I was very much against the Samsung plant being built in Austin years ago. Why? Because they extorted even more money than Apple wants from city and county governments. And I think they did it again years later, threatening to move the plant elsewhere if they didn't get more tax breaks. This kind of tax inequity is just stupid and it needs to stop. Tax laws should be fair and applied evenly to all applicable parties with zero favoritism or exceptions. What would be wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that it prevents cities/counties/states from managing their own business.
If I city wants to attract new business, what's wrong with them offering incentives? As I showed in the other thread when this first came up, Austin and Texas are going to be many millions of dollars ahead even without cutting back on the deal. In exchange for taking less future tax, they still get:
- Higher property values for homes in the area (= greater tax revenues)
- Reduced unemployment (= less expenditures)
- Thousands of new jobs (= more money spent in the area)
- Greater sales tax from all the things the employees buy
- Real estate transfer taxes from people moving into the area and buying new homes
On top of that, they get the benefit of a growing, vibrant economy with lots of good (i.e, not McDonald's) jobs. It's hard to put a price on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
There's another side to the story. The County is not "screwing" with Apple or the city so much as not bending existing rules & laws for Apple. That is, they are following established legalities instead of kissing Apple's butt.
Seriously, that is my reading of the situation. And I don't see why that has been spun 180 to make it seem like the County is at fault here, when it's really the largest company on the planet with money oozing out of its shares asking for a measly $3-$4 million in concessions from a local government. Apple doesn't need that money; it really doesn't. It made $50 billion on Wednesday alone. This is chump change for Apple. Why on earth can they not just play by the rules and build their darn building(s)? Why must they squeeze every last dollar out of everyone?
That's $4 million the county could use to improve roads or policing of the area but that Apple wants to use to line its coffers even further. It's corporate greed, pure & simple and I do not have a problem with the County standing up and saying "enough'.
You have it backwards. The money does not belong to the City of Austin. If they scare Apple away, they have NOTHING to improve the roads and police force.
OTOH, by giving Apple a tax break which reduces the amount of tax Apple pays, Apple would still be paying something (almost certainly far, far more than what the city is getting for tax revenue on farm land). So instead of paying the city $20 M per year, Apple only pays them $10 M per year. That's still $10 M more than they'll have if they walk on the deal.
Oh, and btw, roads are generally funded via gasoline taxes. Even when the state issues a bond to repair the roads, the bond is paid back from gasoline revenues. Apple is not getting a break on gasoline taxes and with 3600 new jobs, there will probably be more people driving in the area, so the state WILL benefit.
Add to that the intrinsic benefits of Texas (no state income tax, pleasant weather, major cities of Houston, San Antonio and Dallas/Ft. Worth are only a couple hours drive away. Hiking, biking, camping, fishing - all within the immediate area.
Did you say pleasant weather? Man, I worked in Houston for a while and it's an armpit in the summer and summer lasts forever.
What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.
What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.
Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.
What amazes me is how people insist on posting about subjects when they are unwilling to learn anything about it.
This has been explained many times. It's not a government handout in the traditional sense. It's a matter of Apple paying less taxes over some agreed period of time. And, in return, the city gets benefits that far outweigh the amount of taxes they are giving up.
And Apple has a responsibility to its employees and shareholders to not spend money unnecessarily. That means looking for the best overall package before deciding where to site a facility.
You pro-business types need to make up your minds. Either corporations are people or they aren't. If they're people as you keep claiming, then they need to pay taxes like everyone else. They use services such as police and roads and they need to pay for them. What's happening in this story is Apple is strongarming the city and county to try to get out of those taxes. The city buckled but the county is standing its ground. Good for it. If I cannot get out of paying my taxes, why is the corporate "person" Apple allowed to?? Where is the "personal" responsibility that pro-business types are always saying they are mad about our country losing?
Independent of how one feels about the Supreme Court's 'personhood' argument (I am opposed to it since, if corporations can have first amendment rights, why can't they have second amendment rights as well?), taxes is not an area where it applies well, or even particularly relevant. When I pay my taxes, the bucks come out of my pocket; when Apple pays taxes, the bucks ultimately come out of my pocket (as consumer and/or shareholder), not Apple's.
The corporation is, for the most part, simply a passthrough entity for taxes.
What amazes me is how people insist on posting about subjects when they are unwilling to learn anything about it.
This has been explained many times. It's not a government handout in the traditional sense. It's a matter of Apple paying less taxes over some agreed period of time. And, in return, the city gets benefits that far outweigh the amount of taxes they are giving up.
And Apple has a responsibility to its employees and shareholders to not spend money unnecessarily. That means looking for the best overall package before deciding where to site a facility.
Most of us understand HOW this process works and the dollar and cents (or sense) of it all. The issue here really is the WHY of it. Why should it be this inherently unfair system based on who can squeeze out the best incentive (bribe) to entice a company to build? There are many municipalities that probably could meet Apples' needs (services, talent, infrastructure) but some of those might not be able to pony up a dollar amount that pleases Apple (or some other company) enough to sign the contract. Maybe that town is harder hit by the recession than Austin and maybe they need it more. They won't get it because Austin is relatively healthy and thus can pay more to play. My feeling is the companies should be able to make these decisions based on the merits of the location not on how much of a kick back they get. If there were rules that prevented this kind of tax law bending this process would be more equitable.
Most of us understand HOW this process works and the dollar and cents (or sense) of it all. The issue here really is the WHY of it. Why should it be this inherently unfair system based on who can squeeze out the best incentive (bribe) to entice a company to build? There are many municipalities that probably could meet Apples' needs (services, talent, infrastructure) but some of those might not be able to pony up a dollar amount that pleases Apple (or some other company) enough to sign the contract. Maybe that town is harder hit by the recession than Austin and maybe they need it more. They won't get it because Austin is relatively healthy and thus can pay more to play. My feeling is the companies should be able to make these decisions based on the merits of the location not on how much of a kick back they get. If there were rules that prevented this kind of tax law bending this process would be more equitable.
Your question has been answered dozens of times in the several threads where this has come up.
You're free to ignore the answers that people have supplied, but don't whine about not understanding it when you're simply ignoring the answer.
Simple, if the county beats its chest way too much they will lose the extra revenue the jobs will bring. Despite all the idealist buhahaaaaha and the Marxist ideas repackaged as social responsibility, it's all a numbers game in the end,
Your question has been answered dozens of times in the several threads where this has come up.
You're free to ignore the answers that people have supplied, but don't whine about not understanding it when you're simply ignoring the answer.
I have no idea what you are talking about and I have no obligation to read some random unnamed thread to which you refer. But I might if you bothered to name it.
And really? If the answer is so clear an simple why don't you state it?
What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.
What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.
Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.
Apple doesn't need the money however the managers in charge of closing this deal are required to get a contract with long term budgeting including taxes, utilities, etc. which makes sense since they are making decisions looking forward 10+ years. They look at the total package and decide it it suits their needs or not. Some people here seem to think Apple should just buy property in their hometown and build a facility without any consideration of the financial terms. If they did that, what would stop the city or the county from passing a law that adversely affected Apple's plans after the facility was already built? Austin City Council seem to see the big picture. You have to spend money to make money and the terms are apparently favorable for them so they made the offer. I doubt Apple asked for a specific tax break. It was just part of the deal.
Simple, if the county beats its chest way too much they will lose the extra revenue the jobs will bring. Despite all the idealist buhahaaaaha and the Marxist ideas repackaged as social responsibility, it's all a numbers game in the end,
I don't think the county started this at all. The asswipe at the the Chamber thinks he is king and wanted the process to move faster. So he fabricated the "in peril" BS to stir the pot. Austin will get the facility, nothing to see here.
I have no idea what you are talking about and I have no obligation to read some random unnamed thread to which you refer. But I might if you bothered to name it.
And really? If the answer is so clear an simple why don't you state it?
The answer has been given repeatedly in this thread and the previous AI thread on Apple's Austin facility.
Apple is obligated to its employees and shareholders to get the best deal it can. Austin benefits by giving an incentive because they get a few thousand jobs and a significant tax base (even after deducting the discounts) that they wouldn't otherwise have. The two negotiated the best deal that each of them thinks they can get. What part of that don't you understand?
As a huge Formula One fan, I find it ironically amusing that money was found for a rather extravagant, $250 million (+/-) world class race track near Austin, which will host a round of the F1 World Championship beginning this year. And if they're lucky, F1 will stick around for maybe five years. But in the case of an actual long term employer in the same area, there is an argument about how to structure the incentive package?
Apple can locate this facility and make it work very well in any number of areas. While if Austin loses Apple, it won't die, but it will be a black-eye that will be noticed by other Fortune 500 companies for years to come. I'm sure that Apple has a contingency plan for other locations. The longer the Austin area politicians let the clock tick, the more likely it is that Apple will simply choose another location.
<p> What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.</p><p> </p><p> What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.</p><p> </p><p> Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.</p>
Bzzzttt. Wrong, that kind of thinking is responsible for the persistently high unemployment.
If I were apple I would simply go to a much more business friendly jurisdiction. Whose loss would that be?
<p> What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.</p><p> </p><p> What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.</p><p> </p><p> Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.</p>
So you expect Apple to just roll into town and take it over & start building with no government approval and permits and such?
"He said the problems stem from the county government, which has allegedly been holding up the deal"
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
I was very much against the Samsung plant being built in Austin years ago. Why? Because they extorted even more money than Apple wants from city and county governments. And I think they did it again years later, threatening to move the plant elsewhere if they didn't get more tax breaks. This kind of tax inequity is just stupid and it needs to stop. Tax laws should be fair and applied evenly to all applicable parties with zero favoritism or exceptions. What would be wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that it prevents cities/counties/states from managing their own business.
If I city wants to attract new business, what's wrong with them offering incentives? As I showed in the other thread when this first came up, Austin and Texas are going to be many millions of dollars ahead even without cutting back on the deal. In exchange for taking less future tax, they still get:
- Higher property values for homes in the area (= greater tax revenues)
- Reduced unemployment (= less expenditures)
- Thousands of new jobs (= more money spent in the area)
- Greater sales tax from all the things the employees buy
- Real estate transfer taxes from people moving into the area and buying new homes
On top of that, they get the benefit of a growing, vibrant economy with lots of good (i.e, not McDonald's) jobs. It's hard to put a price on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
There's another side to the story. The County is not "screwing" with Apple or the city so much as not bending existing rules & laws for Apple. That is, they are following established legalities instead of kissing Apple's butt.
Seriously, that is my reading of the situation. And I don't see why that has been spun 180 to make it seem like the County is at fault here, when it's really the largest company on the planet with money oozing out of its shares asking for a measly $3-$4 million in concessions from a local government. Apple doesn't need that money; it really doesn't. It made $50 billion on Wednesday alone. This is chump change for Apple. Why on earth can they not just play by the rules and build their darn building(s)? Why must they squeeze every last dollar out of everyone?
That's $4 million the county could use to improve roads or policing of the area but that Apple wants to use to line its coffers even further. It's corporate greed, pure & simple and I do not have a problem with the County standing up and saying "enough'.
You have it backwards. The money does not belong to the City of Austin. If they scare Apple away, they have NOTHING to improve the roads and police force.
OTOH, by giving Apple a tax break which reduces the amount of tax Apple pays, Apple would still be paying something (almost certainly far, far more than what the city is getting for tax revenue on farm land). So instead of paying the city $20 M per year, Apple only pays them $10 M per year. That's still $10 M more than they'll have if they walk on the deal.
Oh, and btw, roads are generally funded via gasoline taxes. Even when the state issues a bond to repair the roads, the bond is paid back from gasoline revenues. Apple is not getting a break on gasoline taxes and with 3600 new jobs, there will probably be more people driving in the area, so the state WILL benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
Add to that the intrinsic benefits of Texas (no state income tax, pleasant weather, major cities of Houston, San Antonio and Dallas/Ft. Worth are only a couple hours drive away. Hiking, biking, camping, fishing - all within the immediate area.
Did you say pleasant weather? Man, I worked in Houston for a while and it's an armpit in the summer and summer lasts forever.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2012/04/apple-could-still-pick-phoenix-over.html
Isn't Texas' governor always talking about how everyone else should be "business friendly" like they are? Politician spews BS--shocker!
smells like pork; pass the applesauce
What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.
What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.
Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.
What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.
Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.
What amazes me is how people insist on posting about subjects when they are unwilling to learn anything about it.
This has been explained many times. It's not a government handout in the traditional sense. It's a matter of Apple paying less taxes over some agreed period of time. And, in return, the city gets benefits that far outweigh the amount of taxes they are giving up.
And Apple has a responsibility to its employees and shareholders to not spend money unnecessarily. That means looking for the best overall package before deciding where to site a facility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
You pro-business types need to make up your minds. Either corporations are people or they aren't. If they're people as you keep claiming, then they need to pay taxes like everyone else. They use services such as police and roads and they need to pay for them. What's happening in this story is Apple is strongarming the city and county to try to get out of those taxes. The city buckled but the county is standing its ground. Good for it. If I cannot get out of paying my taxes, why is the corporate "person" Apple allowed to?? Where is the "personal" responsibility that pro-business types are always saying they are mad about our country losing?
Independent of how one feels about the Supreme Court's 'personhood' argument (I am opposed to it since, if corporations can have first amendment rights, why can't they have second amendment rights as well?), taxes is not an area where it applies well, or even particularly relevant. When I pay my taxes, the bucks come out of my pocket; when Apple pays taxes, the bucks ultimately come out of my pocket (as consumer and/or shareholder), not Apple's.
The corporation is, for the most part, simply a passthrough entity for taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What amazes me is how people insist on posting about subjects when they are unwilling to learn anything about it.
This has been explained many times. It's not a government handout in the traditional sense. It's a matter of Apple paying less taxes over some agreed period of time. And, in return, the city gets benefits that far outweigh the amount of taxes they are giving up.
And Apple has a responsibility to its employees and shareholders to not spend money unnecessarily. That means looking for the best overall package before deciding where to site a facility.
Most of us understand HOW this process works and the dollar and cents (or sense) of it all. The issue here really is the WHY of it. Why should it be this inherently unfair system based on who can squeeze out the best incentive (bribe) to entice a company to build? There are many municipalities that probably could meet Apples' needs (services, talent, infrastructure) but some of those might not be able to pony up a dollar amount that pleases Apple (or some other company) enough to sign the contract. Maybe that town is harder hit by the recession than Austin and maybe they need it more. They won't get it because Austin is relatively healthy and thus can pay more to play. My feeling is the companies should be able to make these decisions based on the merits of the location not on how much of a kick back they get. If there were rules that prevented this kind of tax law bending this process would be more equitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
Most of us understand HOW this process works and the dollar and cents (or sense) of it all. The issue here really is the WHY of it. Why should it be this inherently unfair system based on who can squeeze out the best incentive (bribe) to entice a company to build? There are many municipalities that probably could meet Apples' needs (services, talent, infrastructure) but some of those might not be able to pony up a dollar amount that pleases Apple (or some other company) enough to sign the contract. Maybe that town is harder hit by the recession than Austin and maybe they need it more. They won't get it because Austin is relatively healthy and thus can pay more to play. My feeling is the companies should be able to make these decisions based on the merits of the location not on how much of a kick back they get. If there were rules that prevented this kind of tax law bending this process would be more equitable.
Your question has been answered dozens of times in the several threads where this has come up.
You're free to ignore the answers that people have supplied, but don't whine about not understanding it when you're simply ignoring the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Your question has been answered dozens of times in the several threads where this has come up.
You're free to ignore the answers that people have supplied, but don't whine about not understanding it when you're simply ignoring the answer.
I have no idea what you are talking about and I have no obligation to read some random unnamed thread to which you refer. But I might if you bothered to name it.
And really? If the answer is so clear an simple why don't you state it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
What beats me is why a multi billion dollar corporation needs a Government handout before they'll do anything.
What a crock, imagine if American people wouldn't take jobs unless the Government slipped them a few bucks.
Apple should just build or not build, pay fair taxes and not rely on handouts.
Apple doesn't need the money however the managers in charge of closing this deal are required to get a contract with long term budgeting including taxes, utilities, etc. which makes sense since they are making decisions looking forward 10+ years. They look at the total package and decide it it suits their needs or not. Some people here seem to think Apple should just buy property in their hometown and build a facility without any consideration of the financial terms. If they did that, what would stop the city or the county from passing a law that adversely affected Apple's plans after the facility was already built? Austin City Council seem to see the big picture. You have to spend money to make money and the terms are apparently favorable for them so they made the offer. I doubt Apple asked for a specific tax break. It was just part of the deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granmastak
Simple, if the county beats its chest way too much they will lose the extra revenue the jobs will bring. Despite all the idealist buhahaaaaha and the Marxist ideas repackaged as social responsibility, it's all a numbers game in the end,
I don't think the county started this at all. The asswipe at the the Chamber thinks he is king and wanted the process to move faster. So he fabricated the "in peril" BS to stir the pot. Austin will get the facility, nothing to see here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
I have no idea what you are talking about and I have no obligation to read some random unnamed thread to which you refer. But I might if you bothered to name it.
And really? If the answer is so clear an simple why don't you state it?
The answer has been given repeatedly in this thread and the previous AI thread on Apple's Austin facility.
Apple is obligated to its employees and shareholders to get the best deal it can. Austin benefits by giving an incentive because they get a few thousand jobs and a significant tax base (even after deducting the discounts) that they wouldn't otherwise have. The two negotiated the best deal that each of them thinks they can get. What part of that don't you understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodar
You are missing a few rather key points that is rather attractive to Austin. Austin is the Silicon Valley of the West.
I'm pretty sure that Silicon Valley is the Silicon Valley of the West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
I'm pretty sure that Silicon Valley is the Silicon Valley of the West.
As a huge Formula One fan, I find it ironically amusing that money was found for a rather extravagant, $250 million (+/-) world class race track near Austin, which will host a round of the F1 World Championship beginning this year. And if they're lucky, F1 will stick around for maybe five years. But in the case of an actual long term employer in the same area, there is an argument about how to structure the incentive package?
Apple can locate this facility and make it work very well in any number of areas. While if Austin loses Apple, it won't die, but it will be a black-eye that will be noticed by other Fortune 500 companies for years to come. I'm sure that Apple has a contingency plan for other locations. The longer the Austin area politicians let the clock tick, the more likely it is that Apple will simply choose another location.
Bzzzttt. Wrong, that kind of thinking is responsible for the persistently high unemployment.
If I were apple I would simply go to a much more business friendly jurisdiction. Whose loss would that be?
"He said the problems stem from the county government, which has allegedly been holding up the deal"