Corporate welfare in action ....

[usmbguest5318]

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

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

While I'm aware of the so-called "jobs" argument to justify giving corporations "incentives," I'm also aware that the business case for building facilities like factories and data centers was a positive one even without those incentives. That's especially so re: the facility Apple plans to build.

"The company will receive a $19.65 million investment tax credit for creating 50 jobs.....Apple will spend $110 million to acquire and prepare the land for its data centers in Iowa, according to economic development officials.....The bulk of the costs, $620 million, will go toward construction. Apple will spend $600 million on computer equipment, with $45 million going toward other equipment."
​

One does not need an MBA, accounting or finance degree to know that no company spend ~$750M is going to have the business case for doing so hinge on $19.65M. Apple was going to build the facility and build it in the U.S., $19M or or not. It was going to do so because its managers see doing so as critical to one or strategic profit making plans the company has. Period.

How does one know Apple was going to build it in the U.S. no matter what?

• Because, aside from Western Europe, every other place on the planet having an indigenous and IT savvy workforce where they could have built it has lower costs of everything, regardless of whether Apple is paying for the project using USDs or the Euros it holds offshore in Ireland.
• Because the facility is a data center, and as such it's equipment will utilizes encryption software. Even though Apple probably isn't trying to sell encryption software used at the facility, there are still a lot of restrictions pertaining to the transfer of encryption software out of the U.S. Companies like Apple may put call centers just about anywhere, data centers, not so much.

 

[dblack]

You like that government is making these decisions, rather than the market?

I like that government is stepping up to make us competitive. That's what I pay them to do. The decisions are left up to the industry after all the offers are presented. All our governments are doing is trying to make the best offer.

Heh.... "offer". Right.

I'm reminded of an old "Polack" joke: A biker gang accosts a Polack and his wife while they are on a picnic. The leader of the gang draws a circle in the dirt, telling the Polack to stand in it, and not to step out of the circle, or there will be hell to pay. The leader then proceeds to eat all the lunch the Polack's wife had prepared. He finishes the bottle of wine and glares at the Polack - who has a curious smirk on his face. The leader then trashes the Polack's car, breaking out all the windows and headlights. He looks back and sees the Polack, now smiling openly. Furious, the leader rapes the Polack's wife, in front of him. He looks back, only to see the Polack still smirking, now giggling to himself.

The biker asks the Polack - "What the hell is wrong with you? I just ate your lunch, destroyed your car and raped your wife and you're laughing about it?" To which the Polack responds: "Joke's on you buddy. I stepped out of the circle three times while you weren't looking!"

 

[danielpalos]

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. ...

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

Why is that not happening in Seattle?

 

[danielpalos]

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

You buy that?
You don't think Wal-Mart can afford to pay their cashiers 12 an hour instead of 10??? That's horse shit.

If the work is only worth $10, why should they pay them $12?

It is worth whatever it is valued at by fiat, just like our money.

 

[dblack]

It's rather frightening to consider what the question must be:

And the answer is;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2017 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Only problem is it should be a five-year plan, rather than ten. Don't worry, you can have two in a row.

 

[dblack]

I love "conservatives" arguing for more government control and power.

They're only for liberty when they're not in power. Kinda like liberals.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

Why is that not happening in Seattle?

I understand that it is.

Seattle $15 Minimum Wage Forcing Some Restaurants Out Of Business

 

[danielpalos]

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

Why is that not happening in Seattle?

I understand that it is.

Seattle $15 Minimum Wage Forcing Some Restaurants Out Of Business

Seems more like, "lousy capitalists" can no longer make it only "on the back of cheap labor".

State’s unemployment rate falls to a historic low

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

Why is that not happening in Seattle?

I understand that it is.

Seattle $15 Minimum Wage Forcing Some Restaurants Out Of Business

Seems more like, "lousy capitalists" can no longer make it only "on the back of cheap labor".

State’s unemployment rate falls to a historic low

Ri-iiiiiight.

"The chocolate ration has been increased by two percent! Doubleplus good!"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You like that government is making these decisions, rather than the market?

I like that government is stepping up to make us competitive. That's what I pay them to do. The decisions are left up to the industry after all the offers are presented. All our governments are doing is trying to make the best offer.

Heh.... "offer". Right.

I'm reminded of an old "Polack" joke: A biker gang accosts a Polack and his wife while they are on a picnic. The leader of the gang draws a circle in the dirt, telling the Polack to stand in it, and not to step out of the circle, or there will be hell to pay. The leader then proceeds to eat all the lunch the Polack's wife had prepared. He finishes the bottle of wine and glares at the Polack - who has a curious smirk on his face. The leader then trashes the Polack's car, breaking out all the windows and headlights. He looks back and sees the Polack, now smiling openly. Furious, the leader rapes the Polack's wife, in front of him. He looks back, only to see the Polack still smirking, now giggling to himself.

The biker asks the Polack - "What the hell is wrong with you? I just ate your lunch, destroyed your car and raped your wife and you're laughing about it?" To which the Polack responds: "Joke's on you buddy. I stepped out of the circle three times while you weren't looking!"

Oh please........ I was telling that joke when I was a kid before you were even born, and I don't know what that has to do with the discussion.

We don't live in a country with a centralized government. We are individual governments that form a union. What my local government does and your local government does are two different things.

Once I pay my city tax money, it's the cities money and their call on what to do with it. Once I pay my state tax money, it's the states call on what to do with it. Once I pay my federal taxes, it's the federal governments decision on what to do with that money.

Nobody outside of my city can tell us what to do with our very own money. Same with the state. Our money--our business. And if my city or state wants to advance our economy by giving abatements, I'm all for them bringing in new tax money however they can do it.

 

[danielpalos]

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

Why is that not happening in Seattle?

I understand that it is.

Seattle $15 Minimum Wage Forcing Some Restaurants Out Of Business

Seems more like, "lousy capitalists" can no longer make it only "on the back of cheap labor".

State’s unemployment rate falls to a historic low

Ri-iiiiiight.

"The chocolate ration has been increased by two percent! Doubleplus good!"

Seems more like, "lousy capitalists" can no longer make it only "on the back of cheap labor".

Why is the unemployment rate beating even left wing, short run expectations?

 

[BluesLegend]

Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.

I call it corporate welfare. You haven't came up with a suitable term. Obviously, it's not "fantasy" when they're being given millions. So, try again.

Who exactly was given millions and where did the millions come from?

 

[dudmuck]

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

Why is that not happening in Seattle?

I understand that it is.

Seattle $15 Minimum Wage Forcing Some Restaurants Out Of Business

Checkout the overall picture:

Synthetic-Seattle is other cities like Seattle.
This city is 11th place in cost of living.
By contrast, places like Boise, Detroit and Tucson have lowest cost of living, which means there isnt such a cry for raising min-wage there.

 

[BluesLegend]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

 

[dblack]

Oh please........ I was telling that joke when I was a kid before you were even born, and I don't know what that has to do with the discussion.

We don't live in a country with a centralized government. We are individual governments that form a union. What my local government does and your local government does are two different things.

Once again (third, fourth time?) we're not talking about states having different laws. That's fine. What we're talking about is states enforcing those laws unequally. Read up on "rule of law" sometime. (Rule of law - Wikipedia)

Once I pay my city tax money, it's the cities money and their call on what to do with it. Once I pay my state tax money, it's the states call on what to do with it. Once I pay my federal taxes, it's the federal governments decision on what to do with that money.

Nope. Government in the US is Constitutionally limited. It doesn't get to do whatever it wants.

Nobody outside of my city can tell us what to do with our very own money. Same with the state. Our money--our business.

Wrong again. It's not your money. It's money taken from taxpayers. And because of that, taxpayers are protected from governments that would abuse the power.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

 

[dblack]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Most people here are preoccupied with who benefits or loses from these schemes, whether they are a "good investment" etc... But the thing is, in a free market, government isn't supposed to be making these kinds of investments. That's how it works under socialism. Government decides where the data center will be, not the market. The tax-abatement game is government colluding with private industry to share power.

 

[Brain357]

Giving them services they don't pay for is welfare.

How much in benefits does a community receive when say a Walmart locates in their area? Or, a distribution hub for Walmart, Amazon or other large corporation?

"
NORTH RANDALL, Ohio - Amazon will bring more than 2,000 jobs to the tiny Cuyahoga County village of North Randall, where a massive fulfillment center is slated to rise from the demolition dust of Randall Park Mall.

The e-commerce giant finalized a lease deal Thursday on a planned 855,000-square-foot building, which could open during the second half of next year on a 69-acre site at Warrensville Center and Emery roads. News of the potential deal broke in July, after the project cropped up on a public meeting agenda. But North Randall was vying against other, unidentified sites.

The North Randall Village Council and the Warrensville Heights Board of Education have approved 15 years of 75 percent property-tax abatement for the Amazon facility. School board records show the village will pass along 33 percent of its income-tax collections from workers at the fulfillment center to the district."

Amazon commits to North Randall fulfillment center, with 2,000-plus jobs on former mall site

"Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly-competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families. Amazon also offers hourly employees its Career Choice program which helps train employees for in-demand jobs at Amazon and other companies so they can prepare for the future and take full advantage of the nation's innovation economy. The program pre-pays 95% of tuition for courses in in-demand, high-wage fields, regardless of whether the skills are relevant to a future career at Amazon. Over 10,000 employees have participated in Career Choice and more are signing up every day."

An Amazon Fulfillment Center Officially Comes to Former Randall Park Mall Site, Needs Workers

Nah, we don't want it. That's the village picking winners......namely the citizens of their village and surrounding areas where those employees will be hired from.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? If so why do they need a special deal on taxes?

The amazon around here doesn't pay much and has lots of turnover btw.

There are several articles on this subject that refutes what you claim.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? Of course it is. Or do you think it's better for business to leave that mall in a pile of rubble?

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower and provide good paying jobs with the best of benefits as the article outlines.

Lots of construction, lots of good paying jobs afterwards, the school system makes out, the taxpayers make out, even the state makes out. The domino effect of companies that provide Amazon with packing materials, trucking, and technology a plus.

Everybody wins, and tax abatements are responsible for it.

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower? Really? So does Walmart get such a good deal? And if Amazon gets a better deal I guess they have lower prices? You really want the gov picking winners and losers?

If it is good for Amazon to build they don't need a special tax deal. The tax payer shouldn't pay for Amazon to expand.

 

[Brain357]

How much in benefits does a community receive when say a Walmart locates in their area? Or, a distribution hub for Walmart, Amazon or other large corporation?

"
NORTH RANDALL, Ohio - Amazon will bring more than 2,000 jobs to the tiny Cuyahoga County village of North Randall, where a massive fulfillment center is slated to rise from the demolition dust of Randall Park Mall.

The e-commerce giant finalized a lease deal Thursday on a planned 855,000-square-foot building, which could open during the second half of next year on a 69-acre site at Warrensville Center and Emery roads. News of the potential deal broke in July, after the project cropped up on a public meeting agenda. But North Randall was vying against other, unidentified sites.

The North Randall Village Council and the Warrensville Heights Board of Education have approved 15 years of 75 percent property-tax abatement for the Amazon facility. School board records show the village will pass along 33 percent of its income-tax collections from workers at the fulfillment center to the district."

Amazon commits to North Randall fulfillment center, with 2,000-plus jobs on former mall site

"Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly-competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families. Amazon also offers hourly employees its Career Choice program which helps train employees for in-demand jobs at Amazon and other companies so they can prepare for the future and take full advantage of the nation's innovation economy. The program pre-pays 95% of tuition for courses in in-demand, high-wage fields, regardless of whether the skills are relevant to a future career at Amazon. Over 10,000 employees have participated in Career Choice and more are signing up every day."

An Amazon Fulfillment Center Officially Comes to Former Randall Park Mall Site, Needs Workers

Nah, we don't want it. That's the village picking winners......namely the citizens of their village and surrounding areas where those employees will be hired from.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? If so why do they need a special deal on taxes?

The amazon around here doesn't pay much and has lots of turnover btw.

There are several articles on this subject that refutes what you claim.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? Of course it is. Or do you think it's better for business to leave that mall in a pile of rubble?

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower and provide good paying jobs with the best of benefits as the article outlines.

Lots of construction, lots of good paying jobs afterwards, the school system makes out, the taxpayers make out, even the state makes out. The domino effect of companies that provide Amazon with packing materials, trucking, and technology a plus.

Everybody wins, and tax abatements are responsible for it.

You like that government is making these decisions, rather than the market?

States and local governments need to compete to attract business.
Without competition, idiot politicians could create a "sweetened beverage tax", like the assholes in Cook County, and never suffer the consequences of their stupidity and greed.

No, they don't need to compete. If companies want to grow they need to expand and build. Huge companies win, tax payers lose with these deals. Do you pretend to be conservative?

 

[Brain357]

If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Most people here are preoccupied with who benefits or loses from these schemes, whether they are a "good investment" etc... But the thing is, in a free market, government isn't supposed to be making these kinds of investments. That's how it works under socialism. Government decides where the data center will be, not the market. The tax-abatement game is government colluding with private industry to share power.

And as we all should know, the government making those decisions always fails.