Nevada board endorses $89M tax cut for Apple data center

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Cue all the complainers who will ignore the above facts and complain that Apple gets a tax break. After all, they can afford to pay lots more taxes.... /s

Yes. Nevada gets a good deal – vs not working a deal at all and getting no economic benefit. $89 million dollar tax credit given to Apple in exchange for receiving $103 million in economic benefit. 15% return sounds like a win to me!

I live in the area (Tahoe) and fully support Apple coming to Reno.  Reno is in desperate need of major change.  We need new industries here, new businesses, new types of businesses.  If Apple's data center helps to draw more technology companies to Reno, the long-term benefit will be far greater than any calculation can currently measure.  Reno is a short 1 hour flight from the SF bay area and the Reno airport is a dream.  There is also endless outdoor recreation within spitting distance of the city.  There are 12 ski resorts within an hour's drive.  I hope more technology companies look at Reno.  It has a great deal of potential and a company like Apple coming to town will only raise its profile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbyx 

I live in the area (Tahoe) and fully support Apple coming to Reno.  Reno is in desperate need of major change.  We need new industries here, new businesses, new types of businesses.  If Apple's data center helps to draw more technology companies to Reno, the long-term benefit will be far greater than any calculation can currently measure.  Reno is a short 1 hour flight from the SF bay area and the Reno airport is a dream.  There is also endless outdoor recreation within spitting distance of the city.  There are 12 ski resorts within an hour's drive.  I hope more technology companies look at Reno.  It has a great deal of potential and a company like Apple coming to town will only raise its profile.

If you are not already involved with the Reno City administration, you should be. That's the best and most relevant pitch I've read in a long time!

I don't like it when corporations get tax breaks. They aren't worth more than the citizens who have chosen to live in the same communities. All tax breaks should be given equally to everybody in the area, including existing businesses. It's especially sad when cities do that for sports teams. That is the biggest waste of money that could ever be. Without fail cities lose.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smallwheels 

I don't like it when corporations get tax breaks. They aren't worth more than the citizens who have chosen to live in the same communities. All tax breaks should be given equally to everybody in the area, including existing businesses. It's especially sad when cities do that for sports teams. That is the biggest waste of money that could ever be. Without fail cities lose.
 

Totally DISagree. They ARE worth more than the citizens there! How can you disregard the obvious economic benefits to the area with the data facility there? Jobs created for some of the local (tax paying) citizens where there would be NONE otherwise, or jobs for new (tax paying) citizens who move there. And what about the business created by and for those Apple-employed citizens and other citizens in the area? How can you ignore the stimulus this would create for other corporations to so locate in the area?

All this is worth FAR more that $89M.

Aim your "I don't like it" hair trigger at other more deserving targets. Or just put that gun away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielSW 

Totally DISagree. They ARE worth more than the citizens there! How can you disregard the obvious economic benefits to the area with the data facility there? Jobs created for some of the local (tax paying) citizens where there would be NONE otherwise, or jobs for new (tax paying) citizens who move there. And what about the business created by and for those Apple-employed citizens and other citizens in the area? How can you ignore the stimulus this would create for other corporations to so locate in the area?

 

All this is worth FAR more that $89M.

So companies are worth more then citizens. Cool. Apple has more than enough money to pay for this but that's not the point. The point is that there is no fairness since only Apple gets the tax break but we haven't heard of other companies getting tax breaks as well.

Hadt they not gotten their tax break in Nevada, they would have moved somewhere else and eventually spent the equivalent of $89M if nobody would have allowed them the tax breaks (plus minus whatever other places' taxes are).  Everyone would be happy to get an Apple data center built (econony-wise that is) and I'm happy that it's good for Reno but it would have been good for any other place as well.

Tax breaks should be illegal also because they suppress competition. Isn't it that we should be all treated the same? It's just not ethical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PotatoLeekSoup 

 

Yes. Nevada gets a good deal – vs not working a deal at all and getting no economic benefit. $89 million dollar tax credit given to Apple in exchange for receiving $103 million in economic benefit. 15% return sounds like a win to me!

Sounds like a race to the bottom to me.

The issue with tax breaks for any company especially Apple has more to do with their clear avoidance in paying corporate income tax and holding their cash assets offshore, using the Double Irish Dutch maneuver and routing their taxes through a NV subsidiary to avoid paying CA taxes.  So yeah I have an issue with Apple getting $89 million tax break when they should not even need it to begin with.  But please que the Apple apologists anyways.

"All be treated the same?" Sounds like the Russian communist rhetoric of 100 years ago. Notice how all that worked out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krawall 

 

 

Tax breaks should be illegal also because they suppress competition. Isn't it that we should be all treated the same? It's just not ethical.

I'm not certain that tax breaks supress competition.  Instead, they are a form of subsidy, and they distort the market.

Apple should put the data center in the best location for Apple.  The one that is most efficient in every sense of the word.  By offering a subsidy for Reno, the equation changes.  If the subsidy is large, Apple discounts other factors such as cost and availability of skilled labor, cost and availability of electricity, cost and availability of land, etc.

IOW, the REAL costs get distorted by the availability of a government subsidy.  If Reno were the best location, then Apple should build there without subsidy.  If not, then Apple should build in the location which is most efficient.

Enough with the G/D tax cuts for people and companies that don't need it!  That's part of the reason for the financial mess this country is in!!

The relevant quote some of you are missing is: 

It's especially sad when cities do that for sports teams. That is the biggest waste of money that could ever be. Without fail cities lose.

It's SPORT TEAMS that hose a city on taxes, not all businesses in general. There was an extensive report I saw in TV about how sports arenas get huge tax breaks or even gov't grants to build. They employ mostly low wage, save for the athletes. The city has to subsidize traffic and crime. And eventually they lose out overall, esp for big league teams that *could* afford to build their own arena, or later on they move out and the city has an empty unusable building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krawall 

Tax breaks should be illegal also because they suppress competition. Isn't it that we should be all treated the same? It's just not ethical.

Oh really?  Then I suppose you don't claim any deductions on your personal tax returns, right?  I'm not married.  Are you?  Do you get a break because you chose to get married?  I don't have kids either.  Do you get a break because you chose to have kids?  Do you own a home?  Are you getting a mortgage deduction?  Doesn't seem fair to the people who rent, does it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 

 

 

I'm not certain that tax breaks supress competition.  Instead, they are a form of subsidy, and they distort the market.

 

Apple should put the data center in the best location for Apple.  The one that is most efficient in every sense of the word.  By offering a subsidy for Reno, the equation changes.  If the subsidy is large, Apple discounts other factors such as cost and availability of skilled labor, cost and availability of electricity, cost and availability of land, etc.

 

IOW, the REAL costs get distorted by the availability of a government subsidy.  If Reno were the best location, then Apple should build there without subsidy.  If not, then Apple should build in the location which is most efficient.

I'm sorry, but business doesn't work this way.  If you're buying a house, do you just pay market value?  No, you make an offer.  If you're leasing commercial space, do you just sign on the dotted line?  No, you negotiate.  If you're interviewing for a job, do you just take what they offer?  Or do you tell them what you need to become part of their team?

Apple has every right to seek out a deal that benefits them financially.  After all, they are bringing jobs to the area.  Apple benefits.  Reno benefits.  Reno is a great location for a data center for many reasons.  Land costs are low.  Housing costs are low.  It's a university town.  It's close to the bay area.  There is an abundance of clean, green geothermal energy available.

I'll take the "no tax breaks" crowd seriously when each of you stops claiming any deductions on your personal tax returns and pays the full amount you owe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbyx 

 

I'm sorry, but business doesn't work this way.  If you're buying a house, do you just pay market value?  No, you make an offer.  If you're leasing commercial space, do you just sign on the dotted line?  No, you negotiate.  If you're interviewing for a job, do you just take what they offer?  Or do you tell them what you need to become part of their team?

 

Apple has every right to seek out a deal that benefits them financially.  After all, they are bringing jobs to the area.  Apple benefits.  Reno benefits.  Reno is a great location for a data center for many reasons.  Land costs are low.  Housing costs are low.  It's a university town.  It's close to the bay area.  There is an abundance of clean, green geothermal energy available.

 

I'll take the "no tax breaks" crowd seriously when each of you stops claiming any deductions on your personal tax returns and pays the full amount you owe.

Given that your reply in no way relates to my post,  I'm not sure why I am responding.

Maybe I need to simplify:  Tax breaks distort the market.  Given that they distort the market, they can work to nearly everybody's disadvantage in a macroeconomic manner.  The economy is worse off because of them, even if the local actors are ahead.

No portion of my post denied that local actors try to get the best deal for themselves.

No portion of my post denied that Apple has the right to seek tax subsidies.

No part of my post denied that both Apple and Reno benefit from the subsidy.

No part of my post had anything whatsoever to do with tax deductions allowed to all similarly situated taxpayers.

I hope that this aids your understanding of the issue I raised, but I have little confidence.

Originally Posted by robbyx 
Seriously, 537 posts in a month?  Someone needs a life.

I just turned off my extensions and found that I do over a thousand. I wonder if you'll say the same about me.

Take note that insulting other users of this forum is against our rules and that ad hominem attacks about the number of posts we each have is quite possibly the most pathetic way to do so, so please remove what I have quoted above from your post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I just turned off my extensions and found that I do over a thousand. I wonder if you'll say the same about me.

 

Take note that insulting other users of this forum is against our rules and that ad hominem attacks about the number of posts we each have is quite possibly the most pathetic way to do so, so please remove what I have quoted above from your post.

Removed.  As a moderator, I would expect that you post a lot.  And frankly, if all someone does is sit in front of a computer and post condescending comments all day, then yes, I do think that person needs to get a life.  It's not my intention to cause turmoil here.  As you can see, I rarely post.  I just read the articles.  But I don't appreciate being talked down to like I'm an ignorant child with zero reading comprehension skills either.  I also happen to live in the area and probably have a better understanding of how these tax breaks will affect Reno than someone who presumably doesn't live here and seems to simply enjoy telling people they are wrong without backing up anything he says.

Supply and demand is at work here. Unfortunately the cities that offer these deals are devaluing their citizens and local businesses. There is no doubt that during the construction process there will be a temporary boost in jobs. There will be a few jobs once it is completed.

I'm against our current unfair tax system. I'm against income taxes and property taxes. I'm for the FairTax.org plan where companies pay zero taxes. Only sales taxes are collected when things sell and that is all. Only people above the poverty line pay any taxes on the sales of goods.

In the current system local and state governments bet that they'll earn more money by giving discounts to large companies to build businesses in their areas. It's an up front bribe. A bribe is payment for special treatment not available to everybody else. It is a slap in the face of the existing citizens. If the government were forced to extend the same benefits to everybody when they make such deals then I would have no problem with it at all.

That same deal would be an incentive for people to remain in Reno. It would be an incentive for local businesses to keep their doors open instead of closing them; but the city isn't extending that offer to their citizens. They're giving it to a newcomer. There is no guarantee that Apple or any new company will bring in jobs that will benefit every local business. Will hair dressers get more business because of this data center? Will travel agencies get more business because of this data center? It is very unlikely that they will but they must pay a higher percentage of their money in taxes than Apple will. Both of those businesses took a risk and invested their effort into creating something in Reno. Where are their special tax breaks?

Perhaps if Reno did that for ALL small businesses they could draw in many more long term businesses and jobs. Instead they are giving preferential treatment to Apple because they might create a big short term benefit. If the data center burns down or some other catastrophe happens before the sweetheart deal expires, Apple could abandon the property and not rebuild it. Then the city won't get the long term benefit it is expecting.

It is deals like this that prove government interference skews the marketplace. It is almost the sole purpose of government these days. There is no real free market when government steps in and changes the rules that benefit a few and not everybody.