Corporate welfare in action ....

[Brain357]

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?

In this case, it's the State of Iowa providing the incentives pursuant to competing with other States for the facility in question.

This is a problem for the residents of the Iowan Laboratory of Democracy to deal with and is largely irrelevant to the larger problem of FEDERAL corporate welfare choosing winners and losers and lining the pockets of favored corporate constituencies.

IMHO unless you're a citizen of Iowa you really don't have a stake in this particular case and if you are you can express your opinion at the voting booth.

The Constitution requires states to ensure equal protection of the law. That means nobody gets special exemptions because of who they are or any quid-pro-quo they may offer.

I understand where you are coming from and why corporate welfare bothers you (corporate welfare bothers me too) but if you think about this particular case in a different way I believe you'll see why this doesn't fit the bill for a case of corporate welfare or have any applicability for equal protection (or Article I section 8 Commerce).

This transaction represents a State Government EXPENDITURE, just like any of the other expenditures that State Governments make, like for example building a road. If the State wants to build a road, it'll follow whatever bidding process is prescribed by it's State Constitution and it's legislative process and award the contract to some company to build it, all of some companies competitors don't have an equal protections case because they didn't win the bid do they? They don't have any commerce clause recourse do they? The only legal recourse they would have is if they could demonstrate the process was rigged, right?

The same case here, Apple put this proposal out for "bid" to some amount of States and the State Government of Iowa decided (based on some criteria) that it was in the best interest of the State to buy it and offered a bid to Apple, this didn't mean that any other company couldn't offer up similar proposals to the State of Iowa, just means Apple offered up the (in the opinions of the Government decision makers) the best deal for the money spent.

Could a smaller company get the same deal?

 

[danielpalos]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What do you call it? Public assistance.

 

[danielpalos]

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!!

They also pay taxes. Coincidence or conspiracy.

 

[danielpalos]

Corporate welfare produces jobs and a desired product.

Social welfare produces urine and feces.

You make the call.

Why have wars on crime, drugs, and terror instead of better lavatories.

 

[danielpalos]

Iowa isnt exactly Silly-conehead Calif.

that 200 million dollar investment will pay for itself in nothing flat and boost the local and state economy from now until the day Apple decides to go.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, will help more people.

 

[NightFox]

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?

In this case, it's the State of Iowa providing the incentives pursuant to competing with other States for the facility in question.

This is a problem for the residents of the Iowan Laboratory of Democracy to deal with and is largely irrelevant to the larger problem of FEDERAL corporate welfare choosing winners and losers and lining the pockets of favored corporate constituencies.

IMHO unless you're a citizen of Iowa you really don't have a stake in this particular case and if you are you can express your opinion at the voting booth.

The Constitution requires states to ensure equal protection of the law. That means nobody gets special exemptions because of who they are or any quid-pro-quo they may offer.

I understand where you are coming from and why corporate welfare bothers you (corporate welfare bothers me too) but if you think about this particular case in a different way I believe you'll see why this doesn't fit the bill for a case of corporate welfare or have any applicability for equal protection (or Article I section 8 Commerce).

This transaction represents a State Government EXPENDITURE, just like any of the other expenditures that State Governments make, like for example building a road. If the State wants to build a road, it'll follow whatever bidding process is prescribed by it's State Constitution and it's legislative process and award the contract to some company to build it, all of some companies competitors don't have an equal protections case because they didn't win the bid do they? They don't have any commerce clause recourse do they? The only legal recourse they would have is if they could demonstrate the process was rigged, right?

The same case here, Apple put this proposal out for "bid" to some amount of States and the State Government of Iowa decided (based on some criteria) that it was in the best interest of the State to buy it and offered a bid to Apple, this didn't mean that any other company couldn't offer up similar proposals to the State of Iowa, just means Apple offered up the (in the opinions of the Government decision makers) the best deal for the money spent.

Could a smaller company get the same deal?

Could a smaller company offer the same deal?

Remember the State expects to get something in return for the money it's spending, a smaller company definitely could get a similar TYPE deal (i.e. come build your facility here instead of in another State) but the geometry of deal would be commensurate with the size of the return the State expects to receive for the ask.

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time, in fact it's not uncommon that States give preferential treatment to smaller companies under certain circumstances.

 

[danielpalos]

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!!

I get that. But it's irrelevant. The question is equal protection. Should everyone be allowed to "buy" tax abatements?

Go ahead, pen a strongly worded letter to the Teachers unions about it.

???

Stock holders own the corporation and benefit from the wealth the corporation generates. In many cases the owners are public pension funds like the Teachers union pension funds. So who are you really angry with, the CEO who is just hired to run the corporation or the actual owners and beneficiaries of the corporation?

The People are the Taxpayers.

 

[Siete]

States advertising tax breaks to attract new business is nothing new.




Iowa is no industrial complex. Maybe they're trying to be.

 

[danielpalos]

Liberals love employment but hate employers.

alleged conservatives love the rich and hate the poor.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In reality Capitalism, the big companies determine winners and losers. That is just like your Masters' twin brother, Big Government. It's as if the NBA champions got the #1 draft pick.

 

[Brain357]

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?

In this case, it's the State of Iowa providing the incentives pursuant to competing with other States for the facility in question.

This is a problem for the residents of the Iowan Laboratory of Democracy to deal with and is largely irrelevant to the larger problem of FEDERAL corporate welfare choosing winners and losers and lining the pockets of favored corporate constituencies.

IMHO unless you're a citizen of Iowa you really don't have a stake in this particular case and if you are you can express your opinion at the voting booth.

The Constitution requires states to ensure equal protection of the law. That means nobody gets special exemptions because of who they are or any quid-pro-quo they may offer.

I understand where you are coming from and why corporate welfare bothers you (corporate welfare bothers me too) but if you think about this particular case in a different way I believe you'll see why this doesn't fit the bill for a case of corporate welfare or have any applicability for equal protection (or Article I section 8 Commerce).

This transaction represents a State Government EXPENDITURE, just like any of the other expenditures that State Governments make, like for example building a road. If the State wants to build a road, it'll follow whatever bidding process is prescribed by it's State Constitution and it's legislative process and award the contract to some company to build it, all of some companies competitors don't have an equal protections case because they didn't win the bid do they? They don't have any commerce clause recourse do they? The only legal recourse they would have is if they could demonstrate the process was rigged, right?

The same case here, Apple put this proposal out for "bid" to some amount of States and the State Government of Iowa decided (based on some criteria) that it was in the best interest of the State to buy it and offered a bid to Apple, this didn't mean that any other company couldn't offer up similar proposals to the State of Iowa, just means Apple offered up the (in the opinions of the Government decision makers) the best deal for the money spent.

Could a smaller company get the same deal?

Could a smaller company offer the same deal?

Remember the State expects to get something in return for the money it's spending, a smaller company definitely could get a similar TYPE deal (i.e. come build your facility here instead of in another State) but the geometry of deal would be commensurate with the size of the return the State expects to receive for the ask.

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time, in fact it's not uncommon that States give preferential treatment to smaller companies under certain circumstances.

So no. Don't you think big companies already have enough advantages? You trust big gov to make the right deals?

 

[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?

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

oh silly ignorance is just bull crud!

 

[danielpalos]

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...

Sorry, but life isn't fair and neither is taxation.

It is government picking winners and losers, which is completely antithetical to conservatism and libertarianism.

Only a pseudocon would support this kind of government interference and behavioral control in the markets.

Dont lie. Every liberal supports this as well and uses it to make sure welfare is never ever cut.

Only the right wing does that; and they complain about welfare for the poor, in the same breath.

 

[Siete]

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...

Sorry, but life isn't fair and neither is taxation.

It is government picking winners and losers, which is completely antithetical to conservatism and libertarianism.

Only a pseudocon would support this kind of government interference and behavioral control in the markets.

Dont lie. Every liberal supports this as well and uses it to make sure welfare is never ever cut.

Only the right wing does that; and they complain about welfare for the poor, in the same breath.

bad taxes, BAD !

eliminate tax for start ups ...

OH HELL NO, CANT HAVE THAT SHIT.




SOLUTION;

states do what the hell they want to and screw everyone else ..

 

[danielpalos]

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

That sounds fair...

Sorry, but life isn't fair and neither is taxation.

It is government picking winners and losers, which is completely antithetical to conservatism and libertarianism.

Only a pseudocon would support this kind of government interference and behavioral control in the markets.

Dont lie. Every liberal supports this as well and uses it to make sure welfare is never ever cut.

Only the right wing does that; and they complain about welfare for the poor, in the same breath.

bad taxes, BAD !

eliminate tax for start ups ...

OH HELL NO, CANT HAVE THAT SHIT.




SOLUTION;

states do what the hell they want to and screw everyone else ..

Eliminate the work tax; who cares if capitalists have to pay taxes.

 

[dblack]

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.

Bootlickers Inhale Bootpolish Fumes


I'm totally sure you understand it perfectly well and are trying to get brownie points with your spoiled-putrid Masters.

You're really confused.

 

[GHook93]

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 losers need to get a grip on reality. This is not a welfare program, this is a smart business move by both parties. The state gets a bunch of high paying data processing and maintenance jobs and the business gets a nice incentive


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[NightFox]

In this case, it's the State of Iowa providing the incentives pursuant to competing with other States for the facility in question.

This is a problem for the residents of the Iowan Laboratory of Democracy to deal with and is largely irrelevant to the larger problem of FEDERAL corporate welfare choosing winners and losers and lining the pockets of favored corporate constituencies.

IMHO unless you're a citizen of Iowa you really don't have a stake in this particular case and if you are you can express your opinion at the voting booth.

The Constitution requires states to ensure equal protection of the law. That means nobody gets special exemptions because of who they are or any quid-pro-quo they may offer.

I understand where you are coming from and why corporate welfare bothers you (corporate welfare bothers me too) but if you think about this particular case in a different way I believe you'll see why this doesn't fit the bill for a case of corporate welfare or have any applicability for equal protection (or Article I section 8 Commerce).

This transaction represents a State Government EXPENDITURE, just like any of the other expenditures that State Governments make, like for example building a road. If the State wants to build a road, it'll follow whatever bidding process is prescribed by it's State Constitution and it's legislative process and award the contract to some company to build it, all of some companies competitors don't have an equal protections case because they didn't win the bid do they? They don't have any commerce clause recourse do they? The only legal recourse they would have is if they could demonstrate the process was rigged, right?

The same case here, Apple put this proposal out for "bid" to some amount of States and the State Government of Iowa decided (based on some criteria) that it was in the best interest of the State to buy it and offered a bid to Apple, this didn't mean that any other company couldn't offer up similar proposals to the State of Iowa, just means Apple offered up the (in the opinions of the Government decision makers) the best deal for the money spent.

Could a smaller company get the same deal?

Could a smaller company offer the same deal?

Remember the State expects to get something in return for the money it's spending, a smaller company definitely could get a similar TYPE deal (i.e. come build your facility here instead of in another State) but the geometry of deal would be commensurate with the size of the return the State expects to receive for the ask.

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time, in fact it's not uncommon that States give preferential treatment to smaller companies under certain circumstances.

So no. Don't you think big companies already have enough advantages?

What advantage are you talking about? This is a TWO sided transaction, Apple is offering value in return for value, that's why there were multiple states trying to win the deal. If you take away the monetary incentives then the States with labor force, infrastructure and regulatory advantages would win ALL the business and leave States with competitive disadvantages in these areas to get steadily poorer.

Do you think a small company should get the same price when they're offering a smaller return to the State? getting LESS in return for the same amount of money, wouldn't that be a stupid ass business decision on the States part?

You trust big gov to make the right deals?

I don't trust government to do anything right but that's irrelevant to whether or not this particular case represents corporate welfare, a violation of equal protections or infringement on the commerce clause.

 

[Brain357]

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 losers need to get a grip on reality. This is not a welfare program, this is a smart business move by both parties. The state gets a bunch of high paying data processing and maintenance jobs and the business gets a nice incentive


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Government picking winners and losers. You must love government.

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What do you call it? Public assistance.

Without corporations you libs would be killing each other in the streets over food.