Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
??? 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.??? 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.
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.
Skating isn't the issue. Paying below the market rate is the issue.??? 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.
Their tax abatement is for 75% on land taxes. That means they will be paying 25% land taxes on 70 acres. The loan will be repaid in full and then some I'm sure. I can't picture a company as huge as Amazon skating on a 123 million dollar loan, so that's pretty irrelevant.
No, They are calling it their 2nd headquarters.The "second headquarters" is going to cost $5 billion. Something in that ballpark is what they will pay property taxes on.??? 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.
Aren't we talking about a fulfillment center kinda like this one that cost $30 million?
https://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/...o-build-monroe-distribution-center-1-000.html
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.
Sorry, but the government is free to define the category of good it is taxing any way it likes.
No, They are calling it their 2nd headquarters.The "second headquarters" is going to cost $5 billion. Something in that ballpark is what they will pay property taxes on.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.
Aren't we talking about a fulfillment center kinda like this one that cost $30 million?
https://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/...o-build-monroe-distribution-center-1-000.html
Amazon to add second headquarters with up to 50,000 jobs in grab for talent
No, They are calling it their 2nd headquarters.The "second headquarters" is going to cost $5 billion. Something in that ballpark is what they will pay property taxes on.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.
Aren't we talking about a fulfillment center kinda like this one that cost $30 million?
https://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/...o-build-monroe-distribution-center-1-000.html
Amazon to add second headquarters with up to 50,000 jobs in grab for talent
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.
Sorry, but the government is free to define the category of good it is taxing any way it likes.
Correct and they do it all the time beyond tax abatements. But in your comparison of two different brands of beer is like saying it's fair to give Target and Walmart the same tax break because they are both stores, but not give tax breaks to the widget factory two doors away. They are all industry but may be taxed differently as categorized by the government.
Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.What would you call it then when corporations get free money?
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.
Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.
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.
Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.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.
Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.
That's pure bullshit. Welfare doesn't add a dime to "the economy," whatever that is supposed to mean.
Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."
Thousands of additional cars that inflict wear and tear on the roads, plus the additional personnel needed to police them.You can dispute the exact amount all you like, but the fact is that a huge new business would be imposing a significant additional cost on city and state government. Just the additional traffic would be a significant additional cost.The new business is using .6 million in services.
Utter bull. Nobody would give tax abatements if that were true.
And you don't think the city or state had that figured out when they made the offer? What are those additional costs? A new stoplight or two, perhaps an additional lane to a main road?
No, cars do not do all that much damage to the roads. Up here, it's mostly the snow and ice. The new Amazon will be built on Route 8 which already has trucks on it. Plus when the North Randall Mall was built, they built the roads wide enough to handle heavy traffic. After all, during it's day, North Randall Mall was the largest mall in the country, and people from all over the country to shop there.
Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.
Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.
Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.
That's pure bullshit. Welfare doesn't add a dime to "the economy," whatever that is supposed to mean.
Perhaps not in Canada, but in the United States of America;
Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."
The Economic Case for Food Stamps
I just showed you I would.Ok give us all the details of this deal then and we will discuss.
Services would of course be things like municipal services. Do I really need to go into those AGAIN?
Yes, because I don't see any costs to a city when a business like Amazon moves in. They still need to plow the streets, they still need to maintain the streets, perhaps if an employee gets injured, they may need a rescue squad or something like that. But outside of emergency services which the company will seldom use, what costs to a city?
As for the details, they are not available right now. But what I do know is that Amazon will be paying more to the village than a pile of rocks.
Ok so then if there are no services to be paid for give the same deal to all corporations in the city. Wait you already said they can't afford to do that. So then there are obviously services to be paid for.
Ok so you are calling it a big win for the town without any details? You sound like a politician. I suspect by the time the details are released and not so good, things will be too far along...
Do you think this is new or something? CEO's and city leaders have been dealing with this issue for decades.
I never said there are no city services to be paid for, I said that the new company won't be generating a need for them.
I'm on the same side as you on most issues, but you're wrong on this one. These tax abatement schemes are corporate welfare. Even if one state or city benefits from an individual case, when they all do it they are just playing beggar thy neighbor and they all get screwed. The taxpayers end up subsidizing certain favored corporations and screwing all the other businesses in the city.
Not really because the other businesses will not be affected. They will have the same business, pay the same taxes they've always paid, nothing will change for them.
What happens is the city gets a new tax revenue stream. That's good for everybody involved.
Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.
Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.
That's pure bullshit. Welfare doesn't add a dime to "the economy," whatever that is supposed to mean.
Perhaps not in Canada, but in the United States of America;
Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."
The Economic Case for Food Stamps
That's propaganda, not economics. Giving stuff to freeloaders who have done nothing to earn it does not increase the GDP of the United States one penny.
Thousands of additional cars that inflict wear and tear on the roads, plus the additional personnel needed to police them.You can dispute the exact amount all you like, but the fact is that a huge new business would be imposing a significant additional cost on city and state government. Just the additional traffic would be a significant additional cost.Utter bull. Nobody would give tax abatements if that were true.
And you don't think the city or state had that figured out when they made the offer? What are those additional costs? A new stoplight or two, perhaps an additional lane to a main road?
No, cars do not do all that much damage to the roads. Up here, it's mostly the snow and ice. The new Amazon will be built on Route 8 which already has trucks on it. Plus when the North Randall Mall was built, they built the roads wide enough to handle heavy traffic. After all, during it's day, North Randall Mall was the largest mall in the country, and people from all over the country to shop there.
Isn't it ironic that what closed the mall is taking it's place?
Is the village ready for double or triple the truck traffic which will increase maintenance?
How long before the citizens of the village realize they need that 75% discount on property taxes?
Amazon is a Delaware corporation, so the village doesn't share in tax revenue.
We should have no income taxes?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.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.
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?
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.
Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.
Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.
Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.
That's pure bullshit. Welfare doesn't add a dime to "the economy," whatever that is supposed to mean.
Perhaps not in Canada, but in the United States of America;
Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."
The Economic Case for Food Stamps
