Apple 'frustrated' as plans for new Austin, Tex., facility are 'in peril' - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshDog 

 

 

I was very much against the Samsung plant being built in Austin years ago.  Why?  Because they extorted even more money than Apple wants from city and county governments.  And I think they did it again years later, threatening to move the plant elsewhere if they didn't get more tax breaks.  This kind of tax inequity is just stupid and it needs to stop.  Tax laws should be fair and applied evenly to all applicable parties with zero favoritism or exceptions.  What would be wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is that it prevents cities/counties/states from managing their own business.

If I city wants to attract new business, what's wrong with them offering incentives? As I showed in the other thread when this first came up, Austin and Texas are going to be many millions of dollars ahead even without cutting back on the deal. In exchange for taking less future tax, they still get:
- Higher property values for homes in the area (= greater tax revenues)

- Reduced unemployment (= less expenditures)

- Thousands of new jobs (= more money spent in the area)

- Greater sales tax from all the things the employees buy

- Real estate transfer taxes from people moving into the area and buying new homes

On top of that, they get the benefit of a growing, vibrant economy with lots of good (i.e, not McDonald's) jobs. It's hard to put a price on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktappe 

 

 

There's another side to the story. The County is not "screwing" with Apple or the city so much as not bending existing rules & laws for Apple. That is, they are following established legalities instead of kissing Apple's butt.

Seriously, that is my reading of the situation. And I don't see why that has been spun 180 to make it seem like the County is at fault here, when it's really the largest company on the planet with money oozing out of its shares asking for a measly $3-$4 million in concessions from a local government. Apple doesn't need that money; it really doesn't. It made $50 billion on Wednesday alone. This is chump change for Apple. Why on earth can they not just play by the rules and build their darn building(s)? Why must they squeeze every last dollar out of everyone?

That's $4 million the county could use to improve roads or policing of the area but that Apple wants to use to line its coffers even further. It's corporate greed, pure & simple and I do not have a problem with the County standing up and saying "enough'.

You have it backwards. The money does not belong to the City of Austin. If they scare Apple away, they have NOTHING to improve the roads and police force.

OTOH, by giving Apple a tax break which reduces the amount of tax Apple pays, Apple would still be paying something (almost certainly far, far more than what the city is getting for tax revenue on farm land). So instead of paying the city $20 M per year, Apple only pays them $10 M per year. That's still $10 M more than they'll have if they walk on the deal.

Oh, and btw, roads are generally funded via gasoline taxes. Even when the state issues a bond to repair the roads, the bond is paid back from gasoline revenues. Apple is not getting a break on gasoline taxes and with 3600 new jobs, there will probably be more people driving in the area, so the state WILL benefit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodar 

Add to that the intrinsic benefits of Texas (no state income tax, pleasant weather, major cities of Houston, San Antonio and Dallas/Ft. Worth are only a couple hours drive away.  Hiking, biking, camping, fishing - all within the immediate area.

Did you say pleasant weather?  Man, I worked in Houston for a while and it's an armpit in the summer and summer lasts forever.

Isn't Texas' governor always talking about how everyone else should be "business friendly" like they are? Politician spews BS--shocker!

smells like pork; pass the applesauce

What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.

What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.

Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.

 

What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.

 

Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.

What amazes me is how people insist on posting about subjects when they are unwilling to learn anything about it.

This has been explained many times. It's not a government handout in the traditional sense. It's a matter of Apple paying less taxes over some agreed period of time. And, in return, the city gets benefits that far outweigh the amount of taxes they are giving up. 

And Apple has a responsibility to its employees and shareholders to not spend money unnecessarily. That means looking for the best overall package before deciding where to site a facility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktappe 

 

 

You pro-business types need to make up your minds. Either corporations are people or they aren't. If they're people as you keep claiming, then they need to pay taxes like everyone else. They use services such as police and roads and they need to pay for them. What's happening in this story is Apple is strongarming the city and county to try to get out of those taxes. The city buckled but the county is standing its ground. Good for it. If I cannot get out of paying my taxes, why is the corporate "person" Apple allowed to?? Where is the "personal" responsibility that pro-business types are always saying they are mad about our country losing?

Independent of how one feels about the Supreme Court's 'personhood' argument (I am opposed to it since, if corporations can have first amendment rights, why can't they have second amendment rights as well?), taxes is not an area where it applies well, or even particularly relevant. When I pay my taxes, the bucks come out of my pocket; when Apple pays taxes, the bucks ultimately come out of my pocket (as consumer and/or shareholder), not Apple's.

The corporation is, for the most part, simply a passthrough entity for taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

 

 

What amazes me is how people insist on posting about subjects when they are unwilling to learn anything about it.

This has been explained many times. It's not a government handout in the traditional sense. It's a matter of Apple paying less taxes over some agreed period of time. And, in return, the city gets benefits that far outweigh the amount of taxes they are giving up. 

And Apple has a responsibility to its employees and shareholders to not spend money unnecessarily. That means looking for the best overall package before deciding where to site a facility.

Most of us understand HOW this process works and the dollar and cents (or sense) of it all.  The issue here really is the WHY of it. Why should it be this inherently unfair system based on who can squeeze out the best incentive (bribe) to entice a company to build?  There are many municipalities that probably could meet Apples' needs (services, talent, infrastructure) but some of those might not be able to pony up a dollar amount that pleases Apple (or some other company) enough to sign the contract.  Maybe that town is harder hit by the recession than Austin and maybe they need it more.  They won't get it because Austin is relatively healthy and thus can pay more to play.  My feeling is the companies should be able to make these decisions based on the merits of the location not on how much of a kick back they get.  If there were rules that prevented this kind of tax law bending this process would be more equitable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshDog 

 

 

Most of us understand HOW this process works and the dollar and cents (or sense) of it all.  The issue here really is the WHY of it. Why should it be this inherently unfair system based on who can squeeze out the best incentive (bribe) to entice a company to build?  There are many municipalities that probably could meet Apples' needs (services, talent, infrastructure) but some of those might not be able to pony up a dollar amount that pleases Apple (or some other company) enough to sign the contract.  Maybe that town is harder hit by the recession than Austin and maybe they need it more.  They won't get it because Austin is relatively healthy and thus can pay more to play.  My feeling is the companies should be able to make these decisions based on the merits of the location not on how much of a kick back they get.  If there were rules that prevented this kind of tax law bending this process would be more equitable.

Your question has been answered dozens of times in the several threads where this has come up.

You're free to ignore the answers that people have supplied, but don't whine about not understanding it when you're simply ignoring the answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

 

 

Your question has been answered dozens of times in the several threads where this has come up.

You're free to ignore the answers that people have supplied, but don't whine about not understanding it when you're simply ignoring the answer.

I have no idea what you are talking about and I have no obligation to read some random unnamed thread to which you refer.   But I might if you bothered to name it.

And really?  If the answer is so clear an simple why don't you state it? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.

 

What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.

 

Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.

Apple doesn't need the money however the managers in charge of closing this deal are required to get a contract with long term budgeting including taxes, utilities, etc. which makes sense since they are making decisions looking forward 10+ years. They look at the total package and decide it it suits their needs or not. Some people here seem to think Apple should just buy property in their hometown and build a facility without any consideration of the financial terms. If they did that, what would stop the city or the county from passing a law that adversely affected Apple's plans after the facility was already built? Austin City Council seem to see the big picture. You have to spend money to make money and the terms are apparently favorable for them so they made the offer. I doubt Apple asked for a specific tax break. It was just part of the deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Granmastak 

Simple, if the county beats its chest way too much they will lose the extra revenue the jobs will bring. Despite all the idealist buhahaaaaha and the Marxist ideas repackaged as social responsibility, it's all a numbers game in the end,

I don't think the county started this at all.  The asswipe at the the Chamber thinks he is king and wanted the process to move faster.  So he fabricated the "in peril" BS to stir the pot.  Austin will get the facility, nothing to see here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshDog 

 

I have no idea what you are talking about and I have no obligation to read some random unnamed thread to which you refer.   But I might if you bothered to name it.

And really?  If the answer is so clear an simple why don't you state it? 

The answer has been given repeatedly in this thread and the previous AI thread on Apple's Austin facility.

Apple is obligated to its employees and shareholders to get the best deal it can. Austin benefits by giving an incentive because they get a few thousand jobs and a significant tax base (even after deducting the discounts) that they wouldn't otherwise have. The two negotiated the best deal that each of them thinks they can get. What part of that don't you understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodar 

You are missing a few rather key points that is rather attractive to Austin.  Austin is the Silicon Valley of the West. 

I'm pretty sure that Silicon Valley is the Silicon Valley of the West.

As a huge Formula One fan, I find it ironically amusing that money was found for a rather extravagant, $250 million (+/-) world class race track near Austin, which will host a round of the F1 World Championship beginning this year. And if they're lucky, F1 will stick around for maybe five years. But in the case of an actual long term employer in the same area, there is an argument about how to structure the incentive package?

Apple can locate this facility and make it work very well in any number of areas. While if Austin loses Apple, it won't die, but it will be a black-eye that will be noticed by other Fortune 500 companies for years to come. I'm sure that Apple has a contingency plan for other locations. The longer the Austin area politicians let the clock tick, the more likely it is that Apple will simply choose another location.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezduzit 

apple doesn't need my advice but none the less,  they should tell the

money grubbing austin tx politicians that they can shove austin.

 

that $300+ million would receive a warm welcome in more cities than can be

counted.  they are in north carolina now.  what about south carolina.  they

would be welcome with open arms.

I'm no fan of either Texas politicians or government bureaucracy and inefficient decision making, but isn't it the other way around?  Isn't Apple the one doing the money grubbing?    Frankly, I think it should be illegal to offer any large business any financial incentives at all.   This way, all localities would be on an even playing field and companies would make the decisions to locate based on more appropriate reasons like access to qualified employees, land availability, access to shipping routes (if relevant), etc.   Why should taxpayers fund Apple's expansion?

From past postings, I get the feeling (obviously anecdotal) that a majority of posters on here are political conservatives, yet when it comes to Apple, they have no problem with Governments "giving away the store" to acquire Apple business.  

Yes, except they aren't spending money. They are agreeing to skim less, knowing that the free market will work itself out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoetmb 

 

 

I'm no fan of either Texas politicians or government bureaucracy and inefficient decision making, but isn't it the other way around?  Isn't Apple the one doing the money grubbing?    Frankly, I think it should be illegal to offer any large business any financial incentives at all.   This way, all localities would be on an even playing field and companies would make the decisions to locate based on more appropriate reasons like access to qualified employees, land availability, access to shipping routes (if relevant), etc.   Why should taxpayers fund Apple's expansion?

 

From past postings, I get the feeling (obviously anecdotal) that a majority of posters on here are political conservatives, yet when it comes to Apple, they have no problem with Governments "giving away the store" to acquire Apple business.  

 

 

That's really a bizarre interpretation.

Fine. If you think it's money grubbing for Apple to bring a $300 M investment and 3600 jobs to a city and want to ensure that Austin is the best location for that facility, then no amount of rational discussion is going to change your mind.

You're also wrong in your conclusion that taxpayers are funding Apple's expansion. The Austin taxpayers will be far better off if Apple does this deal than if they don't - even with the discounts being offered. So how are the taxpayers funding the deal when the taxpayers come out of it much better off?

Fortunately, you're not responsible for business development for any cities.

Anti Business practices....WTF? They are arguing over how much money the state is going to spend to help Apple build the facility. That is not about anti business practices. This is about Apple wanting corporate welfare when they have 100 billion in the bank. They should be building their own facility with their own funds. Texas doesn't have the money to be giving Apple a handout. Texas is really the only other state besides the west coast and the cities on the northern half of east coast where there are plenty of engineers in the quantities that Apple would likely need/want. Apple is going to build their facility there regardless.

I think Texas should do this deal even if it costs them a bit but they need to stop mismanaging this deal. 

I like texas and miss the wonderful weather. They don't have subways and infrastructure like NYC does and collect no taxes to support themselves. For all the succession talk down there, Texas is one of the largest if not the largest welfare state in the country. No thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodar 

You are missing a few rather key points that is rather attractive to Austin.  Austin is the Silicon Valley of the West.  Texas Instruments, Intel, Freescale, Samsung, Micron among others call Austin home.  This means, that new components are just a short car ride from Apple's labs.  Technical support from the chip designers is just a face-to-face meeting without the need for huge amounts of notice, no hotels, time changes, airline trips.  Literally, a 30 minute drive away.

 

Now, throw in University of Texas at Austin, Austin Community College, St. Edwards, Concordia, Huston Tilotson, ITT Technical Institute, plus the colleges in the immediate area like Georgetown and Southwest Tecnical Institute - there is a plethora of talent coming out of these universities, plus established talent from the major companies in both software and hardware based companies.

 

Add to that the intrinsic benefits of Texas (no state income tax, pleasant weather, major cities of Houston, San Antonio and Dallas/Ft. Worth are only a couple hours drive away.  Hiking, biking, camping, fishing - all within the immediate area.

 

This makes Austin pretty attracive, despite some idiots in local goverment.

Im sorry but most of those schools you listed are crappy schools. Apple is thinking Texas A&M, UT, San Antonio College, & UT Arlington maybe Rice, SMU, & TCU to get their talent. Maybe now is a good time for me to join Apple. Ive got the resume for it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdonisSMU 

I like texas and miss the wonderful weather. They don't have subways and infrastructure like NYC does and collect no taxes to support themselves. For all the succession talk down there, Texas is one of the largest if not the largest welfare state in the country. No thanks.

Texas doesn't collect taxes? I guess we can completely ignore your views since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdonisSMU 

Anti Business practices....WTF? They are arguing over how much money the state is going to spend to help Apple build the facility. That is not about anti business practices. This is about Apple wanting corporate welfare when they have 100 billion in the bank. They should be building their own facility with their own funds. Texas doesn't have the money to be giving Apple a handout. Texas is really the only other state besides the west coast and the cities on the northern half of east coast where there are plenty of engineers in the quantities that Apple would likely need/want. Apple is going to build their facility there regardless.

 

I think Texas should do this deal even if it costs them a bit but they need to stop mismanaging this deal. 

Apple is building the facility with their own funds. Once again, you have managed to show that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

The deal is that Apple will pay less taxes in the future if this deal is done, but the entire cost of installing the facility will come from Apple.

And it's not corporate welfare. It's a negotiated deal between Apple and the city to find the best alternative. As you've been told repeatedly, Apple has an obligation to its shareholders and employees to use its money wisely. Suggesting that they should simply spend $20 M more than they need to is absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Granmastak 

This is precisely why we can't bring jobs back to the US.
With all the anti -business practices, and out of control spending, we will become the next Greece.

will become?  lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by diplication 


Regarding subways, you're right, but I thought highways and utilities still count as infrastructure. But wow, have I been screwing up! Every January I pay my personal and business property taxes, and every day I pay sales taxes on almost every retail purchase that I make. I didn't realize they weren't collecting these taxes. Wonder where my money had been going? As far as Texas being a welfare state, we only get back 94 cents in federal spending for every dollar in federal taxes collected here. I believe that means Texas is supporting some other welfare state.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

You might like this article in the NYT this morning. Looks like Apple doesn't like to pay taxes either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

 

 

You might like this article in the NYT this morning. Looks like Apple doesn't like to pay taxes either.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html

What part of "it's perfectly legal and Apple has an obligation to maximize the return for their investors" do you not understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

 

 

What part of "it's perfectly legal and Apple has an obligation to maximize the return for their investors" do you not understand?

Exactly.  If I was an investor I would expect Apple to use every legal means available to avoid paying any tax they weren't  required to pay, just like every April 15 I take every legal allowable deduction that I am entitled to take.  What reasonable person would want to pay more for anything than they are required to pay? - "How much is that automobile? $20,000? Would you take $30,000 instead?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

 

 

You might like this article in the NYT this morning. Looks like Apple doesn't like to pay taxes either.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.htmlAm 

Am I missing something?  Who does like to pay taxes?  I don't like to pay taxes, I wish all the government services were free, but they're not, so I am required to pay taxes.  Liking to pay taxes is kind of like expecting someone to enjoy a colonoscopy - not enjoyable but necessary!  So to extend the analogy, I don't sign up for an extra rectal examination just for the fun of it!