that in China. They built entire cities and tried to move people to them. It didn't work. Entire ghost towns.

Spain did the same thing. They put up airports in the middle of nowhere, put people to staff them, and it didn't work.

Government can't just do anything they want. Greece tried that plan to. Government can do anything... until it runs out of other people's money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

They won't be paying for services they receive. Those services are not free so other companies will have to pick up the slack. WI might even be taking out a loan to pay for this package.

You sure work hard to make up silly explanations to go against capitalism and the free market. The government should not pick winners and losers.

They are not picking anything. They are bringing industry and jobs to their city or state. That's what we elect them for.

One of our customers wanted to build a new plant because they were expanding. They found a large property in a nearby suburb that was basically farm land. The city spent the money to widen and expand the road to the new business. The state even created a new exit ramp for easier access to the new facility of 52 docks. The new business created hundreds of jobs that workers pay taxes to the city on. Even with the abatements, the city still made out like a bandit because other businesses began to move in as well.

This is called economic development, and there is nothing wrong with a city or state doing whatever they can to create such development.

True story: the owner of our convenient store sold out. The building and property were sold for over a million dollars. Because of the value of that building and property, our city makes out very well in property taxes. On the other hand, I could fit four or five of their stores on my property if they wanted to buy it, and I'm less than a half-mile away from the convenient store.

Even if the new owners got a tax abatement from our city, they would still be paying much more in property taxes than I am, and I have five times the size of their property. Bottom line: the city and state still make out even with tax abatements.

Here you go with made up stories again. Sure ray. We are the largest economy in the world, your claimed experience means nothing in such a big economy. And even in your examples if these are really good profitable companies they don't need that help. The taxpayer shouldn't be helping to make the company owners rich.

Yes they are picking winners and losers. Company A spends a ton on lobbying and gets a sweet deal from the government. Company B is a competitor and doesn't get a sweet deal. Company A runs company B out of business.

What is it you stand for? Clearly not capitalism and the free market. And clearly you don't care about the tax payer. You should be a democrat.

As I explained repeatedly, it has nothing to do with lobbying. Cities and states fight to get companies to their area for jobs and new taxes. They don't need to be lobbied. They put their offer to the company in hopes THE COMPANY will choose them.

You must be a Democrat because you don't believe in States Rights and you certainly don't believe in competition.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I do understand. I understand the services that these companies receive while not paying taxes are not free. I understand other companies then have to pay for these services that are not free. Huge companies with the most lobbyists win while the tax payer loses.

How are they not paying for services? Of course they are, they are just paying less, but every company pays more than their fair share for city and state services. Yes, they did build that!

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

I really think you would like communism ray. Then the gov can just put up a business wherever they want.

No, they can't. We've seen that in China. They built entire cities and tried to move people to them. It didn't work. Entire ghost towns.

Spain did the same thing. They put up airports in the middle of nowhere, put people to staff them, and it didn't work.

Government can't just do anything they want. Greece tried that plan to. Government can do anything... until it runs out of other people's money.

They can, but shouldn't. That is my point. Ray thinks they can. I think you leave it to free markets.

 

[Brain357]

Foxconn is getting a $3 billion deal. WI is paying them for the services they are providing. And why? Because lobbyists pay off the crooked politicians. Huge companies win, tax payers lose. There was a time repubs cared about the tax payer. Now they just pretend to.

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

They won't be paying for services they receive. Those services are not free so other companies will have to pick up the slack. WI might even be taking out a loan to pay for this package.

You sure work hard to make up silly explanations to go against capitalism and the free market. The government should not pick winners and losers.

They are not picking anything. They are bringing industry and jobs to their city or state. That's what we elect them for.

One of our customers wanted to build a new plant because they were expanding. They found a large property in a nearby suburb that was basically farm land. The city spent the money to widen and expand the road to the new business. The state even created a new exit ramp for easier access to the new facility of 52 docks. The new business created hundreds of jobs that workers pay taxes to the city on. Even with the abatements, the city still made out like a bandit because other businesses began to move in as well.

This is called economic development, and there is nothing wrong with a city or state doing whatever they can to create such development.

True story: the owner of our convenient store sold out. The building and property were sold for over a million dollars. Because of the value of that building and property, our city makes out very well in property taxes. On the other hand, I could fit four or five of their stores on my property if they wanted to buy it, and I'm less than a half-mile away from the convenient store.

Even if the new owners got a tax abatement from our city, they would still be paying much more in property taxes than I am, and I have five times the size of their property. Bottom line: the city and state still make out even with tax abatements.

Here you go with made up stories again. Sure ray. We are the largest economy in the world, your claimed experience means nothing in such a big economy. And even in your examples if these are really good profitable companies they don't need that help. The taxpayer shouldn't be helping to make the company owners rich.

Yes they are picking winners and losers. Company A spends a ton on lobbying and gets a sweet deal from the government. Company B is a competitor and doesn't get a sweet deal. Company A runs company B out of business.

What is it you stand for? Clearly not capitalism and the free market. And clearly you don't care about the tax payer. You should be a democrat.

As I explained repeatedly, it has nothing to do with lobbying. Cities and states fight to get companies to their area for jobs and new taxes. They don't need to be lobbied. They put their offer to the company in hopes THE COMPANY will choose them.

You must be a Democrat because you don't believe in States Rights and you certainly don't believe in competition.

I do believe in competition and the free market. You prefer the gov picks the winners and losers. You want tax dollars wasted.

 

[Brain357]

Huge corporations win. Tax payer loses. Capitalism loses.

 

[Brain357]

How Corporate Welfare Is Killing Small Businesses

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are they getting a 3 billion dollar check from the government or are they not paying 3 billion dollars to the government? Big difference.

Assuming you work for a living, you most likely work for a company that has different pay rates for different positions. What would happen if your company paid everybody the same? It would never work, why? Because some positions bring more value to a company than others.

So if all workers made as much as your tow motor driver, you would not be able to bring in the value of CEO's, sales people, engineers, maintenance people and so on.

Different jobs have different values to the companies, and that's the way it works with government bringing in businesses to their city or state.

Bob's antique shop is not going to bring in the revenue to a city as a Google outlet. Joe's hardware store is not going to bring in the revenue to a city that a Home Depot will. Han's hamburger shop will not bring in the revenue that a McDonald's will. Discount Don's will not bring in the revenue as a Dollar General store.

Much like the company you work for, different businesses have different values to a city or state. Very few (if any) politicians would offer a company tax abatements unless it was a net advantage to their city. They can't offer everybody the same tax rate because their value to the city is worth much less than the company(s) they offer larger breaks for.

They won't be paying for services they receive. Those services are not free so other companies will have to pick up the slack. WI might even be taking out a loan to pay for this package.

You sure work hard to make up silly explanations to go against capitalism and the free market. The government should not pick winners and losers.

They are not picking anything. They are bringing industry and jobs to their city or state. That's what we elect them for.

One of our customers wanted to build a new plant because they were expanding. They found a large property in a nearby suburb that was basically farm land. The city spent the money to widen and expand the road to the new business. The state even created a new exit ramp for easier access to the new facility of 52 docks. The new business created hundreds of jobs that workers pay taxes to the city on. Even with the abatements, the city still made out like a bandit because other businesses began to move in as well.

This is called economic development, and there is nothing wrong with a city or state doing whatever they can to create such development.

True story: the owner of our convenient store sold out. The building and property were sold for over a million dollars. Because of the value of that building and property, our city makes out very well in property taxes. On the other hand, I could fit four or five of their stores on my property if they wanted to buy it, and I'm less than a half-mile away from the convenient store.

Even if the new owners got a tax abatement from our city, they would still be paying much more in property taxes than I am, and I have five times the size of their property. Bottom line: the city and state still make out even with tax abatements.

Here you go with made up stories again. Sure ray. We are the largest economy in the world, your claimed experience means nothing in such a big economy. And even in your examples if these are really good profitable companies they don't need that help. The taxpayer shouldn't be helping to make the company owners rich.

Yes they are picking winners and losers. Company A spends a ton on lobbying and gets a sweet deal from the government. Company B is a competitor and doesn't get a sweet deal. Company A runs company B out of business.

What is it you stand for? Clearly not capitalism and the free market. And clearly you don't care about the tax payer. You should be a democrat.

As I explained repeatedly, it has nothing to do with lobbying. Cities and states fight to get companies to their area for jobs and new taxes. They don't need to be lobbied. They put their offer to the company in hopes THE COMPANY will choose them.

You must be a Democrat because you don't believe in States Rights and you certainly don't believe in competition.

I do believe in competition and the free market. You prefer the gov picks the winners and losers. You want tax dollars wasted.

Well I"ll tell you what, you petition your representatives to not offer abatements and I'll petition mine to do what it takes to bring jobs to Cleveland. You can remain in a one horse town while the rest of us work on economic advancement and security. Then we can all be happy, because after all, that's one of the advantages of having different states.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com