Corporate welfare in action ....

[bripat9643]

Sounds to me like they provide the financing to the town. The town is taking on the debt. Think the taxes go up to cover?

-Helps municipalities and developers finance public infrastructure improvement projects. Attractive for mixed-use developments.

I'm sure they are weighing all options, and as the article states, nothing is in fine print just yet.

I think the big question would be what would all this mean in dollars and cents for the village when everything is said and done? Without those figures, it's very difficult for us to opine on how good or bad of a deal this would be. Those figures are with the village and whoever runs their numbers. I doubt if they have a city council given their size, or how they interact with the suburb that provides their city services which is Warrnsville Heights. But I'm sure Warrnsville has a city council and maybe their people are going to figure this out for them.

They didn't get approval to borrow 123 million for nothing. And they are giving away any revenue from taxes for quite some time no doubt. Since they are a town of only 1000 people realistically it's less than 50 jobs for the town. I don't see any other details that could emerge to make this deal look good. They are leasing so when it comes time for them to pay taxes they will get a new deal not to leave. See these deals are bad for the tax payer!

You mentioned all workers would pay some tax to the town, but with 2000 workers I bet it is a REALLY long time for that amount to ever equal 123 million.

I strongly suspect the deal only gets worse as more details emerge.

They are not getting free money they are borrowing it, so it's likely it will be paid back. I don't know what kind of actual cash we are talking about here, but I believe that since Amazon will be paying 25% of property taxes on 70 acres of commercial land, that's going to be a hell of a lot of money.

They are borrowing at below market rates. Otherwise, why do it?

Oh, I'm sure they are. But I don't believe the Port Authority is out to make profits, they are out to promote economic activity.

You mean they are out to do favors for their cronies. These deals are utterly corrupt.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gee why do many bad politicians get reelected? Are you really claiming all bad politicians get voted out?

The will if the local news shows people that an abatement was a net loss. Politicians have no reason to give a company a break unless it benefited the city or town in some way--usually financial.

These deals are never so obvious to pick out. Look at Foxconn. It is 3 billion and they guess it won't break even for 25 years. When does the media start calling them out on that one? After 25 years? Gosh you have a lot of faith in government. Again look at the US debt. Politicians are not fiscally responsible.

Infrastructure; the public sector should be responsible for those "conduits to private sector markets". Thus, communication, energy, potable and waste water management, and even "industrial waste management" could be accommodated via the public sector much more easily than it may be for the private sector to raise the capital intensive sums needed.

Public sector control of Infrastructure means, no excuses when it comes to the common defense regarding natural disasters.

So doper, you are always whining about "income disparity," so why do you want to exempt the most wealthy corporation in the entire world from paying taxes?

We should have no income taxes?

It is about our public sectors Obligation to ensure government functions.

The public sector should work with scale economies to provide, economies of scale for the private sector to arbitrage into a profit, if they can.

Hoover Dam and our Landing on the Moon, are examples.

What does bribing Apple, the most wealthy corporation in the world, have to do with income taxes?

You want to steal from the poor and give to the well connected. It's the socialist way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.

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

Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.

Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.

Dear, nobody on the left should take the right wing seriously about economics.

Public sector spending engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

Holy shit but you are stupid.

You really should have finished 2nd grade.

So have another bong hit., mom will bring lunch down to you soon..

 

[danielpalos]

The will if the local news shows people that an abatement was a net loss. Politicians have no reason to give a company a break unless it benefited the city or town in some way--usually financial.

These deals are never so obvious to pick out. Look at Foxconn. It is 3 billion and they guess it won't break even for 25 years. When does the media start calling them out on that one? After 25 years? Gosh you have a lot of faith in government. Again look at the US debt. Politicians are not fiscally responsible.

Infrastructure; the public sector should be responsible for those "conduits to private sector markets". Thus, communication, energy, potable and waste water management, and even "industrial waste management" could be accommodated via the public sector much more easily than it may be for the private sector to raise the capital intensive sums needed.

Public sector control of Infrastructure means, no excuses when it comes to the common defense regarding natural disasters.

So doper, you are always whining about "income disparity," so why do you want to exempt the most wealthy corporation in the entire world from paying taxes?

We should have no income taxes?

It is about our public sectors Obligation to ensure government functions.

The public sector should work with scale economies to provide, economies of scale for the private sector to arbitrage into a profit, if they can.

Hoover Dam and our Landing on the Moon, are examples.

What does bribing Apple, the most wealthy corporation in the world, have to do with income taxes?

You want to steal from the poor and give to the well connected. It's the socialist way.

It doesn't. I am advocating for abolishing our wars on crime, drugs, and terror to abolish our income tax.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.

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

Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.

Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.

Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent.

How many trillions in social welfare spending do we need to add until it balances the budget?

Place my plan into effect and you'll have a balanced budget.

They did place your plan into effect.

In Venezuela.

How did that all work out?

 

[Uncensored2008]

These deals are never so obvious to pick out. Look at Foxconn. It is 3 billion and they guess it won't break even for 25 years. When does the media start calling them out on that one? After 25 years? Gosh you have a lot of faith in government. Again look at the US debt. Politicians are not fiscally responsible.

Infrastructure; the public sector should be responsible for those "conduits to private sector markets". Thus, communication, energy, potable and waste water management, and even "industrial waste management" could be accommodated via the public sector much more easily than it may be for the private sector to raise the capital intensive sums needed.

Public sector control of Infrastructure means, no excuses when it comes to the common defense regarding natural disasters.

So doper, you are always whining about "income disparity," so why do you want to exempt the most wealthy corporation in the entire world from paying taxes?

We should have no income taxes?

It is about our public sectors Obligation to ensure government functions.

The public sector should work with scale economies to provide, economies of scale for the private sector to arbitrage into a profit, if they can.

Hoover Dam and our Landing on the Moon, are examples.

What does bribing Apple, the most wealthy corporation in the world, have to do with income taxes?

You want to steal from the poor and give to the well connected. It's the socialist way.

It doesn't. I am advocating for abolishing our wars on crime, drugs, and terror to abolish our income tax.

Who cares what you are "for?" You are a doper who is barely cognizant of your surroundings.

The SUBJECT of this thread is tax subsidies to Apple.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm sure they are weighing all options, and as the article states, nothing is in fine print just yet.

I think the big question would be what would all this mean in dollars and cents for the village when everything is said and done? Without those figures, it's very difficult for us to opine on how good or bad of a deal this would be. Those figures are with the village and whoever runs their numbers. I doubt if they have a city council given their size, or how they interact with the suburb that provides their city services which is Warrnsville Heights. But I'm sure Warrnsville has a city council and maybe their people are going to figure this out for them.

They didn't get approval to borrow 123 million for nothing. And they are giving away any revenue from taxes for quite some time no doubt. Since they are a town of only 1000 people realistically it's less than 50 jobs for the town. I don't see any other details that could emerge to make this deal look good. They are leasing so when it comes time for them to pay taxes they will get a new deal not to leave. See these deals are bad for the tax payer!

You mentioned all workers would pay some tax to the town, but with 2000 workers I bet it is a REALLY long time for that amount to ever equal 123 million.

I strongly suspect the deal only gets worse as more details emerge.

They are not getting free money they are borrowing it, so it's likely it will be paid back. I don't know what kind of actual cash we are talking about here, but I believe that since Amazon will be paying 25% of property taxes on 70 acres of commercial land, that's going to be a hell of a lot of money.

They are borrowing at below market rates. Otherwise, why do it?

Oh, I'm sure they are. But I don't believe the Port Authority is out to make profits, they are out to promote economic activity.

You mean they are out to do favors for their cronies. These deals are utterly corrupt.

You are looking at it from one point of view.

So let's say you are a local politician. Your job is to make a better environment for the people that elected you to the job. Where do you start when their concerns are safety, jobs and economy for your city or state?

If it's wrong to offer tax abatements to companies so they move to your town, is it just as wrong to lower corporate tax rates in the US to try and lure companies back to the states who are operating overseas to avoid taxes now?

 

[bripat9643]

They didn't get approval to borrow 123 million for nothing. And they are giving away any revenue from taxes for quite some time no doubt. Since they are a town of only 1000 people realistically it's less than 50 jobs for the town. I don't see any other details that could emerge to make this deal look good. They are leasing so when it comes time for them to pay taxes they will get a new deal not to leave. See these deals are bad for the tax payer!

You mentioned all workers would pay some tax to the town, but with 2000 workers I bet it is a REALLY long time for that amount to ever equal 123 million.

I strongly suspect the deal only gets worse as more details emerge.

They are not getting free money they are borrowing it, so it's likely it will be paid back. I don't know what kind of actual cash we are talking about here, but I believe that since Amazon will be paying 25% of property taxes on 70 acres of commercial land, that's going to be a hell of a lot of money.

They are borrowing at below market rates. Otherwise, why do it?

Oh, I'm sure they are. But I don't believe the Port Authority is out to make profits, they are out to promote economic activity.

You mean they are out to do favors for their cronies. These deals are utterly corrupt.

You are looking at it from one point of view.

So let's say you are a local politician. Your job is to make a better environment for the people that elected you to the job. Where do you start when their concerns are safety, jobs and economy for your city or state?

If it's wrong to offer tax abatements to companies so they move to your town, is it just as wrong to lower corporate tax rates in the US to try and lure companies back to the states who are operating overseas to avoid taxes now?

I realize local politicians have huge incentives to give corporations these deals. That's the problem. When you look at the larger picture, they are harmful to the country. Something needs to be done to eliminate the incentive for them.

 

[dblack]

If it's wrong to offer tax abatements to companies so they move to your town, is it just as wrong to lower corporate tax rates in the US to try and lure companies back to the states who are operating overseas to avoid taxes now?

Offering a tax abatement isn't lowering tax rates.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are not getting free money they are borrowing it, so it's likely it will be paid back. I don't know what kind of actual cash we are talking about here, but I believe that since Amazon will be paying 25% of property taxes on 70 acres of commercial land, that's going to be a hell of a lot of money.

They are borrowing at below market rates. Otherwise, why do it?

Oh, I'm sure they are. But I don't believe the Port Authority is out to make profits, they are out to promote economic activity.

You mean they are out to do favors for their cronies. These deals are utterly corrupt.

You are looking at it from one point of view.

So let's say you are a local politician. Your job is to make a better environment for the people that elected you to the job. Where do you start when their concerns are safety, jobs and economy for your city or state?

If it's wrong to offer tax abatements to companies so they move to your town, is it just as wrong to lower corporate tax rates in the US to try and lure companies back to the states who are operating overseas to avoid taxes now?

I realize local politicians have huge incentives to give corporations these deals. That's the problem. When you look at the larger picture, they are harmful to the country. Something needs to be done to eliminate the incentive for them.

Then what you are hinting at is federal intervention; a national law that overseas local taxation and business deals. Is that really the route you want to take?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If it's wrong to offer tax abatements to companies so they move to your town, is it just as wrong to lower corporate tax rates in the US to try and lure companies back to the states who are operating overseas to avoid taxes now?

Offering a tax abatement isn't lowering tax rates.

No, but doesn't it accomplish the same thing; the same goal?

 

[bripat9643]

They are borrowing at below market rates. Otherwise, why do it?

Oh, I'm sure they are. But I don't believe the Port Authority is out to make profits, they are out to promote economic activity.

You mean they are out to do favors for their cronies. These deals are utterly corrupt.

You are looking at it from one point of view.

So let's say you are a local politician. Your job is to make a better environment for the people that elected you to the job. Where do you start when their concerns are safety, jobs and economy for your city or state?

If it's wrong to offer tax abatements to companies so they move to your town, is it just as wrong to lower corporate tax rates in the US to try and lure companies back to the states who are operating overseas to avoid taxes now?

I realize local politicians have huge incentives to give corporations these deals. That's the problem. When you look at the larger picture, they are harmful to the country. Something needs to be done to eliminate the incentive for them.

Then what you are hinting at is federal intervention; a national law that overseas local taxation and business deals. Is that really the route you want to take?

I actually think they violate the 14th Amendment: equal protection of the law.

 

[dblack]

Offering a tax abatement isn't lowering tax rates.

No, but doesn't it accomplish the same thing; the same goal?

No. One lowers the tax rates for everyone. An abatement only goes to cronies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, I'm sure they are. But I don't believe the Port Authority is out to make profits, they are out to promote economic activity.

You mean they are out to do favors for their cronies. These deals are utterly corrupt.

You are looking at it from one point of view.

So let's say you are a local politician. Your job is to make a better environment for the people that elected you to the job. Where do you start when their concerns are safety, jobs and economy for your city or state?

If it's wrong to offer tax abatements to companies so they move to your town, is it just as wrong to lower corporate tax rates in the US to try and lure companies back to the states who are operating overseas to avoid taxes now?

I realize local politicians have huge incentives to give corporations these deals. That's the problem. When you look at the larger picture, they are harmful to the country. Something needs to be done to eliminate the incentive for them.

Then what you are hinting at is federal intervention; a national law that overseas local taxation and business deals. Is that really the route you want to take?

I actually think they violate the 14th Amendment: equal protection of the law.

If that is the case, isn't all taxation in violation of the 14th?

For instance if you smoke cigarettes, you are taxed much higher than people who buy other products. If you drink alcohol, then you pay a higher tax than people who drink soda pop; speaking of which, they tried to tax soda pop in NYC as well.

If taxation was ever fair, we would all be paying federal income tax. As things are now (and have been for decades) half of the people in our country pay absolutely no income tax at all.

On a lower level, people who make 80K a year pay much more in taxes than people who make 30K a year. The list goes on and on.

 

[dblack]

So let's say you are a local politician. Your job is to make a better environment for the people that elected you to the job. Where do you start when their concerns are safety, jobs and economy for your city or state?

This, to me, is the underlying problem in so many of these arguments. We simply don't agree on the purpose of government. I don't want our leaders focused on making a better environment for those who elected them. I want government protecting the freedom of everyone (not just those who elected them) to make the kind of environment they want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Offering a tax abatement isn't lowering tax rates.

No, but doesn't it accomplish the same thing; the same goal?

No. One lowers the tax rates for everyone. An abatement only goes to cronies.

I would disagree with you there. The US tax code books are the size of two Holy Bibles. Different taxation for different industries, different taxes for people in different filings and so on. The point is taxation was never equal to everybody in this country and probably never will be.

 

[dblack]

You mean they are out to do favors for their cronies. These deals are utterly corrupt.

You are looking at it from one point of view.

So let's say you are a local politician. Your job is to make a better environment for the people that elected you to the job. Where do you start when their concerns are safety, jobs and economy for your city or state?

If it's wrong to offer tax abatements to companies so they move to your town, is it just as wrong to lower corporate tax rates in the US to try and lure companies back to the states who are operating overseas to avoid taxes now?

I realize local politicians have huge incentives to give corporations these deals. That's the problem. When you look at the larger picture, they are harmful to the country. Something needs to be done to eliminate the incentive for them.

Then what you are hinting at is federal intervention; a national law that overseas local taxation and business deals. Is that really the route you want to take?

I actually think they violate the 14th Amendment: equal protection of the law.

If that is the case, isn't all taxation in violation of the 14th?

Income tax is, inherently, unequal and should go. Finding a replacement won't be easy, and will almost certainly require a radical reduction in the size of government - but it needs to happen.

For instance if you smoke cigarettes, you are taxed much higher than people who buy other products. If you drink alcohol, then you pay a higher tax than people who drink soda pop; speaking of which, they tried to tax soda pop in NYC as well.

Absolutely agree. These are all abuses of the taxation power. We didn't grant government the power to levy taxes so they could play god.

If taxation was ever fair, we would all be paying federal income tax. As things are now (and have been for decades) half of the people in our country pay absolutely no income tax at all.

On a lower level, people who make 80K a year pay much more in taxes than people who make 30K a year. The list goes on and on.

Agreed. And we're only going to get more of it if we don't wise up and put a stop to it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So let's say you are a local politician. Your job is to make a better environment for the people that elected you to the job. Where do you start when their concerns are safety, jobs and economy for your city or state?

This, to me, is the underlying problem in so many of these arguments. We simply don't agree on the purpose of government. I don't want our leaders focused on making a better environment for those who elected them. I want government protecting the freedom of everyone (not just those who elected them) to make the kind of environment they want.

I think most people elect politicians to create a better social environment: safe streets, higher property values, safe and productive schools, great emergency services and so on. Or do you believe that it's not a politicians concern to bring businesses and jobs to the area?

 

[dblack]

Offering a tax abatement isn't lowering tax rates.

No, but doesn't it accomplish the same thing; the same goal?

No. One lowers the tax rates for everyone. An abatement only goes to cronies.

I would disagree with you there. The US tax code books are the size of two Holy Bibles. Different taxation for different industries, different taxes for people in different filings and so on. The point is taxation was never equal to everybody in this country and probably never will be.

??? You compared tax abatements to lowering tax rates. I was pointing out that they are not the same thing. You've been mixing them up this entire thread, but I assumed it was just equivocation. Do you really not see the difference?

 

[dblack]

I think most people elect politicians to create a better social environment: safe streets, higher property values, safe and productive schools, great emergency services and so on.

Most of them do, which is the problem. A lot of people simply see government as a one-stop-shop for anything and everything people might want. And that's very dangerous.

Or do you believe that it's not a politicians concern to bring businesses and jobs to the area?

It's not, no. Again, that's socialism.