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?
Immediately! There are sales tax and hotel tax and many other taxes that will be paid to the state from the moment Apple steps foot in NC. Even taxes from people spending out of their pocket for goods and services that aren't part of the $1B. Not just sales taxes from the sale, but taxes from businesses who are benefiting from increased sales. There is so much trickle down that it's foolish to think that NC is better off without Apple's $1B.
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.
Closer, but you're still not quite getting it. You're forgetting that one of the options results in the unequal treatment of the many and that the other maintains the integrity of the state by treating all entities equally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
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.
You, sir, are putting words in my mouth. When did I say that bringing jobs to the state was bad? When did I say that the NC Senators were evil? When did I say anything about illegality? <-- that's just ridiculous anyway. Government defines all laws and, by definition, can never do something illegal... only unethical or immoral, and those are "laws" set by society and the individual.
Regardless, that's neither here nor there. You obviously misconstrued my use of "corruption." The "corruption" of which I speak is the tainted mindset that a government reserves the right to do anything it wants in the name of the greater good (per them), even if it means treating entities unequally. That is what is wrong.
As a second note, I don't give a damn about what Republicans on the NC Senate were holding out for. I'm not a Republican. I believe in pure markets with the minimal amount of government intervention possible to protect and preserve the rights of the individuals and businesses within the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
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.
My jaw drops every time you post another comment.
Government cannot fail its people in situations where it's not government's business to intervene.
The difference between us is that you believe - like most politicians - that it's government's place to intervene wherever you think it will result in some sort of greater good. I, on the other hand, recognize that government cannot possibly micromanage industry in a way that is fair to all parties.
The best thing they can do is run the state as cheaply and efficiently as possible for EVERYONE - not just a special few.
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.
On the topic of tax concessions by states/counties/cities to draw businesses in - as valuable and useful as it may be in particular cases, there is always the danger of businesses pitting localities against each other to the point where the "winning" locality suffers financially.
As to liberal trolls. Do you mean as opposed to conservative trolls? I didn't say that "Republicans are racist". A great number of those with positions of power in the Republican party locally and nationally have cynically fanned the flames of racism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and anti-intellectualism (remember Spiro Agnew?) for decades. Don't remember Nixon's southern strategy? That was his and his party's successful plan to recruit white southern Democrats fearful of the advancement of black folks. The Democratic party in the South, pre-civil rights era, was the bastion of racism and segregation in the South, while northern Democrats provided much greater support for civil rights. A truly schizophrenic political party. Starting in the late '60s, the Republican party successfully converted the South to Republican territory. Did they do this by a principled support of racial equality and fairness to all? Ha! No, they fanned bigotry and religious fanaticism in their campaigns. And it worked. They got elected. Got big campaign contributions, got rich, and their financial supporters laughed all the way to the bank. I know from personal experience which political leanings my more bigoted (and as it so happens, ignorant) acquaintances had. Interestingly enough, quite a number of my economically successful acquaintances also voted Republican, but wrinkled their noses at some of the less sophisticated Republican "base." One has to get votes from somewhere, after all. The Republican politicians bloviated about morality, individual responsibility, etc. Meanwhile what they really delivered was a government that rewarded those already successful and hot air for everyone else. So now we have the largest concentration of wealth among the fewest Americans since before the second world war. And an economic catastrophe.
Someone mentioned states' rights. Sorry, I've heard that one before. Die-hard segregationists in the South pushed that line in the 60s, and political demagogues defending 19th-century backwards policies have been pushing it ever since. Go peddle that crap to someone else.
OK, that's it, I'm finished responding to this post. No point arguing with self-satisfied ignoramuses. Best of success to everyone in North Carolina. And South Carolina. And the whole world.
On the topic of tax concessions by states/counties/cities to draw businesses in - as valuable and useful as it may be in particular cases, there is always the danger of businesses pitting localities against each other to the point where the "winning" locality suffers financially.
I hope that bill took that into account, including the influx of out of state and out of county businesses that will try to carve out some of this billion dollars for themselves.
On the topic of tax concessions by states/counties/cities to draw businesses in - as valuable and useful as it may be in particular cases, there is always the danger of businesses pitting localities against each other to the point where the "winning" locality suffers financially.
As to liberal trolls. Do you mean as opposed to conservative trolls? I didn't say that "Republicans are racist". A great number of those with positions of power in the Republican party locally and nationally have cynically fanned the flames of racism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and anti-intellectualism (remember Spiro Agnew?) for decades. Don't remember Nixon's southern strategy? That was his and his party's successful plan to recruit white southern Democrats fearful of the advancement of black folks. The Democratic party in the South, pre-civil rights era, was the bastion of racism and segregation in the South, while northern Democrats provided much greater support for civil rights. A truly schizophrenic political party. Starting in the late '60s, the Republican party successfully converted the South to Republican territory. Did they do this by a principled support of racial equality and fairness to all? Ha! No, they fanned bigotry and religious fanaticism in their campaigns. And it worked. They got elected. Got big campaign contributions, got rich, and their financial supporters laughed all the way to the bank. I know from personal experience which political leanings my more bigoted (and as it so happens, ignorant) acquaintances had. Interestingly enough, quite a number of my economically successful acquaintances also voted Republican, but wrinkled their noses at some of the less sophisticated Republican "base." One has to get votes from somewhere, after all. The Republican politicians bloviated about morality, individual responsibility, etc. Meanwhile what they really delivered was a government that rewarded those already successful and hot air for everyone else. So now we have the largest concentration of wealth among the fewest Americans since before the second world war. And an economic catastrophe.
Someone mentioned states' rights. Sorry, I've heard that one before. Die-hard segregationists in the South pushed that line in the 60s, and political demagogues defending 19th-century backwards policies have been pushing it ever since. Go peddle that crap to someone else.
OK, that's it, I'm finished responding to this post. No point arguing with self-satisfied ignoramuses. Best of success to everyone in North Carolina. And South Carolina. And the whole world.
No forms of racism are acceptable. While you wrinkle your nose at Republicans, characterizing them as racial fear-mongers, I see an equally pitiful trend on the Liberal side of the spectrum. Liberal politicians have consistently overstated the existence of racism in today's society, using it as leverage to advance a political agenda. Both are pathetic, but knowingly exploiting the suffering of minorities is a far greater atrocity than true ignorance-based racism.
Another Liberal ploy is to paint those who want to enact true racial egalitarianism in our government as the racists, when clearly the opposite is true. Any political party who advocates the preferential treatment of one race over another IS RACIST. Period.
It's too bad you won't be coming back to check this thread. I'd like to hear your input on these topics...
Immediately! There are sales tax and hotel tax and many other taxes that will be paid to the state from the moment Apple steps foot in NC. Even taxes from people spending out of their pocket for goods and services that aren't part of the $1B. Not just sales taxes from the sale, but taxes from businesses who are benefiting from increased sales. There is so much trickle down that it's foolish to think that NC is better off without Apple's $1B.
They do collect some taxes from those things early on, but the first part of my comment asked when it would be tax positive?
That means a net position, where the dollars and cents from hotel, sales and other taxes are offset by the concession. What year exactly do you think that do they break-even and can only then conclude whether it was worth it?
Why should the state take the risk of the bet not working out? If it doesn't work out then services like health and education decline or you pay higher taxes. It's for companies to take such bets, not the state.
Someone mentioned states' rights. Sorry, I've heard that one before. Die-hard segregationists in the South pushed that line in the 60s, and political demagogues defending 19th-century backwards policies have been pushing it ever since. Go peddle that crap to someone else.
OK, that's it, I'm finished responding to this post. No point arguing with self-satisfied ignoramuses. Best of success to everyone in North Carolina. And South Carolina. And the whole world.
Damn I wish you would come back so you can take a look at the Articles of Confederation which state "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Of course you probably think that Confederation has something to do with the South - sorry guy, these were drafted in 1776 and ratified in 1781.
or... maybe the 10th amendment to the Constitution carries some weight - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It does kinda suck when you latch on to drivel rather than know your history. Oh, BTW the 10th was ratified in 1791 - prior to the skew of representation/power by the separate states. But that may be to much info for you...
Comments
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?
Immediately! There are sales tax and hotel tax and many other taxes that will be paid to the state from the moment Apple steps foot in NC. Even taxes from people spending out of their pocket for goods and services that aren't part of the $1B. Not just sales taxes from the sale, but taxes from businesses who are benefiting from increased sales. There is so much trickle down that it's foolish to think that NC is better off without Apple's $1B.
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.
Closer, but you're still not quite getting it. You're forgetting that one of the options results in the unequal treatment of the many and that the other maintains the integrity of the state by treating all entities equally.
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.
You, sir, are putting words in my mouth. When did I say that bringing jobs to the state was bad? When did I say that the NC Senators were evil? When did I say anything about illegality? <-- that's just ridiculous anyway. Government defines all laws and, by definition, can never do something illegal... only unethical or immoral, and those are "laws" set by society and the individual.
Regardless, that's neither here nor there. You obviously misconstrued my use of "corruption." The "corruption" of which I speak is the tainted mindset that a government reserves the right to do anything it wants in the name of the greater good (per them), even if it means treating entities unequally. That is what is wrong.
As a second note, I don't give a damn about what Republicans on the NC Senate were holding out for. I'm not a Republican. I believe in pure markets with the minimal amount of government intervention possible to protect and preserve the rights of the individuals and businesses within the state.
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.
My jaw drops every time you post another comment.
Government cannot fail its people in situations where it's not government's business to intervene.
The difference between us is that you believe - like most politicians - that it's government's place to intervene wherever you think it will result in some sort of greater good. I, on the other hand, recognize that government cannot possibly micromanage industry in a way that is fair to all parties.
The best thing they can do is run the state as cheaply and efficiently as possible for EVERYONE - not just a special few.
-Clive
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.
On the topic of tax concessions by states/counties/cities to draw businesses in - as valuable and useful as it may be in particular cases, there is always the danger of businesses pitting localities against each other to the point where the "winning" locality suffers financially.
As to liberal trolls. Do you mean as opposed to conservative trolls? I didn't say that "Republicans are racist". A great number of those with positions of power in the Republican party locally and nationally have cynically fanned the flames of racism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and anti-intellectualism (remember Spiro Agnew?) for decades. Don't remember Nixon's southern strategy? That was his and his party's successful plan to recruit white southern Democrats fearful of the advancement of black folks. The Democratic party in the South, pre-civil rights era, was the bastion of racism and segregation in the South, while northern Democrats provided much greater support for civil rights. A truly schizophrenic political party. Starting in the late '60s, the Republican party successfully converted the South to Republican territory. Did they do this by a principled support of racial equality and fairness to all? Ha! No, they fanned bigotry and religious fanaticism in their campaigns. And it worked. They got elected. Got big campaign contributions, got rich, and their financial supporters laughed all the way to the bank. I know from personal experience which political leanings my more bigoted (and as it so happens, ignorant) acquaintances had. Interestingly enough, quite a number of my economically successful acquaintances also voted Republican, but wrinkled their noses at some of the less sophisticated Republican "base." One has to get votes from somewhere, after all. The Republican politicians bloviated about morality, individual responsibility, etc. Meanwhile what they really delivered was a government that rewarded those already successful and hot air for everyone else. So now we have the largest concentration of wealth among the fewest Americans since before the second world war. And an economic catastrophe.
Someone mentioned states' rights. Sorry, I've heard that one before. Die-hard segregationists in the South pushed that line in the 60s, and political demagogues defending 19th-century backwards policies have been pushing it ever since. Go peddle that crap to someone else.
OK, that's it, I'm finished responding to this post. No point arguing with self-satisfied ignoramuses. Best of success to everyone in North Carolina. And South Carolina. And the whole world.
On the topic of tax concessions by states/counties/cities to draw businesses in - as valuable and useful as it may be in particular cases, there is always the danger of businesses pitting localities against each other to the point where the "winning" locality suffers financially.
I hope that bill took that into account, including the influx of out of state and out of county businesses that will try to carve out some of this billion dollars for themselves.
On the topic of tax concessions by states/counties/cities to draw businesses in - as valuable and useful as it may be in particular cases, there is always the danger of businesses pitting localities against each other to the point where the "winning" locality suffers financially.
As to liberal trolls. Do you mean as opposed to conservative trolls? I didn't say that "Republicans are racist". A great number of those with positions of power in the Republican party locally and nationally have cynically fanned the flames of racism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and anti-intellectualism (remember Spiro Agnew?) for decades. Don't remember Nixon's southern strategy? That was his and his party's successful plan to recruit white southern Democrats fearful of the advancement of black folks. The Democratic party in the South, pre-civil rights era, was the bastion of racism and segregation in the South, while northern Democrats provided much greater support for civil rights. A truly schizophrenic political party. Starting in the late '60s, the Republican party successfully converted the South to Republican territory. Did they do this by a principled support of racial equality and fairness to all? Ha! No, they fanned bigotry and religious fanaticism in their campaigns. And it worked. They got elected. Got big campaign contributions, got rich, and their financial supporters laughed all the way to the bank. I know from personal experience which political leanings my more bigoted (and as it so happens, ignorant) acquaintances had. Interestingly enough, quite a number of my economically successful acquaintances also voted Republican, but wrinkled their noses at some of the less sophisticated Republican "base." One has to get votes from somewhere, after all. The Republican politicians bloviated about morality, individual responsibility, etc. Meanwhile what they really delivered was a government that rewarded those already successful and hot air for everyone else. So now we have the largest concentration of wealth among the fewest Americans since before the second world war. And an economic catastrophe.
Someone mentioned states' rights. Sorry, I've heard that one before. Die-hard segregationists in the South pushed that line in the 60s, and political demagogues defending 19th-century backwards policies have been pushing it ever since. Go peddle that crap to someone else.
OK, that's it, I'm finished responding to this post. No point arguing with self-satisfied ignoramuses. Best of success to everyone in North Carolina. And South Carolina. And the whole world.
No forms of racism are acceptable. While you wrinkle your nose at Republicans, characterizing them as racial fear-mongers, I see an equally pitiful trend on the Liberal side of the spectrum. Liberal politicians have consistently overstated the existence of racism in today's society, using it as leverage to advance a political agenda. Both are pathetic, but knowingly exploiting the suffering of minorities is a far greater atrocity than true ignorance-based racism.
Another Liberal ploy is to paint those who want to enact true racial egalitarianism in our government as the racists, when clearly the opposite is true. Any political party who advocates the preferential treatment of one race over another IS RACIST. Period.
It's too bad you won't be coming back to check this thread. I'd like to hear your input on these topics...
-Clive
Immediately! There are sales tax and hotel tax and many other taxes that will be paid to the state from the moment Apple steps foot in NC. Even taxes from people spending out of their pocket for goods and services that aren't part of the $1B. Not just sales taxes from the sale, but taxes from businesses who are benefiting from increased sales. There is so much trickle down that it's foolish to think that NC is better off without Apple's $1B.
They do collect some taxes from those things early on, but the first part of my comment asked when it would be tax positive?
That means a net position, where the dollars and cents from hotel, sales and other taxes are offset by the concession. What year exactly do you think that do they break-even and can only then conclude whether it was worth it?
Why should the state take the risk of the bet not working out? If it doesn't work out then services like health and education decline or you pay higher taxes. It's for companies to take such bets, not the state.
They do collect some taxes from those things early on, but the first part of my comment asked when it would be tax positive?
How could be a tax debt? NC isn?t cutting Apple a check for $46M. NC either gets nothing or they get tax revenue from $1B+.
Someone mentioned states' rights. Sorry, I've heard that one before. Die-hard segregationists in the South pushed that line in the 60s, and political demagogues defending 19th-century backwards policies have been pushing it ever since. Go peddle that crap to someone else.
OK, that's it, I'm finished responding to this post. No point arguing with self-satisfied ignoramuses. Best of success to everyone in North Carolina. And South Carolina. And the whole world.
Damn I wish you would come back so you can take a look at the Articles of Confederation which state "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Of course you probably think that Confederation has something to do with the South - sorry guy, these were drafted in 1776 and ratified in 1781.
or... maybe the 10th amendment to the Constitution carries some weight - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It does kinda suck when you latch on to drivel rather than know your history. Oh, BTW the 10th was ratified in 1791 - prior to the skew of representation/power by the separate states. But that may be to much info for you...
The Old North State appreciates your best wishes.