Corporate welfare in action ....

[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.

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

Tax "incentives" are used to coerce behavior in ways the government would otherwise not be able to get away with. Taxation is coercive to begin with. But when employed as a tool for social engineering, it becomes even moreso. How far would you be willing to see this game go? Should taxes for any given company or individual be based on a balance sheet of the "favors" they've done for government this year?

Tax incentives expand government power to intrude on our lives.

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

It's a pre-approved exemption from a law that the other poor saps have to follow. If you extend this principle to other laws, it becomes very clear how wrong it is.

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

Of course it does. You can quibble as to the extent that a given incentive coerces our economic decisions, but it very definitely does. All you have to do is crank up the numbers to make it obvious. When government creates onerous taxes, and then "offers" (as though they are giving you something) you and exemption if you do as you are told - they are ordering you around every bit as much as if they'd simply threatened fines and criminal prosecution if you don't abide.

 

[dblack]

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.
..

In principle, this is no different than Iowa "sponsoring" an Apple data center. It's just a matter of extent.

 

[Brain357]

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

Yes you move toward communism and tell me how that works out. I'll stick with capitalism and free markets.

 

[Brain357]

LeRoy said it is no coincidence that some states that are most generous with subsidies are also facing budget issues. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie has awarded more than $5 billion in subsidies—including half a dozen deals that were worth more than $200 million apiece. State officials have defended the incentives as a way to attract investment and save and create jobs. But this year, the state suffered its ninth credit downgrade since the governor took office.

Guess who's spending billions to create US jobs

 

[Brain357]

Don't care about increased taxes right Ray? Gov knows how to spend it better than you.
1. They harm taxpayers. A 2012 Cato report found that the federal government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare. Repealing the spending would save every household in the nation an average of about $800 a year.

Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 54. Special-Interest Spending and Corporate Welfare

 

[Aries]

Corporate welfare produces jobs and a desired product.

Social welfare produces urine and feces.

You make the call.

Corporate welfare creates a nation where 1% hold nearly all of the country's wealth, leaving 99% fighting for scraps. It also creates a nation where 1% just can't spare to pay their workers a living wage, so the other 99% subsidize their wages so they can live.

Corporate welfare creates an environment where social welfare is necessary for the masses to survive. Don't like social welfare? Stop helping the GOP funnel all of OUR money to the top 1%

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Yes you move toward communism and tell me how that works out. I'll stick with capitalism and free markets.

You shouldn't us words you don't understand. If you think Communism is states having rights over a centralized government, then you obviously have no conception of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

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

Yes you move toward communism and tell me how that works out. I'll stick with capitalism and free markets.

You shouldn't us words you don't understand. If you think Communism is states having rights over a centralized government, then you obviously have no conception of the word.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

States picking winners and losers is much closer to communism than capitalism.

 

[Aries]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

 

[dblack]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

It takes two parties to settle on a wage - an employer and an employee. If you're saying the wage they agreed on is too low, and should literally be a crime, why is one party any more guilty than the other?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

 

[Brain357]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Don't you want the gov to dictate wages? They are so good at picking winners and losers right?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.

Who determines if the work is worth a "living wage"?

The employer paying the wages.

 

[jc456]

$20 million in government gifts.

For 50 jobs.

they get zero dollars. what a bunch of fking whooie.

 

[jc456]

The bulk of the subsidy is a planned $188.2 million property tax abatement of 71 percent over 20 years

Why does every other company in the area have to pay the full property tax, and Apple doesn't?

how do you know they do?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.

Who determines if the work is worth a "living wage"?

The employer paying the wages.

Exactly. Our worth as workers is determined by an employer being able to get somebody to do the same work and same quality as you.

If my employer can find somebody to do my job for the same money he pays me, then my wage is what I am worth. If he can't, then I am being underpaid. If he can find several people to do my quality of work, then I am being overpaid.

The supply and demand process is perfect to determine what a proper wage is for X job. If that process proves that many people will do the same job for less than a living wage, then that's all the job was worth.

 

[dblack]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.

Who determines if the work is worth a "living wage"?

The employer paying the wages.

Ultimately, it's consumers.

 

[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.

Tax "incentives" are used to coerce behavior in ways the government would otherwise not be able to get away with. Taxation is coercive to begin with. But when employed as a tool for social engineering, it becomes even moreso. How far would you be willing to see this game go? Should taxes for any given company or individual be based on a balance sheet of the "favors" they've done for government this year?

Tax incentives expand government power to intrude on our lives.

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

It's a pre-approved exemption from a law that the other poor saps have to follow. If you extend this principle to other laws, it becomes very clear how wrong it is.

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

Of course it does. You can quibble as to the extent that a given incentive coerces our economic decisions, but it very definitely does. All you have to do is crank up the numbers to make it obvious. When government creates onerous taxes, and then "offers" (as though they are giving you something) you and exemption if you do as you are told - they are ordering you around every bit as much as if they'd simply threatened fines and criminal prosecution if you don't abide.

Ok, prove it. Give me a real life example of how a tax abatement for a short time on property tax that is currently collecting zero.... has dictated MY economic decisions.

It's a pre-approved exemption from a law that the other poor saps have to follow. If you extend this principle to other laws, it becomes very clear how wrong it is.

Um... but even the companies that get the tax abatement have to follow that law. An abatement is never 'forever'. It's a short time period, of normally 3 to 5 years.

And often they involve undeveloped land. I don't think I have ever seen a tax abatement for existing high-rise buildings, but rather undeveloped land. The whole point is that the company intends to invest hundreds of millions, which is far more benefit to the state, than the few hundred thousand in land tax over a short time frame.

Saying that some other poor sap has to pay the land tax, for land it never would buy, and never could develop, and this somehow is a method of "Social engineering" is ridiculous.

Moreover, just about any major corporation that intends to invest hundreds of millions into any state, can get a tax abatement. It's not like they are selecting specific corporation, and denying others.

 

[Andylusion]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.

Who determines if the work is worth a "living wage"?

The employer paying the wages.

No, it's the consumer.

The employer has no ability to dictate wages. If he could, he would simply determine that the work, was worth a million dollars an hour. Collect $50,000 per hour, and pay the employee $950,000 an hour, and the employer would be a trillionaire by the end of the month.

The problem is, the employer can't determine the value of the labor. The customer does.

If you charge $15 for a cheap fast food burger, because you want to pay your employees $15 an hour.... I'm not buying that burger. I'll buy a cheap grill, and buy lbs of hamburger for $3, and grill my own burgers at work, before I'll pay $15 for a cheap burger at a store.

So then the employer goes out of business, and the employees earn zero.

A real life example would be me and Chipotle. I used to go to chipotle all the time. Back when a burrito was $4.75, for a few chunks of chicken, and some rice, and cheese, it was a good deal.

Now after the minimum wage has gone up, that same Burrito is $7. I'm not paying $7 for rice, cheese and some chicken. It's not worth it. That's too much money, for cheap fast food.

So I haven't been to Chipotle in years. Now you increase the minimum wage, and this effect becomes larger and more and more people stop paying tons of money for cheap stuff... and people lose their jobs, and end up earning the real minimum wage of ZERO.

 

[Andylusion]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

If not for the corporations providing low paying jobs, there wouldn't be any, and everyone would be on full benefits.