I'm pleased to see that there appears to be some diversity among Republican legislators. Not sure what the "small, local companies" are that could invest that much in their state, but as far as I can tell in many states and nationally, Republican legislators usually shower the very biggest of big businesses with tax breaks, bend or remove any rules that hamper their ability to profit at everyone else's expense, etc. Hey, the previous national administration even let some big corporate representatives re-write federal rules for their own benefit. Seems to me that many small businesses have gotten trampled by big businesses favored by legislators of both parties. Maybe things are different in North Carolina?
In any case, I hope that the state and local taxes generated by the jobs produced by the new data center directly and indirectly will exceed the tax break received by Apple. I'm glad to see a set of fairly tough conditions on the tax breaks. In New Jersey and New York, tax breaks to businesses have often been provided with no performance requirements. So a business may get a huge tax break, then leave town a few years later, and get to keep all its tax breaks without their employees having generated the income to the local town or state.
Wow what a liberal. Just curious, do you have any specific examples for all the general assertions you make throughout? And just FYI, if you actually lived in NY (as you criticize), or in upstate NY like I do, you'd know that republican Gov. Pataki for years courted AMD to build their brand new state of the art chip fab campus here in Malta (under mass construction now), using extensive tax breaks. And I'm pretty sure people are delighted about it. For AMD, it was either here, or some place in Germany. Personally, I'd take here, with 5000+ jobs created, a real estate boom, and a tax revenue boom for Saratoga county for sure. Not bad, seeing as how we're in a recession. Please, don't generalize about the evils of big business and tax breaks (typical liberal drivel) unless you've got some specifics.
As for this site in NC, it sounds like east-bumblef*ck, and typically server farms are located in such places anyway for both NIMBY and security concerns. IMO, it's a win-win-win for Apple, the state, and the residents of the county.
Sorry, I don't have a list of convenient references to the many instances of the public getting screwed by politicians, often of the "conservative" variety, who richly rewarded their biggest campaign contributors. I'm glad to hear that well crafted tax breaks in upstate New York have been effective. I don't have the specific details at hand, but I recall reading about tax abatements provided to some financial firms by New York City. These were massive tax abatements, and the companies later pulled out of Manhattan to move across the river to New Jersey long before the interval they had promised to stay in Manhattan. No penalties. Just very poorly drafted tax abatements. Was there malfeasance or corruption? I have no idea. But big money does talk, particularly to local governments, and New York used to LOVE the financial industry.
As for the federal regulations actually written for the Bush administration by representatives/lobbyists for the industries being regulated? This has been a well-known fact for many years and has been in the major media. If you've read any national news sources in the past 8 years, you are very well aware of this story. Only someone who doesn't follow national events or who is disingenuous would claim ignorance on this disgusting whoring of the national government to big money interests. Look it up yourself.
I grew up in southern California, although I now reside on the East Coast. The Republican party there was extremely conservative 40 years ago, and just as Ronald Reagan moved from California to the national scene, the national Republican party came to resemble the California party. In California, the Republican party always backed legislation or lack thereof that protected the largest businesses (including agribusiness) against consumers and workers. The Democrats often weren't great in this regard. However, the political party that consistently pandered to the very lowest ignorant, racist people (most of whom weren't doing too well economically) also, ironically, favored those who were already doing the best economically. And let's not forget the constant fear-mongering. As I remember, the Communists were always about to take over the country and the world. Anybody who disagreed wasn't patriotic, etc. etc. I had people tell me that Martin Luther King was a Communist. Really? I guess if you're going to fool people into voting against their own interests, there's nothing like lies, fear, and scapegoating the even more powerless. Then those tricky Communists just went away. Now the best that the right wing can do is accuse their opponents of being socialists. Really, quite pathetic and sad.
And yes, Democrats are under the same financial pressures and often cave to the interests of big business. But the most craven whore to the biggest polluters and abusers has been the national Republican party in the last few years. It is so bad and so controlled by primitive anti-government ideology that its members have, well, run the government incompetently. Started an unnecessary war. And got soundly beaten at the polls for their efforts.
And the response of these super-patriots to losing? Wasn't that a Republican governor from Texas who floated the idea of secession from the union? I understand that the Alaska governor's husband was involved with some lunatic separatist organization (sorry, separatist=lunatic in my book, no apologies). Talk about sore losers! Seceding from the union. Like a tantrum. Let's talk patriotism - talking of seceding from our beloved country is, plain and simple, unpatriotic. I assume these politicians are pretty clever and appealing to their "base." That base is just plain pathetic. I expect more and more of that base will be waking up and abandoning what is becoming the party of fringe lunatics. Hopefully someone can reconstitute the party or come up with a new one that can provide an intelligent opposition to the Democratic party (to keep it on its toes if nothing else).
Wow! Was that ever a rant. And far off topic.
As for those 8 Republican votes against the Apple tax abatement, I have no idea if they were right or not in this case, in terms of long-term economic impact on the region. Small businesses are and have been in trouble for all sorts of reasons for years, especially now. It would be interesting to know what pro-active steps those principled legislators would favor to assist small businesses. How about providing universal health insurance for everyone, not tied to employment. Then small businesses, most of which won't be able to provide health insurance soon if not already, won't have to compete with larger business that can afford to provide those benefits.
I sure hope that demand for the Apple data center materializes and that the economy near that center gets a big boost.
The ideology to make everything equal and offer no special favours is great, but it's irrational to expect such things and in this case would hurt smaller businesses.
Please explain how it is irrational to believe businesses should be treated equally no matter their size.
Preferential treatment is, by definition, unequal. What defines who deserves preferential treatment?
I sure as hell am no Republican, but I believe in natural, equal markets, uninterrupted by government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Even in the consumer market we expect discounts the more we spend (eg: 'buy 2 get 1 free' and 'spend more than x-amount to get an additional 10% off'). This is just a "spend $1B over 10 years and get $4.6M back each year."
No, there's a HUGE difference. What you are describing is a marketing strategy. A business decides to subsidize their revenues for a potential return. We're not talking about a business, though, we're talking about a government. The NC government is subsidizing this deal with other people's or business' tax money. How is that fair? How do you justify that sort of preferential treatment? How come I am not as important as Apple?
Your next step, of course, it to argue that it's for the "greater good" of the state and, therefore, of me to pay a higher tax rate. The "Greater Good" IS NOT GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO DECIDE.
Sorry, I don't have a list of convenient references to the many instances of the public getting screwed by politicians, often of the "conservative" variety, who richly rewarded their biggest campaign contributors. I'm glad to hear that well crafted tax breaks in upstate New York have been effective. I don't have the specific details at hand, but I recall reading about tax abatements provided to some financial firms by New York City. These were massive tax abatements, and the companies later pulled out of Manhattan to move across the river to New Jersey long before the interval they had promised to stay in Manhattan. No penalties. Just very poorly drafted tax abatements. Was there malfeasance or corruption? I have no idea. But big money does talk, particularly to local governments, and New York used to LOVE the financial industry.
As for the federal regulations actually written for the Bush administration by representatives/lobbyists for the industries being regulated? This has been a well-known fact for many years and has been in the major media. If you've read any national news sources in the past 8 years, you are very well aware of this story. Only someone who doesn't follow national events or who is disingenuous would claim ignorance on this disgusting whoring of the national government to big money interests. Look it up yourself.
I grew up in southern California, although I now reside on the East Coast. The Republican party there was extremely conservative 40 years ago, and just as Ronald Reagan moved from California to the national scene, the national Republican party came to resemble the California party. In California, the Republican party always backed legislation or lack thereof that protected the largest businesses (including agribusiness) against consumers and workers. The Democrats often weren't great in this regard. However, the political party that consistently pandered to the very lowest ignorant, racist people (most of whom weren't doing too well economically) also, ironically, favored those who were already doing the best economically. And let's not forget the constant fear-mongering. As I remember, the Communists were always about to take over the country and the world. Anybody who disagreed wasn't patriotic, etc. etc. I had people tell me that Martin Luther King was a Communist. Really? I guess if you're going to fool people into voting against their own interests, there's nothing like lies, fear, and scapegoating the even more powerless. Then those tricky Communists just went away. Now the best that the right wing can do is accuse their opponents of being socialists. Really, quite pathetic and sad.
And yes, Democrats are under the same financial pressures and often cave to the interests of big business. But the most craven whore to the biggest polluters and abusers has been the national Republican party in the last few years. It is so bad and so controlled by primitive anti-government ideology that its members have, well, run the government incompetently. Started an unnecessary war. And got soundly beaten at the polls for their efforts.
And the response of these super-patriots to losing? Wasn't that a Republican governor from Texas who floated the idea of secession from the union? I understand that the Alaska governor's husband was involved with some lunatic separatist organization (sorry, separatist=lunatic in my book, no apologies). Talk about sore losers! Seceding from the union. Like a tantrum. Let's talk patriotism - talking of seceding from our beloved country is, plain and simple, unpatriotic. I assume these politicians are pretty clever and appealing to their "base." That base is just plain pathetic. I expect more and more of that base will be waking up and abandoning what is becoming the party of fringe lunatics. Hopefully someone can reconstitute the party or come up with a new one that can provide an intelligent opposition to the Democratic party (to keep it on its toes if nothing else).
Wow! Was that ever a rant. And far off topic.
As for those 8 Republican votes against the Apple tax abatement, I have no idea if they were right or not in this case, in terms of long-term economic impact on the region. Small businesses are and have been in trouble for all sorts of reasons for years, especially now. It would be interesting to know what pro-active steps those principled legislators would favor to assist small businesses. How about providing universal health insurance for everyone, not tied to employment. Then small businesses, most of which won't be able to provide health insurance soon if not already, won't have to compete with larger business that can afford to provide those benefits.
I sure hope that demand for the Apple data center materializes and that the economy near that center gets a big boost.
The fact that North Carolina will get this server farm is Example A of how business-unfriendly California has become. Our legislature overspends like drunken whores, then to make up for it, punishes both businesses and the average working person with the highest combination of taxes and fees in the nation. No wonder Apple is expanding elsewhere.
I thought Apple's data center/server farm was going to be something special. Now I hear that RIM is building one that's even larger in Atlanta and will have double the number of employees as Apple. I doubt it will have double the capacity of storage, though. No matter what Apple does, RIM is managing to go it one better. RIM isn't exactly collapsing due to the threat of the iPhone as was widely predicted. Being a much smaller company, RIM can take Apple head -on and that's pretty amazing. RIM must be stealing market share from Nokia very quickly.
Are you sure about this? Do you have a reference or a link?
At 1 billion dollars, Apple's data centre is pretty much double the cost (and therefore presumably the size) of Microsofts biggest and newest one. I have a hard time believing a company like RIM, is building one twice that size.
The fact that North Carolina will get this server farm is Example A of how business-unfriendly California has become. Our legislature overspends like drunken whores, then to make up for it, punishes both businesses and the average working person with the highest combination of taxes and fees in the nation. No wonder Apple is expanding elsewhere.
GTSC
this has nothing to do with california. a lot of companies build data centers around the world to position data and processing power closer to users. a lot of people live on the east coast and it doesn't make sense to send the traffic to california and back to serve them. google is building data centers around the world and Microsoft even built one in siberia in an abandoned soviet missile silo or HQ bunker.
Are you sure about this? Do you have a reference or a link?
At 1 billion dollars, Apple's data centre is pretty much double the cost (and therefore presumably the size) of Microsofts biggest and newest one. I have a hard time believing a company like RIM, is building one twice that size.
twice the cost doesn't mean twice the servers. most of cost of a server is memory and hard disks. and if they are using SAN's then EMC charges drug dealer prices for their storage.
If apple is building this to support MobileMe or the Itunes Store then they will need a lot of storage which is very expensive. think $800 for a 500GB hard drive expensive if you're putting it into a SAN. and the ratio is around 5 or 6 to 1 raw to usable storage for critical data.
i hope Apple adds a copy of the ITunes Store to the east coast. the download speeds are pathetic compared to other big companies that i download files from
RIM is probably just building out servers for processing power.
And yes, Democrats are under the same financial pressures and often cave to the interests of big business. But the most craven whore to the biggest polluters and abusers has been the national Republican party in the last few years. It is so bad and so controlled by primitive anti-government ideology that its members have, well, run the government incompetently. Started an unnecessary war. And got soundly beaten at the polls for their efforts.
And the response of these super-patriots to losing? Wasn't that a Republican governor from Texas who floated the idea of secession from the union? I understand that the Alaska governor's husband was involved with some lunatic separatist organization (sorry, separatist=lunatic in my book, no apologies). Talk about sore losers! Seceding from the union. Like a tantrum. Let's talk patriotism - talking of seceding from our beloved country is, plain and simple, unpatriotic. I assume these politicians are pretty clever and appealing to their "base." That base is just plain pathetic. I expect more and more of that base will be waking up and abandoning what is becoming the party of fringe lunatics. Hopefully someone can reconstitute the party or come up with a new one that can provide an intelligent opposition to the Democratic party (to keep it on its toes if nothing else).
At what point is it okay to secede? What if we begin to act like Nazi Germany? (I'm not saying that we do, just floating a hypothetical.) Would it still be like throwing a tantrum or being a sore loser?
It is my belief that secession is (should be) justifiable when a State feels it can't reconcile its differences with the Union.
Even being as outraged as many right-wingers are about how things are being run, I think secession plans are a little premature to say the least.
Now I'm sure you'd like lump me in with the "primitive" anti-government movement based on my belief in pure markets. While I don't feel the need to justify myself, I do feel as though you should at least know that most fiscal conservatives like myself don't believe in NO government intervention, we believe in limited, SMART government intervention. Nothing about the rabid spending of Bush and now the rabid "Bush on steroids" spending of Obama is SMART spending. Throwing money in all directions has never worked at any time in any country and our government has simply grown to the size that nothing it does can be checked. A leaner government will not only be more efficient, but also more effective. It also carries the benefit of being cheaper to maintain!!! Isn't that what we need?
NOT APPLE BUILT, but using Apple machines. Big difference, especially to those that were involved in designing it and those volunteers that helped to build it.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Excuse me for taking the liberty of of placing in BOLD a portion of our great document... The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
Please explain how it is irrational to believe businesses should be treated equally no matter their size.
Gladly!
Quote:
Preferential treatment is, by definition, unequal. What defines who deserves preferential treatment?
The one who wants the business defines it in most cases. There are other situations where extortion or blackmail is used, but that is neither legal or what is being used here.
Quote:
I sure as hell am no Republican, but I believe in natural, equal markets, uninterrupted by government.
Again, it’s irrational to think that there is equality at that level, it’s also bad to even attempt to invoke it, as I’ll get to in a second.
Quote:
No, there's a HUGE difference. What you are describing is a marketing strategy.
Yes, that is exactly what I’m describing.
Quote:
A business decides to subsidize their revenues for a potential return. We're not talking about a business, though, we're talking about a government.
Governments are businesses, and in this case the NC government is competing with up to 49 other state governments for revenue which will filter through as taxes and fee through means. For example, business licenses, buildig permits, taxes of goods and services rendered, etc.
Quote:
The NC government is subsidizing this deal with other people's or business' tax money. How is that fair? How do you justify that sort of preferential treatment? How come I am not as important as Apple?
If you had a $1B to spend in a state you would be. The situation is quite simple. If Apple doesn’t build the server farm in NC then all aggregated revenue tax for NC is zero, zilch, nil, nought, diddly-squat. If they build the farm there then it’s $1B in taxes minus $46M. That is only a 4.6% discount for bringing in $1B worth of business, plus all the additional business that will then do more business from the business they did with Apple, and so on.
Quote:
Your next step, of course, it to argue that it's for the "greater good" of the state and, therefore, of me to pay a higher tax rate. The "Greater Good" IS NOT GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO DECIDE.
My next step to question why you think that a state government is not a business competing with other state governments for business. This is a very good thing for the state, your statement about “greater good” has no bearing as it’s also good for the “lesser good” of the state too. Since there would be no taxes if Apple went to another state the only result is more revenue for the state from taxes, not less, as well as more jobs and more opportunities for future growth.
Remember, this is $1B spent in the state to filter through the state. This isn’t Apple hiring construction crews from SC to build in NC and then buying all their equipment out of state to ship into NC. This $1B will have to be from companies in NC to qualify. I can’t begin to imagine why you think NC is losing money here.
Quote:
-Clive
Why sign your name when your name is to the left of every post?
Those 8 do make a good point about favoring "big businesses over small, localized companies."
8 Republicans favoring small business over large? Seriously? Never mind the fact that there is no equal local business talent capable of offering this set up, but 8 Republicans?
Soli, replying to each or your statements is irrelevant unless I address this one statement of yours:
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Governments are businesses, and in this case the NC government is competing with up to 49 other state governments for revenue which will filter through as taxes and fee through means. For example, business licenses, buildig permits, taxes of goods and services rendered, etc.
This is so wrong it's not even funny. The purpose of a government "of the people" is to do for people what they and their businesses can't/won't. This includes providing only the most vital infrastructure for industry & commerce, to protect and preserve the rights of individuals (not necessarily to provide) and in America, we aim to do these things while maximizing individual freedom and choice.
Businesses on the other hand exist to profit on consumers and subsequently grow itself. While we are all "stockholders" in the US Gov't and our state gov'ts, we don't exist to profit from them, nor do they exist to profit from consumers. In business, individuals have a choice whether to invest in the business or not. With citizenship, it's not that easy. One can't simply subscribe to whichever government best fits them as there are serious limiting factors in doing so. That's why government has a duty to offer as much individual freedom as possible (something both Dems and Reps fail at implementing). Lastly, Government, unlike business, is not accountable for failing to accomplish its goals. Government cannot go out of business. Since it has the power to determine its own funding, it has a responsibility to keep that funding at a minimum - another thing at which both parties have failed.
The only things government has in common with a business is that it is best-served to be run as efficiently as possible. This is, irrefutably, the biggest failure of our government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
If you had a $1B to spend in a state you would be.
I would be seen as important to a CORRUPT government, yes. Government should not have the eyes to say, "oh that guy has $1B, let's get him in here." They should consistently have the lowest taxes possible. If they can afford to go without $46M in taxes, their tax rate is too high. In no case, however, should there be an exception to the rule. If I had $100 to spend, I should be just as important as someone with $1B to spend.
It's not irrationality, it's egalitarianism. Isn't that what a liberal generally wants? And if so, why are they voting against it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The situation is quite simple. If Apple doesn?t build the server farm in NC then all aggregated revenue tax for NC is zero, zilch, nil, nought, diddly-squat. If they build the farm there then it?s $1B in taxes minus $46M. That is only a 4.6% discount for bringing in $1B worth of business, plus all the additional business that will then do more business from the business they did with Apple, and so on.
My next step to question why you think that a state government is not a business competing with other state governments for business. This is a very good thing for the state, your statement about ?greater good? has no bearing as it?s also good for the ?lesser good? of the state too. Since there would be no taxes if Apple went to another state the only result is more revenue for the state from taxes, not less, as well as more jobs and more opportunities for future growth.
If no state wasted a cent of tax money and every cent was invest properly to give return, then the "price" of residing in any particular state would be equal no matter the tax rate. The only difference would be of which investments an individual/company chooses to benefit.
Of course we have imperfect, inefficient government who are corruptedly clawing over one another in a desperate attempt to make a turd smell like a rose. Fifty governments pandering and slobbering over big business is hardly the sign of a healthy system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Remember, this is $1B spent in the state to filter through the state. This isn?t Apple hiring construction crews from SC to build in NC and then buying all their equipment out of state to ship into NC. This $1B will have to be from companies in NC to qualify. I can?t begin to imagine why you think NC is losing money here.
Did I say NC would be losing money? No, I didn't. I said they would be redirecting tax revenue from those their government deems less important to those they deem more important. No matter how you spin it, it's wrong.
Will Apple's move to NC benefit the state? Probably, yes. Does that justify preferential treatment to make it happen? Not unless you believe in the "noble blood" of big business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Why sign your name when your name is to the left of every post?
?Solipsism
I do so to make it a little more personal, instead of simply jettisoning characters at a make-believe wall. I like to let others know that there's a real person communicating with them, carefully thinking and formulating a proper response to their posts. Does it bother you?
...It is my belief that secession is (should be) justifiable when a State feels it can't reconcile its differences with the Union...
At this point of the global game it is very very unlikely any US State will secede, it's just suicide. That new "country" is going to find it very hard to survive.
Even if they bring in construction work from elsewhere, they will have to sleep, eat, shop and vacation in North Carolina. This centralized location is a long drive if you are a construction worker in another state. It is also less than a 1/2 hour drive from one of the more affluent areas in that part of the state - Lake Norman. And only about 45 minutes from Charlotte.
Also, plenty of professional talent to man the operation once it is done - or buy those multi-million dollar homes on the lake...
Let those "Bay Area" residents stay where they are, they are far to superior to come east anyway.
The biggest challenge NC faces is when SF Bay Area workers visit/ relocate to the area where the server farm is... Y'all gotta make sure them Latte's are up to spec! And stock up on organic tofu, throw out genetically modified corn crap and such, up the bandwidth on all WiFi hotspots (which have to be radically expanded for full coverage in a 100 mile radius around the server farm). Also 3G and HSDPA 7mbit etc. needs to be upped in said 100 mile radius. I don't care if it's the middle of nowhere, there'll be a lot of them iPhone 3Gs coming to town...
Oh when the saints come marching in...
Also NC needs to start training a lot of diner workers to know how to make a low-fat organic soy light cream low foam italian-caramel macchiato. Expect a new bill to be passed by the state relatively soon.
I do so to make it a little more personal, instead of simply jettisoning characters at a make-believe wall. I like to let others know that there's a real person communicating with them, carefully thinking and formulating a proper response to their posts. Does it bother you?
-Clive
Nope, doesn’t bother me, just didn’t understand why one would their screename posted twice per post. You aren’t the only one. I’ll try to be more personal.
Quote:
Soli, replying to each or your statements is irrelevant unless I address this one statement of yours:
This is so wrong it's not even funny. The purpose of a government "of the people" is to do for people what they and their businesses can't/won't. This includes providing only the most vital infrastructure for industry & commerce, to protect and preserve the rights of individuals (not necessarily to provide) and in America, we aim to do these things while maximizing individual freedom and choice.
Businesses on the other hand exist to profit on consumers and subsequently grow itself. While we are all "stockholders" in the US Gov't and our state gov'ts, we don't exist to profit from them, nor do they exist to profit from consumers. In business, individuals have a choice whether to invest in the business or not. With citizenship, it's not that easy. One can't simply subscribe to whichever government best fits them as there are serious limiting factors in doing so. That's why government has a duty to offer as much individual freedom as possible (something both Dems and Reps fail at implementing). Lastly, Government, unlike business, is not accountable for failing to accomplish its goals. Government cannot go out of business. Since it has the power to determine its own funding, it has a responsibility to keep that funding at a minimum - another thing at which both parties have failed.
The only things government has in common with a business is that it is best-served to be run as efficiently as possible. This is, irrefutably, the biggest failure of our government.
I would be seen as important to a CORRUPT government, yes. Government should not have the eyes to say, "oh that guy has $1B, let's get him in here." They should consistently have the lowest taxes possible. If they can afford to go without $46M in taxes, their tax rate is too high. In no case, however, should there be an exception to the rule. If I had $100 to spend, I should be just as important as someone with $1B to spend.
It's not irrationality, it's egalitarianism. Isn't that what a liberal generally wants? And if so, why are they voting against it?
If no state wasted a cent of tax money and every cent was invest properly to give return, then the "price" of residing in any particular state would be equal no matter the tax rate. The only difference would be of which investments an individual/company chooses to benefit.
Of course we have imperfect, inefficient government who are corruptedly clawing over one another in a desperate attempt to make a turd smell like a rose. Fifty governments pandering and slobbering over big business is hardly the sign of a healthy system.
Did I say NC would be losing money? No, I didn't. I said they would be redirecting tax revenue from those their government deems less important to those they deem more important. No matter how you spin it, it's wrong.
Will Apple's move to NC benefit the state? Probably, yes. Does that justify preferential treatment to make it happen? Not unless you believe in the "noble blood" of big business.
My Dear Clive,
How are the kids and wife doing these days? Anyway, the state isn’t losing $46M in taxes, they are gaining the tax revenue from what the $1B Apple will spend in the state, minus $46M, but including all the other taxes being spent by the increased taxes from Apple’s initial $1B spent. It would not benefit the state, their local businesses or people if the server far went to another state.
Your statement sounds like you are stating that 40 out of 48 state senators are corrupt, thereby implying that they are either being bribed, blackmailed or extorted by Apple. This is just simply makes no sense. Apple is bringing a great deal of money to the state that would otherwise probably not get had they not allowed Apple the tax break. They also have made wise stipulations that forces Apple to spend a certain amount of money to get the tax break. There is nothing sinister or underhanded about this deal.
It’s not like a Walmart situations where local businesses are hurt by its presence. A mom-and-pop PC repair shop in a rundown strip mall spending $10,000 a year for their store and locally bought equipment and services does not affect the economy like a one spending $100,000,000 a year and creating many jobs and businesses along with it.
How are the kids and wife doing these days? Anyway, the state isn’t losing $46M in taxes, they are gaining the tax revenue from what the $1B Apple will spend in the state, minus $46M, but including all the other taxes being spent by the increased taxes from Apple’s initial $1B spent. It would not benefit the state, their local businesses or people if the server far went to another state.
Your statement sounds like you are stating that 40 out of 48 state senators are corrupt, thereby implying that they are either being bribed, blackmailed or extorted by Apple. This is just simply makes no sense. Apple is bringing a great deal of money to the state that would otherwise probably not get had they not allowed Apple the tax break. They also have made wise stipulations that forces Apple to spend a certain amount of money to get the tax break. There is nothing sinister or underhanded about this deal.
It’s not like a Walmart situations where local businesses are hurt by its presence. A mom-and-pop PC repair shop in a rundown strip mall spending $10,000 a year for their store and locally bought equipment and services does not affect the economy like a one spending $100,000,000 a year and creating many jobs and businesses along with it.
Insincerely,
Solipsism
Once again, I didn't say $46M "LOST." It's a subsidy that other taxpayers have to cover. Let's look at it like this: Say 95% of business revenue pays a 10% tax rate. The other 5% are revenues from "special cases" and pay 8%. The businesses who account for 95% of the revenue cover 96% of the tax burden. Explain how that is fair.
I'm not saying Apple is stealing jobs from other companies, I'm not saying they're stealing tax payer money. I'm saying the system is flawed. Government has no business micro-managing industry. When they do, they create a class system, favoring certain businesses and products over others. Never - in any situation - is that fair.
I want to know how you justify it. How do you justify forcing 95% to pay 96% of the tax burden?
Comments
I'm pleased to see that there appears to be some diversity among Republican legislators. Not sure what the "small, local companies" are that could invest that much in their state, but as far as I can tell in many states and nationally, Republican legislators usually shower the very biggest of big businesses with tax breaks, bend or remove any rules that hamper their ability to profit at everyone else's expense, etc. Hey, the previous national administration even let some big corporate representatives re-write federal rules for their own benefit. Seems to me that many small businesses have gotten trampled by big businesses favored by legislators of both parties. Maybe things are different in North Carolina?
In any case, I hope that the state and local taxes generated by the jobs produced by the new data center directly and indirectly will exceed the tax break received by Apple. I'm glad to see a set of fairly tough conditions on the tax breaks. In New Jersey and New York, tax breaks to businesses have often been provided with no performance requirements. So a business may get a huge tax break, then leave town a few years later, and get to keep all its tax breaks without their employees having generated the income to the local town or state.
Wow what a liberal. Just curious, do you have any specific examples for all the general assertions you make throughout? And just FYI, if you actually lived in NY (as you criticize), or in upstate NY like I do, you'd know that republican Gov. Pataki for years courted AMD to build their brand new state of the art chip fab campus here in Malta (under mass construction now), using extensive tax breaks. And I'm pretty sure people are delighted about it. For AMD, it was either here, or some place in Germany. Personally, I'd take here, with 5000+ jobs created, a real estate boom, and a tax revenue boom for Saratoga county for sure. Not bad, seeing as how we're in a recession. Please, don't generalize about the evils of big business and tax breaks (typical liberal drivel) unless you've got some specifics.
As for this site in NC, it sounds like east-bumblef*ck, and typically server farms are located in such places anyway for both NIMBY and security concerns. IMO, it's a win-win-win for Apple, the state, and the residents of the county.
As for the federal regulations actually written for the Bush administration by representatives/lobbyists for the industries being regulated? This has been a well-known fact for many years and has been in the major media. If you've read any national news sources in the past 8 years, you are very well aware of this story. Only someone who doesn't follow national events or who is disingenuous would claim ignorance on this disgusting whoring of the national government to big money interests. Look it up yourself.
I grew up in southern California, although I now reside on the East Coast. The Republican party there was extremely conservative 40 years ago, and just as Ronald Reagan moved from California to the national scene, the national Republican party came to resemble the California party. In California, the Republican party always backed legislation or lack thereof that protected the largest businesses (including agribusiness) against consumers and workers. The Democrats often weren't great in this regard. However, the political party that consistently pandered to the very lowest ignorant, racist people (most of whom weren't doing too well economically) also, ironically, favored those who were already doing the best economically. And let's not forget the constant fear-mongering. As I remember, the Communists were always about to take over the country and the world. Anybody who disagreed wasn't patriotic, etc. etc. I had people tell me that Martin Luther King was a Communist. Really? I guess if you're going to fool people into voting against their own interests, there's nothing like lies, fear, and scapegoating the even more powerless. Then those tricky Communists just went away. Now the best that the right wing can do is accuse their opponents of being socialists. Really, quite pathetic and sad.
And yes, Democrats are under the same financial pressures and often cave to the interests of big business. But the most craven whore to the biggest polluters and abusers has been the national Republican party in the last few years. It is so bad and so controlled by primitive anti-government ideology that its members have, well, run the government incompetently. Started an unnecessary war. And got soundly beaten at the polls for their efforts.
And the response of these super-patriots to losing? Wasn't that a Republican governor from Texas who floated the idea of secession from the union? I understand that the Alaska governor's husband was involved with some lunatic separatist organization (sorry, separatist=lunatic in my book, no apologies). Talk about sore losers! Seceding from the union. Like a tantrum. Let's talk patriotism - talking of seceding from our beloved country is, plain and simple, unpatriotic. I assume these politicians are pretty clever and appealing to their "base." That base is just plain pathetic. I expect more and more of that base will be waking up and abandoning what is becoming the party of fringe lunatics. Hopefully someone can reconstitute the party or come up with a new one that can provide an intelligent opposition to the Democratic party (to keep it on its toes if nothing else).
Wow! Was that ever a rant. And far off topic.
As for those 8 Republican votes against the Apple tax abatement, I have no idea if they were right or not in this case, in terms of long-term economic impact on the region. Small businesses are and have been in trouble for all sorts of reasons for years, especially now. It would be interesting to know what pro-active steps those principled legislators would favor to assist small businesses. How about providing universal health insurance for everyone, not tied to employment. Then small businesses, most of which won't be able to provide health insurance soon if not already, won't have to compete with larger business that can afford to provide those benefits.
I sure hope that demand for the Apple data center materializes and that the economy near that center gets a big boost.
The ideology to make everything equal and offer no special favours is great, but it's irrational to expect such things and in this case would hurt smaller businesses.
Please explain how it is irrational to believe businesses should be treated equally no matter their size.
Preferential treatment is, by definition, unequal. What defines who deserves preferential treatment?
I sure as hell am no Republican, but I believe in natural, equal markets, uninterrupted by government.
Even in the consumer market we expect discounts the more we spend (eg: 'buy 2 get 1 free' and 'spend more than x-amount to get an additional 10% off'). This is just a "spend $1B over 10 years and get $4.6M back each year."
No, there's a HUGE difference. What you are describing is a marketing strategy. A business decides to subsidize their revenues for a potential return. We're not talking about a business, though, we're talking about a government. The NC government is subsidizing this deal with other people's or business' tax money. How is that fair? How do you justify that sort of preferential treatment? How come I am not as important as Apple?
Your next step, of course, it to argue that it's for the "greater good" of the state and, therefore, of me to pay a higher tax rate. The "Greater Good" IS NOT GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO DECIDE.
-Clive
Sorry, I don't have a list of convenient references to the many instances of the public getting screwed by politicians, often of the "conservative" variety, who richly rewarded their biggest campaign contributors. I'm glad to hear that well crafted tax breaks in upstate New York have been effective. I don't have the specific details at hand, but I recall reading about tax abatements provided to some financial firms by New York City. These were massive tax abatements, and the companies later pulled out of Manhattan to move across the river to New Jersey long before the interval they had promised to stay in Manhattan. No penalties. Just very poorly drafted tax abatements. Was there malfeasance or corruption? I have no idea. But big money does talk, particularly to local governments, and New York used to LOVE the financial industry.
As for the federal regulations actually written for the Bush administration by representatives/lobbyists for the industries being regulated? This has been a well-known fact for many years and has been in the major media. If you've read any national news sources in the past 8 years, you are very well aware of this story. Only someone who doesn't follow national events or who is disingenuous would claim ignorance on this disgusting whoring of the national government to big money interests. Look it up yourself.
I grew up in southern California, although I now reside on the East Coast. The Republican party there was extremely conservative 40 years ago, and just as Ronald Reagan moved from California to the national scene, the national Republican party came to resemble the California party. In California, the Republican party always backed legislation or lack thereof that protected the largest businesses (including agribusiness) against consumers and workers. The Democrats often weren't great in this regard. However, the political party that consistently pandered to the very lowest ignorant, racist people (most of whom weren't doing too well economically) also, ironically, favored those who were already doing the best economically. And let's not forget the constant fear-mongering. As I remember, the Communists were always about to take over the country and the world. Anybody who disagreed wasn't patriotic, etc. etc. I had people tell me that Martin Luther King was a Communist. Really? I guess if you're going to fool people into voting against their own interests, there's nothing like lies, fear, and scapegoating the even more powerless. Then those tricky Communists just went away. Now the best that the right wing can do is accuse their opponents of being socialists. Really, quite pathetic and sad.
And yes, Democrats are under the same financial pressures and often cave to the interests of big business. But the most craven whore to the biggest polluters and abusers has been the national Republican party in the last few years. It is so bad and so controlled by primitive anti-government ideology that its members have, well, run the government incompetently. Started an unnecessary war. And got soundly beaten at the polls for their efforts.
And the response of these super-patriots to losing? Wasn't that a Republican governor from Texas who floated the idea of secession from the union? I understand that the Alaska governor's husband was involved with some lunatic separatist organization (sorry, separatist=lunatic in my book, no apologies). Talk about sore losers! Seceding from the union. Like a tantrum. Let's talk patriotism - talking of seceding from our beloved country is, plain and simple, unpatriotic. I assume these politicians are pretty clever and appealing to their "base." That base is just plain pathetic. I expect more and more of that base will be waking up and abandoning what is becoming the party of fringe lunatics. Hopefully someone can reconstitute the party or come up with a new one that can provide an intelligent opposition to the Democratic party (to keep it on its toes if nothing else).
Wow! Was that ever a rant. And far off topic.
As for those 8 Republican votes against the Apple tax abatement, I have no idea if they were right or not in this case, in terms of long-term economic impact on the region. Small businesses are and have been in trouble for all sorts of reasons for years, especially now. It would be interesting to know what pro-active steps those principled legislators would favor to assist small businesses. How about providing universal health insurance for everyone, not tied to employment. Then small businesses, most of which won't be able to provide health insurance soon if not already, won't have to compete with larger business that can afford to provide those benefits.
I sure hope that demand for the Apple data center materializes and that the economy near that center gets a big boost.
lolwut?
GTSC
I thought Apple's data center/server farm was going to be something special. Now I hear that RIM is building one that's even larger in Atlanta and will have double the number of employees as Apple. I doubt it will have double the capacity of storage, though. No matter what Apple does, RIM is managing to go it one better.
Are you sure about this? Do you have a reference or a link?
At 1 billion dollars, Apple's data centre is pretty much double the cost (and therefore presumably the size) of Microsofts biggest and newest one. I have a hard time believing a company like RIM, is building one twice that size.
The fact that North Carolina will get this server farm is Example A of how business-unfriendly California has become. Our legislature overspends like drunken whores, then to make up for it, punishes both businesses and the average working person with the highest combination of taxes and fees in the nation. No wonder Apple is expanding elsewhere.
GTSC
this has nothing to do with california. a lot of companies build data centers around the world to position data and processing power closer to users. a lot of people live on the east coast and it doesn't make sense to send the traffic to california and back to serve them. google is building data centers around the world and Microsoft even built one in siberia in an abandoned soviet missile silo or HQ bunker.
Are you sure about this? Do you have a reference or a link?
At 1 billion dollars, Apple's data centre is pretty much double the cost (and therefore presumably the size) of Microsofts biggest and newest one. I have a hard time believing a company like RIM, is building one twice that size.
twice the cost doesn't mean twice the servers. most of cost of a server is memory and hard disks. and if they are using SAN's then EMC charges drug dealer prices for their storage.
If apple is building this to support MobileMe or the Itunes Store then they will need a lot of storage which is very expensive. think $800 for a 500GB hard drive expensive if you're putting it into a SAN. and the ratio is around 5 or 6 to 1 raw to usable storage for critical data.
i hope Apple adds a copy of the ITunes Store to the east coast. the download speeds are pathetic compared to other big companies that i download files from
RIM is probably just building out servers for processing power.
And yes, Democrats are under the same financial pressures and often cave to the interests of big business. But the most craven whore to the biggest polluters and abusers has been the national Republican party in the last few years. It is so bad and so controlled by primitive anti-government ideology that its members have, well, run the government incompetently. Started an unnecessary war. And got soundly beaten at the polls for their efforts.
And the response of these super-patriots to losing? Wasn't that a Republican governor from Texas who floated the idea of secession from the union? I understand that the Alaska governor's husband was involved with some lunatic separatist organization (sorry, separatist=lunatic in my book, no apologies). Talk about sore losers! Seceding from the union. Like a tantrum. Let's talk patriotism - talking of seceding from our beloved country is, plain and simple, unpatriotic. I assume these politicians are pretty clever and appealing to their "base." That base is just plain pathetic. I expect more and more of that base will be waking up and abandoning what is becoming the party of fringe lunatics. Hopefully someone can reconstitute the party or come up with a new one that can provide an intelligent opposition to the Democratic party (to keep it on its toes if nothing else).
At what point is it okay to secede? What if we begin to act like Nazi Germany? (I'm not saying that we do, just floating a hypothetical.) Would it still be like throwing a tantrum or being a sore loser?
It is my belief that secession is (should be) justifiable when a State feels it can't reconcile its differences with the Union.
Even being as outraged as many right-wingers are about how things are being run, I think secession plans are a little premature to say the least.
Now I'm sure you'd like lump me in with the "primitive" anti-government movement based on my belief in pure markets. While I don't feel the need to justify myself, I do feel as though you should at least know that most fiscal conservatives like myself don't believe in NO government intervention, we believe in limited, SMART government intervention. Nothing about the rabid spending of Bush and now the rabid "Bush on steroids" spending of Obama is SMART spending. Throwing money in all directions has never worked at any time in any country and our government has simply grown to the size that nothing it does can be checked. A leaner government will not only be more efficient, but also more effective. It also carries the benefit of being cheaper to maintain!!! Isn't that what we need?
That is the government we advocate.
-Clive
and 165 miles from the Apple built System G Supercomputer at Virginia Tech -http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2008&itemno=745
NOT APPLE BUILT, but using Apple machines. Big difference, especially to those that were involved in designing it and those volunteers that helped to build it.
At what point is it okay to secede?-Clive
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Excuse me for taking the liberty of of placing in BOLD a portion of our great document... The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
Never underestimate States Rights!
Please explain how it is irrational to believe businesses should be treated equally no matter their size.
Gladly!
Preferential treatment is, by definition, unequal. What defines who deserves preferential treatment?
The one who wants the business defines it in most cases. There are other situations where extortion or blackmail is used, but that is neither legal or what is being used here.
I sure as hell am no Republican, but I believe in natural, equal markets, uninterrupted by government.
Again, it’s irrational to think that there is equality at that level, it’s also bad to even attempt to invoke it, as I’ll get to in a second.
No, there's a HUGE difference. What you are describing is a marketing strategy.
Yes, that is exactly what I’m describing.
A business decides to subsidize their revenues for a potential return. We're not talking about a business, though, we're talking about a government.
Governments are businesses, and in this case the NC government is competing with up to 49 other state governments for revenue which will filter through as taxes and fee through means. For example, business licenses, buildig permits, taxes of goods and services rendered, etc.
The NC government is subsidizing this deal with other people's or business' tax money. How is that fair? How do you justify that sort of preferential treatment? How come I am not as important as Apple?
If you had a $1B to spend in a state you would be. The situation is quite simple. If Apple doesn’t build the server farm in NC then all aggregated revenue tax for NC is zero, zilch, nil, nought, diddly-squat. If they build the farm there then it’s $1B in taxes minus $46M. That is only a 4.6% discount for bringing in $1B worth of business, plus all the additional business that will then do more business from the business they did with Apple, and so on.
Your next step, of course, it to argue that it's for the "greater good" of the state and, therefore, of me to pay a higher tax rate. The "Greater Good" IS NOT GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO DECIDE.
My next step to question why you think that a state government is not a business competing with other state governments for business. This is a very good thing for the state, your statement about “greater good” has no bearing as it’s also good for the “lesser good” of the state too. Since there would be no taxes if Apple went to another state the only result is more revenue for the state from taxes, not less, as well as more jobs and more opportunities for future growth.
Remember, this is $1B spent in the state to filter through the state. This isn’t Apple hiring construction crews from SC to build in NC and then buying all their equipment out of state to ship into NC. This $1B will have to be from companies in NC to qualify. I can’t begin to imagine why you think NC is losing money here.
-Clive
Why sign your name when your name is to the left of every post?
—Solipsism
Those 8 do make a good point about favoring "big businesses over small, localized companies."
8 Republicans favoring small business over large? Seriously? Never mind the fact that there is no equal local business talent capable of offering this set up, but 8 Republicans?
BS. This was a stunt.
Governments are businesses, and in this case the NC government is competing with up to 49 other state governments for revenue which will filter through as taxes and fee through means. For example, business licenses, buildig permits, taxes of goods and services rendered, etc.
This is so wrong it's not even funny. The purpose of a government "of the people" is to do for people what they and their businesses can't/won't. This includes providing only the most vital infrastructure for industry & commerce, to protect and preserve the rights of individuals (not necessarily to provide) and in America, we aim to do these things while maximizing individual freedom and choice.
Businesses on the other hand exist to profit on consumers and subsequently grow itself. While we are all "stockholders" in the US Gov't and our state gov'ts, we don't exist to profit from them, nor do they exist to profit from consumers. In business, individuals have a choice whether to invest in the business or not. With citizenship, it's not that easy. One can't simply subscribe to whichever government best fits them as there are serious limiting factors in doing so. That's why government has a duty to offer as much individual freedom as possible (something both Dems and Reps fail at implementing). Lastly, Government, unlike business, is not accountable for failing to accomplish its goals. Government cannot go out of business. Since it has the power to determine its own funding, it has a responsibility to keep that funding at a minimum - another thing at which both parties have failed.
The only things government has in common with a business is that it is best-served to be run as efficiently as possible. This is, irrefutably, the biggest failure of our government.
If you had a $1B to spend in a state you would be.
I would be seen as important to a CORRUPT government, yes. Government should not have the eyes to say, "oh that guy has $1B, let's get him in here." They should consistently have the lowest taxes possible. If they can afford to go without $46M in taxes, their tax rate is too high. In no case, however, should there be an exception to the rule. If I had $100 to spend, I should be just as important as someone with $1B to spend.
It's not irrationality, it's egalitarianism. Isn't that what a liberal generally wants? And if so, why are they voting against it?
The situation is quite simple. If Apple doesn?t build the server farm in NC then all aggregated revenue tax for NC is zero, zilch, nil, nought, diddly-squat. If they build the farm there then it?s $1B in taxes minus $46M. That is only a 4.6% discount for bringing in $1B worth of business, plus all the additional business that will then do more business from the business they did with Apple, and so on.
My next step to question why you think that a state government is not a business competing with other state governments for business. This is a very good thing for the state, your statement about ?greater good? has no bearing as it?s also good for the ?lesser good? of the state too. Since there would be no taxes if Apple went to another state the only result is more revenue for the state from taxes, not less, as well as more jobs and more opportunities for future growth.
If no state wasted a cent of tax money and every cent was invest properly to give return, then the "price" of residing in any particular state would be equal no matter the tax rate. The only difference would be of which investments an individual/company chooses to benefit.
Of course we have imperfect, inefficient government who are corruptedly clawing over one another in a desperate attempt to make a turd smell like a rose. Fifty governments pandering and slobbering over big business is hardly the sign of a healthy system.
Remember, this is $1B spent in the state to filter through the state. This isn?t Apple hiring construction crews from SC to build in NC and then buying all their equipment out of state to ship into NC. This $1B will have to be from companies in NC to qualify. I can?t begin to imagine why you think NC is losing money here.
Did I say NC would be losing money? No, I didn't. I said they would be redirecting tax revenue from those their government deems less important to those they deem more important. No matter how you spin it, it's wrong.
Will Apple's move to NC benefit the state? Probably, yes. Does that justify preferential treatment to make it happen? Not unless you believe in the "noble blood" of big business.
Why sign your name when your name is to the left of every post?
?Solipsism
I do so to make it a little more personal, instead of simply jettisoning characters at a make-believe wall. I like to let others know that there's a real person communicating with them, carefully thinking and formulating a proper response to their posts. Does it bother you?
-Clive
and 165 miles from the Apple built System G Supercomputer at Virginia Tech -http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2008&itemno=745
yay for Skynet!
Ha Ha ! Great. Skynet Central will be NC/Virginia area instead of San Francisco as mentioned in a certain recent movie...
...It is my belief that secession is (should be) justifiable when a State feels it can't reconcile its differences with the Union...
At this point of the global game it is very very unlikely any US State will secede, it's just suicide. That new "country" is going to find it very hard to survive.
Do what?
Even if they bring in construction work from elsewhere, they will have to sleep, eat, shop and vacation in North Carolina. This centralized location is a long drive if you are a construction worker in another state. It is also less than a 1/2 hour drive from one of the more affluent areas in that part of the state - Lake Norman. And only about 45 minutes from Charlotte.
Also, plenty of professional talent to man the operation once it is done - or buy those multi-million dollar homes on the lake...
Let those "Bay Area" residents stay where they are, they are far to superior to come east anyway.
The biggest challenge NC faces is when SF Bay Area workers visit/ relocate to the area where the server farm is... Y'all gotta make sure them Latte's are up to spec! And stock up on organic tofu, throw out genetically modified corn crap and such, up the bandwidth on all WiFi hotspots (which have to be radically expanded for full coverage in a 100 mile radius around the server farm). Also 3G and HSDPA 7mbit etc. needs to be upped in said 100 mile radius. I don't care if it's the middle of nowhere, there'll be a lot of them iPhone 3Gs coming to town...
Oh when the saints come marching in...
Also NC needs to start training a lot of diner workers to know how to make a low-fat organic soy light cream low foam italian-caramel macchiato. Expect a new bill to be passed by the state relatively soon.
I do so to make it a little more personal, instead of simply jettisoning characters at a make-believe wall. I like to let others know that there's a real person communicating with them, carefully thinking and formulating a proper response to their posts. Does it bother you?
-Clive
Nope, doesn’t bother me, just didn’t understand why one would their screename posted twice per post. You aren’t the only one. I’ll try to be more personal.
Soli, replying to each or your statements is irrelevant unless I address this one statement of yours:
This is so wrong it's not even funny. The purpose of a government "of the people" is to do for people what they and their businesses can't/won't. This includes providing only the most vital infrastructure for industry & commerce, to protect and preserve the rights of individuals (not necessarily to provide) and in America, we aim to do these things while maximizing individual freedom and choice.
Businesses on the other hand exist to profit on consumers and subsequently grow itself. While we are all "stockholders" in the US Gov't and our state gov'ts, we don't exist to profit from them, nor do they exist to profit from consumers. In business, individuals have a choice whether to invest in the business or not. With citizenship, it's not that easy. One can't simply subscribe to whichever government best fits them as there are serious limiting factors in doing so. That's why government has a duty to offer as much individual freedom as possible (something both Dems and Reps fail at implementing). Lastly, Government, unlike business, is not accountable for failing to accomplish its goals. Government cannot go out of business. Since it has the power to determine its own funding, it has a responsibility to keep that funding at a minimum - another thing at which both parties have failed.
The only things government has in common with a business is that it is best-served to be run as efficiently as possible. This is, irrefutably, the biggest failure of our government.
I would be seen as important to a CORRUPT government, yes. Government should not have the eyes to say, "oh that guy has $1B, let's get him in here." They should consistently have the lowest taxes possible. If they can afford to go without $46M in taxes, their tax rate is too high. In no case, however, should there be an exception to the rule. If I had $100 to spend, I should be just as important as someone with $1B to spend.
It's not irrationality, it's egalitarianism. Isn't that what a liberal generally wants? And if so, why are they voting against it?
If no state wasted a cent of tax money and every cent was invest properly to give return, then the "price" of residing in any particular state would be equal no matter the tax rate. The only difference would be of which investments an individual/company chooses to benefit.
Of course we have imperfect, inefficient government who are corruptedly clawing over one another in a desperate attempt to make a turd smell like a rose. Fifty governments pandering and slobbering over big business is hardly the sign of a healthy system.
Did I say NC would be losing money? No, I didn't. I said they would be redirecting tax revenue from those their government deems less important to those they deem more important. No matter how you spin it, it's wrong.
Will Apple's move to NC benefit the state? Probably, yes. Does that justify preferential treatment to make it happen? Not unless you believe in the "noble blood" of big business.
My Dear Clive,
How are the kids and wife doing these days? Anyway, the state isn’t losing $46M in taxes, they are gaining the tax revenue from what the $1B Apple will spend in the state, minus $46M, but including all the other taxes being spent by the increased taxes from Apple’s initial $1B spent. It would not benefit the state, their local businesses or people if the server far went to another state.
Your statement sounds like you are stating that 40 out of 48 state senators are corrupt, thereby implying that they are either being bribed, blackmailed or extorted by Apple. This is just simply makes no sense. Apple is bringing a great deal of money to the state that would otherwise probably not get had they not allowed Apple the tax break. They also have made wise stipulations that forces Apple to spend a certain amount of money to get the tax break. There is nothing sinister or underhanded about this deal.
It’s not like a Walmart situations where local businesses are hurt by its presence. A mom-and-pop PC repair shop in a rundown strip mall spending $10,000 a year for their store and locally bought equipment and services does not affect the economy like a one spending $100,000,000 a year and creating many jobs and businesses along with it.
Insincerely,
Solipsism
Why sign your name when your name is to the left of every post?
?Solipsism
Perhaps they don't like it being that far left?
My Dear Clive,
How are the kids and wife doing these days? Anyway, the state isn’t losing $46M in taxes, they are gaining the tax revenue from what the $1B Apple will spend in the state, minus $46M, but including all the other taxes being spent by the increased taxes from Apple’s initial $1B spent. It would not benefit the state, their local businesses or people if the server far went to another state.
Your statement sounds like you are stating that 40 out of 48 state senators are corrupt, thereby implying that they are either being bribed, blackmailed or extorted by Apple. This is just simply makes no sense. Apple is bringing a great deal of money to the state that would otherwise probably not get had they not allowed Apple the tax break. They also have made wise stipulations that forces Apple to spend a certain amount of money to get the tax break. There is nothing sinister or underhanded about this deal.
It’s not like a Walmart situations where local businesses are hurt by its presence. A mom-and-pop PC repair shop in a rundown strip mall spending $10,000 a year for their store and locally bought equipment and services does not affect the economy like a one spending $100,000,000 a year and creating many jobs and businesses along with it.
Insincerely,
Solipsism
Once again, I didn't say $46M "LOST." It's a subsidy that other taxpayers have to cover. Let's look at it like this: Say 95% of business revenue pays a 10% tax rate. The other 5% are revenues from "special cases" and pay 8%. The businesses who account for 95% of the revenue cover 96% of the tax burden. Explain how that is fair.
I'm not saying Apple is stealing jobs from other companies, I'm not saying they're stealing tax payer money. I'm saying the system is flawed. Government has no business micro-managing industry. When they do, they create a class system, favoring certain businesses and products over others. Never - in any situation - is that fair.
I want to know how you justify it. How do you justify forcing 95% to pay 96% of the tax burden?
-left blank for your satisfaction