Tesla and Panasonic to open a solar cell plant in Buffalo (link) How is this a bad thing?

[OnePercenter]

Buffalo gave them more money.

They didn't give them a dime.

Already posted. $750M

Noted, they didn't give those two companies a dime.

The taxpayers of New York are coughing up $750 million.

And that is outrageous.

No, it isn't..First, its over the next ten years. Second, the jobs created will more than make up the revenue. Next, this is not a tax break. The deal is a tax deferment. Meaning, eventually all taxes will be paid.
The deal and those like it are WIN WIN....

Deferments have to be paid? When?

 

[my2¢]

One would have to see and understand the agreement to know how well the taxpayers' investment of $750 million is safeguarded. Companies can make promises but they're more likely to have ability to get out of those promises if things turn south.

 

[Spare_change]

New York state has committed $750 million to build and outfit the plant at Buffalo's RiverBend site, the centerpiece of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's "Buffalo Billion" program to revitalize the upstate region's largest city.

Wow, snowflakes were crying about $7 million from the STATE OF INDIANA to keep Carrier.....

....they must REALLY be pissed off at NEW YORK STATE for bribing Panasonic and Tesla with $750 million.

So it's OK to use taxpayer funds to support/expand financially stable companies?

Yes..Absolutely. Here's why....These ventures pay for themselves, How? The number of NEW jobs created. The NEW workers earn. They pay taxes. They spend. This generates more revenue through sales tax receipts. In turn, businesses in the area see an increase in activity. Which in turn could result in more hiring at those businesses..and on it goes....Ya know what this is called? Trickle down economics.....FANTASTIC.....Remember...This is at the hands of a democrat governor. Cuomo, for all his other faults is doing his best to bring business back to NY State...

These ventures pay for themselves? Really? Tell us the net financial benefit.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, right? You can't be serious.

 

[OnePercenter]

New York state has committed $750 million to build and outfit the plant at Buffalo's RiverBend site, the centerpiece of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's "Buffalo Billion" program to revitalize the upstate region's largest city.

Wow, snowflakes were crying about $7 million from the STATE OF INDIANA to keep Carrier.....

....they must REALLY be pissed off at NEW YORK STATE for bribing Panasonic and Tesla with $750 million.

So it's OK to use taxpayer funds to support/expand financially stable companies?

Yes..Absolutely. Here's why....These ventures pay for themselves, How? The number of NEW jobs created. The NEW workers earn. They pay taxes. They spend. This generates more revenue through sales tax receipts. In turn, businesses in the area see an increase in activity. Which in turn could result in more hiring at those businesses..and on it goes....Ya know what this is called? Trickle down economics.....FANTASTIC.....Remember...This is at the hands of a democrat governor. Cuomo, for all his other faults is doing his best to bring business back to NY State...

These ventures pay for themselves? Really? Tell us the net financial benefit.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, right? You can't be serious.

I'm a money guy...I am serious.

 

[Spare_change]

New York state has committed $750 million to build and outfit the plant at Buffalo's RiverBend site, the centerpiece of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's "Buffalo Billion" program to revitalize the upstate region's largest city.

Wow, snowflakes were crying about $7 million from the STATE OF INDIANA to keep Carrier.....

....they must REALLY be pissed off at NEW YORK STATE for bribing Panasonic and Tesla with $750 million.

So it's OK to use taxpayer funds to support/expand financially stable companies?

Yes..Absolutely. Here's why....These ventures pay for themselves, How? The number of NEW jobs created. The NEW workers earn. They pay taxes. They spend. This generates more revenue through sales tax receipts. In turn, businesses in the area see an increase in activity. Which in turn could result in more hiring at those businesses..and on it goes....Ya know what this is called? Trickle down economics.....FANTASTIC.....Remember...This is at the hands of a democrat governor. Cuomo, for all his other faults is doing his best to bring business back to NY State...

These ventures pay for themselves? Really? Tell us the net financial benefit.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, right? You can't be serious.

I'm a money guy...I am serious.

Then, IF you're a "money guy", why don't you review the reported specifics of the agreement and tell us how it works out?

 

[OnePercenter]

So it's OK to use taxpayer funds to support/expand financially stable companies?

Yes..Absolutely. Here's why....These ventures pay for themselves, How? The number of NEW jobs created. The NEW workers earn. They pay taxes. They spend. This generates more revenue through sales tax receipts. In turn, businesses in the area see an increase in activity. Which in turn could result in more hiring at those businesses..and on it goes....Ya know what this is called? Trickle down economics.....FANTASTIC.....Remember...This is at the hands of a democrat governor. Cuomo, for all his other faults is doing his best to bring business back to NY State...

These ventures pay for themselves? Really? Tell us the net financial benefit.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, right? You can't be serious.

I'm a money guy...I am serious.

Then, IF you're a "money guy", why don't you review the reported specifics of the agreement and tell us how it works out?

I have. There is no indication that there will be a net jobs increase unless you hire unemployed.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So it's OK to use taxpayer funds to support/expand financially stable companies?

Yes..Absolutely. Here's why....These ventures pay for themselves, How? The number of NEW jobs created. The NEW workers earn. They pay taxes. They spend. This generates more revenue through sales tax receipts. In turn, businesses in the area see an increase in activity. Which in turn could result in more hiring at those businesses..and on it goes....Ya know what this is called? Trickle down economics.....FANTASTIC.....Remember...This is at the hands of a democrat governor. Cuomo, for all his other faults is doing his best to bring business back to NY State...

These ventures pay for themselves? Really? Tell us the net financial benefit.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, right? You can't be serious.

I'm a money guy...I am serious.

Then, IF you're a "money guy", why don't you review the reported specifics of the agreement and tell us how it works out?

Why not just give up at this point? He asked "these ventures pay for themselves?" and since then you've danced like Gregory Hines

 

[Spare_change]

Yes..Absolutely. Here's why....These ventures pay for themselves, How? The number of NEW jobs created. The NEW workers earn. They pay taxes. They spend. This generates more revenue through sales tax receipts. In turn, businesses in the area see an increase in activity. Which in turn could result in more hiring at those businesses..and on it goes....Ya know what this is called? Trickle down economics.....FANTASTIC.....Remember...This is at the hands of a democrat governor. Cuomo, for all his other faults is doing his best to bring business back to NY State...

These ventures pay for themselves? Really? Tell us the net financial benefit.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, right? You can't be serious.

I'm a money guy...I am serious.

Then, IF you're a "money guy", why don't you review the reported specifics of the agreement and tell us how it works out?

Why not just give up at this point? He asked "these ventures pay for themselves?" and since then you've danced like Gregory Hines

Actually, I haven't looked at this issue at all --- so you falsely accuse me.

But, I will tell you this ---- you have convinced me that I do need to look at it (with the great hope I will be able to break it off in your .... ear). Will be getting back to you ---

 

[Spare_change]

Yes..Absolutely. Here's why....These ventures pay for themselves, How? The number of NEW jobs created. The NEW workers earn. They pay taxes. They spend. This generates more revenue through sales tax receipts. In turn, businesses in the area see an increase in activity. Which in turn could result in more hiring at those businesses..and on it goes....Ya know what this is called? Trickle down economics.....FANTASTIC.....Remember...This is at the hands of a democrat governor. Cuomo, for all his other faults is doing his best to bring business back to NY State...

These ventures pay for themselves? Really? Tell us the net financial benefit.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, right? You can't be serious.

I'm a money guy...I am serious.

Then, IF you're a "money guy", why don't you review the reported specifics of the agreement and tell us how it works out?

Why not just give up at this point? He asked "these ventures pay for themselves?" and since then you've danced like Gregory Hines

A summary of the Tesla/Panasonic deal for Buffalo, NY

1) Panasonic will invest $256 million in equipment expenditures to be installed in new plant.
2) Tesla will create 1400 jobs, 500 of which are manufacturing
3) Tesla, thru its subsidiary SolarCity, has committed to $5 billion investment over 5 years in New York state to include the 1400 jobs, guaranteed for 5 years, plus an additional 2,000 jobs throughout the state (no term stated)
4) NY state will provide $750 million for site and plant development, and will retain ownership of the plant and property.

So, to create the most conservative scenario possible, Tesla will create 1400 jobs, 500 of which are manufacturing, and most of the remaining 900 will probably be high end engineering, management, etc. This is guaranteed for 5 years. If we accept that the average salary of the new facility will equal the average salary in Buffalo ($50K per year), we can extrapolate that the Tesla plant will generate $70 million increase in wages in Buffalo per year, or $350 million total.

Then, if we know that, we know that the income increase will generate about $6.1 million per year in direct state income tax (or $30.5 million over 5 years). In addition, we know that the New York state sales tax rate is 4%. If we accept the norm of 50% income-to-retail sales estimate, that means that the arrangement will generate an additional $1.4 million in state income annually, or a total of about $7 million over 5 years.

Therefore, based strictly on the plant, we can see that it will generate $37.5 million In direct state income over 5 years.

To simplify the process, we will make all the same assumptions about the additional 2,000 jobs being generated, and realize that will create an additional $53 million in direct state income.

Now, the key to the deal --- New York state will invest $750 million in an asset that they will own. Therefore, if we say that the value neither goes up or goes down, it is a zero sum game. New York state has converted $750 million cash assets into $750 million real property assets, and it has cost them nothing to create the additional 3,400 jobs.

At the end of 5 years, New York state has realized an income of $90.5 million on an investment of $750 million, and still has $750 million in assets. A pretty damn good deal --- in fact, a 12.06% return on investment.

We haven’t even discussed the subsidiary ramifications of such a deal. As was stated earlier, those employees need a place to spend their income. The local supermarket hires more people to stock shelves, three new McDonald’s spring up, two Jiffy Lubes are built to support the 1400 people. All of these jobs generate income for the state of New York.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sounds like a win-win to me.

I never expected a different conclusion.

 

[OnePercenter]

These ventures pay for themselves? Really? Tell us the net financial benefit.

I assume that is a rhetorical question, right? You can't be serious.

I'm a money guy...I am serious.

Then, IF you're a "money guy", why don't you review the reported specifics of the agreement and tell us how it works out?

Why not just give up at this point? He asked "these ventures pay for themselves?" and since then you've danced like Gregory Hines

A summary of the Tesla/Panasonic deal for Buffalo, NY

1) Panasonic will invest $256 million in equipment expenditures to be installed in new plant.
2) Tesla will create 1400 jobs, 500 of which are manufacturing
3) Tesla, thru its subsidiary SolarCity, has committed to $5 billion investment over 5 years in New York state to include the 1400 jobs, guaranteed for 5 years, plus an additional 2,000 jobs throughout the state (no term stated)
4) NY state will provide $750 million for site and plant development, and will retain ownership of the plant and property.

So, to create the most conservative scenario possible, Tesla will create 1400 jobs, 500 of which are manufacturing, and most of the remaining 900 will probably be high end engineering, management, etc. This is guaranteed for 5 years. If we accept that the average salary of the new facility will equal the average salary in Buffalo ($50K per year), we can extrapolate that the Tesla plant will generate $70 million increase in wages in Buffalo per year, or $350 million total.

Then, if we know that, we know that the income increase will generate about $6.1 million per year in direct state income tax (or $30.5 million over 5 years). In addition, we know that the New York state sales tax rate is 4%. If we accept the norm of 50% income-to-retail sales estimate, that means that the arrangement will generate an additional $1.4 million in state income annually, or a total of about $7 million over 5 years.

Therefore, based strictly on the plant, we can see that it will generate $37.5 million In direct state income over 5 years.

To simplify the process, we will make all the same assumptions about the additional 2,000 jobs being generated, and realize that will create an additional $53 million in direct state income.

Now, the key to the deal --- New York state will invest $750 million in an asset that they will own. Therefore, if we say that the value neither goes up or goes down, it is a zero sum game. New York state has converted $750 million cash assets into $750 million real property assets, and it has cost them nothing to create the additional 3,400 jobs.

At the end of 5 years, New York state has realized an income of $90.5 million on an investment of $750 million, and still has $750 million in assets. A pretty damn good deal --- in fact, a 12.06% return on investment.

We haven’t even discussed the subsidiary ramifications of such a deal. As was stated earlier, those employees need a place to spend their income. The local supermarket hires more people to stock shelves, three new McDonald’s spring up, two Jiffy Lubes are built to support the 1400 people. All of these jobs generate income for the state of New York.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Except $750M of taxpayer monies to a financially stable company. BTW: There is no guarantee that NY State will receive any cash return.

Again; why should we give a financially stable company tax payer resources?

 

[Spare_change]

Sounds like a win-win to me.

I never expected a different conclusion.

Facts is facts .... unless, of course, you have some different facts.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sounds like a win-win to me.

I never expected a different conclusion.

Facts is facts .... unless, of course, you have some different facts.

I'm not saying those aren't facts..I'm saying that no one expected you to come to a different conclusion no matter the facts.

 

[Spare_change]

Sounds like a win-win to me.

I never expected a different conclusion.

Facts is facts .... unless, of course, you have some different facts.

I'm not saying those aren't facts..I'm saying that no one expected you to come to a different conclusion no matter the facts.

That sounds like you're questioning my integrity in order to try to diffuse the analysis that clearly refutes your position.

Rule 4c. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sounds like a win-win to me.

I never expected a different conclusion.

Facts is facts .... unless, of course, you have some different facts.

I'm not saying those aren't facts..I'm saying that no one expected you to come to a different conclusion no matter the facts.

That sounds like you're questioning my integrity in order to try to diffuse the analysis that clearly refutes your position.

Rule 4c. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

My position is that the state shouldn't foot the bill for companies as a bribe. Jut because you think the bribe "sounds like a win win" isn't a "fact" I'm concerned with.

 

[Spare_change]

Sounds like a win-win to me.

I never expected a different conclusion.

Facts is facts .... unless, of course, you have some different facts.

I'm not saying those aren't facts..I'm saying that no one expected you to come to a different conclusion no matter the facts.

That sounds like you're questioning my integrity in order to try to diffuse the analysis that clearly refutes your position.

Rule 4c. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

My position is that the state shouldn't foot the bill for companies as a bribe. Jut because you think the bribe "sounds like a win win" isn't a "fact" I'm concerned with.

When would you consider it an "investment" and not a "bribe"? Given that the state will retain ownership of that which they purchased, how can that be considered a "bribe"?

 

[francoHFW]

I never expected a different conclusion.

Facts is facts .... unless, of course, you have some different facts.

I'm not saying those aren't facts..I'm saying that no one expected you to come to a different conclusion no matter the facts.

That sounds like you're questioning my integrity in order to try to diffuse the analysis that clearly refutes your position.

Rule 4c. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

My position is that the state shouldn't foot the bill for companies as a bribe. Jut because you think the bribe "sounds like a win win" isn't a "fact" I'm concerned with.

When would you consider it an "investment" and not a "bribe"? Given that the state will retain ownership of that which they purchased, how can that be considered a "bribe"?

That sounds better than tax breaks they seem to give every business these days...

 

[Spare_change]

Facts is facts .... unless, of course, you have some different facts.

I'm not saying those aren't facts..I'm saying that no one expected you to come to a different conclusion no matter the facts.

That sounds like you're questioning my integrity in order to try to diffuse the analysis that clearly refutes your position.

Rule 4c. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

My position is that the state shouldn't foot the bill for companies as a bribe. Jut because you think the bribe "sounds like a win win" isn't a "fact" I'm concerned with.

When would you consider it an "investment" and not a "bribe"? Given that the state will retain ownership of that which they purchased, how can that be considered a "bribe"?

That sounds better than tax breaks they seem to give every business these days...

It IS an interesting approach --- of course, you have to be alert to the government owning too much of the economy in its own purview. That also sounds inherently dangerous, once you reach critical mass.

 

[12icer]

Typical innumerate pseudocon who doesn't understand even the most basic of conservative principles or economics.

For every penny you give in tax breaks, SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. Either by deficits (borrowing), or by higher tax rates. Usually both.

That's the fact you tards NEVER glom onto.

Tax EXPENDITURES are called that for a reason. They are a wealth transfer scheme, and government intervention in the free market. They are government behavioral control programs.

How the **** anyone can call themselves a conservative who supports that shit is beyond me. Opposition to that shit is a core requirement of being a conservative.

Reagan campaigned on that very thing. It's what the 1986 tax reform was all about.

Jesus, you ******* tards have no clue. None.

Actually YOU have no idea what you are posting about. Apparently you learned economics from a first grade bully. Your pseudocon BS is so funny it is like a really good night with Richard Pryor.

 

[francoHFW]

Buffalo needed a break I can tell you that.