What in the world does your allegations that Apple is committing tax fraud have to do with whether they should receive a property tax abatement?
And it has nothing to do with 'Apple apologists'. It makes sense for cities and states to offer incentives for new job creation - regardless of who the company is.
I'm torn on the issue based on Wal-Mart's abuses in the 80's and early 90's. They created minimum wage jobs at the expense of small businesses which destroyed downtown communities across the country. And, they got money from the city to do it!!
The corporate income tax rant of the GP is another matter though. Companies need to try to get every advantage they can. City officials need to try to get every penny they can. As long as the compromise is mutually beneficial then nothing is lost. The problem comes when you have corrupt officials giving sweetheart deals. Calculating the cost/benefit isn't as easy as the summary pretends, but I can say that Reno needs to diversify out of just a tourism based economy. Countries see it the same way, and they will do things to attract business where they can. When the cost/benefit to either side skews too far, one party needs to take action.
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.
I have little confidence that you're ever going to raise an intelligent argument, too, but I keep hoping.
Nevada has no obligation to compete 'fairly' with New York or Oregon. We have a Federal system in this country where states are semi-independent and are able to do things to their own advantage. Nevada has obviously determined that offering this incentive and getting all those jobs and tax money is better than NOT offering that incentive and tax money.
In the end, the economy is served by competition - not only between companies, but also between states and cities.
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.
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.
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.
Fine. Go start your own country and you can do whatever you wish.
You seem to have this strange concept that you can bring a billion dollars of investment into an area and hire hundreds of employees without benefiting local businesses. Please explain how that works. Do the workers magically teleport to Cupertino for lunch? They don't buy groceries? Their cars don't need maintenance? They don't need haircuts? They don't buy and build houses?
I suspect that the typical small business would be ecstatic to see Apple investing a billion dollars in Nevada. After all, it doesn't cost them a penny (since Apple will actually be paying more tax than the state is receiving now, so the small business owners' taxes won't go up) but they'll be doing a lot more business and their property will become more valuable. Other than some rabid hatred of Apple or some irrational hatred of our current political system, what possible reason is there to oppose this plan?
As it is, this plan benefits Apple, Nevada, the city of Reno, small businesses in the Reno area, businesses around the world that use Apple products, and residents of Reno.
Comments
I'm torn on the issue based on Wal-Mart's abuses in the 80's and early 90's. They created minimum wage jobs at the expense of small businesses which destroyed downtown communities across the country. And, they got money from the city to do it!!
The corporate income tax rant of the GP is another matter though. Companies need to try to get every advantage they can. City officials need to try to get every penny they can. As long as the compromise is mutually beneficial then nothing is lost. The problem comes when you have corrupt officials giving sweetheart deals. Calculating the cost/benefit isn't as easy as the summary pretends, but I can say that Reno needs to diversify out of just a tourism based economy. Countries see it the same way, and they will do things to attract business where they can. When the cost/benefit to either side skews too far, one party needs to take action.
I have little confidence that you're ever going to raise an intelligent argument, too, but I keep hoping.
Nevada has no obligation to compete 'fairly' with New York or Oregon. We have a Federal system in this country where states are semi-independent and are able to do things to their own advantage. Nevada has obviously determined that offering this incentive and getting all those jobs and tax money is better than NOT offering that incentive and tax money.
In the end, the economy is served by competition - not only between companies, but also between states and cities.
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.
Fine. Go start your own country and you can do whatever you wish.
You seem to have this strange concept that you can bring a billion dollars of investment into an area and hire hundreds of employees without benefiting local businesses. Please explain how that works. Do the workers magically teleport to Cupertino for lunch? They don't buy groceries? Their cars don't need maintenance? They don't need haircuts? They don't buy and build houses?
I suspect that the typical small business would be ecstatic to see Apple investing a billion dollars in Nevada. After all, it doesn't cost them a penny (since Apple will actually be paying more tax than the state is receiving now, so the small business owners' taxes won't go up) but they'll be doing a lot more business and their property will become more valuable. Other than some rabid hatred of Apple or some irrational hatred of our current political system, what possible reason is there to oppose this plan?
As it is, this plan benefits Apple, Nevada, the city of Reno, small businesses in the Reno area, businesses around the world that use Apple products, and residents of Reno.