Corporate welfare in action ....

[Andylusion]

Oh good night....

Oh no! I accepted an offer of buy one get one free for a Big Mac at McDonalds! THEY ARE DICTATING MY ENTIRE LIFE!
.....

You're missing the key point here. We're talking about taxes - not voluntary transactions. That's why it's hard to accept the characterization of these deals as "offers".

If a mobster is running a protection racket and "offers" to let you skip your payment if you do a little job for him, would you consider that coercion? Because that's what tax incentives are doing. They're coercing behavior. They're using the power of taxation as an all-purpose tool to manipulate society.

Ok, that's good. I like that. If taxation is a mafia tool of coercion, then let's end the income tax and property tax.

Problem solved on all sides.

That's a worthy goal. Taxation is a crude and coercive means of financing government. I think we can do better. But it will take time to get there. Until then, we can at least put strict limits on government's ability to abuse the taxation power that we've granted it.

Again, I don't see this as a manipulation on society. Due tell, how has "society" been manipulated because one single company decided to move to Ohio over Florida?

It's true that manipulating one single company manipulates only a small part of society. And if we were discussing one case in isolation, and if we ignored all the other ways tax incentives are used to manipulate society, you might be able to convince me to dismiss my concerns. But, in point of fact, many business decisions are being manipulated in this way - it's becoming a standard practice of cities and states fixated on economic growth. And government routinely uses tax incentives to manipulate individual behavior as well. So, "move along, nothing to see here" just doesn't cut it.

Again, prove it. Make the case. You can say something is so, until the end of time. But until you can actually back that claim with real empirical evidence, it remains hearsay.

Can you at least provide me one single example? Just one? An example where government is directly affecting my life, through the use of a tax abatement?

I, and others, have done that repeatedly in this thread, and you just ostrich up. I don't know what else tell you. If you want to deny it, you will.

Again, government grants and subsidies I'm already against, and I oppose them in every single form.

Why are you against grants and subsidies? Can you provide an example where my life is different than it would be, if there had been no grants or subsidies?

But we're talking about a tax abatement. Can you provide an example where my life is different than it would be, if there had been no tax abatement?

I don't know anything about your life. Plenty of other people have been impacted by these policies though. This was all detailed in the articles linked in the thread. Clearly, you either haven't read, or don't believe the facts they describe. If that's your position - that it's all just "fake news" - then there really isn't much point in trying to persuade you of anything.

Sure, actually I can. Money is directly taken from my paycheck, to give to GM as a grant to develop batteries for Electric Vehicles.

Money is given as subsidy for Ethanol, which otherwise would be completely eliminated from the market lacking that money.

So I can point to numerous things that with government money, directly affect my life. Like the cost of electricity going up, to pay for subsidized 'renewable' energy, such as wind turbines.

These are things that directly impact society, that are not due to tax breaks and tax deductions and tax abatement.

I know this, because without a direct subsidy, these things would be unprofitable. No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

If your business isn't making money, getting a discount on your land tax, isn't going to magically make you profitable.

You might pick the lease spot on the left-side or right-side of the street, or town, or even state, based on lower taxes.... but a profitable business is profitable, or it isn't.

I'm not going to change which company I do business with, or buy a computer from, or where I order stuff online, based if Apple has a 'data center' in Iowa, or Amazon has an office in Dublin Ohio.

So I can confidently say that giving a tax break, to either one, will have zero impact on me, and likely have zero impact on the vast majority of people on the fact of the Earth, and I would wager even the majority in Dublin.

And no, you have no made the case. At least not so far as I have read in this thread. You have made tons of claims. But claims, are not facts.

 

[dblack]

You're missing the key point here. We're talking about taxes - not voluntary transactions. That's why it's hard to accept the characterization of these deals as "offers".

If a mobster is running a protection racket and "offers" to let you skip your payment if you do a little job for him, would you consider that coercion? Because that's what tax incentives are doing. They're coercing behavior. They're using the power of taxation as an all-purpose tool to manipulate society.

Ok, that's good. I like that. If taxation is a mafia tool of coercion, then let's end the income tax and property tax.

Problem solved on all sides.

That's a worthy goal. Taxation is a crude and coercive means of financing government. I think we can do better. But it will take time to get there. Until then, we can at least put strict limits on government's ability to abuse the taxation power that we've granted it.

Again, I don't see this as a manipulation on society. Due tell, how has "society" been manipulated because one single company decided to move to Ohio over Florida?

It's true that manipulating one single company manipulates only a small part of society. And if we were discussing one case in isolation, and if we ignored all the other ways tax incentives are used to manipulate society, you might be able to convince me to dismiss my concerns. But, in point of fact, many business decisions are being manipulated in this way - it's becoming a standard practice of cities and states fixated on economic growth. And government routinely uses tax incentives to manipulate individual behavior as well. So, "move along, nothing to see here" just doesn't cut it.

Again, prove it. Make the case. You can say something is so, until the end of time. But until you can actually back that claim with real empirical evidence, it remains hearsay.

Can you at least provide me one single example? Just one? An example where government is directly affecting my life, through the use of a tax abatement?

I, and others, have done that repeatedly in this thread, and you just ostrich up. I don't know what else tell you. If you want to deny it, you will.

Again, government grants and subsidies I'm already against, and I oppose them in every single form.

Why are you against grants and subsidies? Can you provide an example where my life is different than it would be, if there had been no grants or subsidies?

But we're talking about a tax abatement. Can you provide an example where my life is different than it would be, if there had been no tax abatement?

I don't know anything about your life. Plenty of other people have been impacted by these policies though. This was all detailed in the articles linked in the thread. Clearly, you either haven't read, or don't believe the facts they describe. If that's your position - that it's all just "fake news" - then there really isn't much point in trying to persuade you of anything.

Sure, actually I can. Money is directly taken from my paycheck, to give to GM as a grant to develop batteries for Electric Vehicles.

What proof do you have that your money went to GM? Maybe your money went to Planned Parenthood, and GM got someone else's money. Do you have some way of tracking where your tax money gets spent?

Money is given as subsidy for Ethanol, which otherwise would be completely eliminated from the market lacking that money.

So I can point to numerous things that with government money, directly affect my life. Like the cost of electricity going up, to pay for subsidized 'renewable' energy, such as wind turbines.

These are things that directly impact society, that are not due to tax breaks and tax deductions and tax abatement.

Do you have proof of that? Tax deductions, breaks, abatements, incentives, etc... are used to accomplish all the same things as grants and subsidies. If government gives tax breaks to people who install solar panels or more efficient appliances, how is that any different from subsidies to pay for wind turbines?

I know this, because without a direct subsidy, these things would be unprofitable. No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Of course it can. Especially if the business is competing with other companies who don't get the special tax breaks.

You're being logically inconsistent - condoning preferential treatment in one case, and condemning it in another. What is the "one weird trick" that makes it OK in one case, but not in another?

 

[Andylusion]

Ok, that's good. I like that. If taxation is a mafia tool of coercion, then let's end the income tax and property tax.

Problem solved on all sides.

That's a worthy goal. Taxation is a crude and coercive means of financing government. I think we can do better. But it will take time to get there. Until then, we can at least put strict limits on government's ability to abuse the taxation power that we've granted it.

Again, I don't see this as a manipulation on society. Due tell, how has "society" been manipulated because one single company decided to move to Ohio over Florida?

It's true that manipulating one single company manipulates only a small part of society. And if we were discussing one case in isolation, and if we ignored all the other ways tax incentives are used to manipulate society, you might be able to convince me to dismiss my concerns. But, in point of fact, many business decisions are being manipulated in this way - it's becoming a standard practice of cities and states fixated on economic growth. And government routinely uses tax incentives to manipulate individual behavior as well. So, "move along, nothing to see here" just doesn't cut it.

Again, prove it. Make the case. You can say something is so, until the end of time. But until you can actually back that claim with real empirical evidence, it remains hearsay.

Can you at least provide me one single example? Just one? An example where government is directly affecting my life, through the use of a tax abatement?

I, and others, have done that repeatedly in this thread, and you just ostrich up. I don't know what else tell you. If you want to deny it, you will.

Again, government grants and subsidies I'm already against, and I oppose them in every single form.

Why are you against grants and subsidies? Can you provide an example where my life is different than it would be, if there had been no grants or subsidies?

But we're talking about a tax abatement. Can you provide an example where my life is different than it would be, if there had been no tax abatement?

I don't know anything about your life. Plenty of other people have been impacted by these policies though. This was all detailed in the articles linked in the thread. Clearly, you either haven't read, or don't believe the facts they describe. If that's your position - that it's all just "fake news" - then there really isn't much point in trying to persuade you of anything.

Sure, actually I can. Money is directly taken from my paycheck, to give to GM as a grant to develop batteries for Electric Vehicles.

What proof do you have that your money went to GM? Maybe your money went to Planned Parenthood, and GM got someone else's money. Do you have some way of tracking where your tax money gets spent?

Money is given as subsidy for Ethanol, which otherwise would be completely eliminated from the market lacking that money.

So I can point to numerous things that with government money, directly affect my life. Like the cost of electricity going up, to pay for subsidized 'renewable' energy, such as wind turbines.

These are things that directly impact society, that are not due to tax breaks and tax deductions and tax abatement.

Do you have proof of that? Tax deductions, breaks, abatements, incentives, etc... are used to accomplish all the same things as grants and subsidies. If government gives tax breaks to people who install solar panels or more efficient appliances, how is that any different from subsidies to pay for wind turbines?

I know this, because without a direct subsidy, these things would be unprofitable. No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Of course it can. Especially if the business is competing with other companies who don't get the special tax breaks.

You're being logically inconsistent - condoning preferential treatment in one case, and condemning it in another. What is the "one weird trick" that makes it OK in one case, but not in another?

What proof do you have that your money went to GM? Maybe your money went to Planned Parenthood, and GM got someone else's money. Do you have some way of tracking where your tax money gets spent?

Yeah, it's called the US budget, where I can, and have, seen where my tax money goes.

Do you have proof of that? Tax deductions, breaks, abatements, incentives, etc... are used to accomplish all the same things as grants and subsidies. If government gives tax breaks to people who install solar panels or more efficient appliances, how is that any different from subsidies to pay for wind turbines?

A local dealership here, got $1 Million dollars in US federal money, to build a wind Turbine for $2 Million. They also got a tax break. But if they had not gotten the money, the turbine would have been completely impractical, and unprofitable.

A tax deduction would not have done that. The tax credit, is only 2.2¢ per kilowatt hour.

It would be impossible to build that wind turbine profitably, without the direct government subsidy. Without them actually collecting money from the Federal Government, for green energy, there is no possible way to spend $2 Million dollars, and come out ahead making just 2¢ per kilowatt hour.

Government money, makes this profitable. And of course, that tax deduction only works if you have taxes to begin with. If the dealership has a bad year where they break even, or have low profits, then a tax credit against zero taxes, is..... zero.

The thing that makes this work, is government payments for "green energy certificates" and the direct subsidy of $1 Million dollars on a silver tax payer platter.

That's where the problem is.

You fix that problem, and the tax dedications will be largely irrelevant.

Of course it can. Especially if the business is competing with other companies who don't get the special tax breaks.

You're being logically inconsistent - condoning preferential treatment in one case, and condemning it in another. What is the "one weird trick" that makes it OK in one case, but not in another?

No, it can't. You are wrong.

If you have a business that isn't making money.... no amount of tax deduction is going to fix that. Sorry, you are just flat out wrong.

And there are no specific businesses that are getting special tax breaks in the OP of this thread. I know, because I worked at other companies that are in the same park area of Dublin, that are all getting the same deduction. It's not Amazon alone.

If you could say "only Amazon, and Amazon alone" got this, then ok that's a good point. But it's not true.

Additionally, you are portraying this like this is a huge benefit to Amazon, that is going to make them vastly more competitive than everyone else in the market.

This isn't true.

Amazon has spent $1.1 Billion dollars, to get a few million in tax breaks? Basic math, says that this is a money losing idea.

Other companies would never need to spend $1.1 Billion for land and new buildings, because they don't even have the staff to fill such places. Simply leasing existing buildings, would be half of a fraction of the $1.1 Billion Amazon is spending.

So even without these tax breaks, these other companies are far better off than Amazon.

Why then, does Amazon choose to spend massive amounts of money? Same reason people buy Mercedes instead of a Ford. Because they want to. Both can get them to work and back with equal effectiveness.

But if you have billions to use to grow the company, why not? And a small tax cut is always a plus.

But if you think that getting a small cut in taxes, is going to cut out the competition, when you are spending billions to get those tiny cuts, you are wrong. You can't end up ahead, by getting a tax deduction.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 150396

I assume you are against corporate welfare then? Cause it certainly isn't capitalism.

What it being discussed isn't corporate welfare.

Clearly by the definition it is.

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

The term has been used.... That isn't a definition... that is a one person saying "everything I determine to be corporate welfare, is".

A tax break is not corporate welfare. Because the money being taken in taxes, is not yours to begin with. Letting people keep their own money, that they rightfully earned, is not welfare.

If that is corporate welfare, then by that logic, every single person in the entire country is a welfare recipient.

Did you take a tax dedication last year? Yes you did. So if you, and absolutely everyone in the country is on welfare, then you have no right to complain, or grounds to whine about corporations getting welfare.

First live without welfare yourself, then you can complain about others.

We have massive US debt; corporations should also help us pay that as Persons of wealth.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 150396

I assume you are against corporate welfare then? Cause it certainly isn't capitalism.

What it being discussed isn't corporate welfare.

Clearly by the definition it is.

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

The term has been used.... That isn't a definition... that is a one person saying "everything I determine to be corporate welfare, is".

A tax break is not corporate welfare. Because the money being taken in taxes, is not yours to begin with. Letting people keep their own money, that they rightfully earned, is not welfare.

If that is corporate welfare, then by that logic, every single person in the entire country is a welfare recipient.

Did you take a tax dedication last year? Yes you did. So if you, and absolutely everyone in the country is on welfare, then you have no right to complain, or grounds to whine about corporations getting welfare.

First live without welfare yourself, then you can complain about others.

That is a good definition of what is corporate welfare and what is it corporate welfare.

Favored privileges and immunities for Persons of wealth.

 

[Conservative65]

That's the responsibility of every employer.

Answer this; How much do you pay employees that make you all of your monies?

The responsibility of an employer is to pay a competitive wage, safe working conditions and to pay on time. The employee is paid their exact worth. If one employee is of more value to the employer than another, they are entitled to be paid more. Where and how they live is not the responsibility of the employer but rather that of the employee.

The competitive wage is below a livable wage making the competitive wage be too low.

Define: Exact worth.

Employees that are degreed for certification (example: Engineer) generally make more because the employer must have them to operate, otherwise no.

I never wrote 'where and how they live.' I wrote livable wage.

If a livable wage is different based on 'where and how they live', you didn't have to specifically say it for it to apply.

Since livable wage is nothing more than a leftwing push for people that have proven to be worthless in the way of skills getting more for nothing, it's an invalid concept. If they don't make enough for the skills they offer to cut it, they can either do without or have people like you voluntarily support them.

 

[Papageorgio]

I assume you are against corporate welfare then? Cause it certainly isn't capitalism.

What it being discussed isn't corporate welfare.

Clearly by the definition it is.

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

The term has been used.... That isn't a definition... that is a one person saying "everything I determine to be corporate welfare, is".

A tax break is not corporate welfare. Because the money being taken in taxes, is not yours to begin with. Letting people keep their own money, that they rightfully earned, is not welfare.

If that is corporate welfare, then by that logic, every single person in the entire country is a welfare recipient.

Did you take a tax dedication last year? Yes you did. So if you, and absolutely everyone in the country is on welfare, then you have no right to complain, or grounds to whine about corporations getting welfare.

First live without welfare yourself, then you can complain about others.

That is a good definition of what is corporate welfare and what is it corporate welfare.

Favored privileges and immunities for Persons of wealth.

So any and all tax breaks, deductions for rich and poor is welfare? Should everyone pay one rate no matter the income?

 

[danielpalos]

What it being discussed isn't corporate welfare.

Clearly by the definition it is.

Corporate welfare is a term that analogizes corporate subsidies to welfare payments for the poor. The term is often used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

The term has been used.... That isn't a definition... that is a one person saying "everything I determine to be corporate welfare, is".

A tax break is not corporate welfare. Because the money being taken in taxes, is not yours to begin with. Letting people keep their own money, that they rightfully earned, is not welfare.

If that is corporate welfare, then by that logic, every single person in the entire country is a welfare recipient.

Did you take a tax dedication last year? Yes you did. So if you, and absolutely everyone in the country is on welfare, then you have no right to complain, or grounds to whine about corporations getting welfare.

First live without welfare yourself, then you can complain about others.

That is a good definition of what is corporate welfare and what is it corporate welfare.

Favored privileges and immunities for Persons of wealth.

So any and all tax breaks, deductions for rich and poor is welfare? Should everyone pay one rate no matter the income?

No, I would have to engage in, "nothing but repeal".

I want to abolish the income tax (so the right wing won't have that to whine about), by ending our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[dblack]

No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Take a deep breath and think about what you're saying. Are you seriously making the claim that taxes can't make or break a business? When an argument inspires you to make such a specious claim, it's time to reconsider your position.

And there are no specific businesses that are getting special tax breaks in the OP of this thread. I know, because I worked at other companies that are in the same park area of Dublin, that are all getting the same deduction. It's not Amazon alone.

Well, yeah, the articles did, in fact, cite tax abatements offered only to the companies in question, as a quid pro quo for their 'investment' in the community. Did you just not read them? Lemme guess "fake news"?

Additionally, you are portraying this like this is a huge benefit to Amazon, that is going to make them vastly more competitive than everyone else in the market.

No. I'm portraying this as an incremental encroachment on the free market. I'm not concerned with who comes out ahead or by how much. I'm concerned with government using its power to influence our economic decisions.

 

[Andylusion]

No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Take a deep breath and think about what you're saying. Are you seriously making the claim that taxes can't make or break a business? When an argument inspires you to make such a specious claim, it's time to reconsider your position.

And there are no specific businesses that are getting special tax breaks in the OP of this thread. I know, because I worked at other companies that are in the same park area of Dublin, that are all getting the same deduction. It's not Amazon alone.

Well, yeah, the articles did, in fact, cite tax abatements offered only to the companies in question, as a quid pro quo for their 'investment' in the community. Did you just not read them? Lemme guess "fake news"?

Additionally, you are portraying this like this is a huge benefit to Amazon, that is going to make them vastly more competitive than everyone else in the market.

No. I'm portraying this as an incremental encroachment on the free market. I'm not concerned with who comes out ahead or by how much. I'm concerned with government using its power to influence our economic decisions.

Take a deep breath and think about what you're saying. Are you seriously making the claim that taxes can't make or break a business? When an argument inspires you to make such a specious claim, it's time to reconsider your position.

It depends on exactly what type of tax we are talking about. Obviously if you impose a massive tax on the Yacht industry in 1991, then yes of course you are going to drive companies out of business. Not to mention they inherently have international competition.

Ignorance, Stupidity or Connivance?

So that isn't my claim.

What I am talking about is a tax deduction. Which is a very different beast.

There is a number of reasons why.

If you have a business that is losing money WITHOUT a tax deduction, then getting a tax deduction isn't going to solve anything. Why? Because the corporate tax is on profits. If you have zero profits to begin with, then you have zero taxes to begin with. If you have zero taxes to begin with, then get a tax deduction does not help. You can't reduce the amount of owed taxes, below zero.

By the way, for those who claim you can get money back from the government, and cite for example General Electric which got money back. That's because they paid too much in taxes throughout the year, or paid too much in taxes the prior year, and had it carried over.

It is impossible for you to get a tax deduction that makes a failing business profitable. It is not possible.

Now a tax abatement, could in theory make your business profitable....

However, this is also virtually impossible. Because the only companies any city or state will give a tax abatement to, are companies that are able to develop the land. Amazon is spending $1.1 Billion in Ohio.

Now before they get the tax abatement, we can reasonably assume they are paying full property tax. If they need that tax abatement to be profitable.... how are they surviving now? And how are they able to spend $1.1 Billion?

And then you also have to realize the abatement will run out. If the only reason they are profitable is because of the tax abatement, then what happens when it runs out? Will they be forced out of business?

Again, it would be impossible that any business with margins so tiny, that property tax could sink them, would ever have the money to develop the land anyway, and thus would never get such deal.

Now throughout this entire country, there are literally thousands of examples of companies getting tax abatement. If you can find an example where a company was only able to survive on a tax abatement, and immediately went bankrupt when the abatement was up, I'd be very curious to read about it.

Even then, I'd wager there are few examples, if any. I've worked at several multi-million dollar corporations, and property tax was almost nothing relative to their budgets. Just in looking up the company I worked for a few years back, the property tax is $50K. The annual revenue of the company was $14 Million.

The idea that getting 50% off on the property tax, to $25K a year, is going to change a company rolling in $14 Million a year in revenue, from bankruptcy to profitability is beyond unlike. It's more like ridiculous.

And honestly, the only way to really have taxes drive a company out of business is by either imposing taxes that are not tied to profits, like a high sales tax, or imposing a property tax so high, that it would drive all business into bankruptcy. I don't see that happening anywhere.

So I stand by my original comment. No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Well, yeah, the articles did, in fact, cite tax abatements offered only to the companies in question, as a quid pro quo for their 'investment' in the community. Did you just not read them? Lemme guess "fake news"?

But again, it has nothing to do with that company. The politicians didn't say "Ok, let us give Amazon, and only Amazon this special offer that no other company on the face of the earth can get".

I know this because other companies are there, that got the exact same offer. It was not a "special Amazon only" deal. Any company that went there, would be offered the same exact deal. Again, there is a hospital in the exact same area that was given the exact same deal. The only reason the left-wing is freaking out over this deal, as opposed to the exact same deal given to the hospital, is because it's a non-profit hospital that earns billions in profit, instead of Amazon earning billions.

Additionally, OSU has a place there, and was given the same deal. Where is the outrage over that?

But the point is, dozens of companies are getting these deals, if they have the money to develop the land. So the claim that this is ONLY offered to the companies in question, is false. That's the only part of your claims that is "fake news". Absolutely any company willing to spend billions to develop otherwise unproductive land, can get these deals.

And as I pointed out before, these deals make logical sense. Right now the land COSTS tax payers money. We have to pay taxes, to maintain and upkeep unproductive land. That's stupid. Why should I have to pay taxes to keep vacant land? Why not have it bought by a company, that will pay millions in taxes, and turn empty useless land, into something productive that produces jobs? Even 10 jobs, is better than zero, and costing tax payers money.

No. I'm portraying this as an incremental encroachment on the free market. I'm not concerned with who comes out ahead or by how much. I'm concerned with government using its power to influence our economic decisions.

Which at the Federal level I would agree with you. But all rights reserved for the states, means just that. And this simply isn't a real encroachment. Subsidies and grants are. But really... again, what effect does this have? Not a lot.

No company is sacrificing income, to get a temporary tax abatement. Whether the data center is here in Ohio, or down in Kentucky, will have absolutely zero impact on the market, or Amazon, or profitability. Nor will a temporary tax deal give Amazon any competitive advantage over other companies.

So again.... zero real effect. The only effects will be local. Obviously the local city in Kentucky that has the data center will get tax revenue from it, and some jobs. Now thousands, but some. Equally if it come here, then they won't have some tax revenue, and won't have some jobs. Locally, there is a minor difference. But in the broader context of the free-market.... this is not an important deal.

Interestingly, I would assume your realize that your own side, sabotaged that talking point? After all, didn't you (or someone supporting your position), post an article by an economist who pointed out that these tax deals have almost zero impact on the growth of the general economy in those areas?

You can't both tell me it has almost no impact whatsoever, and at the same time claim it's a massive encroachment on the free-market.

Those are mutually exclusive claims.

 

[dblack]

Take a deep breath and think about what you're saying. Are you seriously making the claim that taxes can't make or break a business? When an argument inspires you to make such a specious claim, it's time to reconsider your position.

It depends on exactly what type of tax we are talking about. ...

Split hairs however you like. It's all the same shit. We're using compulsory taxation as an all-purpose tool to control society. It may be just a little control, or a lot, depending on the specifics - but that's what the tax "incentive" game is all about. You can't explain it away.

... So I stand by my original comment. No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Targeting specific businesses with tax abatements or penalties will, very definitely, impact their profits. And impacting their profits will, very definitely, impact their decisions - these policies would be pointless otherwise.

But I wonder why it's so important for you to deny this. Isn't the point, from the government's perspective, to try to get businesses to do something they wouldn't otherwise? The real question isn't whether tax incentives are manipulative (it's their express purpose). The question is whether government should have the power to use taxes as a form of manipulation.

Interestingly, I would assume your realize that your own side, sabotaged that talking point?

I don't keep track of "sides" and I can't really account for the posts or opinions of others. Also, the "talking point" slur suggests you think my opinion is being fed to me by someone else. Who do you think that might be?

 

[Andylusion]

Take a deep breath and think about what you're saying. Are you seriously making the claim that taxes can't make or break a business? When an argument inspires you to make such a specious claim, it's time to reconsider your position.

It depends on exactly what type of tax we are talking about. ...

Split hairs however you like. It's all the same shit. We're using compulsory taxation as an all-purpose tool to control society. It may be just a little control, or a lot, depending on the specifics - but that's what the tax "incentive" game is all about. You can't explain it away.

... So I stand by my original comment. No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Targeting specific businesses with tax abatements or penalties will, very definitely, impact their profits. And impacting their profits will, very definitely, impact their decisions - these policies would be pointless otherwise.

But I wonder why it's so important for you to deny this. Isn't the point, from the government's perspective, to try to get businesses to do something they wouldn't otherwise? The real question isn't whether tax incentives are manipulative (it's their express purpose). The question is whether government should have the power to use taxes as a form of manipulation.

Interestingly, I would assume your realize that your own side, sabotaged that talking point?

I don't keep track of "sides" and I can't really account for the posts or opinions of others. Also, the "talking point" slur suggests you think my opinion is being fed to me by someone else. Who do you think that might be?

And the answer is yes, they do. Not at the Federal level, but what exactly do you think all rights reserved for the states means?

It means they have the right to use tax incentives at the state level.

I completely disagree with the Federal government giving grants and so on.

But if my city wants to put in a tax incentive, or my state, they have the right to do that. According to the constitution, they do.

Targeting specific businesses with tax abatements or penalties will, very definitely, impact their profits. And impacting their profits will, very definitely, impact their decisions - these policies would be pointless otherwise.

No. It won't. Not in any meaningful way. It will have no more impact than getting a $2 off coupon on a pizza will completely change my entire eating habits for life.

No. It won't.

I don't keep track of "sides" and I can't really account for the posts or opinions of others. Also, the "talking point" slur suggests you think my opinion is being fed to me by someone else. Who do you think that might be?

Well I don't remember who posted it, and I'm not going to hunt through 50 pages of posts.

Someone posted an article saying that these deals have no real impact on the market, or GDP.

You simply can't suggest that this has a meaningful effect on the market, and then say it doesn't.

You can't tell me that these 'incentives' dramatically affect the market, and then claim there is no discernible benefit.

If it does really cause companies to significantly do better, then we can also safely conclude that these deals are a big benefit to the entire economy, and we should keep doing them.

If it really doesn't have any benefit to the economy, then you can't say they are huge infringement on the free market. Thus they really are not a big enough of a problem to be worried about.

These are mutually exclusive claims. One has to be true, and the other false. It can't both be a this massive destruction of the market, and yet have no benefit whatsoever.... while greatly boasting profits.... but not having any economic benefit. It can't both. One or the other, but not both.

 

[danielpalos]

No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Take a deep breath and think about what you're saying. Are you seriously making the claim that taxes can't make or break a business? When an argument inspires you to make such a specious claim, it's time to reconsider your position.

And there are no specific businesses that are getting special tax breaks in the OP of this thread. I know, because I worked at other companies that are in the same park area of Dublin, that are all getting the same deduction. It's not Amazon alone.

Well, yeah, the articles did, in fact, cite tax abatements offered only to the companies in question, as a quid pro quo for their 'investment' in the community. Did you just not read them? Lemme guess "fake news"?

Additionally, you are portraying this like this is a huge benefit to Amazon, that is going to make them vastly more competitive than everyone else in the market.

No. I'm portraying this as an incremental encroachment on the free market. I'm not concerned with who comes out ahead or by how much. I'm concerned with government using its power to influence our economic decisions.

Official poverty is a metric that can influence any decision.

 

[dblack]

Split hairs however you like. It's all the same shit. We're using compulsory taxation as an all-purpose tool to control society. It may be just a little control, or a lot, depending on the specifics - but that's what the tax "incentive" game is all about. You can't explain it away.

... So I stand by my original comment. No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Targeting specific businesses with tax abatements or penalties will, very definitely, impact their profits. And impacting their profits will, very definitely, impact their decisions - these policies would be pointless otherwise.

But I wonder why it's so important for you to deny this. Isn't the point, from the government's perspective, to try to get businesses to do something they wouldn't otherwise? The real question isn't whether tax incentives are manipulative (it's their express purpose). The question is whether government should have the power to use taxes as a form of manipulation.

Interestingly, I would assume your realize that your own side, sabotaged that talking point?

I don't keep track of "sides" and I can't really account for the posts or opinions of others. Also, the "talking point" slur suggests you think my opinion is being fed to me by someone else. Who do you think that might be?

And the answer is yes, they do. Not at the Federal level, but what exactly do you think all rights reserved for the states means?

It means they have the right to use tax incentives at the state level.

I completely disagree with the Federal government giving grants and so on.

But if my city wants to put in a tax incentive, or my state, they have the right to do that. According to the constitution, they do.

I wasn't asking about the Constitution. The question is whether government should have the power to use taxes as a form of manipulation. I think it's a bad idea, at any level of government.

Targeting specific businesses with tax abatements or penalties will, very definitely, impact their profits. And impacting their profits will, very definitely, impact their decisions - these policies would be pointless otherwise.

No. It won't. Not in any meaningful way. It will have no more impact than getting a $2 off coupon on a pizza will completely change my entire eating habits for life.

The whole point of a tax incentive is influence behavior in a meaningful way. If it doesn't do that, why bother?

You're contradicting yourself.

I don't keep track of "sides" and I can't really account for the posts or opinions of others. Also, the "talking point" slur suggests you think my opinion is being fed to me by someone else. Who do you think that might be?

Well I don't remember who posted it, and I'm not going to hunt through 50 pages of posts.

Someone posted an article saying that these deals have no real impact on the market, or GDP.

You simply can't suggest that this has a meaningful effect on the market, and then say it doesn't.

You can't tell me that these 'incentives' dramatically affect the market, and then claim there is no discernible benefit.

If it does really cause companies to significantly do better, then we can also safely conclude that these deals are a big benefit to the entire economy, and we should keep doing them.

If it really doesn't have any benefit to the economy, then you can't say they are huge infringement on the free market. Thus they really are not a big enough of a problem to be worried about.

These are mutually exclusive claims. One has to be true, and the other false. It can't both be a this massive destruction of the market, and yet have no benefit whatsoever.... while greatly boasting profits.... but not having any economic benefit. It can't both. One or the other, but not both.

Whoever posted it, the article was wrong and I'm not making this claim. Ironically, you are. You're saying that tax incentives don't have any meaningful impact on behavior. And then claiming that they benefit the economy. How do they do that without influencing behavior?

 

[dblack]

Official poverty is a metric that can influence any decision.

 

[SeaGal]

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?

This was decided at the state level with the approval of the city. There's no money changing hands. From the article - the bulk of the subsidy will be a tax abatement of 71% over 20 years. They will still pay property taxes, just a greatly reduced amount - the only way to know if that's a net gain would be to estimate the tax revenue of the property without that development.

Add to that the construction - the utilities - the jobs, which can lead to more jobs - which can impact local growth.


Don't misunderstand, I'm not defending it - but the competition to attract business growth among communities and states is fierce - and if the people of Iowa are ok with this, who am I to say nay?

The corporate welfare that I object to is allowing Big Business to affect regulations that puts competitors out of business, or makes it more difficult for start-ups. No money changes hands there either, or at least it's not supposed to.

ps - subsidizing products, forgot about that.

 

[Andylusion]

Split hairs however you like. It's all the same shit. We're using compulsory taxation as an all-purpose tool to control society. It may be just a little control, or a lot, depending on the specifics - but that's what the tax "incentive" game is all about. You can't explain it away.

... So I stand by my original comment. No amount of a tax deduction, or tax break, can make an unprofitable business survive.

Targeting specific businesses with tax abatements or penalties will, very definitely, impact their profits. And impacting their profits will, very definitely, impact their decisions - these policies would be pointless otherwise.

But I wonder why it's so important for you to deny this. Isn't the point, from the government's perspective, to try to get businesses to do something they wouldn't otherwise? The real question isn't whether tax incentives are manipulative (it's their express purpose). The question is whether government should have the power to use taxes as a form of manipulation.

Interestingly, I would assume your realize that your own side, sabotaged that talking point?

I don't keep track of "sides" and I can't really account for the posts or opinions of others. Also, the "talking point" slur suggests you think my opinion is being fed to me by someone else. Who do you think that might be?

And the answer is yes, they do. Not at the Federal level, but what exactly do you think all rights reserved for the states means?

It means they have the right to use tax incentives at the state level.

I completely disagree with the Federal government giving grants and so on.

But if my city wants to put in a tax incentive, or my state, they have the right to do that. According to the constitution, they do.

I wasn't asking about the Constitution. The question is whether government should have the power to use taxes as a form of manipulation. I think it's a bad idea, at any level of government.

Targeting specific businesses with tax abatements or penalties will, very definitely, impact their profits. And impacting their profits will, very definitely, impact their decisions - these policies would be pointless otherwise.

No. It won't. Not in any meaningful way. It will have no more impact than getting a $2 off coupon on a pizza will completely change my entire eating habits for life.

The whole point of a tax incentive is influence behavior in a meaningful way. If it doesn't do that, why bother?

You're contradicting yourself.

I don't keep track of "sides" and I can't really account for the posts or opinions of others. Also, the "talking point" slur suggests you think my opinion is being fed to me by someone else. Who do you think that might be?

Well I don't remember who posted it, and I'm not going to hunt through 50 pages of posts.

Someone posted an article saying that these deals have no real impact on the market, or GDP.

You simply can't suggest that this has a meaningful effect on the market, and then say it doesn't.

You can't tell me that these 'incentives' dramatically affect the market, and then claim there is no discernible benefit.

If it does really cause companies to significantly do better, then we can also safely conclude that these deals are a big benefit to the entire economy, and we should keep doing them.

If it really doesn't have any benefit to the economy, then you can't say they are huge infringement on the free market. Thus they really are not a big enough of a problem to be worried about.

These are mutually exclusive claims. One has to be true, and the other false. It can't both be a this massive destruction of the market, and yet have no benefit whatsoever.... while greatly boasting profits.... but not having any economic benefit. It can't both. One or the other, but not both.

Whoever posted it, the article was wrong and I'm not making this claim. Ironically, you are. You're saying that tax incentives don't have any meaningful impact on behavior. And then claiming that they benefit the economy. How do they do that without influencing behavior?

The whole point of a tax incentive is influence behavior in a meaningful way. If it doesn't do that, why bother?

You're contradicting yourself.

I said this now a dozen times. I don't know how many times I have to type the exact same thing to you, before you get it.

In the broad context of the free market, these deals are completely and entirely irrelevant. Again, I'm talking specifically about the deals that are the cause of this thread. I'm not talking about government grants, government subsidies, or other regulations that give a direct monetary support, like Ethanol, or Wind Energy, Solyndra or whatever.

They have zero effect. None. No one here, or anywhere else, is selling their Galaxy 8, to buy an Iphone X, simply because Apply got a 10 year discount on property taxes. Not happening.

At the extreme local level, it will have an effect obviously. Dublin Ohio will be better off if companies move there, instead of somewhere else.

So at the extreme local level, the citizens of an individual city, and the city itself, will benefit from Amazon being there, as opposed to somewhere else.

But again, on the broader context of the wider economy, these deals have zero impact whatsoever.

Most of these companies have a list of places for consideration to begin with. If the location one way or the other, had a meaningful impact on their profitability, or future growth, then they would not consider those locations.

So for an Apple data center, it really doesn't make any difference whatsoever, where the data center is, as long as it's on the Eastern side of the country, as opposed to West coast.

It makes no difference to the economy, to the company, or to GDP, where that data center is. None. The only thing that would change is which local community benefits from the tax revenue, and the jobs created, regardless of how many or few.

Thus it makes perfectly good sense for local communities to offer a virtual 'coupon' to Apple for their investment in those local communities, and since it doesn't hurt anything, and it's THEIR tax money, and THEIR local government, then I don't have a problem with it.

 

[dblack]

I said this now a dozen times. I don't know how many times I have to type the exact same thing to you, before you get it.

In the broad context of the free market, these deals are completely and entirely irrelevant. Again, I'm talking specifically about ....

The think the reason I'm not responding to these parts of your posts is that they have nothing to do with my argument. You're posting at length about details that, from my perspective, are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me whether a given tax incentive manipulates taxpayers a little or lot, whether it impacts many or few, or whether you think its effects are positive or negative.

To me it's like justifying government censorship based on the merits of the situation - how many people it impacts, whether it prevents uprisings, etc.... I think economic freedom is even more fundamental than freedom of speech, and the government that would violate it even more dangerous than one that violates freedom of speech.

 

[Andylusion]

I said this now a dozen times. I don't know how many times I have to type the exact same thing to you, before you get it.

In the broad context of the free market, these deals are completely and entirely irrelevant. Again, I'm talking specifically about ....

The think the reason I'm not responding to these parts of your posts is that they have nothing to do with my argument. You're posting at length about details that, from my perspective, are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me whether a given tax incentive manipulates taxpayers a little or lot, whether it impacts many or few, or whether you think its effects are positive or negative.

To me it's like justifying government censorship based on the merits of the situation - how many people it impacts, whether it prevents uprisings, etc.... I think economic freedom is even more fundamental than freedom of speech, and the government that would violate it even more dangerous than one that violates freedom of speech.

Again, there is no real claim to be made that it has any effect on the wider economy. If you could make that case, I'd listen.

Obviously I'm against the Federal government does such deals, for a wide variety of reasons. But these local deals are not all that important.

I don't see these as a violation of economic freedom, because no one has been denied any freedom. You can choose to not take the deal, which Apple denied taking several other deals.

Until you can show me that they didn't have the ability to choose... then your argument is empty to me.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not simply raise taxes and threaten jail time, for any CEO leaving the US for merely cheaper wages.