North Carolina locals question benefits of Apple's $1 billion server farm

1910111214

Comments

  • Reply 261 of 288
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mugzy View Post


    Liberalism or Progressivism is not about all about "new ideas", it is OPEN to new ideas (the antithesis of true conservatism). It is more about that the role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. (also apparently the antithesis of conservatives who seem very concerned about how I spend my time in the privacy of my own home. Conservatives also seem to spend a great deal of time thinking about the gays for some reason. Wonder why they are so obsessed? )







    and conservatives simply SPEND and charge it to the next generation, then blame Liberals for the debt that was incurred. Republicans started new wars during the Bush administration with no way to pay for them. None. Well, to be honest we were told that the oil in Iraq would pay for it. How did that work out?

    How did Bush take office with a budget surplus (thanks Clinton!) and control of all three branches of government, but leave it trillions of dollars in debt after 8 years?







    Those are not new ideas and they have been tried, some with success as well, but in former Eastern Bloc countries and the Russian Federation.

    Is that the economic model you wish to push comrade?

    You would see farther if you took off the blinders and stopped viewing politics as a sporting event where half of America is your enemy.



    You've all got to stop talking about conservatives and liberals. You're talking about Republicans and Democrats, neither of whom is conservative. The things you blame on conservatives are just things that Republicans do while CALLING themselves conservative, but if you're talking philosophies, very little of either party is conservative. If you want to know what a conservative would do, listen to Ron Paul.
  • Reply 262 of 288
    jessijessi Posts: 302member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Why should anyone read a utopian fantasy based on premises completely at odds with all reality, including human nature?



    Spoken like someone whose never read Atlas Shrugged, but heard from others of his ideology that he must hate it and bash it at all costs.



    The really amazing thing about Atlas Shrugged, is not only is it consistent with reality, it is predictive of the future, and it did so accurately, even 40 years out. It even predicted your comment, not specifically, but the ideology that led to it.



    Quote:

    It's not like Rand had any talent as a writer, or a philosopher. Atlas Shrugged is, like all of Rand's thought and writings, a piece of trash.



    So, you have no actual facts of reality that Atlas Shrugged is inconstant with? Just going to call Ayn Rand a "bad writer".



    I love this criticism, by the way. Every mouth breathing idiot who has never read the book but hates it on general "principle", loves to say she's a "bad writer"... it serves your purposes.



    1. Its totally subjective, thus you can't possibly be wrong as you would be if you tried to talk facts about a book you haven't read.



    2. It attacks her personally, and if there's one thing that leftists like to do, its engage in the politics of personal destruction.



    3. It keeps the focus on her, rather than on her ideas. You, and all your ilk, don't even mention objectivism. Of course, your sole purpose is to keep open minded liberals from reading this book, lest they discover that you've been feeding them nonsense all these years.



    Amazing how that piece of trash has predicted the decline and the nature of its causes, so many decades in advance. It's cause she's a "terrible writer", right?



    And of course, your anti-intellectual, anti-literature rant ignores the point Adam was originally making.



    But it gives me an opportunity to point out how little class, integrity, or honesty you have.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Absolutely, totally, 100% wrong. Perhaps you should learn something about a political ideology before attacking it.



    Liberalism's goal and focus is to destroy the lives of poor people. This is why they support policies like minimum wage: They'd rather poor people be unemployed missing out on a $20/hour wage than be gainfully employed at $10/hour.



    this is why you support social security- you'd rather old people be dependent on the government to survive, and thus you can count on their votes by threatening their very lives-- than have been able to save money for their retirement so that they could live their final years happy.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    Right off the rails on page 5.



    Well, it was an intrinsically political story and this is the internet.



    I would like to point out that a "Tax credit" is not a gift.... its simply STEALING LESS.
  • Reply 263 of 288
    jessijessi Posts: 302member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mugzy View Post


    It is more about that the role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens.



    I've never in my life seen a democrat advocate protecting the rights of citizens. Or am I crazy, and democrats suddenly support private property? I mean, I have a right to not be enslaved, right? So, how is it that democrats think that the government taking %70 of my income is not good enough and that they should take more? Everywhere I turn democrats are calling for more "taxes on the rich", by which they mean me.



    Will democrats think my rights are fully protected only when %100 of my income goes to them?



    [quote]Conservatives also seem to spend a great deal of time thinking about the gays for some reason. Wonder why they are so obsessed? )[/I]



    Conservatives are not worried about gay people and not bothered by gay people getting married. Republicans are not conservatives in the same way that democrats are not liberals.



    Remember, the word "Liberal" means someone who believes in LIBERTY. Nowadays, the only party that follows what Liberal actually means is the Libertarian party.



    Democrats hate libertarians, because democrats don't believe in protecting human rights, and liberals/libertarians do.



    Quote:

    and conservatives simply SPEND and charge it to the next generation, then blame Liberals for the debt that was incurred.



    Both parties do that, though its worth noting Obamassa has spent far more than Bush did and far less efficiently.



    Quote:

    Republicans started new wars during the Bush administration with no way to pay for them. None.



    Obamassa started new wars with no way to pay for them either... he has attacked pakistan, lybia, etc.



    Worse, if these wars are so bad, why has Obamassa expanded them? Why did he expand the patriot act? Why is his government stealing domain names without due process?



    Why is his government molesting children and taking nude pictures of adults at airports, in direct violation of the fourth amendment?



    Because democrats want to protect human rights? Yeah, right!
  • Reply 264 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post


    ... So, how is it that democrats think that the government taking %70 of my income is not good enough and that they should take more? Everywhere I turn democrats are calling for more "taxes on the rich", by which they mean me...(more bs sprinkled with fanciful notions)



    Well you won't have to worry yourself about protecting all that money for too long. Anyone who pays 70% taxes is getting ripped off by their accountant for about 40% of that. The top tax rate is 28%. The dems want to let the bush tax cuts for the rich expire. That would bring the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans to 39.6%. Which is what the tax rate was under Clinton and back then we had a budget surplus and a good economy.



    How does a person get rich when they're terrible at math?



    You're writing fiction. Just like ayn rand.
  • Reply 265 of 288
    jessijessi Posts: 302member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post


    Anyone who pays 70% taxes is getting ripped off by their accountant for about 40% of that. The top tax rate is 28%.



    I'm talking total tax rate, not just federal income tax. People making a modest income often pay %70 taxes. For instance, %20 federal, %17 Social Security, %6 medicare, etc, %10 state taxes... how far are we? That's %53 right there. Then for all of your expenses you pay sales taxes, which is usually another %8, though for things like Gas and Airplane tickets it is as high as %50. Let's just call the total %61. Then there's unemployment insurance, and the built in taxes on the products you buy that you don't see, which in some cases is itself %90 of the cost of what you pay for the time.



    Hell, if you got your way, that would be %40+%17+%6+%12+%10 = %85. Or, put in real terms: %15 free man, %85 slave working to support scum who can't be bothered to get off of their asses.



    Quote:

    The dems want to let the bush tax cuts for the rich expire.



    It really is sad to see people trot out that lie, even after all these years. The bush tax cuts, reduced the amount that poor people pay by %50 and the amount rich people pay by %3. So, when you call them "for the rich" you're lying, of course. But maybe you're just a poor disadvantaged mentally challenged person who can't do math?



    And "letting them expire" is the same as raising taxes. Only, those tax cuts were for the poor, primarily, but the democrats are talking about taxing the rich. so, while they may reverse those tax cuts--- increasing taxes on the poor by %50--- it won't be "sticking it to the rich" when they do.



    But you lot of lazy ass sitters will run around and pretend like you didn't just screw over all the poor people in the country.



    By the way, the cuts Bush originally proposed would have cut poor people's taxes even further, but the democrats opposed that. Cause democrats like the poor? Right... sure....



    Quote:

    That would bring the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans to 39.6%. Which is what the tax rate was under Clinton and back then we had a budget surplus and a good economy.



    Right, so, taking %40 of people's money produces a good economy? You probably believe that too.



    Quote:

    You're writing fiction. Just like ayn rand.



    Its really a shame that your positions are so bad that you can't be honest, and can't talk about the issues, and instead have to engage in personal attacks.



    By the way, my tax rate is zero. I live outside the USA, and have structured my life so that I don't have to pay into your failing system.



    I also knew the housing bubble was coming in 2001, and profited from it all the way up until 2007, when I switched my positions to profit from the collapse.



    It wasn't perfect timing-- I was off by about 6 months-- but I still made out like gangbusters.



    How'd you do?



    Enjoy your sucky economy-- you asked for it!
  • Reply 266 of 288
    By the way, my tax rate is zero. I live outside the USA, and have structured my life so that I don't have to pay into your failing system.-jessi



    That's a good start. Do you have any friends you can convince to join you?
  • Reply 267 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    War is better than a useless and wasteful stimulus.



    That's a really sick and morbid way to look at things.





    Though you can argue Hitler probaly had more to do with our modernized society than anyone would care to think. I belive at one time he was said to be one the most influential person of the 20th century.
  • Reply 268 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post


    I've never in my life seen a democrat advocate protecting the rights of citizens. Or am I crazy, ...



    I was talking about Liberalism. You then equated Liberalism with Democrats. Why? I never mentioned Democrats. You re-framed my comment to suit your needs.



    then you said this:



    Quote:

    Republicans are not conservatives in the same way that democrats are not liberals.



    I would agree with you there.



    but that's about it. the rest of your post is a bunch of random ranting about I don't know what.

    You may know what it means but you cannot articulate it.



    You are flip flopping around like a dying fish in a bucket.
  • Reply 269 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    Yawn. Get over yourself. Mind quoting the "they" who told us the oil would pay for the war? Or is that just more mindless speak.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mugzy View Post


    "Iraq will be an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid and will be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion."

    -- Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]



    "The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

    -- Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]



    and then:



    The Wall Street Journal reported on 9/5/03 that "the Administration's oil estimates were predicated on aggressively optimistic assumptions."



    International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that "Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq despite the Administration's pre-war promises."



    Pwned.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    Great quotes- so where does it say it will pay for the war? Still looking for those.



    Stop digging.
  • Reply 270 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post


    Liberalism's goal and focus ...



    This is not meant as a political comment.



    But please, if you're going to be getting into fancy arguments, as others have pointed out, please do take the trouble to understand what a word means!?



    The fact that you parrot words without knowing their meaning detracts from the arguments you're trying to make.
  • Reply 271 of 288
    How many Solaris (Unix) admin's or Cisco (network) admin's do you think are available in a town of 3400 for data center employment.



    Code maintainers can be anywhere, where they can access the data center remotely.
  • Reply 272 of 288
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,755member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post


    You are telling me 50 jobs that is all Apple offered. A dam disgrace indeed. This state is high in unemployment to begin with.Tim Cook and Apple better get their act together.



    So 0 jobs instead of 50 is better?



    And if 50 isn't enough what is? 100? 500? 5,000?



    Since when did Apple single handedly become the savior for their economy? Ugh - more breathtaking "logic"....
  • Reply 273 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    So 0 jobs instead of 50 is better?



    And if 50 isn't enough what is? 100? 500? 5,000?



    Since when did Apple single handedly become the savior for their economy? Ugh - more breathtaking "logic"....



    But, but Steve Jobs say "I will spend every penny of Apple's money to save Americans."? We're all supposed to get checks in the 1st quarter of next year....
  • Reply 274 of 288
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,755member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    The real issue here has nothing to do with apple. The real issue is that state and local governments fall all over themselves to give tax breaks to companies without really thinking about whether the benefits outweigh the costs.



    You threw it down, now follow through.



    Demonstrate how the "evil" tax breaks for Apple are a negative.



    What? You don't have anything to back up your assertion other than populist rhetoric? What a shock!



    Quote:

    Another example is how cities fall all over themselves to build stadiums for sports franchises. I think it's largely a case of little people trying to feel big.



    Huh? An Apple data center and a sports stadium are hardly comparable - but nice hyperbole!



    Quote:

    I don't know enough about the details here to know whether the NC folks made a mistake or not, but those sound like some pretty big tax cuts for a very small number of jobs.



    Tax cuts from what?



    What exactly was "cut"?



    Quote:

    Again -- not apples fault -- they were honest about the number of jobs. The problem is a culture where everyone reflexively rolls over for big business.



    And how is bargaining with a company and making yourself competitive vs. other regions "rolling over"?!?!



    Good grief! The anti-business rhetoric in this country is getting off the charts....
  • Reply 275 of 288
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post


    I'm talking total tax rate, not just federal income tax. People making a modest income often pay %70 taxes. For instance, %20 federal, %17 Social Security, %6 medicare, etc, %10 state taxes... how far are we? That's %53 right there. Then for all of your expenses you pay sales taxes, which is usually another %8, though for things like Gas and Airplane tickets it is as high as %50. Let's just call the total %61. Then there's unemployment insurance, and the built in taxes on the products you buy that you don't see, which in some cases is itself %90 of the cost of what you pay for the time.



    Hell, if you got your way, that would be %40+%17+%6+%12+%10 = %85. Or, put in real terms: %15 free man, %85 slave working to support scum who can't be bothered to get off of their asses.



    Nice try, but you've managed to blow things way out of proportion. Let's use the real figures:



    Federal - 35% Max rate (but you have to earn $350 K to pay that)

    Social Security - 6.2 % (but only on the first $107K of income - 0% above that)

    Medicare - 1.45%

    State - up to 10%, but some states have none.



    So let's do the math. Take an income of $350,000 (which I'm willing to bet is far more than you earn, so your numbers would be much lower). Keep in mind that Federal and state taxes are bracketed - even if you're in the 35% Federal bracket, you don't pay 35% on the total - just the amount in the highest bracket.

    For $350,000 income:

    Federal: $101,500

    State: $20,000 (using my state which is fairly high)

    Social Security: $6,600

    Medicare: $5,000



    Total: 38%

    And even that number is too high because it doesn't allow for any deductions or personal exemptions. More realistically, a person earning $350 K is paying 30-35% or less - or about 1/2 of the number you're claiming (and even less if they have a decent accountant and reasonable flexibility in their finances). For example, Warren Buffett who makes more than either of us could ever dream of paid 17.7% of his income in taxes last year.



    Sales tax? It's insane to include it because it has nothing to do with your income. And it's certainly ridiculous to use 8% of your total income. Most people in that bracket are spending less than 30% of their income on items covered by sales tax. So let's add another $8 K in taxes (assuming that the person buys $100 K in taxable items per year). So the total tax burden goes up to 41%.



    Unemployment? You don't pay that. It's not a tax, anyway. It's an insurance program. And 'hidden taxes'? Give me a break. You'll do anything to try to inflate the figures. If what you're trying to do is to determine the total government impact on the economy, you could simply look at total federal government spending as a ratio of total GNP - and it's about 23% of total GNP. Hardly the level that you are claiming.



    Now, I'm not going to get into an argument as to what the 'right' amount is because you're clearly not equipped to understand it and/or are too intellectually dishonest to use accurate figures. It's enough to show that your 'facts' are grossly distorted and have no relationship to reality - just like many of the faux news crowd.
  • Reply 276 of 288
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    The real issue here has nothing to do with apple. The real issue is that state and local governments fall all over themselves to give tax breaks to companies without really thinking about whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Another example is how cities fall all over themselves to build stadiums for sports franchises. I think it's largely a case of little people trying to feel big.



    I don't know enough about the details here to know whether the NC folks made a mistake or not, but those sound like some pretty big tax cuts for a very small number of jobs. Again -- not apples fault -- they were honest about the number of jobs. The problem is a culture where everyone reflexively rolls over for big business.



    If you don't know enough about the details to discuss the matter, why are you blathering?



    For that matter, why do so many people insist on babbling about subjects they don't understand? It's obvious every time a subject related to business or economics comes up here. All the uneducated people who have no clue how business works think that their 'insight' is priceless.
  • Reply 277 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Oflife View Post


    It is that attitude which is why the West is in the mess it is. Liberal thinking that says a) Employ people, even if you do not need or cannot afford them. b) Loan people money for items or property they havn't a hope in hell of repaying.



    Further down the road, the wheels then start to fall off. As is happening now as overpaid council staff (here in UK anyway) are sapping up money that could otherwise pay for actual services.



    Apple can do what they like, they are a private company. All that matters is they are environmentally responsible & treat their workers well, not to mention, help in the community. Perhaps by funding a local bus service for the elderly or similar.



    This is not liberal thinking, in fact given the demographics of the region it is more likely those complaining are conservative both politically and religiously. But of course that wouldn't work with your narrative and need to introduce politics into story that has nothing to do with pointless liberal/conservative bashing.



    It is unfortunate that those quoted in the reporting do not understand the reality of technology jobs, and that somehow the individual quoted in the article did not understand that having a big building filled with computer servers would not be a boon to local furniture manufacturing. What the individual should be doing is investigating how s/he can take their manufacturing and assembly skills and transfer them into commercial solar power installation. Surely a higher paying job with a much brighter future not only in their city but nationally.



    However, the local officials should also take the time to explain the reality of economic-multipliers and why it is important to attract even 50 middle class jobs (middle class wage earners spend 75-80% of their income in local goods and services vs. 1-percenters who spend only 10-20% in LG&S), providing they don't all run to shop at Walmart and Sam's Club these 50 jobs and the 250 other contractor jobs that are being created directly because of Apple's presence represent a gain of nearly 9% employment for the city of 3,500 and should result in a nice bump in local revenues.
  • Reply 278 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Nice try, but you've managed to blow things way out of proportion. Let's use the real figures:



    Federal - 35% Max rate (but you have to earn $350 K to pay that)

    Social Security - 6.2 % (but only on the first $107K of income - 0% above that)

    Medicare - 1.45%

    State - up to 10%, but some states have none.



    So let's do the math. Take an income of $350,000 (which I'm willing to bet is far more than you earn, so your numbers would be much lower). Keep in mind that Federal and state taxes are bracketed - even if you're in the 35% Federal bracket, you don't pay 35% on the total - just the amount in the highest bracket.

    For $350,000 income:

    Federal: $101,500

    State: $20,000 (using my state which is fairly high)

    Social Security: $6,600

    Medicare: $5,000



    Total: 38%

    And even that number is too high because it doesn't allow for any deductions or personal exemptions. More realistically, a person earning $350 K is paying 30-35% or less - or about 1/2 of the number you're claiming (and even less if they have a decent accountant and reasonable flexibility in their finances). For example, Warren Buffett who makes more than either of us could ever dream of paid 17.7% of his income in taxes last year.



    Sales tax? It's insane to include it because it has nothing to do with your income. And it's certainly ridiculous to use 8% of your total income. Most people in that bracket are spending less than 30% of their income on items covered by sales tax. So let's add another $8 K in taxes (assuming that the person buys $100 K in taxable items per year). So the total tax burden goes up to 41%.



    Unemployment? You don't pay that. It's not a tax, anyway. It's an insurance program. And 'hidden taxes'? Give me a break. You'll do anything to try to inflate the figures. If what you're trying to do is to determine the total government impact on the economy, you could simply look at total federal government spending as a ratio of total GNP - and it's about 23% of total GNP. Hardly the level that you are claiming.



    Now, I'm not going to get into an argument as to what the 'right' amount is because you're clearly not equipped to understand it and/or are too intellectually dishonest to use accurate figures. It's enough to show that your 'facts' are grossly distorted and have no relationship to reality - just like many of the faux news crowd.



    Nice
  • Reply 279 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by flipperfeet View Post


    Nice



    Yes it is. Jragosta just took jessi to the woodshed.



    Good job.
  • Reply 280 of 288
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post


    Yes it is. Jragosta just took jessi to the woodshed.



    Good job.



    Because that totally adds more to the dicussion.
Sign In or Register to comment.