Corporate welfare in action ....

[Brain357]

Big government picking winners and losers.

Cities and states are not big government.

Yes it is. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Not if you believe in the free market.

Calamity Carly

That's more hypocrisy than I can bear. You private-sector eliists have no problem with HeirDads pre-positioning their sons up halfway to the finish line. And now they even pick their daughters to be winners, which is the real reason they started feminism.

I'm pretty sure you aren't making any sense.

 

[Timmy]

Apple is an awful company . Who happen to make billions off the American market while shipping jobs overseas (where they abuse workers ).

Let's reward them with tax abatements !!!

And you don't think Microsoft ships jobs overseas?

Last I priced it, an I-phone is around $700.00. If it were made in the US, the price would be closer to $1,500.

Got a link ? Cause I remember a story where the diff would be more like $50.

 

[OnePercenter]

Our friend thinks it's unfair to the small guy because the big guy gets a break. I'm not sure I agree. I think an argument can be made that a company who will hire 50 people in a community might deserve to pay less in taxes than the company who employs 5. The bottom line, it's really up to the local community to make these decisions. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and said you must take this deal.

The mom and pop shops are going to pay the same taxes whether the big guy gets a tax break or not. It's like the age old argument that we shouldn't throw away food because somebody in China is starving. If I don't throw any food away, how would that help anybody in China????

Mom and Pop stores are not hurt by Apple getting a tax abatement for moving there. If anything, it helps the mom and pop stores. The thing that hurts smaller outlets are the internet sales--not Apple or anybody else moving into their areas. So should we make it illegal to purchase anything off the internet?

Walmart did, and it also hurt the local economy.

You're wrong about not hurting the mom and pops. What is the average age of the workers? The younger they are, the less likely they will shop in stores but use online. Most taxi cab services are mom and pop. What has Uber and Lyft done to those businesses? Two words.....Radio Shack.

No, you're wrong. Walmart helps the local economy.

A neighboring suburb built a brand new mall about seven years ago. Of course, Walmart was the highlight of the mall. But Walmart later wanted to have a Super Walmart in the area, but they were under contract with their store in the new mall.

Walmart found a way out of the contract, and today the new mall only has one store left. That's because all those smaller stores had a condition of agreement that their contract would be null and void if the "anchor store" moves from the mall. The Anchor Store (Walmart) was gone and those smaller stores couldn't' survive. They had to close up.

Walmart did build their Super Walmart about ten miles away in another suburb.

In any case, Walmart is very often the anchor store of a shopping area. Walmart draws people in, and those people shop at other smaller stores after they buy their goods from Walmart. But because they left the mall (called City View) we have a mall full of empty stores that were once occupied. It was a great place to shop too. Very convenient right off the highway.

I don't know about where you live, but we've never had a Mom and Pop cab service in the area. They were larger cab companies.

Here are tens reasons that prove you wrong.

10 reasons you should never, ever shop at Walmart

I'll add an eleventh.

When a subsidy for a certain store drys up a mysterious plumbing problem occurs and the store closes.

Kinda sounds like the Mafia.

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

You could always just let the jobs move overseas...

Don't you think if that was possible they would have? English speakers are getting more and more difficult to find off-shore. Dell found that out and moved their business to business service back to the US. Of course, consumers are screwed.

Most businesses want to be as close to their customers as possible to reduce shipping costs. If it's more of a financial advantage to move overseas, they will. If shipping costs outweigh the benefits of cheaper taxes and labor, they stay.

The proximity of a business is only necessary if the business has interaction with the customer. Barber, yes, customer support, no.

The ONLY advantage of off-shoring is employee pay.

Shipping costs are minimal, ask Amazon.

I'm not talking about shipping a single jump drive to a customers house, I'm talking about bulk shipping back to the US.

When imported goods come in, they don't drive a ship to your local Walmart store. Those ships have to be unloaded at various ports around the country. Once unloaded, the freight has to be inspected and counted by dock workers. Paperwork must be processed and recreated for shipment out of the shipping docks.

From there, those goods get loaded on trucks (or trains if they have tracks in their port) and hauled off to warehouses across the country. If by truck, the truck can go directly to the warehouse. If by train, a truck has to go the train station to pick up those container trailers and then haul them to the warehouses.

Once at the warehouses, the freight has to be inspected again, at times, by border agents, repackaged at times, and more paperwork needs to get processed. Once that is complete, local trucks pickup the freight and deliver it to store warehouses and the process repeats itself.

Finally, from the store warehouses, trucks have to deliver those goods to the stores themselves.

It's a very costly operation. And from my experience, there is also some freight damage that somebody has to pay for. Many times I have picked up damaged overseas freight and had to mark it on the bill of lading to protect our company from being accused of doing the damage. I still deliver the damaged goods, but our customers have to ship those goods back or throw the items away.

In a few cases (particularly with China) the cost of getting low quality or damaged goods, having to ship it back to China, was more costly than just having the parts manufactured or processed here in the US. Some of our customers just quit doing business with China.

A container of 10,000 iPhones from the factory in China to the retailer costs $5.00 per phone (including all insurance) making the total cost to $55.00 per unit with a retail price of $700.00.

The really nifty trick is Apple uses off-shore monies thus legally launders back to the US.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You could always just let the jobs move overseas...

Don't you think if that was possible they would have? English speakers are getting more and more difficult to find off-shore. Dell found that out and moved their business to business service back to the US. Of course, consumers are screwed.

Most businesses want to be as close to their customers as possible to reduce shipping costs. If it's more of a financial advantage to move overseas, they will. If shipping costs outweigh the benefits of cheaper taxes and labor, they stay.

The proximity of a business is only necessary if the business has interaction with the customer. Barber, yes, customer support, no.

The ONLY advantage of off-shoring is employee pay.

Shipping costs are minimal, ask Amazon.

I'm not talking about shipping a single jump drive to a customers house, I'm talking about bulk shipping back to the US.

When imported goods come in, they don't drive a ship to your local Walmart store. Those ships have to be unloaded at various ports around the country. Once unloaded, the freight has to be inspected and counted by dock workers. Paperwork must be processed and recreated for shipment out of the shipping docks.

From there, those goods get loaded on trucks (or trains if they have tracks in their port) and hauled off to warehouses across the country. If by truck, the truck can go directly to the warehouse. If by train, a truck has to go the train station to pick up those container trailers and then haul them to the warehouses.

Once at the warehouses, the freight has to be inspected again, at times, by border agents, repackaged at times, and more paperwork needs to get processed. Once that is complete, local trucks pickup the freight and deliver it to store warehouses and the process repeats itself.

Finally, from the store warehouses, trucks have to deliver those goods to the stores themselves.

It's a very costly operation. And from my experience, there is also some freight damage that somebody has to pay for. Many times I have picked up damaged overseas freight and had to mark it on the bill of lading to protect our company from being accused of doing the damage. I still deliver the damaged goods, but our customers have to ship those goods back or throw the items away.

In a few cases (particularly with China) the cost of getting low quality or damaged goods, having to ship it back to China, was more costly than just having the parts manufactured or processed here in the US. Some of our customers just quit doing business with China.

A container of 10,000 iPhones from the factory in China to the retailer costs $5.00 per phone (including all insurance) making the total cost to $55.00 per unit with a retail price of $700.00.

The really nifty trick is Apple uses off-shore monies thus legally launders back to the US.

Yes, because Apple has to make a profit and pay for all the shipping expenses. Okay, an I-phone. But what about television sets? What about microwave ovens? What about musical instruments or computers? What about drill presses and weed whackers?

BTW, to manufacture one I-phone overseas, the cost of parts and labor is about $225.00.

Here's How Much the iPhone 7 Cost to Manufacture

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Big government picking winners and losers.

Cities and states are not big government.

Yes it is. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Not if you believe in the free market.

How are they picking winners and losers?

Does every company get that same deal? Or does the government give one company an advantage over another?

The government gives one company an advantage over the other. But again, let's say that the city (state) doesn't offer a tax abatement. That means the company moves to a city or state that does. How does that help the mom and pop shop? Will that reduce their taxes any? The answer is no it won't.

 

[Brain357]

Big government picking winners and losers.

Cities and states are not big government.

Yes it is. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Not if you believe in the free market.

How are they picking winners and losers?

Does every company get that same deal? Or does the government give one company an advantage over another?

The government gives one company an advantage over the other. But again, let's say that the city (state) doesn't offer a tax abatement. That means the company moves to a city or state that does. How does that help the mom and pop shop? Will that reduce their taxes any? The answer is no it won't.

Yes it is quite a silly game to play. The government picking winners and losers. One company gets a great deal and another doesn't. You must love lobbyists. In good capitalism the government does not pick winners and losers.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

Who says every other company is?

Cities and states offer abatements to attract businesses. They create jobs and new taxation for the city and state.

They are allowing 71% reduction meaning that they are collecting 29% of taxes they would not otherwise collect if the land were to sit there. That's 2,000 acres that they will be paying that 29% on. That's a hell of a lot of money.

Oh, I see. So just the local mom and pops have to pay the full freight.

That sounds fair...

how long does the break for apple last ?

Twenty years.

Apple will leave way before then.

So how is the town going to recoup the government gifts?

50 workers.

If the property is undeveloped and a company builds Offices, the property value would jump to the 10s of millions dollars. You want the full tax on a property worth $500,000 or 29% of the full tax on a property with a 10 million.

That would add a lot more revenue to a small community.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cities and states are not big government.

Yes it is. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Not if you believe in the free market.

How are they picking winners and losers?

Does every company get that same deal? Or does the government give one company an advantage over another?

The government gives one company an advantage over the other. But again, let's say that the city (state) doesn't offer a tax abatement. That means the company moves to a city or state that does. How does that help the mom and pop shop? Will that reduce their taxes any? The answer is no it won't.

Yes it is quite a silly game to play. The government picking winners and losers. One company gets a great deal and another doesn't. You must love lobbyists. In good capitalism the government does not pick winners and losers.

The government isn't picking anything. What the government is doing is trying to draw businesses to the area, create jobs, create a larger tax base, and an advantage to all that live or work in that city or state.

Riddle me this: if mom and pop are paying 12K per year in city and state taxes, and Apple moves in with a tax abatement, and mom and pop are still paying 12K a year, how are they disadvantaged? Better still, how are they advantaged by paying 12K per year in taxes if Apple does not construct their plant in their city?

There is no difference and that's the point I'm making. If Apple contributes a large amount of money to the city and state, that may help mom and pop because the city won't have to increase their taxes because of the new money created by Apple moving in. Everybody wins.

 

[Brain357]

Yes it is. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Not if you believe in the free market.

How are they picking winners and losers?

Does every company get that same deal? Or does the government give one company an advantage over another?

The government gives one company an advantage over the other. But again, let's say that the city (state) doesn't offer a tax abatement. That means the company moves to a city or state that does. How does that help the mom and pop shop? Will that reduce their taxes any? The answer is no it won't.

Yes it is quite a silly game to play. The government picking winners and losers. One company gets a great deal and another doesn't. You must love lobbyists. In good capitalism the government does not pick winners and losers.

The government isn't picking anything. What the government is doing is trying to draw businesses to the area, create jobs, create a larger tax base, and an advantage to all that live or work in that city or state.

Riddle me this: if mom and pop are paying 12K per year in city and state taxes, and Apple moves in with a tax abatement, and mom and pop are still paying 12K a year, how are they disadvantaged? Better still, how are they advantaged by paying 12K per year in taxes if Apple does not construct their plant in their city?

There is no difference and that's the point I'm making. If Apple contributes a large amount of money to the city and state, that may help mom and pop because the city won't have to increase their taxes because of the new money created by Apple moving in. Everybody wins.

Yes the government is picking winners and loser. Why do you have so much trust in the government picking? I didn't take you for such a big government guy. I believe in the free market. Good companies do well and bad companies don't. I don't believe a company should do well because they spend the most lobbying and get the best deals from the government.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

OMG!

We need to tear down statue! The question is, who's?

I know. Jobs must die...oh wait.....

 

[bripat9643]

I wonder how much in tax incentives US companies get to move to Mexico?

They get a big incentive of paying Mexican taxes instead of America's oppressive 35% corporate income tax.

 

[Care4all]

This OP obviously doesn't know what a publically traded company is, and who owns it. Hint: Countless public and private employee pension plans own Apple, omg those evil Teachers unions are sucking up corporate welfare ALARM!!

and WHY should citizens who do not have apple in their portfolio pay for it with their taxes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes the government is picking winners and loser. Why do you have so much trust in the government picking? I didn't take you for such a big government guy. I believe in the free market. Good companies do well and bad companies don't. I don't believe a company should do well because they spend the most lobbying and get the best deals from the government.

Okay, then if you believe in the free market so much, then you're all for a city or state not getting any new businesses because of taxes, right? After all, the cost of living is different depending on where you live. Local taxation is different depending on where you live, so there is no such thing as a level playing field unless the big federal government could pass a law that all city and state taxes have to be exactly the same.

Even if you could do that, then there is location to consider. People would flock to states with more favorable weather. What would the rest of the country do then?

If your city or state cannot be competitive to attract businesses, they must take measures to make their area more attractive. If no tax abatements, how would you propose they do that?

 

[Brain357]

I wonder how much in tax incentives US companies get to move to Mexico?

They get a big incentive of paying Mexican taxes instead of America's oppressive 35% corporate income tax.

Nobody pays 35%....

 

[Aldo Raine]

That is correct, I believe I read that the actual tax rate is about 18.5% after all incentives are added in.

 

[Moonglow]

I wonder how much in tax incentives US companies get to move to Mexico?

They get a big incentive of paying Mexican taxes instead of America's oppressive 35% corporate income tax.

I can tell you are not a business owner. I am and pay around 15% after tax deductions and write offs..

 

[Brain357]

Yes the government is picking winners and loser. Why do you have so much trust in the government picking? I didn't take you for such a big government guy. I believe in the free market. Good companies do well and bad companies don't. I don't believe a company should do well because they spend the most lobbying and get the best deals from the government.

Okay, then if you believe in the free market so much, then you're all for a city or state not getting any new businesses because of taxes, right? After all, the cost of living is different depending on where you live. Local taxation is different depending on where you live, so there is no such thing as a level playing field unless the big federal government could pass a law that all city and state taxes have to be exactly the same.

Even if you could do that, then there is location to consider. People would flock to states with more favorable weather. What would the rest of the country do then?

If your city or state cannot be competitive to attract businesses, they must take measures to make their area more attractive. If no tax abatements, how would you propose they do that?

There are many more factors than just taxes. Don't be so immature. If everyone flocks to the same areas the cost of land will skyrocket. It will become difficult to get good workers with all the competition. All these things should be determined by the free market, it shouldn't be the government picking winners and losers.

Cost of living is different everywhere. Access to resources is different everywhere. Infrastructure can be an important asset. A well educated workforce can be a good asset.

 

[BluesLegend]

This OP obviously doesn't know what a publically traded company is, and who owns it. Hint: Countless public and private employee pension plans own Apple, omg those evil Teachers unions are sucking up corporate welfare ALARM!!

and WHY should citizens who do not have apple in their portfolio pay for it with their taxes?

Pay for what tax revenue that does not exist? You get that currently the site for the data center is bare land not in use and generating pretty much no tax revenue right. I rate your post 4 eye rolls for stupidity

 

[Moonglow]

This OP obviously doesn't know what a publically traded company is, and who owns it. Hint: Countless public and private employee pension plans own Apple, omg those evil Teachers unions are sucking up corporate welfare ALARM!!

and WHY should citizens who do not have apple in their portfolio pay for it with their taxes?

Pay for what tax revenue that does not exist? You get that currently the site for the data center is bare land not in use and generating pretty much no tax revenue right. I rate your post 4 eye rolls for stupidity

So the office will be set up on bare land? I guess they could put up a tarp to keep the rain off them..