Corporate welfare in action ....

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare is when the government takes money from working people and hands it out to people who dont work. Its that simple. Now you can add all the adjectives you want..."corporate" or whatever. Different animal. But I dont think the confusion liberals try to sow with it work anymore. Since Obama came into office welfare spending (look up welfare at Wikipedia if you still dont know what it is) has risen 25% to over 900,000,000,000. LINK That is a lot of zeros. How to do it? Well for eight years you fund your pet liberals in corporations...then you whine that "corporate welfare" means you cant stop the welfare spending. neat trick!

Doesn't matter if liberal at Apple got some money, or Tunisia, or the National Weather Service. Welfare is breaking us. And there is no connection. If you want to cut welfare there is no tie to cutting off sewer funding to insurance agencies in Omaha. It is a liberal scam. "We cant cut welfare because "fill in the blank" welfare....
Bogus.

But more than that it ensures that Democrats can continue their handouts to corporations. it makes corporations complicit in the general theft. To lose that straw man "corporate welfare" would be catastrophic for corp[orate boards, democrat politicians and welfare vote farms.

Welfare is a necessity for when capitalism fails.

 

[Aldo Raine]

how long does the break for apple last ?

Twenty years.

Apple will leave way before then.

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

50 workers.

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

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

The job of government is to protect our equal rights - NOT to maximize revenues.

I don't disagree with you however, the government is greedy, so they look at the revenue they take in.

I am against corporate welfare and I'm consistent, it seems that others are not. TARP is a prime example both Democrats and Republicans loved TARP. It bailed out banks and auto companies and a host of other big corporations, it picked and choose states on where infrastructure would occur. People lost homes, jobs and on and on, no one mentioned "equal" anything. It was all good because of the "too big to fail" BS.

The largest corporate welfare in the history of the world and both parties loved it, now, we are supposed to be upset by tax abatement's? People need to get a grip.

We should be upset with both.[/QUOTE

And there it is, why is this so hard.

 

[dblack]

All I see is you staggering from one blanket claim to the next with little to no reason or evidence to support it ... for example.

You claimed protectionism, I asked you to explain how this was protection, no response from you.
You claimed commerce clause, I asked you to explain how this infringed upon the commerce clause, no response from you.
You claimed equal protections violation, I explained how this wasn't applicable, no response from you.
You claimed "the state is authorized to build roads. Unless a state switches to socialism, it's not authorized to build computer plants" , I explained that what a state is authorized to do is dictated by that State's Constitution and that roads and this Apple facility both amount to capital investment for the State, no response from you.

You've so far presented a sermon not an argument.

You're clearly working with a different set of definitions for the key words in the debate (eg. corporate welfare, crony capitalism). If you can't see how ad-hoc tax abatements offered to specific companies amount to special favors, I'm not sure we have enough common ground to carry on a conversation about the topic. You clearly like to see a government that proactively manipulates the economy for the benefit of the state. I'm opposed to that style of government.

Anyway, I'm not going to respond to every line item you post, in part because that's tedious, and in part because most of what you're going on about doesn't warrant a response. In addition, you're being a bit of a dick about it so ...

Out of curiosity, what do you imagine my "purpose" to be?

To put forth an argument based on reason and evidence in opposition to crony capitalism and/or corporate welfare, if that's not your purpose, what is it?

My purpose is to highlight how these commonplace practices, practices that most of us accept as the status quo, are actually antithetical to free markets and free society.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

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

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

The ONLY advantage of off-shoring is employee pay.

Shipping costs are minimal, ask Amazon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's How Much the iPhone 7 Cost to Manufacture

Except $175.00 of the $225.00 is profit Apple pays itself. I do the same thing, so does Walmart.

 

[OnePercenter]

Big government picking winners and losers.

Cities and states are not big government.

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

How are they picking winners and losers?

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

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

That keeps the Mom and Pop in business.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Who says every other company is?

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

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

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

That sounds fair...

how long does the break for apple last ?

Twenty years.

Apple will leave way before then.

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

50 workers.

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

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

Just because you build a building doesn't mean it will add tax revenue. How many empty buildings do we have in the US that aren't generating any revenue? Then you have a guy like me that comes in and buys the property for 5% of worth with a back property tax cancel.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Welfare is when the government takes money from working people and hands it out to people who dont work. Its that simple. Now you can add all the adjectives you want..."corporate" or whatever. Different animal. But I dont think the confusion liberals try to sow with it work anymore. Since Obama came into office welfare spending (look up welfare at Wikipedia if you still dont know what it is) has risen 25% to over 900,000,000,000. LINK That is a lot of zeros. How to do it? Well for eight years you fund your pet liberals in corporations...then you whine that "corporate welfare" means you cant stop the welfare spending. neat trick!

Doesn't matter if liberal at Apple got some money, or Tunisia, or the National Weather Service. Welfare is breaking us. And there is no connection. If you want to cut welfare there is no tie to cutting off sewer funding to insurance agencies in Omaha. It is a liberal scam. "We cant cut welfare because "fill in the blank" welfare....
Bogus.

But more than that it ensures that Democrats can continue their handouts to corporations. it makes corporations complicit in the general theft. To lose that straw man "corporate welfare" would be catastrophic for corp[orate boards, democrat politicians and welfare vote farms.

Welfare is a necessity for when capitalism fails.

Welfare is a necessity when people fail--not capitalism.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

How are they picking winners and losers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be a net zero for tax payers.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

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

Taxes have nothing to do with it. It's the slave-wage labor.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Try 12.5% effective or 3% based on revenue for comparative company/workers .

 

[OnePercenter]

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

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

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

Bripat is Canadian.

You mean 15% of taxable? What percentage of revenue is that?

 

[Aldo Raine]

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

Try 12.5% effective or 3% based on revenue for comparative company/workers .

And Bone Spurs believes we need to lower those? Strange huh?

 

[OnePercenter]

Apple to build Iowa data center, get $207.8 million in incentives

We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection?

So don't give them incentives , guess you don't like jobs and revenue.

You must be one of the few Koch paid posters left.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

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

Who says every other company is?

Every other company without the clout to lobby for special exemptions has to pay the full tax. You really don't see why this is wrong?

Not necessarily. Ever hear of an 'Enterprise Zone?'

 

[Muhammed]

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?

Could you explain why you oppose this creation of jobs.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare is when the government takes money from working people and hands it out to people who dont work. Its that simple. Now you can add all the adjectives you want..."corporate" or whatever. Different animal. But I dont think the confusion liberals try to sow with it work anymore. Since Obama came into office welfare spending (look up welfare at Wikipedia if you still dont know what it is) has risen 25% to over 900,000,000,000. LINK That is a lot of zeros. How to do it? Well for eight years you fund your pet liberals in corporations...then you whine that "corporate welfare" means you cant stop the welfare spending. neat trick!

Doesn't matter if liberal at Apple got some money, or Tunisia, or the National Weather Service. Welfare is breaking us. And there is no connection. If you want to cut welfare there is no tie to cutting off sewer funding to insurance agencies in Omaha. It is a liberal scam. "We cant cut welfare because "fill in the blank" welfare....
Bogus.

But more than that it ensures that Democrats can continue their handouts to corporations. it makes corporations complicit in the general theft. To lose that straw man "corporate welfare" would be catastrophic for corp[orate boards, democrat politicians and welfare vote farms.

Welfare is a necessity for when capitalism fails.

Welfare is a necessity when people fail--not capitalism.

Cmon Ray, you are brighter than that.

 

[OnePercenter]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

Ever hear of the Farm Bill ?

Yep. Another abysmal example of corporatism.

The farm bill started in helping family farms, but thanks to Republicans it's morphed into a huge corporate loophole.

 

[Muhammed]

Iowa isnt exactly Silly-conehead Calif.

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

In that case it would have made a fine investment for private capital...right?

Of course. That is why private capital is funding it.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

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

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

Any company competing with Apple will be hurt if they are forced to pay taxes that Apple doesn't have to pay.

Apple competitors don't pay either.

 

[Muhammed]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

Ever hear of the Farm Bill ?

Yep. Another abysmal example of corporatism.

The farm bill started in helping family farms, but thanks to Republicans it's morphed into a huge corporate loophole.

The vast majority of farm bill spending goes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.