Corporate welfare in action ....

[Cellblock2429]

Sure I would. Anything to help bring in businesses.

Anything? Even the exemption for statutory rape? I assume not, but how do you make the call?

WTF does rape have to do with this? Rape is illegal which goes against what I said.

So is not paying your taxes. What's the difference?

/----/ This thread is getting ridiculous.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure I would. Anything to help bring in businesses.

Anything? Even the exemption for statutory rape? I assume not, but how do you make the call?

WTF does rape have to do with this? Rape is illegal which goes against what I said.

So is not paying your taxes. What's the difference?

None because they are both illegal and you have to answer to it. But tax breaks are different than not paying taxes that you owe.

 

[Brain357]

Too many people think cronyism is only bad when a government-subsidized business goes broke and the taxpayers lose money on their investment, as with Solyndra. Koch makes an important point, which is one I have also made from time to time: in some ways, Solyndra represents a best-case scenario. It is even worse when government subsidies allow a favored business to survive, and it is the other guy, the one without political influence, who goes out of business. Government largesse inherently distorts the market and hurts consumers as well as non-favored businesses and their employees and investors. And, of course, taxpayers.

Why Cronyism Is Always Bad

 

[dblack]

Sure I would. Anything to help bring in businesses.

Anything? Even the exemption for statutory rape? I assume not, but how do you make the call?

WTF does rape have to do with this? Rape is illegal which goes against what I said.

So is not paying your taxes. What's the difference?

/----/ This thread is getting ridiculous.

If it hurts a little, that's a good sign!

 

[Andylusion]

Too many people think cronyism is only bad when a government-subsidized business goes broke and the taxpayers lose money on their investment, as with Solyndra. Koch makes an important point, which is one I have also made from time to time: in some ways, Solyndra represents a best-case scenario. It is even worse when government subsidies allow a favored business to survive, and it is the other guy, the one without political influence, who goes out of business. Government largesse inherently distorts the market and hurts consumers as well as non-favored businesses and their employees and investors. And, of course, taxpayers.

Why Cronyism Is Always Bad

And I agree. I hate all subsidizes. The reason we pointed out Solyndra, is because it was so blantantly obvious, and an example of how green energy sucks. If green energy was such a huge win, they would be able to make a profit, with, or without a government subsidy.

The fact they failed even with government money, proves that green energy is trash.

It was the same in the UK, where government reduced the subsidies for wind energy, and suddenly there was a crisis in the market.

These energy sources are not economically sustainable.

But back to the point:

I'm against all subsidies. All of them. There should be no subsidies at all. For anyone ever, period.

The big problem with this specific thread, is that the OP, isn't a a subsidy. It's a tax abatement.

There is a massive world of difference between going to McDonald's and having the store owner offer you a discount on your meal, and offering to force a different customer to pay a higher price for the same meal, so that you pay a lower price.

Do you see the difference? It's one thing to simply say "Andy, you only have to pay $3 instead of $4 for your burger" and saying "Andy, I'm going to charge Brainy over there $5, so I only have to charge you $3."

Do you see how one is a moral problem, and unjust, while the other is fine?

Same thing with government tax abatement, verses a subsidy.

It's one thing if government is charging taxes to it's citizens, and telling Apple they will pay for half the cost of construction, verse government simply saying Apple doesn't have to pay property tax for a few years.

Equally the mindless left, never seem to grasp how the tax abatement works.

They constantly spout off that companies are paying less tax, and this forces government to levy higher tax on the citizens.

This is absolutely bonkers thinking. Apple doesn't own any land in Iowa now. How much tax are they paying? Zero.

When they buy the land, they will pay tax on the purchase of the property. So right off the bat, in the very act of getting this tax abatement, they are paying more tax than they ever did before.

Then when you include taxes on utilities alone, they are paying more tax than they did before.

Then taxes on every employee they have in Iowa. Then taxes on all the stuff they buy, services they get, contracts and so on.

And of course, after the abatement runs out, they will be paying full property taxes.

So it is NOT POSSIBLE for the government end up with less tax revenue from this deal, because they are already getting ZERO tax revenue.

And if they didn't do the deal, then Apple would not buy the land, hire people, or build anything. So they would never get any tax revenue.

The whole left-wing claim is just plain stupid, when any rational thinking person looks at the facts.

 

[Brain357]

Too many people think cronyism is only bad when a government-subsidized business goes broke and the taxpayers lose money on their investment, as with Solyndra. Koch makes an important point, which is one I have also made from time to time: in some ways, Solyndra represents a best-case scenario. It is even worse when government subsidies allow a favored business to survive, and it is the other guy, the one without political influence, who goes out of business. Government largesse inherently distorts the market and hurts consumers as well as non-favored businesses and their employees and investors. And, of course, taxpayers.

Why Cronyism Is Always Bad

And I agree. I hate all subsidizes. The reason we pointed out Solyndra, is because it was so blantantly obvious, and an example of how green energy sucks. If green energy was such a huge win, they would be able to make a profit, with, or without a government subsidy.

The fact they failed even with government money, proves that green energy is trash.

It was the same in the UK, where government reduced the subsidies for wind energy, and suddenly there was a crisis in the market.

These energy sources are not economically sustainable.

But back to the point:

I'm against all subsidies. All of them. There should be no subsidies at all. For anyone ever, period.

The big problem with this specific thread, is that the OP, isn't a a subsidy. It's a tax abatement.

There is a massive world of difference between going to McDonald's and having the store owner offer you a discount on your meal, and offering to force a different customer to pay a higher price for the same meal, so that you pay a lower price.

Do you see the difference? It's one thing to simply say "Andy, you only have to pay $3 instead of $4 for your burger" and saying "Andy, I'm going to charge Brainy over there $5, so I only have to charge you $3."

Do you see how one is a moral problem, and unjust, while the other is fine?

Same thing with government tax abatement, verses a subsidy.

It's one thing if government is charging taxes to it's citizens, and telling Apple they will pay for half the cost of construction, verse government simply saying Apple doesn't have to pay property tax for a few years.

Equally the mindless left, never seem to grasp how the tax abatement works.

They constantly spout off that companies are paying less tax, and this forces government to levy higher tax on the citizens.

This is absolutely bonkers thinking. Apple doesn't own any land in Iowa now. How much tax are they paying? Zero.

When they buy the land, they will pay tax on the purchase of the property. So right off the bat, in the very act of getting this tax abatement, they are paying more tax than they ever did before.

Then when you include taxes on utilities alone, they are paying more tax than they did before.

Then taxes on every employee they have in Iowa. Then taxes on all the stuff they buy, services they get, contracts and so on.

And of course, after the abatement runs out, they will be paying full property taxes.

So it is NOT POSSIBLE for the government end up with less tax revenue from this deal, because they are already getting ZERO tax revenue.

And if they didn't do the deal, then Apple would not buy the land, hire people, or build anything. So they would never get any tax revenue.

The whole left-wing claim is just plain stupid, when any rational thinking person looks at the facts.

Tax payers are getting hosed and the government is picking winners and losers. This is not capitalism or free market.
Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals
“Firms know where they want to be,” says economist David Swenson of Iowa State University. “The question of how much in rents they can extract from state and local governments is phase two. But taxes are a secondary consideration.”

“There is virtually no association between economic development incentives and any measure of economic performance,” urban economist Richard Florida concluded in 2012. A study of his found “no statistically significant association between economic development incentives per capita and average wages or incomes; none between incentives and college grads or knowledge workers; and none between incentives and the state unemployment rate.”

Another study found that, if anything, government incentives led to slowergrowth among the companies that received them, possibly because their managers spent more time pursuing incentives than focusing on the business, and felt less pressure to seek out nonincentive-related growth opportunities.

This is how states and localities end up on a merry-go-round of infinite spending. Whenever another deal gets proposed by starry-eyed politicians, the taxpayers should just say no.

 

[Andylusion]

Too many people think cronyism is only bad when a government-subsidized business goes broke and the taxpayers lose money on their investment, as with Solyndra. Koch makes an important point, which is one I have also made from time to time: in some ways, Solyndra represents a best-case scenario. It is even worse when government subsidies allow a favored business to survive, and it is the other guy, the one without political influence, who goes out of business. Government largesse inherently distorts the market and hurts consumers as well as non-favored businesses and their employees and investors. And, of course, taxpayers.

Why Cronyism Is Always Bad

And I agree. I hate all subsidizes. The reason we pointed out Solyndra, is because it was so blantantly obvious, and an example of how green energy sucks. If green energy was such a huge win, they would be able to make a profit, with, or without a government subsidy.

The fact they failed even with government money, proves that green energy is trash.

It was the same in the UK, where government reduced the subsidies for wind energy, and suddenly there was a crisis in the market.

These energy sources are not economically sustainable.

But back to the point:

I'm against all subsidies. All of them. There should be no subsidies at all. For anyone ever, period.

The big problem with this specific thread, is that the OP, isn't a a subsidy. It's a tax abatement.

There is a massive world of difference between going to McDonald's and having the store owner offer you a discount on your meal, and offering to force a different customer to pay a higher price for the same meal, so that you pay a lower price.

Do you see the difference? It's one thing to simply say "Andy, you only have to pay $3 instead of $4 for your burger" and saying "Andy, I'm going to charge Brainy over there $5, so I only have to charge you $3."

Do you see how one is a moral problem, and unjust, while the other is fine?

Same thing with government tax abatement, verses a subsidy.

It's one thing if government is charging taxes to it's citizens, and telling Apple they will pay for half the cost of construction, verse government simply saying Apple doesn't have to pay property tax for a few years.

Equally the mindless left, never seem to grasp how the tax abatement works.

They constantly spout off that companies are paying less tax, and this forces government to levy higher tax on the citizens.

This is absolutely bonkers thinking. Apple doesn't own any land in Iowa now. How much tax are they paying? Zero.

When they buy the land, they will pay tax on the purchase of the property. So right off the bat, in the very act of getting this tax abatement, they are paying more tax than they ever did before.

Then when you include taxes on utilities alone, they are paying more tax than they did before.

Then taxes on every employee they have in Iowa. Then taxes on all the stuff they buy, services they get, contracts and so on.

And of course, after the abatement runs out, they will be paying full property taxes.

So it is NOT POSSIBLE for the government end up with less tax revenue from this deal, because they are already getting ZERO tax revenue.

And if they didn't do the deal, then Apple would not buy the land, hire people, or build anything. So they would never get any tax revenue.

The whole left-wing claim is just plain stupid, when any rational thinking person looks at the facts.

Tax payers are getting hosed and the government is picking winners and losers. This is not capitalism or free market.
Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals
“Firms know where they want to be,” says economist David Swenson of Iowa State University. “The question of how much in rents they can extract from state and local governments is phase two. But taxes are a secondary consideration.”

“There is virtually no association between economic development incentives and any measure of economic performance,” urban economist Richard Florida concluded in 2012. A study of his found “no statistically significant association between economic development incentives per capita and average wages or incomes; none between incentives and college grads or knowledge workers; and none between incentives and the state unemployment rate.”

Another study found that, if anything, government incentives led to slowergrowth among the companies that received them, possibly because their managers spent more time pursuing incentives than focusing on the business, and felt less pressure to seek out nonincentive-related growth opportunities.

This is how states and localities end up on a merry-go-round of infinite spending. Whenever another deal gets proposed by starry-eyed politicians, the taxpayers should just say no.

Again, I would agree that incentives are not particularly helpful in economic growth, or unemployment.

However I would once again argue over the "rent seeking". There is no rent seeking in this particular discussion. Apple is not collecting rent from the government. They are not getting a check from the state of Iowa for millions of dollars.

The only other thing I would question is, the claim "firms know where they want to be", no... no. Sorry.

I've been around too many firms that specifically suggested 3 different locations, and based the choice on which state gave the better tax deal.

So I reject that claim.

 

[Brain357]

Too many people think cronyism is only bad when a government-subsidized business goes broke and the taxpayers lose money on their investment, as with Solyndra. Koch makes an important point, which is one I have also made from time to time: in some ways, Solyndra represents a best-case scenario. It is even worse when government subsidies allow a favored business to survive, and it is the other guy, the one without political influence, who goes out of business. Government largesse inherently distorts the market and hurts consumers as well as non-favored businesses and their employees and investors. And, of course, taxpayers.

Why Cronyism Is Always Bad

And I agree. I hate all subsidizes. The reason we pointed out Solyndra, is because it was so blantantly obvious, and an example of how green energy sucks. If green energy was such a huge win, they would be able to make a profit, with, or without a government subsidy.

The fact they failed even with government money, proves that green energy is trash.

It was the same in the UK, where government reduced the subsidies for wind energy, and suddenly there was a crisis in the market.

These energy sources are not economically sustainable.

But back to the point:

I'm against all subsidies. All of them. There should be no subsidies at all. For anyone ever, period.

The big problem with this specific thread, is that the OP, isn't a a subsidy. It's a tax abatement.

There is a massive world of difference between going to McDonald's and having the store owner offer you a discount on your meal, and offering to force a different customer to pay a higher price for the same meal, so that you pay a lower price.

Do you see the difference? It's one thing to simply say "Andy, you only have to pay $3 instead of $4 for your burger" and saying "Andy, I'm going to charge Brainy over there $5, so I only have to charge you $3."

Do you see how one is a moral problem, and unjust, while the other is fine?

Same thing with government tax abatement, verses a subsidy.

It's one thing if government is charging taxes to it's citizens, and telling Apple they will pay for half the cost of construction, verse government simply saying Apple doesn't have to pay property tax for a few years.

Equally the mindless left, never seem to grasp how the tax abatement works.

They constantly spout off that companies are paying less tax, and this forces government to levy higher tax on the citizens.

This is absolutely bonkers thinking. Apple doesn't own any land in Iowa now. How much tax are they paying? Zero.

When they buy the land, they will pay tax on the purchase of the property. So right off the bat, in the very act of getting this tax abatement, they are paying more tax than they ever did before.

Then when you include taxes on utilities alone, they are paying more tax than they did before.

Then taxes on every employee they have in Iowa. Then taxes on all the stuff they buy, services they get, contracts and so on.

And of course, after the abatement runs out, they will be paying full property taxes.

So it is NOT POSSIBLE for the government end up with less tax revenue from this deal, because they are already getting ZERO tax revenue.

And if they didn't do the deal, then Apple would not buy the land, hire people, or build anything. So they would never get any tax revenue.

The whole left-wing claim is just plain stupid, when any rational thinking person looks at the facts.

Tax payers are getting hosed and the government is picking winners and losers. This is not capitalism or free market.
Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals
“Firms know where they want to be,” says economist David Swenson of Iowa State University. “The question of how much in rents they can extract from state and local governments is phase two. But taxes are a secondary consideration.”

“There is virtually no association between economic development incentives and any measure of economic performance,” urban economist Richard Florida concluded in 2012. A study of his found “no statistically significant association between economic development incentives per capita and average wages or incomes; none between incentives and college grads or knowledge workers; and none between incentives and the state unemployment rate.”

Another study found that, if anything, government incentives led to slowergrowth among the companies that received them, possibly because their managers spent more time pursuing incentives than focusing on the business, and felt less pressure to seek out nonincentive-related growth opportunities.

This is how states and localities end up on a merry-go-round of infinite spending. Whenever another deal gets proposed by starry-eyed politicians, the taxpayers should just say no.

Again, I would agree that incentives are not particularly helpful in economic growth, or unemployment.

However I would once again argue over the "rent seeking". There is no rent seeking in this particular discussion. Apple is not collecting rent from the government. They are not getting a check from the state of Iowa for millions of dollars.

The only other thing I would question is, the claim "firms know where they want to be", no... no. Sorry.

I've been around too many firms that specifically suggested 3 different locations, and based the choice on which state gave the better tax deal.

So I reject that claim.

Do you believe in capitalism? Seems you are making a lot of excuses to go against capitalism. You think the government makes better decisions than the free market?

If a firm is picking a location just based on a tax deal they are not making a very wise business choice. Government shouldn't be determining where a business goes. Should the government just take over the business and run it too? You are ok with just a little socialism? Just where does that stop? You think government involvement is good for an economy?

 

[Dschrute3]

Live by greed, die by greed. Americans are greedy folks for the most part. They're indoctrinated on it from the moment they're born. It was inevitable that large corporations take over the country. It's a 'Government/Corporate Complex' now.

For example, take a closer look at your American MSM some time. It's owned and controlled by just a handful of large corporations. And those few large corporations are in turn, in bed with your Government. It's where extreme perverted greed has taken us. You're gonna get the Government the few large corporations paid for. So, expect education to get worse, cost of living to get worse, jobs to get worse, and slavery to increase. I'm very sad stating that, but that is the future. Goodbye America. It was nice knowing ya.

The only way to have any sort of freedom and individuality is to consider people's financial affairs off-limits to the federal government. The village/collective is a fucked up concept... and should be treated as such

The is no more 'American Dream.' The Owners will only allow the unwashed masses very limited prosperity. They own the game, they make the rules. And those rules are made to only benefit them. So Americans should only expect things to get worse.

Education? Forget it. Affordable Cost of Living? Forget it. Good Jobs? Forget it. The Owners are moving us towards slavery. They want their Slave Labor like they have in other awful nations around the world. They want everything. They want it all.

This wise ole sage said it far better than i ever could...

 

[Brain357]

Here is another winner. Lobbying pays off. Not good business, just bought politicians.
Wisconsin shows how job incentives are handed out -- in Bizarro world

The company is Ashley Furniture, which has had its snout in the taxpayer trough before. But the new grant is more than all those others combined, the Journal says. The $6-million grant, which has been voted by the state Economic Development Corp. but not yet finalized, won't require Ashley to create any new jobs. Instead, it will allow the manufacturer to "lay off half of its current 3,848 Wisconsin-based workers," the newspaper says.

The chairman of the incentive-awarding body is Republican Gov. Scott Walker. A few weeks after the WEDC approved the grant to Ashley, its owners donated $20,000 to Walker's re-election campaign.

 

[Andylusion]

Too many people think cronyism is only bad when a government-subsidized business goes broke and the taxpayers lose money on their investment, as with Solyndra. Koch makes an important point, which is one I have also made from time to time: in some ways, Solyndra represents a best-case scenario. It is even worse when government subsidies allow a favored business to survive, and it is the other guy, the one without political influence, who goes out of business. Government largesse inherently distorts the market and hurts consumers as well as non-favored businesses and their employees and investors. And, of course, taxpayers.

Why Cronyism Is Always Bad

And I agree. I hate all subsidizes. The reason we pointed out Solyndra, is because it was so blantantly obvious, and an example of how green energy sucks. If green energy was such a huge win, they would be able to make a profit, with, or without a government subsidy.

The fact they failed even with government money, proves that green energy is trash.

It was the same in the UK, where government reduced the subsidies for wind energy, and suddenly there was a crisis in the market.

These energy sources are not economically sustainable.

But back to the point:

I'm against all subsidies. All of them. There should be no subsidies at all. For anyone ever, period.

The big problem with this specific thread, is that the OP, isn't a a subsidy. It's a tax abatement.

There is a massive world of difference between going to McDonald's and having the store owner offer you a discount on your meal, and offering to force a different customer to pay a higher price for the same meal, so that you pay a lower price.

Do you see the difference? It's one thing to simply say "Andy, you only have to pay $3 instead of $4 for your burger" and saying "Andy, I'm going to charge Brainy over there $5, so I only have to charge you $3."

Do you see how one is a moral problem, and unjust, while the other is fine?

Same thing with government tax abatement, verses a subsidy.

It's one thing if government is charging taxes to it's citizens, and telling Apple they will pay for half the cost of construction, verse government simply saying Apple doesn't have to pay property tax for a few years.

Equally the mindless left, never seem to grasp how the tax abatement works.

They constantly spout off that companies are paying less tax, and this forces government to levy higher tax on the citizens.

This is absolutely bonkers thinking. Apple doesn't own any land in Iowa now. How much tax are they paying? Zero.

When they buy the land, they will pay tax on the purchase of the property. So right off the bat, in the very act of getting this tax abatement, they are paying more tax than they ever did before.

Then when you include taxes on utilities alone, they are paying more tax than they did before.

Then taxes on every employee they have in Iowa. Then taxes on all the stuff they buy, services they get, contracts and so on.

And of course, after the abatement runs out, they will be paying full property taxes.

So it is NOT POSSIBLE for the government end up with less tax revenue from this deal, because they are already getting ZERO tax revenue.

And if they didn't do the deal, then Apple would not buy the land, hire people, or build anything. So they would never get any tax revenue.

The whole left-wing claim is just plain stupid, when any rational thinking person looks at the facts.

Tax payers are getting hosed and the government is picking winners and losers. This is not capitalism or free market.
Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals
“Firms know where they want to be,” says economist David Swenson of Iowa State University. “The question of how much in rents they can extract from state and local governments is phase two. But taxes are a secondary consideration.”

“There is virtually no association between economic development incentives and any measure of economic performance,” urban economist Richard Florida concluded in 2012. A study of his found “no statistically significant association between economic development incentives per capita and average wages or incomes; none between incentives and college grads or knowledge workers; and none between incentives and the state unemployment rate.”

Another study found that, if anything, government incentives led to slowergrowth among the companies that received them, possibly because their managers spent more time pursuing incentives than focusing on the business, and felt less pressure to seek out nonincentive-related growth opportunities.

This is how states and localities end up on a merry-go-round of infinite spending. Whenever another deal gets proposed by starry-eyed politicians, the taxpayers should just say no.

Again, I would agree that incentives are not particularly helpful in economic growth, or unemployment.

However I would once again argue over the "rent seeking". There is no rent seeking in this particular discussion. Apple is not collecting rent from the government. They are not getting a check from the state of Iowa for millions of dollars.

The only other thing I would question is, the claim "firms know where they want to be", no... no. Sorry.

I've been around too many firms that specifically suggested 3 different locations, and based the choice on which state gave the better tax deal.

So I reject that claim.

Do you believe in capitalism? Seems you are making a lot of excuses to go against capitalism. You think the government makes better decisions than the free market?

If a firm is picking a location just based on a tax deal they are not making a very wise business choice. Government shouldn't be determining where a business goes. Should the government just take over the business and run it too? You are ok with just a little socialism? Just where does that stop? You think government involvement is good for an economy?

How do you know if picking a location based on tax deals, isn't a wise business choice? Show me your numbers. Of course you can't.

Further, you show me where I supported government making tax deals? There is a huge difference between explaining reality, and saying you support it.

If I was governor of Iowa, I would not be offering any deals. But I understand why they do. And I don't see it as such a huge problem.

Because honestly, if you think a tax abatement is the end of capitalism, then you should be against tax deductions for having kids too. Is government supposed to pick winners and losers citizens based on popping out kids?

Same logic you are spouting.

Where does it end? It ends with subsidies. The moment government is taking money from one person, to give it out to another person, that is a huge problem.

 

[Andylusion]

Here is another winner. Lobbying pays off. Not good business, just bought politicians.
Wisconsin shows how job incentives are handed out -- in Bizarro world

The company is Ashley Furniture, which has had its snout in the taxpayer trough before. But the new grant is more than all those others combined, the Journal says. The $6-million grant, which has been voted by the state Economic Development Corp. but not yet finalized, won't require Ashley to create any new jobs. Instead, it will allow the manufacturer to "lay off half of its current 3,848 Wisconsin-based workers," the newspaper says.

The chairman of the incentive-awarding body is Republican Gov. Scott Walker. A few weeks after the WEDC approved the grant to Ashley, its owners donated $20,000 to Walker's re-election campaign.

Yeah I am against government grants. That's bad for the tax payers.

 

[Brain357]

Too many people think cronyism is only bad when a government-subsidized business goes broke and the taxpayers lose money on their investment, as with Solyndra. Koch makes an important point, which is one I have also made from time to time: in some ways, Solyndra represents a best-case scenario. It is even worse when government subsidies allow a favored business to survive, and it is the other guy, the one without political influence, who goes out of business. Government largesse inherently distorts the market and hurts consumers as well as non-favored businesses and their employees and investors. And, of course, taxpayers.

Why Cronyism Is Always Bad

And I agree. I hate all subsidizes. The reason we pointed out Solyndra, is because it was so blantantly obvious, and an example of how green energy sucks. If green energy was such a huge win, they would be able to make a profit, with, or without a government subsidy.

The fact they failed even with government money, proves that green energy is trash.

It was the same in the UK, where government reduced the subsidies for wind energy, and suddenly there was a crisis in the market.

These energy sources are not economically sustainable.

But back to the point:

I'm against all subsidies. All of them. There should be no subsidies at all. For anyone ever, period.

The big problem with this specific thread, is that the OP, isn't a a subsidy. It's a tax abatement.

There is a massive world of difference between going to McDonald's and having the store owner offer you a discount on your meal, and offering to force a different customer to pay a higher price for the same meal, so that you pay a lower price.

Do you see the difference? It's one thing to simply say "Andy, you only have to pay $3 instead of $4 for your burger" and saying "Andy, I'm going to charge Brainy over there $5, so I only have to charge you $3."

Do you see how one is a moral problem, and unjust, while the other is fine?

Same thing with government tax abatement, verses a subsidy.

It's one thing if government is charging taxes to it's citizens, and telling Apple they will pay for half the cost of construction, verse government simply saying Apple doesn't have to pay property tax for a few years.

Equally the mindless left, never seem to grasp how the tax abatement works.

They constantly spout off that companies are paying less tax, and this forces government to levy higher tax on the citizens.

This is absolutely bonkers thinking. Apple doesn't own any land in Iowa now. How much tax are they paying? Zero.

When they buy the land, they will pay tax on the purchase of the property. So right off the bat, in the very act of getting this tax abatement, they are paying more tax than they ever did before.

Then when you include taxes on utilities alone, they are paying more tax than they did before.

Then taxes on every employee they have in Iowa. Then taxes on all the stuff they buy, services they get, contracts and so on.

And of course, after the abatement runs out, they will be paying full property taxes.

So it is NOT POSSIBLE for the government end up with less tax revenue from this deal, because they are already getting ZERO tax revenue.

And if they didn't do the deal, then Apple would not buy the land, hire people, or build anything. So they would never get any tax revenue.

The whole left-wing claim is just plain stupid, when any rational thinking person looks at the facts.

Tax payers are getting hosed and the government is picking winners and losers. This is not capitalism or free market.
Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals
“Firms know where they want to be,” says economist David Swenson of Iowa State University. “The question of how much in rents they can extract from state and local governments is phase two. But taxes are a secondary consideration.”

“There is virtually no association between economic development incentives and any measure of economic performance,” urban economist Richard Florida concluded in 2012. A study of his found “no statistically significant association between economic development incentives per capita and average wages or incomes; none between incentives and college grads or knowledge workers; and none between incentives and the state unemployment rate.”

Another study found that, if anything, government incentives led to slowergrowth among the companies that received them, possibly because their managers spent more time pursuing incentives than focusing on the business, and felt less pressure to seek out nonincentive-related growth opportunities.

This is how states and localities end up on a merry-go-round of infinite spending. Whenever another deal gets proposed by starry-eyed politicians, the taxpayers should just say no.

Again, I would agree that incentives are not particularly helpful in economic growth, or unemployment.

However I would once again argue over the "rent seeking". There is no rent seeking in this particular discussion. Apple is not collecting rent from the government. They are not getting a check from the state of Iowa for millions of dollars.

The only other thing I would question is, the claim "firms know where they want to be", no... no. Sorry.

I've been around too many firms that specifically suggested 3 different locations, and based the choice on which state gave the better tax deal.

So I reject that claim.

Do you believe in capitalism? Seems you are making a lot of excuses to go against capitalism. You think the government makes better decisions than the free market?

If a firm is picking a location just based on a tax deal they are not making a very wise business choice. Government shouldn't be determining where a business goes. Should the government just take over the business and run it too? You are ok with just a little socialism? Just where does that stop? You think government involvement is good for an economy?

How do you know if picking a location based on tax deals, isn't a wise business choice? Show me your numbers. Of course you can't.

Further, you show me where I supported government making tax deals? There is a huge difference between explaining reality, and saying you support it.

If I was governor of Iowa, I would not be offering any deals. But I understand why they do. And I don't see it as such a huge problem.

Because honestly, if you think a tax abatement is the end of capitalism, then you should be against tax deductions for having kids too. Is government supposed to pick winners and losers citizens based on popping out kids?

Same logic you are spouting.

Where does it end? It ends with subsidies. The moment government is taking money from one person, to give it out to another person, that is a huge problem.

If you are against these deals we really have nothing to argue about.

I am against tax expenditures also actually.

 

[Dschrute3]

Just remember folks, the Corporate Owners will always just want more for themselves and less for everybody else. Because they know the truth. It's called the 'American Dream', because you have to be asleep to believe it.

 

[Andylusion]

Just remember folks, the Corporate Owners will always just want more for themselves and less for everybody else. Because they know the truth, it's called the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Then why do they constantly offer pay hikes? I just got a raise myself. Why didn't my corporate owner cut my pay?

By the way, who are the corporate owners? I own stock in Ford, and Walmart and a dozen others. I guess I'm the evil corporate owners? Along with all those Union people, and 401K people, and retired people?

Dumb post.

 

[Dschrute3]

Just remember folks, the Corporate Owners will always just want more for themselves and less for everybody else. Because they know the truth, it's called the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Then why do they constantly offer pay hikes? I just got a raise myself. Why didn't my corporate owner cut my pay?

By the way, who are the corporate owners? I own stock in Ford, and Walmart and a dozen others. I guess I'm the evil corporate owners? Along with all those Union people, and 401K people, and retired people?

Dumb post.

The Owners will loosen the leash a bit. But in the end, they're gonna get it all. Because it's all about getting more for themselves, and less for everybody else. Folks should only expect things to get worse. It's a real tragedy. The American Dream is dead.

 

[Andylusion]

Just remember folks, the Corporate Owners will always just want more for themselves and less for everybody else. Because they know the truth, it's called the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Then why do they constantly offer pay hikes? I just got a raise myself. Why didn't my corporate owner cut my pay?

By the way, who are the corporate owners? I own stock in Ford, and Walmart and a dozen others. I guess I'm the evil corporate owners? Along with all those Union people, and 401K people, and retired people?

Dumb post.

The Owners will loosen the leash a bit. But in the end, they're gonna get it all. Because it's all about getting more for themselves, and less for everybody else. Folks should only expect things to get worse. It's a real tragedy. The American Dream is dead.

Dave Thomas worked for Kentucky Fried Chicken, as an hourly employee.

He ended up starting his own restaurant chain, and being super wealthy.

Why didn't what you claim happen to him?

The current CEO of Walmart, started off as a low wage hourly crew member at a walmart distribution center, unloading trucks.

Why didn't what you claim happen to him?

I can keep going. How many examples would you like?

Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital

How did a janitor end up a multi-millionaire?

Why didn't the evil 'owners' keep him poor, so they could be more wealthy themselves?

 

[Dschrute3]

Just remember folks, the Corporate Owners will always just want more for themselves and less for everybody else. Because they know the truth, it's called the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Then why do they constantly offer pay hikes? I just got a raise myself. Why didn't my corporate owner cut my pay?

By the way, who are the corporate owners? I own stock in Ford, and Walmart and a dozen others. I guess I'm the evil corporate owners? Along with all those Union people, and 401K people, and retired people?

Dumb post.

The Owners will loosen the leash a bit. But in the end, they're gonna get it all. Because it's all about getting more for themselves, and less for everybody else. Folks should only expect things to get worse. It's a real tragedy. The American Dream is dead.

Dave Thomas worked for Kentucky Fried Chicken, as an hourly employee.

He ended up starting his own restaurant chain, and being super wealthy.

Why didn't what you claim happen to him?

The current CEO of Walmart, started off as a low wage hourly crew member at a walmart distribution center, unloading trucks.

Why didn't what you claim happen to him?

I can keep going. How many examples would you like?

Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital

How did a janitor end up a multi-millionaire?

Why didn't the evil 'owners' keep him poor, so they could be more wealthy themselves?

 

[bripat9643]

Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?

They are at a competitive disadvantage because their overhead is higher, because they are paying higher taxes. Are you just ******* around, or do you really not get that?

Okay, and what if the new business is different from theirs and there is no competition? Is it still bad?

I sell hats for a living. A new business that doesn't deal in hats moves in. They keep my taxes stagnant and draw in more customers who may stop at my store which increases the revenue for my business. Who is harmed by this?

If you don't have a patent, I can do whatever I like.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just remember folks, the Corporate Owners will always just want more for themselves and less for everybody else. Because they know the truth. It's called the 'American Dream', because you have to be asleep to believe it.

The corporate owners could care less what anybody else has. Of course they want to make more. Who doesn't? I want to make more, you want to make more, everybody wants to make more. The people that say I only want to make X, and I'll stop there will never be successful because they simply don't have the mindset.

The key to financial success is to always want more. It's like those stories your read about lottery winners. For some, it's a life changing experience for the better. For others, it was the worst thing to happen in their lives. Those people spent money like drunken sailors. They didn't consider taxes or that the money they have was not an infinite amount of money. The people that benefitted used that money more responsibly. They bought some nice things, maybe helped a few people out, but invested the rest to make even more money.

Money is a responsibility and not everybody has the responsibility to handle money be it a little or a lot.