Corporate welfare in action ....

[dblack]

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time.

This is not companies competing for state business. It's nothing like the state building roads. The state is authorized to build roads. Unless a state switches to socialism, it's not authorized to build computer plants.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Could a smaller company get the same deal?

Could a smaller company offer the same deal?

Remember the State expects to get something in return for the money it's spending, a smaller company definitely could get a similar TYPE deal (i.e. come build your facility here instead of in another State) but the geometry of deal would be commensurate with the size of the return the State expects to receive for the ask.

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time, in fact it's not uncommon that States give preferential treatment to smaller companies under certain circumstances.

So no. Don't you think big companies already have enough advantages?

What advantage are you talking about? This is a TWO sided transaction, Apple is offering value in return for value, that's why there were multiple states trying to win the deal. If you take away the monetary incentives then the States with labor force, infrastructure and regulatory advantages would win ALL the business and leave States with competitive disadvantages in these areas to get steadily poorer.

Do you think a small company should get the same price when they're offering a smaller return to the State? getting LESS in return for the same amount of money, wouldn't that be a stupid ass business decision on the States part?

You trust big gov to make the right deals?

I don't trust government to do anything right but that's irrelevant to whether or not this particular case represents corporate welfare, a violation of equal protections or infringement on the commerce clause.

If company A pays less in taxes than competitor company B, A has a government created advantage.

So you don't trust government but want them cutting deals with companies. That makes no sense. It seems you do trust them.

 

[Siete]

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 losers need to get a grip on reality. This is not a welfare program, this is a smart business move by both parties. The state gets a bunch of high paying data processing and maintenance jobs and the business gets a nice incentive


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Government picking winners and losers. You must love government.

thats one way to look at it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or

states have the freedom to make their own rules and decide whats best for them

 

[BluesLegend]

This OP obviously doesn't know what a publically traded company is, and who owns it. Hint: Countless public and private employee pension plans own Apple, omg those evil Teachers unions are sucking up corporate welfare ALARM!!

and WHY should citizens who do not have apple in their portfolio pay for it with their taxes?

Pay for what tax revenue that does not exist? You get that currently the site for the data center is bare land not in use and generating pretty much no tax revenue right. I rate your post 4 eye rolls for stupidity

oh silly ignorance is just bull crud!

Seriously, if Apple goes elsewhere how much tax revenue will be lost? Answer, next to nothing on the bare land, they would lose all the tax revenue generated by Apple investing $1.4 billion though. God why am I even talking to you nitwit liberals, note to self don't waste time on liberal morons.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Could a smaller company get the same deal?

Could a smaller company offer the same deal?

Remember the State expects to get something in return for the money it's spending, a smaller company definitely could get a similar TYPE deal (i.e. come build your facility here instead of in another State) but the geometry of deal would be commensurate with the size of the return the State expects to receive for the ask.

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time, in fact it's not uncommon that States give preferential treatment to smaller companies under certain circumstances.

So no. Don't you think big companies already have enough advantages?

What advantage are you talking about? This is a TWO sided transaction, Apple is offering value in return for value, that's why there were multiple states trying to win the deal. If you take away the monetary incentives then the States with labor force, infrastructure and regulatory advantages would win ALL the business and leave States with competitive disadvantages in these areas to get steadily poorer.

Do you think a small company should get the same price when they're offering a smaller return to the State? getting LESS in return for the same amount of money, wouldn't that be a stupid ass business decision on the States part?

You trust big gov to make the right deals?

I don't trust government to do anything right but that's irrelevant to whether or not this particular case represents corporate welfare, a violation of equal protections or infringement on the commerce clause.

If company A pays less in taxes than competitor company B, A has a government created advantage.

So you don't trust government but want them cutting deals with companies. That makes no sense. It seems you do trust them.

Fine don't negotiate with corporations, let the billions in investment and jobs go to another state. Stupid idea but you libs seem stuck on stupid.

 

[Brain357]

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 losers need to get a grip on reality. This is not a welfare program, this is a smart business move by both parties. The state gets a bunch of high paying data processing and maintenance jobs and the business gets a nice incentive


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Government picking winners and losers. You must love government.

thats one way to look at it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or

states have the freedom to make their own rules and decide whats best for them

They do have the freedom. Create the rules and apply them to everyone.

 

[Brain357]

Could a smaller company get the same deal?

Could a smaller company offer the same deal?

Remember the State expects to get something in return for the money it's spending, a smaller company definitely could get a similar TYPE deal (i.e. come build your facility here instead of in another State) but the geometry of deal would be commensurate with the size of the return the State expects to receive for the ask.

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time, in fact it's not uncommon that States give preferential treatment to smaller companies under certain circumstances.

So no. Don't you think big companies already have enough advantages?

What advantage are you talking about? This is a TWO sided transaction, Apple is offering value in return for value, that's why there were multiple states trying to win the deal. If you take away the monetary incentives then the States with labor force, infrastructure and regulatory advantages would win ALL the business and leave States with competitive disadvantages in these areas to get steadily poorer.

Do you think a small company should get the same price when they're offering a smaller return to the State? getting LESS in return for the same amount of money, wouldn't that be a stupid ass business decision on the States part?

You trust big gov to make the right deals?

I don't trust government to do anything right but that's irrelevant to whether or not this particular case represents corporate welfare, a violation of equal protections or infringement on the commerce clause.

If company A pays less in taxes than competitor company B, A has a government created advantage.

So you don't trust government but want them cutting deals with companies. That makes no sense. It seems you do trust them.

Fine don't negotiate with corporations, let the billions in investment and jobs go to another state. Stupid idea but you libs seem stuck on stupid.

I had no idea you loved government so much. You think they can pick winners. Very funny.

 

[NightFox]

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time.

This is not companies competing for state business. It's nothing like the state building roads. The state is authorized to build roads. Unless a state switches to socialism, it's not authorized to build computer plants.

It's not building a "computer plant" (Apple is doing that) it's buying an increase in it's capital stock, jobs for its citizens and future tax recipients which is no different than paying for a capital investment like a road and what a State is authorized to buy or build is determined by its State Constitution.

If States used your blanket prohibition then the only States getting any significant capital investment inflows from private enterprise outside those pursuant to exploiting the States natural resources would be those States with high labor force availability and skills, good infrastructure and reasonable regulatory environment, all the other States would be fucked since they wouldn't have the means to invest in making themselves more attractive to private business investment, State incentives in this case are equalizers.

 

[BluesLegend]

Could a smaller company offer the same deal?

Remember the State expects to get something in return for the money it's spending, a smaller company definitely could get a similar TYPE deal (i.e. come build your facility here instead of in another State) but the geometry of deal would be commensurate with the size of the return the State expects to receive for the ask.

Beyond that small companies win State business all the time, in fact it's not uncommon that States give preferential treatment to smaller companies under certain circumstances.

So no. Don't you think big companies already have enough advantages?

What advantage are you talking about? This is a TWO sided transaction, Apple is offering value in return for value, that's why there were multiple states trying to win the deal. If you take away the monetary incentives then the States with labor force, infrastructure and regulatory advantages would win ALL the business and leave States with competitive disadvantages in these areas to get steadily poorer.

Do you think a small company should get the same price when they're offering a smaller return to the State? getting LESS in return for the same amount of money, wouldn't that be a stupid ass business decision on the States part?

You trust big gov to make the right deals?

I don't trust government to do anything right but that's irrelevant to whether or not this particular case represents corporate welfare, a violation of equal protections or infringement on the commerce clause.

If company A pays less in taxes than competitor company B, A has a government created advantage.

So you don't trust government but want them cutting deals with companies. That makes no sense. It seems you do trust them.

Fine don't negotiate with corporations, let the billions in investment and jobs go to another state. Stupid idea but you libs seem stuck on stupid.

I had no idea you loved government so much. You think they can pick winners. Very funny.

You want Apple to invest $1.4 billion in your community or not? It seems obvious that your hatred of corporations trumps common sense.

 

[Siete]

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 losers need to get a grip on reality. This is not a welfare program, this is a smart business move by both parties. The state gets a bunch of high paying data processing and maintenance jobs and the business gets a nice incentive


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Government picking winners and losers. You must love government.

thats one way to look at it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or

states have the freedom to make their own rules and decide whats best for them

They do have the freedom. Create the rules and apply them to everyone.

they are for everyone ....everyone that wants to move to, or lives in Iowa, and start a business.

 

[Brain357]

So no. Don't you think big companies already have enough advantages?

What advantage are you talking about? This is a TWO sided transaction, Apple is offering value in return for value, that's why there were multiple states trying to win the deal. If you take away the monetary incentives then the States with labor force, infrastructure and regulatory advantages would win ALL the business and leave States with competitive disadvantages in these areas to get steadily poorer.

Do you think a small company should get the same price when they're offering a smaller return to the State? getting LESS in return for the same amount of money, wouldn't that be a stupid ass business decision on the States part?

You trust big gov to make the right deals?

I don't trust government to do anything right but that's irrelevant to whether or not this particular case represents corporate welfare, a violation of equal protections or infringement on the commerce clause.

If company A pays less in taxes than competitor company B, A has a government created advantage.

So you don't trust government but want them cutting deals with companies. That makes no sense. It seems you do trust them.

Fine don't negotiate with corporations, let the billions in investment and jobs go to another state. Stupid idea but you libs seem stuck on stupid.

I had no idea you loved government so much. You think they can pick winners. Very funny.

You want Apple to invest $1.4 billion in your community or not? It seems obvious that your hatred of corporations trumps common sense.

If your taxes are too high then lower them for everybody. Why do you trust government so much?

 

[Brain357]

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 losers need to get a grip on reality. This is not a welfare program, this is a smart business move by both parties. The state gets a bunch of high paying data processing and maintenance jobs and the business gets a nice incentive


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Government picking winners and losers. You must love government.

thats one way to look at it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or

states have the freedom to make their own rules and decide whats best for them

They do have the freedom. Create the rules and apply them to everyone.

they are for everyone ....everyone that wants to move to, or lives in Iowa, and start a business.

The deal isn't for everyone.

 

[BluesLegend]

What advantage are you talking about? This is a TWO sided transaction, Apple is offering value in return for value, that's why there were multiple states trying to win the deal. If you take away the monetary incentives then the States with labor force, infrastructure and regulatory advantages would win ALL the business and leave States with competitive disadvantages in these areas to get steadily poorer.

Do you think a small company should get the same price when they're offering a smaller return to the State? getting LESS in return for the same amount of money, wouldn't that be a stupid ass business decision on the States part?

I don't trust government to do anything right but that's irrelevant to whether or not this particular case represents corporate welfare, a violation of equal protections or infringement on the commerce clause.

If company A pays less in taxes than competitor company B, A has a government created advantage.

So you don't trust government but want them cutting deals with companies. That makes no sense. It seems you do trust them.

Fine don't negotiate with corporations, let the billions in investment and jobs go to another state. Stupid idea but you libs seem stuck on stupid.

I had no idea you loved government so much. You think they can pick winners. Very funny.

You want Apple to invest $1.4 billion in your community or not? It seems obvious that your hatred of corporations trumps common sense.

If your taxes are too high then lower them for everybody. Why do you trust government so much?

If you are just going to troll like a punk talk to the hand lib

 

[Brain357]

If company A pays less in taxes than competitor company B, A has a government created advantage.

So you don't trust government but want them cutting deals with companies. That makes no sense. It seems you do trust them.

Fine don't negotiate with corporations, let the billions in investment and jobs go to another state. Stupid idea but you libs seem stuck on stupid.

I had no idea you loved government so much. You think they can pick winners. Very funny.

You want Apple to invest $1.4 billion in your community or not? It seems obvious that your hatred of corporations trumps common sense.

If your taxes are too high then lower them for everybody. Why do you trust government so much?

If you are just going to troll like a punk talk to the hand lib

As long as we are clear that you trust government to pick winners and losers. Way better than a free market eh?

 

[Siete]

You losers need to get a grip on reality. This is not a welfare program, this is a smart business move by both parties. The state gets a bunch of high paying data processing and maintenance jobs and the business gets a nice incentive


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Government picking winners and losers. You must love government.

thats one way to look at it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or

states have the freedom to make their own rules and decide whats best for them

They do have the freedom. Create the rules and apply them to everyone.

they are for everyone ....everyone that wants to move to, or lives in Iowa, and start a business.

The deal isn't for everyone.

so if GE wants to follow suit they get no deal or the same deal or a better deal ?

I havent seen the contract, I cant say.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

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.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Public Enemies

Low taxes on undeveloped property tempt speculators to buy it and hold it until they can hit the highest possible jackpot. This keeps useful property out of its natural course of circulation.

In my undisclosed location, the Medical Center was one big traffic jam crammed into an inadequate
space. All the while, it was surrounded by huge vacant acres. So Capitalist theory suffers from as many defects as Communist theory. The hoarders should be taxed based on what the property could sell for at the present if it were not being frozen waiting for the highest possible future bonanza. Also, the hospitals themselves should have been required to acquire adequate parking space and driving lanes before being granted a building permit.

 

[Brain357]

Government picking winners and losers. You must love government.

thats one way to look at it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

or

states have the freedom to make their own rules and decide whats best for them

They do have the freedom. Create the rules and apply them to everyone.

they are for everyone ....everyone that wants to move to, or lives in Iowa, and start a business.

The deal isn't for everyone.

so if GE wants to follow suit they get no deal or the same deal or a better deal ?

I havent seen the contract, I cant say.

We have no idea. Big gov will decide the winner and losers.

 

[NightFox]

Fine don't negotiate with corporations, let the billions in investment and jobs go to another state. Stupid idea but you libs seem stuck on stupid.

I had no idea you loved government so much. You think they can pick winners. Very funny.

You want Apple to invest $1.4 billion in your community or not? It seems obvious that your hatred of corporations trumps common sense.

If your taxes are too high then lower them for everybody. Why do you trust government so much?

If you are just going to troll like a punk talk to the hand lib

As long as we are clear that you trust government to pick winners and losers. Way better than a free market eh?

This is an example of the free market, States were competing for this facility based on it's merits, how much more free do you want? You want the States with a competitive disadvantage in labor force, infrastructure and costs to be locked out of the competition because they have no way compete Isn't that how monopolies are made?

You're looking at this deal bassackwards, Apple didn't win and Iowa lose, BOTH sides of the transaction won because they got what they wanted out of the deal at a price that was below the perceived value they received, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't have done the deal.