Corporate welfare in action ....

[Wyatt earp]

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 ..


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

$20 million in government gifts.

For 50 jobs.

How many construction jobs?



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

$20 million in government gifts.

For 50 jobs.

I should of read the link, what else is new with you lying...



Any one ever been around there nothing but corn fields, one company comes like apple more to follow..



.

 

[dblack]

So who are you really angry with, the CEO who is just hired to run the corporation or the actual owners and beneficiaries of the corporation?

Neither. They're just playing the game the states have set up. I'm angry with the federal government for not using the Commerce Clause as it was intended.

 

[NightFox]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dblack]

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?

 

[dblack]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

Ever hear of the Farm Bill ?

Yep. Another abysmal example of corporatism.

 

[dblack]

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

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

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

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

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

Disagree completely. This kind of protectionism is exactly the reason for the Commerce Clause. The states have an obligation to provide equal protection of the laws they enforce. That means everyone follows the same laws. No one gets special perks because of who they are or what they promise to do in exchange.

 

[my2¢]

What I dislike about these deals is that big guys get theirs while mom-and-pop businesses without deep pockets to twist politicians arms that have been in the state for generations are left to fend for themselves.

From Iowa constitution:
Laws uniform. Section 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

 

[dblack]

Well I have some bad news for ya, and that is taxes are different in every state, city and town even without abatements. So if a business is concerned about taxation, they will move to a city or state that has lower taxes than the others. You're not going to have a flat state or city tax rate across the country because the federal government doesn't (and can''t) regulate local taxation. So areas lowering their tax rate to be the most business attractive is the only move they have.

The problem isn't different governments having different tax rates. The problem is when a state gives ad-hoc exemptions to specific business or individuals. That's a blatant violation of equal protection.

 

[dblack]

Preppy Progues

To those who look backstage at the drama, this is more proof that Social Justice Warlords are vindictive self-obsessed brats, who, like Bill Ayers, are acting out an adolescent hatred of their CEO fathers. They look at only how the hated upper management will benefit and not on how many jobs Apple will bring to Iowa. It's all about a struggle at the top; the rest of us don't count.

WTF?

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[NightFox]

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

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

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

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

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

Disagree completely. This kind of protectionism is exactly the reason for the Commerce Clause.

How does this qualify as protectionism or invoke Article I section 8? Iowa isn't erecting any barriers to inter state trade with this move, it's just competing for a new facility that was "on the market".

The states have an obligation to provide equal protection of the laws they enforce. That means everyone follows the same laws. No one gets special perks because of who they are or what they promise to do in exchange.

IMHO We'd have to refer to the Iowa State Constitution to determine whether this sort of transaction legally violates it (I doubt it does but it's possible) but as I said this is a case of a State competing for business on the open market. Incentives are only part of how the States compete with each other various other factors will come into play like for example existing infrastructure, education and availability of workforce and the regulatory environment.

All in all this is actually an INVESTMENT for the State of Iowa since it will doubtless grow the States economy (even excluding the $100 million pledge by Apple towards the States Public Improvement fund), the facility will become part of the States capital stock, whether or not it's a good investment can only be determined by analysis of what is being spent versus what the projected returns in output growth and future tax receipts over time are (ROI).

 

[dblack]

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.

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

 

[dblack]

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

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

You could always just let the jobs move overseas...

Then we get cheaper products and better relations with our trading partners. Win/win.

 

[dblack]

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 ..

Not as much as I like liberty and free markets.

 

[dblack]

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

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

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

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

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

The Federal Constitution requires states to ensure equal protection of the law. Iowa's state constitution is even more explicit: That means nobody gets special exemptions because of who they are or any quid-pro-quo they may offer.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Big government picking winners and losers.

Cities and states are not big government.

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

Calamity Carly

That's more hypocrisy than I can bear. You private-sector eliists have no problem with HeirDads pre-positioning their sons up halfway to the finish line. And now they even pick their daughters to be winners, which is the real reason they started feminism.

I'm pretty sure you aren't making any sense.

Bootlickers Inhale Bootpolish Fumes


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

 

[dblack]

Big government picking winners and losers.

Cities and states are not big government.

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

Calamity Carly

That's more hypocrisy than I can bear. You private-sector eliists have no problem with HeirDads pre-positioning their sons up halfway to the finish line. And now they even pick their daughters to be winners, which is the real reason they started feminism.

I'm pretty sure you aren't making any sense.

Bootlickers Inhale Bootpolish Fumes


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

Are you on drugs? It's awfully early to be drinking.

 

[NightFox]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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