Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS' bill

[dblack]

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

I suppose taxes aren't the only incentive. Has your state considered bringing back droit du seigneur? I bet that would get the attention of some CEO's.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

I suppose taxes aren't the only incentive. Has your state considered bringing back droit du seigneur? I bet that would get the attention of some CEO's.

Only if they were Democrats.

At times taxes are the only incentive you can give. Don't get me wrong, there are advantages to living up north. Our water doesn't smell, we have less insects, at least here in Ohio, our cost of living is much lower than other states; especially the northeastern states. But our disadvantages are transcending as well.

I always joke with my fellow Ohioans when I say the only reason we're here is because our family and friends. Most agree with me. It's why we stay here. Without them, there are many other better places we would go, and some actually do.

My niece moved to Florida a few years ago, and she said she loves it down there. The problem is she misses us and her friends. She sulks at times, but with the internet today, you can have face-to-face conversations like you're actually in the room with that person.

But back to businesses. There is good and bad no matter where you go, so it all depends on the goals of the business. If you can accommodate those goals, then the business chooses your area to do business in, and that's a good thing.

 

[dblack]

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

I suppose taxes aren't the only incentive. Has your state considered bringing back droit du seigneur? I bet that would get the attention of some CEO's.

Only if they were Democrats.

At times taxes are the only incentive you can give. Don't get me wrong, there are advantages to living up north. Our water doesn't smell, we have less insects, at least here in Ohio, our cost of living is much lower than other states; especially the northeastern states. But our disadvantages are transcending as well.

I always joke with my fellow Ohioans when I say the only reason we're here is because our family and friends. Most agree with me. It's why we stay here. Without them, there are many other better places we would go, and some actually do.

My niece moved to Florida a few years ago, and she said she loves it down there. The problem is she misses us and her friends. She sulks at times, but with the internet today, you can have face-to-face conversations like you're actually in the room with that person.

But back to businesses. There is good and bad no matter where you go, so it all depends on the goals of the business. If you can accommodate those goals, then the business chooses your area to do business in, and that's a good thing.

Yeah. Well, I'm fundamentally opposed to government merging with business like that. Government, unlike business, has a responsibility to apply the laws equally to everyone. When they grant exemptions to the law to wealthy investors to seduce them it's corruption. There's no other word.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government, unlike business, has a responsibility to apply the laws equally to everyone.

And when has that ever been done before?

Look.....I'm a truck driver, and if cops did to other people what they do to us, there would be a revolution.

For whatever reason, we don't have constitutional rights. They pull us over for no reason whatsoever, search our vehicles up and down, go through our paperwork, and they don't need the slightest reason to do so. If I'm caught talking on my cell phone while driving my truck, I can be fined $2,300, and that's just for the first offense. People in cars drive around all day long talking on their phones.

Apply the law equally? Then how about we all pay the same amount of income tax, or at least, the same percentage of income tax? After all, nearly half of the people in this country pay no income tax.

Some laws are never applied equally. You say it's the responsibility of government to do so, but it's also the responsibility of government to do what benefits the people who elected them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

But what are you going to do in a land of freedom? Be like one percenter and the rest and imply they force company's to stay and pay what ever the local government wants till they go out of business?

 

[Slyhunter]

Amazon wins, tax payers lose. Amazon pay not good.

Better than no pay. We no longer have a closed down mall where only rodents lived that generated nothing and decreased property values, it's not a state of the art facility hiring people to be on the ground floor of a growing company.

You have poor paying jobs and a drain on tax payers.

The famously grueling jobs in Amazon warehouses have also created strains on local services. Bloomberg reported in October that emergency responders visit the Amazon warehouse in Licking County at least once a day to attend to an injured worker. Local residents have to fund those forays because Amazon pays no property tax in Licking County under their subsidy deal. Voters approved a $6.5 million property tax levy in November to keep the Fire Department operational.

"We’re hiring for fulfillment associate roles where employees will pick, pack and ship customer orders. We also have opportunities for operations leaders, HR managers, IT experts, engineers, financial analysts and more. Once we start hiring early next year, interested candidates can apply at www.amazondelivers.jobs. Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company also offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families."

In a village of around 1,100 residents, North Randall Mayor David Smith said there were some who didn’t believe Amazon would set up shop on the site of a former Randall Park Mall.

“We were told ‘stop, it’ll never happen,” but adversity builds character,” said Smith.

Amazon announced it’s bringing 2,000 jobs to the village, nearly double the size of its population.

While there’s no set date announced on when the 855,000-square-foot building will open, Mayor Smith said he’s beyond excited about what the move means.

“We don’t have to worry about being in fiscal emergency anymore. That’s sustainable income for the next 20-years plus.”

Amazon hiring for 2,000 jobs at new fulfillment center in North Randall

Yeah, they sure sound like a bunch of slave drivers, don't they? Healthcare benefits, education, paid family leave, just sickening I tell ya.

Nothing about wages there. They pay very little. I know people who have worked at them, unpleasant.

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

What good is perks if you can't afford them?
Medical comes with copays. 401k requires seed money. Shared cost, which most insurance is, requires monthly fees. If you don't make enough to get off welfare how you supposed to pay for them fees?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah. Well, I'm fundamentally opposed to government merging with business like that. Government, unlike business, has a responsibility to apply the laws equally to everyone. When they grant exemptions to the law to wealthy investors to seduce them it's corruption. There's no other word.

You have objections to tax breaks.

I have objections to taxes.

Remove the tax and there is no reason for the tax break.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Better than no pay. We no longer have a closed down mall where only rodents lived that generated nothing and decreased property values, it's not a state of the art facility hiring people to be on the ground floor of a growing company.

You have poor paying jobs and a drain on tax payers.

The famously grueling jobs in Amazon warehouses have also created strains on local services. Bloomberg reported in October that emergency responders visit the Amazon warehouse in Licking County at least once a day to attend to an injured worker. Local residents have to fund those forays because Amazon pays no property tax in Licking County under their subsidy deal. Voters approved a $6.5 million property tax levy in November to keep the Fire Department operational.

"We’re hiring for fulfillment associate roles where employees will pick, pack and ship customer orders. We also have opportunities for operations leaders, HR managers, IT experts, engineers, financial analysts and more. Once we start hiring early next year, interested candidates can apply at www.amazondelivers.jobs. Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company also offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families."

In a village of around 1,100 residents, North Randall Mayor David Smith said there were some who didn’t believe Amazon would set up shop on the site of a former Randall Park Mall.

“We were told ‘stop, it’ll never happen,” but adversity builds character,” said Smith.

Amazon announced it’s bringing 2,000 jobs to the village, nearly double the size of its population.

While there’s no set date announced on when the 855,000-square-foot building will open, Mayor Smith said he’s beyond excited about what the move means.

“We don’t have to worry about being in fiscal emergency anymore. That’s sustainable income for the next 20-years plus.”

Amazon hiring for 2,000 jobs at new fulfillment center in North Randall

Yeah, they sure sound like a bunch of slave drivers, don't they? Healthcare benefits, education, paid family leave, just sickening I tell ya.

Nothing about wages there. They pay very little. I know people who have worked at them, unpleasant.

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

What good is perks if you can't afford them?
Medical comes with copays. 401k requires seed money. Shared cost, which most insurance is, requires monthly fees. If you don't make enough to get off welfare how you supposed to pay for them fees?

The article doesn't cover what those co-payments are if any. In any case, if you work for a company that doesn't' provide any insurance, you have to go on Commie Care which I can assure you, is unaffordable for middle-class workers.

However there are no co-pays for things like stocks which they give you, maternity leave, advanced education be it for their company or not. Those are all freebies. And if you do have to copay for health insurance, you have to pay for it anyway whether you work for the company or not. If you can't afford it and on welfare, chances are you are on Medicaid.

 

[dblack]

Government, unlike business, has a responsibility to apply the laws equally to everyone.

And when has that ever been done before?

Look.....I'm a truck driver, and if cops did to other people what they do to us, there would be a revolution.

For whatever reason, we don't have constitutional rights. They pull us over for no reason whatsoever, search our vehicles up and down, go through our paperwork, and they don't need the slightest reason to do so. If I'm caught talking on my cell phone while driving my truck, I can be fined $2,300, and that's just for the first offense. People in cars drive around all day long talking on their phones.

I know all about it. My dad was an O/O for ten years. The shit he went through was insane. The question is, do we want more of that? Or less?

Apply the law equally? Then how about we all pay the same amount of income tax, or at least, the same percentage of income tax? After all, nearly half of the people in this country pay no income tax.

Some laws are never applied equally. You say it's the responsibility of government to do so, but it's also the responsibility of government to do what benefits the people who elected them.

You're trying to justify deliberately using the law to reward some and punish others, not for the sake of justice, but just to achieve some goal of the government. **** that. It's social engineering every bit as repulsive as the shit brewed up by liberals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know all about it. My dad was an O/O for ten years. The shit he went through was insane. The question is, do we want more of that? Or less?

The real question is will we ever be a country where laws are applied equally? No we won't. Do we want more of that? Depends on the end results. Why should a city or state crumble into nothing because they aren't allowed to compete with better states for business?

How do you feel about Carter when he made red-lining illegal? Banks were then forced to give loans to bad investment high-crime areas. Carter seen those areas continue to spiral down. Should he have let them to go down until they hit rock bottom? And if not, is that not government picking winners and losers because people in better areas couldn't get loans?

You're trying to justify deliberately using the law to reward some and punish others, not for the sake of justice, but just to achieve some goal of the government. **** that. It's social engineering every bit as repulsive as the shit brewed up by liberals.

It's not to achieve the goals of government, it's to achieve the goals of the city or state for the people. I want jobs in my area just like you want jobs in yours. Isn't it up to government to help us in that goal? Because if they don't help us, who will?

 

[Brain357]

And the alternative being is an empty cow pasture in Wisconsin?
.

Brain357 has a net sum of zero grasp of economic terminology or principle.

"Bad Capitalism" is just so insanely ignorant. One might complain that an idea violates Laissez Faire principles or that free markets do not includegovernment incentives, but "bad capitalism" is nonsensical, something one would expect from a Jr. High kid.

If one is to criticize the use of tax credit stimulus to attract business as violating Laissez Faire ideals, then one must first consider whether it is the tax credit, or the tax that so violates?

Ludwig Von Mises observed that the presence of property tax renders the tutelary "owner" of a property a mere tenant to the government landlord who collects rents or evicts the tenant.

Hence property tax renders property rights null and void.

I don't understand what he meant by bad capitalism. From Dictionary.com

noun

1. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

So I don't see any violation of capitalism in getting or accepting tax breaks; especially the part that says "exchange of wealth." Seems to me that there is an exchange of wealth between the city/ state and the corporations. The city gives you X in exchange for X. Both parties are in agreement and satisfied with the arrangement.

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations

In deals like Foxconn, the government is heavily influencing corporate decisions. Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in good capitalism.

 

[Brain357]

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

You're ignoring the next step in the process:

If one state does it, then all the states have to do it or get left with the shitty end of the stick. So now all the states are out hundreds of billions in revenue with the rest of the taxpayers who aren't offered any of these cushy deals.holding the bag. The states collectively end up subsiding huge corporations and screwing the little guy. That's what we normally call "crony capitalism."

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

Yes, just as many companies get pulled away from you as you attract. Meanwhile, the tax payer loses.

Every time one of these deals are made, that company still collects services. Other tax payers are now forced to pay for their services.

 

[Brain357]

No, the IRS would hand companies a bill for all the welfare collected by their employees.

The employer would be entitled to an accounting of what they are paying for. That mean the IRS would have to state how much they are being charged for each program that each employee is receiving benefits from.

Furthermore, once the employer knows what each employee is costing him in terms of taxes, then he will make hiring and layoff decisions accordingly. That means poor employees with a lot of children will be the first ones on the layoff list.

They would not have to be told who each employee was.

Again, how do they know they aren't being overcharged if there is no accounting of the bill? No private company would get away with it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't allow it.

Well it would be the IRS.

You mean we should trust the IRS not to overcharge us?

Are you serous?

I haven't said I would do this, just that it is a fascinating idea up for discussion. I'd like to see markets come back to normal so that when unemployment is really low wages increase. Does seem like that will happen though.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

You're ignoring the next step in the process:

If one state does it, then all the states have to do it or get left with the shitty end of the stick. So now all the states are out hundreds of billions in revenue with the rest of the taxpayers who aren't offered any of these cushy deals.holding the bag. The states collectively end up subsiding huge corporations and screwing the little guy. That's what we normally call "crony capitalism."

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

Yes, just as many companies get pulled away from you as you attract. Meanwhile, the tax payer loses.

Every time one of these deals are made, that company still collects services. Other tax payers are now forced to pay for their services.

What do you mean pay for their services? If anything, their services would be cheaper because they are paying less taxes.

So if we lose just as many businesses as we gain, are you suggesting that it’s better we just lose businesses and not gain any back?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

You're ignoring the next step in the process:

If one state does it, then all the states have to do it or get left with the shitty end of the stick. So now all the states are out hundreds of billions in revenue with the rest of the taxpayers who aren't offered any of these cushy deals.holding the bag. The states collectively end up subsiding huge corporations and screwing the little guy. That's what we normally call "crony capitalism."

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

Yes, just as many companies get pulled away from you as you attract. Meanwhile, the tax payer loses.

Every time one of these deals are made, that company still collects services. Other tax payers are now forced to pay for their services.

What do you mean pay for their services? If anything, their services would be cheaper because they are paying less taxes.

So if we lose just as many businesses as we gain, are you suggesting that it’s better we just lose businesses and not gain any back?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They collect services. The fire and police departments still work for them even though they don’t pay taxes. In the cases of Walmart and amazon it can be quite a lot of services. When one company doesn’t pay, other companies and tax payers now pay more.

I’m saying it should be ended. The tax payer loses every time. They are moochers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

You're ignoring the next step in the process:

If one state does it, then all the states have to do it or get left with the shitty end of the stick. So now all the states are out hundreds of billions in revenue with the rest of the taxpayers who aren't offered any of these cushy deals.holding the bag. The states collectively end up subsiding huge corporations and screwing the little guy. That's what we normally call "crony capitalism."

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

Yes, just as many companies get pulled away from you as you attract. Meanwhile, the tax payer loses.

Every time one of these deals are made, that company still collects services. Other tax payers are now forced to pay for their services.

What do you mean pay for their services? If anything, their services would be cheaper because they are paying less taxes.

So if we lose just as many businesses as we gain, are you suggesting that it’s better we just lose businesses and not gain any back?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They collect services. The fire and police departments still work for them even though they don’t pay taxes. In the cases of Walmart and amazon it can be quite a lot of services. When one company doesn’t pay, other companies and tax payers now pay more.

I’m saying it should be ended. The tax payer loses every time. They are moochers.

No because in most all cases, the city still collects taxes, just not as much as they do from other industries. WTF would a city invite a business to their area and lose money? That defeats the entire purpose.

So the two choices they have is to offer abatements and collect some taxes, or allow them to go somewhere else and get no new tax revenue. Which scenario would cost other businesses and taxpayers more?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

You're ignoring the next step in the process:

If one state does it, then all the states have to do it or get left with the shitty end of the stick. So now all the states are out hundreds of billions in revenue with the rest of the taxpayers who aren't offered any of these cushy deals.holding the bag. The states collectively end up subsiding huge corporations and screwing the little guy. That's what we normally call "crony capitalism."

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

Yes, just as many companies get pulled away from you as you attract. Meanwhile, the tax payer loses.

Every time one of these deals are made, that company still collects services. Other tax payers are now forced to pay for their services.

What do you mean pay for their services? If anything, their services would be cheaper because they are paying less taxes.

So if we lose just as many businesses as we gain, are you suggesting that it’s better we just lose businesses and not gain any back?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They collect services. The fire and police departments still work for them even though they don’t pay taxes. In the cases of Walmart and amazon it can be quite a lot of services. When one company doesn’t pay, other companies and tax payers now pay more.

I’m saying it should be ended. The tax payer loses every time. They are moochers.

No because in most all cases, the city still collects taxes, just not as much as they do from other industries. WTF would a city invite a business to their area and lose money? That defeats the entire purpose.

So the two choices they have is to offer abutments and collect some taxes, or allow them to go somewhere else and get no new tax revenue. Which scenario would cost other businesses and taxpayers more?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They always lose, government is corrupt. Why are corporations more important to you than tax payers? You are foolish if you think tax deals are the main incentive. Most businesses are moving to that location regardless, free taxes are just icing on the cake.

 

[dblack]

I know all about it. My dad was an O/O for ten years. The shit he went through was insane. The question is, do we want more of that? Or less?

The real question is will we ever be a country where laws are applied equally? No we won't. Do we want more of that? Depends on the end results. Why should a city or state crumble into nothing because they aren't allowed to compete with better states for business?

How do you feel about Carter when he made red-lining illegal? Banks were then forced to give loans to bad investment high-crime areas. Carter seen those areas continue to spiral down. Should he have let them to go down until they hit rock bottom? And if not, is that not government picking winners and losers because people in better areas couldn't get loans?

You're trying to justify deliberately using the law to reward some and punish others, not for the sake of justice, but just to achieve some goal of the government. **** that. It's social engineering every bit as repulsive as the shit brewed up by liberals.

It's not to achieve the goals of government, it's to achieve the goals of the city or state for the people. I want jobs in my area just like you want jobs in yours. Isn't it up to government to help us in that goal? Because if they don't help us, who will?

You realize this is the standard rationale of liberal statists, right?

 

[Brain357]

I know all about it. My dad was an O/O for ten years. The shit he went through was insane. The question is, do we want more of that? Or less?

The real question is will we ever be a country where laws are applied equally? No we won't. Do we want more of that? Depends on the end results. Why should a city or state crumble into nothing because they aren't allowed to compete with better states for business?

How do you feel about Carter when he made red-lining illegal? Banks were then forced to give loans to bad investment high-crime areas. Carter seen those areas continue to spiral down. Should he have let them to go down until they hit rock bottom? And if not, is that not government picking winners and losers because people in better areas couldn't get loans?

You're trying to justify deliberately using the law to reward some and punish others, not for the sake of justice, but just to achieve some goal of the government. **** that. It's social engineering every bit as repulsive as the shit brewed up by liberals.

It's not to achieve the goals of government, it's to achieve the goals of the city or state for the people. I want jobs in my area just like you want jobs in yours. Isn't it up to government to help us in that goal? Because if they don't help us, who will?

You realize this is the standard rationale of liberal statists, right?

Ray is very socialist and seems oblivious to it.

 

[dblack]

I know all about it. My dad was an O/O for ten years. The shit he went through was insane. The question is, do we want more of that? Or less?

The real question is will we ever be a country where laws are applied equally? No we won't. Do we want more of that? Depends on the end results. Why should a city or state crumble into nothing because they aren't allowed to compete with better states for business?

How do you feel about Carter when he made red-lining illegal? Banks were then forced to give loans to bad investment high-crime areas. Carter seen those areas continue to spiral down. Should he have let them to go down until they hit rock bottom? And if not, is that not government picking winners and losers because people in better areas couldn't get loans?

You're trying to justify deliberately using the law to reward some and punish others, not for the sake of justice, but just to achieve some goal of the government. **** that. It's social engineering every bit as repulsive as the shit brewed up by liberals.

It's not to achieve the goals of government, it's to achieve the goals of the city or state for the people. I want jobs in my area just like you want jobs in yours. Isn't it up to government to help us in that goal? Because if they don't help us, who will?

You realize this is the standard rationale of liberal statists, right?

Ray is very socialist and seems oblivious to it.

I dunno about 'very', and I don't really want to bicker about the "true meaning" of socialism, but far too many Americans are looking for authoritarian control over society. They think the purpose of government is to decide what society should do and make us do it.