Corporate welfare in action ....

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Well that's the point I'm making. It's never going to stop. Taxation will never be equitable for all.

For instance half of our property taxes here goes to our schools. Me nor any of my tenants have ever had children in our school system, but we pay a ton of money to the schools because of the size of my property. Now the woman down the street has four kids in the school system. Her property is less than a third of mine so she pays less than a third of taxes that I pay to the schools. Is that fair to me? Of course not. Why am I paying more for the school system that we don't use than she does using the school system? It's not fair.

The fair thing to do is tax people based on how much they use the school system instead. But again, that will never happen because taxation in the US will always be unfair.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

It's not wrong if the governments doing the abatements make more than they are giving. It doesn't look that way in this case.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Putting different taxes on different things doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. What the government can't do is make one person or corporation pay property tax at one rate while other persons or corporations have to pay another rate. If they had a special low income tax rate solely for Ray From Cleveland, that would also be a violation.

 

[dblack]

??? 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?

In fact, Ray From Cleveland - I'd argue that tax abatements will, in most cases, require tax rates to go up (for everyone else). Either that, or government will have to cut spending, without reducing taxes. Either way, the non-abated taxpayer gets screwed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

It's not "wrong," it is corruption. Is corruption the model we want our society built on? In China, workers must bribe their boss to be hired. It is accepted and just part of their business model. Should we adopt the same? How does bribing Apple to build in a particular spot fundamentally differ?

 

[dblack]

Well that's the point I'm making. It's never going to stop. Taxation will never be equitable for all.

That's not the goal. Or not my goal, anyway. I want government to stop using taxes as a means of controlling society.

The fair thing to do is tax people based on how much they use the school system instead. But again, that will never happen because taxation in the US will always be unfair.

User-fee taxation is silly. If a government service doesn't benefit everyone, and can't be justified by taxing everyone for it equally, it shouldn't be a government service.

 

[bripat9643]

Well that's the point I'm making. It's never going to stop. Taxation will never be equitable for all.

That's not the goal. Or not my goal, anyway. I want government to stop using taxes as a means of controlling society.

The fair thing to do is tax people based on how much they use the school system instead. But again, that will never happen because taxation in the US will always be unfair.

User-fee taxation is silly. If a government service doesn't benefit everyone, and can't be justified by taxing everyone for it equally, it shouldn't be a government service.

You have just shot down the justification for government schools.

 

[dblack]

Well that's the point I'm making. It's never going to stop. Taxation will never be equitable for all.

That's not the goal. Or not my goal, anyway. I want government to stop using taxes as a means of controlling society.

The fair thing to do is tax people based on how much they use the school system instead. But again, that will never happen because taxation in the US will always be unfair.

User-fee taxation is silly. If a government service doesn't benefit everyone, and can't be justified by taxing everyone for it equally, it shouldn't be a government service.

You have just shot down the justification for government schools.

Yep.

 

[Brain357]

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.

The tax is the same for everyone who smokes. What would be wrong is if Ray pays one rate and Bob pays another.

 

[dblack]

The tax is the same for everyone who smokes. What would be wrong is if Ray pays one rate and Bob pays another.

It's debatable. Are smokers getting equal protection? Or are they being targeted?

The issue is really broader than equal protection. It's also about government using taxation as backdoor legislation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The tax is the same for everyone who smokes. What would be wrong is if Ray pays one rate and Bob pays another.

It's debatable. Are smokers getting equal protection? Or are they being targeted?

The issue is really broader than equal protection. It's also about government using taxation as backdoor legislation.

Are "smokers" a race? Or is smoking a voluntary act? If it is an act, there is no reason it should not be taxed.

Direct taxes are immoral and inherently corrupt, but indirect taxes on transactions means that all will be treated the same. The checker has no idea who you are if you buy cigarettes, they don't know or care if you are a "smoker." If you buy the goods, you pay tax on the goods, regardless of who you are or who you know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The tax is the same for everyone who smokes. What would be wrong is if Ray pays one rate and Bob pays another.

No, that's not an apples to apples comparison. That would be like saying if Amazon gets a tax abatement, Google should get the same abatement if they move in the same area, but that doesn't apply to other industries.

Alcohol and tobacco are consumer products just like the rest. Bush beer is no less of a beverage than Pepsi or Mountain Dew, yet one beverage has an additional tax the other doesn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well that's the point I'm making. It's never going to stop. Taxation will never be equitable for all.

That's not the goal. Or not my goal, anyway. I want government to stop using taxes as a means of controlling society.

The fair thing to do is tax people based on how much they use the school system instead. But again, that will never happen because taxation in the US will always be unfair.

User-fee taxation is silly. If a government service doesn't benefit everyone, and can't be justified by taxing everyone for it equally, it shouldn't be a government service.

Some would argue that schools do benefit everyone, and I disagree. Schools do not benefit everyone--only the individual attending the school. But if I fought that to the Supreme Court, do you think they would rule that me being taxed for a school I have absolutely no use for violates my 14th amendment rights?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

It's not "wrong," it is corruption. Is corruption the model we want our society built on? In China, workers must bribe their boss to be hired. It is accepted and just part of their business model. Should we adopt the same? How does bribing Apple to build in a particular spot fundamentally differ?

It's not a bribe in any way. I just got home from the grocery store. They had a sale on Hostess Cupcakes. It was two boxes for five dollars. Normally they are $4.50 a box. Nobody is bribing me to buy the cupcakes. They are just making the cupcakes a more attractive item to persuade me into buying them.

That's the same thing tax abatements do. They make the city more attractive to the business.

By the way, I bought four boxes of cupcakes today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

??? 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?

In fact, Ray From Cleveland - I'd argue that tax abatements will, in most cases, require tax rates to go up (for everyone else). Either that, or government will have to cut spending, without reducing taxes. Either way, the non-abated taxpayer gets screwed.

Once again, tax abatement does not mean no taxes. A tax abatement is just lower taxes.

If there is vacant land somewhere that is not bringing in tax revenue, but then the city offers an abatement to a company that will move in and pay taxes, it's all positive.

Without the abatement, the company would have paid 4 million dollars in taxes. Because of the abatement, they will only pay 2 million dollars in taxes. How would that cause a tax increase on anybody? That's 2 million dollars more a year a city has than before.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Putting different taxes on different things doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. What the government can't do is make one person or corporation pay property tax at one rate while other persons or corporations have to pay another rate. If they had a special low income tax rate solely for Ray From Cleveland, that would also be a violation.

In late July I had a hearing downtown to lower my property taxes. I got partly what I wanted which was an appraisal for lower property value. That means I will be paying less taxes since I filed the complaint last year (It's retroactive). My neighbor also complained about his property taxes, but he said it was too much trouble to take a day off of work to fight the county.

So now I am paying less taxes than my neighbor because I stepped up to the plate and fought for lower taxes. If anything, his taxes will increase.

That's not corruption at all. It's a deal I made with the county that my neighbor did not make. True, they didn't lower the tax rate, but what difference does that make? I'm still paying less than my neighbor.

 

[Brain357]

??? 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?

In fact, Ray From Cleveland - I'd argue that tax abatements will, in most cases, require tax rates to go up (for everyone else). Either that, or government will have to cut spending, without reducing taxes. Either way, the non-abated taxpayer gets screwed.

Once again, tax abatement does not mean no taxes. A tax abatement is just lower taxes.

If there is vacant land somewhere that is not bringing in tax revenue, but then the city offers an abatement to a company that will move in and pay taxes, it's all positive.

Without the abatement, the company would have paid 4 million dollars in taxes. Because of the abatement, they will only pay 2 million dollars in taxes. How would that cause a tax increase on anybody? That's 2 million dollars more a year a city has than before.

In your Amazon deal it mean practically no taxes. And they are borrowing 123 million for this deal. So the town is going deeply in debt. That will equal higher taxes for somebody eventually. Even if the Amazon location is valued at 100 million at less than 1% tax they won't be making up anywhere near the 123 million borrowed.

Leave it to the free market and maybe next year a company moves in and pays the full taxes and the town doesn't borrow 123 million.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The tax is the same for everyone who smokes. What would be wrong is if Ray pays one rate and Bob pays another.

No, that's not an apples to apples comparison. That would be like saying if Amazon gets a tax abatement, Google should get the same abatement if they move in the same area, but that doesn't apply to other industries.

Alcohol and tobacco are consumer products just like the rest. Bush beer is no less of a beverage than Pepsi or Mountain Dew, yet one beverage has an additional tax the other doesn't.

Beer is an alcoholic beverage. Don't pretend there's no difference between beer and Coca Cola. The government doesn't have a special tax for Budweiser. It has a tax on all alcoholic beverages. The equivalent to a tax abatement would be if every brand of beer had to pay the tax but Budweiser was exempt.

 

[bripat9643]

??? 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?

In fact, Ray From Cleveland - I'd argue that tax abatements will, in most cases, require tax rates to go up (for everyone else). Either that, or government will have to cut spending, without reducing taxes. Either way, the non-abated taxpayer gets screwed.

Once again, tax abatement does not mean no taxes. A tax abatement is just lower taxes.

If there is vacant land somewhere that is not bringing in tax revenue, but then the city offers an abatement to a company that will move in and pay taxes, it's all positive.

Without the abatement, the company would have paid 4 million dollars in taxes. Because of the abatement, they will only pay 2 million dollars in taxes. How would that cause a tax increase on anybody? That's 2 million dollars more a year a city has than before.

In your Amazon deal it mean practically no taxes. And they are borrowing 123 million for this deal. So the town is going deeply in debt. That will equal higher taxes for somebody eventually. Even if the Amazon location is valued at 100 million at less than 1% tax they won't be making up anywhere near the 123 million borrowed.

Leave it to the free market and maybe next year a company moves in and pays the full taxes and the town doesn't borrow 123 million.

The "second headquarters" is going to cost $5 billion. Something in that ballpark is what they will pay property taxes on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The tax is the same for everyone who smokes. What would be wrong is if Ray pays one rate and Bob pays another.

No, that's not an apples to apples comparison. That would be like saying if Amazon gets a tax abatement, Google should get the same abatement if they move in the same area, but that doesn't apply to other industries.

Alcohol and tobacco are consumer products just like the rest. Bush beer is no less of a beverage than Pepsi or Mountain Dew, yet one beverage has an additional tax the other doesn't.

Beer is an alcoholic beverage. Don't pretend there's no difference between beer and Coca Cola. The government doesn't have a special tax for Budweiser. It has a tax on all alcoholic beverages. The equivalent to a tax abatement would be if every brand of beer had to pay the tax but Budweiser was exempt.

A beverage is a beverage just like industry is industry.