Yes some construction workers will make some money for a year, and maybe a few locals will be hired to man the complex. After that not local companies will make much money off a facility like this except the local power company. May a local restaurant or two might make a few dollars too. I highly doubt the state will see its return on investment on a facility like this.
Got to say I agree with this. History shows that no matter the company, country or industry rarely is the concessional treatment of a specific industry/company a positive measure over the long term.
The reason for this is because tax concessions for tend to distort investment decisions so money is not placed where it otherwise would be to maximise returns and be focussed on the highest value-creating jobs.
Once again, I didn't say $46M "LOST." It's a subsidy that other taxpayers have to cover.
N, it’s not. The $1B being spent is generating taxes that would otherwise not be had, so it’s a win for the state in tax revenue, it’s a win for Apple in tax costs, a win for local businesses in revenue and a win for the people who will either work directly for Apple, for a company that lands the Apple contracts or other work, and the taxes on $1B they will pay will eventually trickle down to the people in ways that aren’t easily stated in a forum setting. The only loss would be in Apple did not get approved and therefore built elsewhere. It’s a $1B influx on money plus all the taxes associated it going to the state and it’s people. There is nothing bad about this deal.
I'm confused. Can you guys explain, is this tax concession a special one-off thing for Apple or is there some structured tax incentive scheme in place that other companies in general can take advantage off.
N, it?s not. The $1B being spent is generating taxes that would otherwise not be had, so it?s a win for the state in tax revenue, it?s a win for Apple in tax costs, a win for local businesses in revenue and a win for the people who will either work directly for Apple, for a company that lands the Apple contracts or other work, and the taxes on $1B they will pay will eventually trickle down to the people in ways that aren?t easily stated in a forum setting. The only loss would be in Apple did not get approved and therefore built elsewhere. It?s a $1B influx on money plus all the taxes associated it going to the state and it?s people. There is nothing bad about this deal.
For the third time now you've failed to answer the questions about fairness. Instead you insist on trying to pass and re-pass this "greater good" argument - just as I knew it would come down to. "Everyone's taxes will be lower." I know that. I'm not an idiot. The fact is that one segment is paying for more of the tax burden than they owe. 95% of business revenue accounting for >95% of the tax burden.
I'll give you one last chance to answer the question: Tell me how this is fair. Tell me why you believe government has the right to place one entity over any other. Explain to me how you justify unequal treatment -- this time without using another "greater good" argument.
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.
Naw, our biggest challenge will be retrofitting all the bathrooms with oversized ventilation ducts.
I'm confused. Can you guys explain, is this tax concession a special one-off thing for Apple or is there some structured tax incentive scheme in place that other companies in general can take advantage off.
Each of these are one off in that each has different requirements, but this is by no means a unique occurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
For the third time now you've failed to answer the questions about fairness. Instead you insist on trying to pass and re-pass this "greater good" argument - just as I knew it would come down to. "Everyone's taxes will be lower." I know that. I'm not an idiot. The fact is that one segment is paying for more of the tax burden than they owe. 95% of business revenue accounting for >95% of the tax burden.
I'll give you one last chance to answer the question: Tell me how this is fair. Tell me why you believe government has the right to place one entity over any other. Explain to me how you justify unequal treatment -- this time without using another "greater good" argument.
I've already answered it. I said it was irrational to expect all businesses to be treated the same. If a roadside hotdog vwndor starts spending $100M a year then they too should get such a tax break. Then things are equal.
I've already answered it. I said it was irrational to expect all businesses to be treated the same. If a roadside hotdog vwndor starts spending $100M a year then they too should get such a tax break. Then things are equal.
No. Not "irrational." Difficult to follow through with, yes, but not irrational. You cannot justify unequal treatment of entities without extrapolating about the "greater good" of the collective. You do not know what the greater good is but you will gladly compromise other entities to achieve what you think will be better for everyone.
You have no right to decide who is more or less important to society and neither does anyone else.
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with our politicians.
No. Not "irrational." Difficult to follow through with, yes, but not irrational. You cannot justify unequal treatment of entities without extrapolating about the "greater good" of the collective. You do not know what the greater good is but you will gladly compromise other entities to achieve what you think will be better for everyone.
You have no right to decide who is more or less important to society and neither does anyone else.
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with our politicians.
1) The greater good is the otherwise lost $1B in revenue over 10 years.
2) The situation was never equal to begin with because a shop selling gold fish will not generate the revenue, create jobs or support local businesses that all help the stte the way Apple and others can.
3) You're right, I have no such right to decide, but the state senators do.
Your ideology is sweet but it's not realistic. Here is a scenerio to consider: There is a town that is dying. It used to have a bustling factory at it's center but the company went under and the residents are out of work. There is an opportunity for jobs to come back to that town, for a major corporation to set up shop and gaurantee that x-millions of dollars to spent over a set duration, but they want a tax discount incentive to make it worthwhile. Do you say , "That may work, let's see how we all can benefit here." or do you say, "Screw you, let the town and the people suffer, if the kiosk selling cellphone cases can't get this incentive then neither can you!" ?
1) The greater good is the otherwise lost $1B in revenue over 10 years.
2) The situation was never equal to begin with because a shop selling gold fish will not generate the revenue, create jobs or support local businesses that all help the stte the way Apple and others can.
3) You're right, I have no such right to decide, but the state senators do.
Your ideology is sweet but it's not realistic. Here is a scenerio to consider: There is a town that is dying. It used to have a bustling factory at it's center but the company went under and the residents are out of work. There is an opportunity for jobs to come back to that town, for a major corporation to set up shop and gaurantee that x-millions of dollars to spent over a set duration, but they want a tax discount incentive to make it worthwhile. Do you say , "That may work, let's see how we all can benefit here." or do you say, "Screw you, let the town and the people suffer, if the kiosk selling cellphone cases can't get this incentive then neither can you!" ?
What you say to that is, that economic businesses that are the most likely to prosper are the ones that pay the same rate of taxes and rates that everyone else does. To offer concessions to select businesses is to court lower productivity, lower rates of product and process innovation and - in the long run - less sustainable jobs for people to work there.
Less concessions sharpens everyone's pencil and that's a good thing for customers, employees and taxpayers.
Less concessions sharpens everyone's pencil and that's a good thing for customers, employees and taxpayers.
How would it be a good thing for the NC government revenue stream, the businesses of NC and the people of NC if Apple took it?s $1B to another state? Idealistic principles don?t build highways and don?t put food on the table. There is nothing underhanded about this deal. There is no local businesses being pushed out because Apple is building a server farm. Bob?s Ol? Fashion Server Farm & Paper Mill Company of Asbury, NC? isn?t losing a lucrative contract or pushing out of business by Apple. This is a situation where everyone in the state of NC wins.
How would it be a good thing for the NC government revenue stream, the businesses of NC and the people of NC if Apple took it?s $1B to another state? Idealistic principles don?t build highways and don?t put food on the table. There is nothing underhanded about this deal. There is no local businesses being pushed out because Apple is building a server farm. Bob?s Ol? Fashion Server Farm & Paper Mill Company of Asbury, NC? isn?t losing a lucrative contract or pushing out of business by Apple. This is a situation where everyone in the state of NC wins.
Because a wise government knows that Apple has to invest anyhow if they want to grow their business. Thus, they should compete on things like having more skilled employees, better quality living etc.
Rewarding what the company has to do anyhow simply reduces the overall returns to the state (and country), because whilst Apple might not displace other companies, the millions in concessions could be made available for other state services.
Because a wise government knows that Apple has to invest anyhow if they want to grow their business. Thus, they should compete on things like having more skilled employees, better quality living etc.
Rewarding what the company has to do anyhow simply reduces the overall returns to the state (and country), because whilst Apple might not displace other companies, the millions in concessions could be made available for other state services.
Apple has no requirement to build in NC. If Apple builds in TN, then NC doesn?t get their business. That is a lose for everyone in NC.
Here is a scenerio to consider: There is a town that is dying. It used to have a bustling factory at it's center but the company went under and the residents are out of work. There is an opportunity for jobs to come back to that town, for a major corporation to set up shop and gaurantee that x-millions of dollars to spent over a set duration, but they want a tax discount incentive to make it worthwhile. Do you say , "That may work, let's see how we all can benefit here." or do you say, "Screw you, let the town and the people suffer, if the kiosk selling cellphone cases can't get this incentive then neither can you!" ?
Who shouldn't be allowed to fail? Who said anything about suffering? If the town can't sustain itself while every other town can, you'd rather make every other town suffer to bail out the one failure?
It's not government's job to shield people from suffering. That's the job of other people. It's government's job to protect and preserve people's rights. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Your ideology is sweet but it's not realistic.
No, not "sweet." Ethically right. You know it and almost admit it, but your political beliefs conflict with the ethical standard of equality. So which one overrides the other? Politics or ethics?
It is my belief that one's politics should be a reflection of their ethics. By saying that government should have the ability to treat individuals or companies differently, you pronounce that you do not believe in equality, which is really, really sad.
Just because equality is unrealistic does not make it irrational to pursue. If you know that it's right to treat everyone equally you must always strive to treat people equally without exceptions.
Government, too, has a duty to treat everyone equally, even if it means forgoing the opportunity for a "greater good."
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.
Wow, again. I'm not even sure I can properly dissect this post, even if I tried. You sound like the typical liberal who uses the liberal media's talking points in his verbal assault against conservative ideology that he finds disgusting. That Republicans are racists, that they are fear-mongerers, that they pander to the ignorant, the list goes on. Guess what, Democrats do the *exact* same thing, the last 8 years not withstanding, and since they control much of the media, its even easier for liberals to manipulate "the public message." Coming out of your liberal cave and reading diverse media outlets does wonders, you know. Plus, many of your ramblings have been proven to be untrue and conjured up by liberals (like Todd Palin's involvement with a separatist group), or are simply a matter of opinion, not fact, which points to the obvious: you're an airhead who loves talking points and political commentary. Also, this is a thread whose topic has nothing to do with conservatives/liberals, yet you began it by injected your ridiculous generalizations about evil big business and then went on a torch and burn tirade against conservatives. Trolls come in all flavors; looks like you're of the liberal variety.
If Apple doesn't choose NC, nothing is lost at all.
A + 0 = A.
A !< A.
NC loses $1B+ over a decade. There are local companies that Apple has purchase from that lose a slice of that $1B pie, there are all the jobs that are lost and all the tax revenue that is lost.
NC loses $1B+ over a decade. There are local companies that Apple has purchase from that lose a slice of that $1B pie, there are all the jobs that are lost and all the tax revenue that is lost.
You can't lose what you never had.
The jobs don't exist, the $1B doesn't exist, the tax revenue doesn't exist. NC is not gaining or losing anything by letting this deal go.
Your refusal to adhere to any sort of sensical argument is astounding.
You can't answer my questions about ethics and you still can't justify NC's tax subsidy without using a "greater good" argument... which is fine if you believe people don't need to be treated equally.
You've failed to justify your point using any sort of sensible argument.
NC loses $1B+ over a decade. There are local companies that Apple has purchase from that lose a slice of that $1B pie, there are all the jobs that are lost and all the tax revenue that is lost.
When you start by paying less tax at the outset, in what year would NC be in a tax positive position from their concession? Is NC certain that it would collect that revenue, given companies do their best to lower their tax liabiity?
Perhaps a more efficient way would be for NC to simply write cheques for prospective employees to stay at home. My bet is they could derive the same income benefit for everyone but at half the cost. Alternatively if they choose the tax concession at say twice the cost, where do you think the rest of the money goes?
The jobs don't exist, the $1B doesn't exist, the tax revenue doesn't exist. NC is not gaining or losing anything by letting this deal go.
Your refusal to adhere to any sort of sensical argument is astounding.
You can't answer my questions about ethics and you still can't justify NC's tax subsidy without using a "greater good" argument... which is fine if you believe people don't need to be treated equally.
You've failed to justify your point using any sort of sensible argument.
-Clive
They are losing if they don't do the deal, but if you want reword it to, "NC gets $1B in revenue to help the state, their businesses and residents if they do the deal v. NC doesn't get $1B which does not help the state, their businesses and residence", so be it, the bottom line is that NC benefits.
Their is nothing ilegal or unethical to discuss. If you think it is and feel that bringing jobs and money to NC is such a bad thing then you should be doing something about it as, fom your POV, the NC state senate is corrupt and evil. BTW, the 8 that voted it down I'm sure didn't vote it down in princie, they just wanted different requirements and/or a lower concession to go through.
PS: Going back to your first reply to me, you think businesses should all be equal but don't think the populace should be treated equally? If you did you would say that getting discounts when spending a certain amount on goods would be unethical at any level. Until you see that a state government is a business trying to make money to support it's services and people there is nothing more to talk about. My jaw dropped when you said that a government should fail it's people completely instead of trying to increase revenue, growth and business.
Until you see that a state government is a business trying to make money to support it's services and people there is nothing more to talk about.
I agree with that comment.... government (at all levels actually) is exactly like that. Revenue maximising whilst trying to keep expenses down. It's a broader question as to whether they're any good at that.
Comments
Yes some construction workers will make some money for a year, and maybe a few locals will be hired to man the complex. After that not local companies will make much money off a facility like this except the local power company. May a local restaurant or two might make a few dollars too. I highly doubt the state will see its return on investment on a facility like this.
Got to say I agree with this. History shows that no matter the company, country or industry rarely is the concessional treatment of a specific industry/company a positive measure over the long term.
The reason for this is because tax concessions for tend to distort investment decisions so money is not placed where it otherwise would be to maximise returns and be focussed on the highest value-creating jobs.
Perhaps they don't like it being that far left?
HEHE Nice political joke.
Once again, I didn't say $46M "LOST." It's a subsidy that other taxpayers have to cover.
N, it’s not. The $1B being spent is generating taxes that would otherwise not be had, so it’s a win for the state in tax revenue, it’s a win for Apple in tax costs, a win for local businesses in revenue and a win for the people who will either work directly for Apple, for a company that lands the Apple contracts or other work, and the taxes on $1B they will pay will eventually trickle down to the people in ways that aren’t easily stated in a forum setting. The only loss would be in Apple did not get approved and therefore built elsewhere. It’s a $1B influx on money plus all the taxes associated it going to the state and it’s people. There is nothing bad about this deal.
N, it?s not. The $1B being spent is generating taxes that would otherwise not be had, so it?s a win for the state in tax revenue, it?s a win for Apple in tax costs, a win for local businesses in revenue and a win for the people who will either work directly for Apple, for a company that lands the Apple contracts or other work, and the taxes on $1B they will pay will eventually trickle down to the people in ways that aren?t easily stated in a forum setting. The only loss would be in Apple did not get approved and therefore built elsewhere. It?s a $1B influx on money plus all the taxes associated it going to the state and it?s people. There is nothing bad about this deal.
For the third time now you've failed to answer the questions about fairness. Instead you insist on trying to pass and re-pass this "greater good" argument - just as I knew it would come down to. "Everyone's taxes will be lower." I know that. I'm not an idiot. The fact is that one segment is paying for more of the tax burden than they owe. 95% of business revenue accounting for >95% of the tax burden.
I'll give you one last chance to answer the question: Tell me how this is fair. Tell me why you believe government has the right to place one entity over any other. Explain to me how you justify unequal treatment -- this time without using another "greater good" argument.
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.
Naw, our biggest challenge will be retrofitting all the bathrooms with oversized ventilation ducts.
I'm confused. Can you guys explain, is this tax concession a special one-off thing for Apple or is there some structured tax incentive scheme in place that other companies in general can take advantage off.
Each of these are one off in that each has different requirements, but this is by no means a unique occurance.
For the third time now you've failed to answer the questions about fairness. Instead you insist on trying to pass and re-pass this "greater good" argument - just as I knew it would come down to. "Everyone's taxes will be lower." I know that. I'm not an idiot. The fact is that one segment is paying for more of the tax burden than they owe. 95% of business revenue accounting for >95% of the tax burden.
I'll give you one last chance to answer the question: Tell me how this is fair. Tell me why you believe government has the right to place one entity over any other. Explain to me how you justify unequal treatment -- this time without using another "greater good" argument.
I've already answered it. I said it was irrational to expect all businesses to be treated the same. If a roadside hotdog vwndor starts spending $100M a year then they too should get such a tax break. Then things are equal.
I've already answered it. I said it was irrational to expect all businesses to be treated the same. If a roadside hotdog vwndor starts spending $100M a year then they too should get such a tax break. Then things are equal.
No. Not "irrational." Difficult to follow through with, yes, but not irrational. You cannot justify unequal treatment of entities without extrapolating about the "greater good" of the collective. You do not know what the greater good is but you will gladly compromise other entities to achieve what you think will be better for everyone.
You have no right to decide who is more or less important to society and neither does anyone else.
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with our politicians.
No. Not "irrational." Difficult to follow through with, yes, but not irrational. You cannot justify unequal treatment of entities without extrapolating about the "greater good" of the collective. You do not know what the greater good is but you will gladly compromise other entities to achieve what you think will be better for everyone.
You have no right to decide who is more or less important to society and neither does anyone else.
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with our politicians.
1) The greater good is the otherwise lost $1B in revenue over 10 years.
2) The situation was never equal to begin with because a shop selling gold fish will not generate the revenue, create jobs or support local businesses that all help the stte the way Apple and others can.
3) You're right, I have no such right to decide, but the state senators do.
Your ideology is sweet but it's not realistic. Here is a scenerio to consider: There is a town that is dying. It used to have a bustling factory at it's center but the company went under and the residents are out of work. There is an opportunity for jobs to come back to that town, for a major corporation to set up shop and gaurantee that x-millions of dollars to spent over a set duration, but they want a tax discount incentive to make it worthwhile. Do you say , "That may work, let's see how we all can benefit here." or do you say, "Screw you, let the town and the people suffer, if the kiosk selling cellphone cases can't get this incentive then neither can you!" ?
1) The greater good is the otherwise lost $1B in revenue over 10 years.
2) The situation was never equal to begin with because a shop selling gold fish will not generate the revenue, create jobs or support local businesses that all help the stte the way Apple and others can.
3) You're right, I have no such right to decide, but the state senators do.
Your ideology is sweet but it's not realistic. Here is a scenerio to consider: There is a town that is dying. It used to have a bustling factory at it's center but the company went under and the residents are out of work. There is an opportunity for jobs to come back to that town, for a major corporation to set up shop and gaurantee that x-millions of dollars to spent over a set duration, but they want a tax discount incentive to make it worthwhile. Do you say , "That may work, let's see how we all can benefit here." or do you say, "Screw you, let the town and the people suffer, if the kiosk selling cellphone cases can't get this incentive then neither can you!" ?
What you say to that is, that economic businesses that are the most likely to prosper are the ones that pay the same rate of taxes and rates that everyone else does. To offer concessions to select businesses is to court lower productivity, lower rates of product and process innovation and - in the long run - less sustainable jobs for people to work there.
Less concessions sharpens everyone's pencil and that's a good thing for customers, employees and taxpayers.
Less concessions sharpens everyone's pencil and that's a good thing for customers, employees and taxpayers.
How would it be a good thing for the NC government revenue stream, the businesses of NC and the people of NC if Apple took it?s $1B to another state? Idealistic principles don?t build highways and don?t put food on the table. There is nothing underhanded about this deal. There is no local businesses being pushed out because Apple is building a server farm. Bob?s Ol? Fashion Server Farm & Paper Mill Company of Asbury, NC? isn?t losing a lucrative contract or pushing out of business by Apple. This is a situation where everyone in the state of NC wins.
How would it be a good thing for the NC government revenue stream, the businesses of NC and the people of NC if Apple took it?s $1B to another state? Idealistic principles don?t build highways and don?t put food on the table. There is nothing underhanded about this deal. There is no local businesses being pushed out because Apple is building a server farm. Bob?s Ol? Fashion Server Farm & Paper Mill Company of Asbury, NC? isn?t losing a lucrative contract or pushing out of business by Apple. This is a situation where everyone in the state of NC wins.
Because a wise government knows that Apple has to invest anyhow if they want to grow their business. Thus, they should compete on things like having more skilled employees, better quality living etc.
Rewarding what the company has to do anyhow simply reduces the overall returns to the state (and country), because whilst Apple might not displace other companies, the millions in concessions could be made available for other state services.
Because a wise government knows that Apple has to invest anyhow if they want to grow their business. Thus, they should compete on things like having more skilled employees, better quality living etc.
Rewarding what the company has to do anyhow simply reduces the overall returns to the state (and country), because whilst Apple might not displace other companies, the millions in concessions could be made available for other state services.
Apple has no requirement to build in NC. If Apple builds in TN, then NC doesn?t get their business. That is a lose for everyone in NC.
Here is a scenerio to consider: There is a town that is dying. It used to have a bustling factory at it's center but the company went under and the residents are out of work. There is an opportunity for jobs to come back to that town, for a major corporation to set up shop and gaurantee that x-millions of dollars to spent over a set duration, but they want a tax discount incentive to make it worthwhile. Do you say , "That may work, let's see how we all can benefit here." or do you say, "Screw you, let the town and the people suffer, if the kiosk selling cellphone cases can't get this incentive then neither can you!" ?
Who shouldn't be allowed to fail? Who said anything about suffering? If the town can't sustain itself while every other town can, you'd rather make every other town suffer to bail out the one failure?
It's not government's job to shield people from suffering. That's the job of other people. It's government's job to protect and preserve people's rights. Period.
Your ideology is sweet but it's not realistic.
No, not "sweet." Ethically right. You know it and almost admit it, but your political beliefs conflict with the ethical standard of equality. So which one overrides the other? Politics or ethics?
It is my belief that one's politics should be a reflection of their ethics. By saying that government should have the ability to treat individuals or companies differently, you pronounce that you do not believe in equality, which is really, really sad.
Just because equality is unrealistic does not make it irrational to pursue. If you know that it's right to treat everyone equally you must always strive to treat people equally without exceptions.
Government, too, has a duty to treat everyone equally, even if it means forgoing the opportunity for a "greater good."
-Clive
Apple has no requirement to build in NC. If Apple builds in TN, then NC doesn?t get their business. That is a lose for everyone in NC.
If Apple doesn't choose NC, nothing is lost at all.
A + 0 = A.
A !< A.
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.
Wow, again. I'm not even sure I can properly dissect this post, even if I tried. You sound like the typical liberal who uses the liberal media's talking points in his verbal assault against conservative ideology that he finds disgusting. That Republicans are racists, that they are fear-mongerers, that they pander to the ignorant, the list goes on. Guess what, Democrats do the *exact* same thing, the last 8 years not withstanding, and since they control much of the media, its even easier for liberals to manipulate "the public message." Coming out of your liberal cave and reading diverse media outlets does wonders, you know. Plus, many of your ramblings have been proven to be untrue and conjured up by liberals (like Todd Palin's involvement with a separatist group), or are simply a matter of opinion, not fact, which points to the obvious: you're an airhead who loves talking points and political commentary. Also, this is a thread whose topic has nothing to do with conservatives/liberals, yet you began it by injected your ridiculous generalizations about evil big business and then went on a torch and burn tirade against conservatives. Trolls come in all flavors; looks like you're of the liberal variety.
If Apple doesn't choose NC, nothing is lost at all.
A + 0 = A.
A !< A.
NC loses $1B+ over a decade. There are local companies that Apple has purchase from that lose a slice of that $1B pie, there are all the jobs that are lost and all the tax revenue that is lost.
NC loses $1B+ over a decade. There are local companies that Apple has purchase from that lose a slice of that $1B pie, there are all the jobs that are lost and all the tax revenue that is lost.
You can't lose what you never had.
The jobs don't exist, the $1B doesn't exist, the tax revenue doesn't exist. NC is not gaining or losing anything by letting this deal go.
Your refusal to adhere to any sort of sensical argument is astounding.
You can't answer my questions about ethics and you still can't justify NC's tax subsidy without using a "greater good" argument... which is fine if you believe people don't need to be treated equally.
You've failed to justify your point using any sort of sensible argument.
-Clive
NC loses $1B+ over a decade. There are local companies that Apple has purchase from that lose a slice of that $1B pie, there are all the jobs that are lost and all the tax revenue that is lost.
When you start by paying less tax at the outset, in what year would NC be in a tax positive position from their concession? Is NC certain that it would collect that revenue, given companies do their best to lower their tax liabiity?
Perhaps a more efficient way would be for NC to simply write cheques for prospective employees to stay at home. My bet is they could derive the same income benefit for everyone but at half the cost. Alternatively if they choose the tax concession at say twice the cost, where do you think the rest of the money goes?
You can't lose what you never had.
The jobs don't exist, the $1B doesn't exist, the tax revenue doesn't exist. NC is not gaining or losing anything by letting this deal go.
Your refusal to adhere to any sort of sensical argument is astounding.
You can't answer my questions about ethics and you still can't justify NC's tax subsidy without using a "greater good" argument... which is fine if you believe people don't need to be treated equally.
You've failed to justify your point using any sort of sensible argument.
-Clive
They are losing if they don't do the deal, but if you want reword it to, "NC gets $1B in revenue to help the state, their businesses and residents if they do the deal v. NC doesn't get $1B which does not help the state, their businesses and residence", so be it, the bottom line is that NC benefits.
Their is nothing ilegal or unethical to discuss. If you think it is and feel that bringing jobs and money to NC is such a bad thing then you should be doing something about it as, fom your POV, the NC state senate is corrupt and evil. BTW, the 8 that voted it down I'm sure didn't vote it down in princie, they just wanted different requirements and/or a lower concession to go through.
PS: Going back to your first reply to me, you think businesses should all be equal but don't think the populace should be treated equally? If you did you would say that getting discounts when spending a certain amount on goods would be unethical at any level. Until you see that a state government is a business trying to make money to support it's services and people there is nothing more to talk about. My jaw dropped when you said that a government should fail it's people completely instead of trying to increase revenue, growth and business.
Until you see that a state government is a business trying to make money to support it's services and people there is nothing more to talk about.
I agree with that comment.... government (at all levels actually) is exactly like that. Revenue maximising whilst trying to keep expenses down. It's a broader question as to whether they're any good at that.