Foxconn's Wisconsin factory starting production in May 2020 with just 1,500 jobs

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,399member
    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a soft socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor.  And as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    Apple would be irresponsible to their shareholders if not charging what the market will bear. If for instance their unit sales re:PROFIT! is idealized at $1000 for some iDevice and every retail price dollar over that is determined to reduce unit sales and the resultant profit they are NOT going to raise the price by another $50 are they? These tax giveaways simply benefit company owners, and savings from "tax forgiveness" are not passed on to consumers in lower prices.

    Your iPhone will cost you the same whether any state or region did or didn't give tax incentives to the companies building them or Apple the company itself AFAICT.
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 22 of 33
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,251member
    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a soft socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor.  And as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    A more reliable sign of economic illiteracy is when people claim that an economic behaviour is true ALL of the time.  That and throwing "socialist" around as a pejorative.

    Taxes don't always get passed along to consumers.  A competitive market helps with that.
    edited July 2019 davenfastasleep
  • Reply 23 of 33
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,625member
    gutengel said:
    I see another article in a couple months saying that the number of employees will be reduced again. Phoney politics empty promises.  
    It doesn't really matter as long as they don't get the tax break.   After all, if a company rented space, wasn't receiving any kind of tax break or other incentives and then didn't bother to actually occupy the space, no one would really care.

    But 1500 jobs is nothing to sneer at, especially in a low population state (just 5.8 million in Wisconsin) as long as they pay decently.   I don't know what the average salary and compensation is, but if it's $50,000 a year, that's $75 million in salaries each year, which creates over $500 million in economic activity.  On the other hand, if they pay minimum wage (which is still only $7.25 an hour in Wisconsin) or close to it, screw 'em  - all it means is more people seeking government assistance.   
  • Reply 24 of 33
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    crowley said:
    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a soft socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor.  And as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    A more reliable sign of economic illiteracy is when people claim that an economic behaviour is true ALL of the time.  That and throwing "socialist" around as a pejorative.

    Taxes don't always get passed along to consumers.  A competitive market helps with that.
    Taxes always get passed along, unless they are too big for the product to be competitive, in which case, a business ceases to exist. 
    In fact, if you decide to be a “responsible” business and not pass the tax along, you will have less money to be competitive comparing to another business which decided not to be such a fool. This puts YOUR business at the disadvantage by making you less competitive (less cash for operations and growth).
    bigtds
  • Reply 25 of 33
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,625member

    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor. You are not, and as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    IMO, your views are as jumbled as the people you're responding to and certainly, much nastier.   

    It's an over-simplification to believe that taxes always result in higher prices because there are competitive factors at work.  And taxes are a small portion of most companies' cost structures and that's when they actually pay the taxes - many Fortune 500 companies like Amazon don't.   So there is not a direct relationship between taxing companies and higher priced products.   You act is if every penny in taxes is indirectly paid for by consumers.   Furthermore, since most companies are into maximizing profits, there is no evidence whatsoever that removing their tax burden would result in lower prices - they would just use it to increase profitability as the recent corporate tax breaks largely proved.   Hiring went up only modestly and salaries didn't really increase at all. 

    You argue that we're not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, but infrastructure that supports the ability of companies to earn profits is built with tax dollars as are the schools, roads and health systems (be it what they may) that enable the labor supply.   So companies shouldn't be entitled to the fruits of my labors either, if I don't work for them, but they are, because it benefit society as a whole.   How well would companies do if there was no interstate highway system or airports everywhere?    

    Having said that, sometimes, practicality has to play a role.  So even though I'm a leftist and emotionally, I didn't like the idea of the government giving any corporation a tax break, sometimes it's the smart thing to do.  

    Emotionally, I was opposed to New York State giving Amazon tax breaks - a company that is highly profitable and somehow doesn't manage to pay any Federal income taxes, but I think the people of NYC were wrong for keeping Amazon from building a headquarters in Long Island City.  Amazon was promising 25,000 $150K jobs.   That would have been $3.75 billion in annual compensation, which generates about $21 billion in total economic activity.   I think it was well worth the trade-off.  I understand the fears of people who lived there - that the area would have become gentrified and housing costs could have skyrocketed, but much of LIC is already gentrified and unlike other regions, assuming Amazon mostly hired from the local area, people would have commuted to work just like they do today, so it wouldn't have necessarily increased the demand for housing in LIC.    And even if 20% of those workers came from outside the area and moved here, another 5000 people in NYC is not really noticeable.   5000 more people in a place like Seattle (population 730,000) has huge impact.



    fastasleep
  • Reply 26 of 33
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    crowley said:
    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a soft socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor.  And as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    A more reliable sign of economic illiteracy is when people claim that an economic behaviour is true ALL of the time.  That and throwing "socialist" around as a pejorative.

    Taxes don't always get passed along to consumers.  A competitive market helps with that.
    Socialism is not a pejorative, it is just a shitty system in and of itself, that delivers none of the things it promises, while creating a lot of suffering/death and humiliation.
    competitive market will make sure that high taxes either get automatically passed along if the price is competitive, or the business becomes not profitable and the business closes due to high taxes. There is no other way around it. No sane business owner would be willing to absorb the cost of the high taxes by giving thicker profit margin to his/her competition. It makes zero financial/business sense.
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 27 of 33
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    zoetmb said:

    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor. You are not, and as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    IMO, your views are as jumbled as the people you're responding to and certainly, much nastier.   

    It's an over-simplification to believe that taxes always result in higher prices because there are competitive factors at work.  And taxes are a small portion of most companies' cost structures and that's when they actually pay the taxes - many Fortune 500 companies like Amazon don't.   So there is not a direct relationship between taxing companies and higher priced products.   You act is if every penny in taxes is indirectly paid for by consumers.   Furthermore, since most companies are into maximizing profits, there is no evidence whatsoever that removing their tax burden would result in lower prices - they would just use it to increase profitability as the recent corporate tax breaks largely proved.   Hiring went up only modestly and salaries didn't really increase at all. 

    You argue that we're not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, but infrastructure that supports the ability of companies to earn profits is built with tax dollars as are the schools, roads and health systems (be it what they may) that enable the labor supply.   So companies shouldn't be entitled to the fruits of my labors either, if I don't work for them, but they are, because it benefit society as a whole.   How well would companies do if there was no interstate highway system or airports everywhere?    

    Having said that, sometimes, practicality has to play a role.  So even though I'm a leftist and emotionally, I didn't like the idea of the government giving any corporation a tax break, sometimes it's the smart thing to do.  

    Emotionally, I was opposed to New York State giving Amazon tax breaks - a company that is highly profitable and somehow doesn't manage to pay any Federal income taxes, but I think the people of NYC were wrong for keeping Amazon from building a headquarters in Long Island City.  Amazon was promising 25,000 $150K jobs.   That would have been $3.75 billion in annual compensation, which generates about $21 billion in total economic activity.   I think it was well worth the trade-off.  I understand the fears of people who lived there - that the area would have become gentrified and housing costs could have skyrocketed, but much of LIC is already gentrified and unlike other regions, assuming Amazon mostly hired from the local area, people would have commuted to work just like they do today, so it wouldn't have necessarily increased the demand for housing in LIC.    And even if 20% of those workers came from outside the area and moved here, another 5000 people in NYC is not really noticeable.   5000 more people in a place like Seattle (population 730,000) has huge impact.



    Infrastructure is only built with one purpose - attract companies that hopefully set up their business in the location, which allows for more tax “revenue” by that location’s govt. if companies do not come, that infrastructure becomes a burden because you have to support it, and there much less tax to support it. Also, schools supply very little in terms of the output vs how much they consume, especially nowadays, when they produce spoiled whiny brats. 

    “So companies shouldn't be entitled to the fruits of my labors either, if I don't work for them“
    they are not entitled to the fruits of your labor...  they cant compel you to build a road. They simply will not come to your place, if you do not build it. Instead, they will go to a location that has it. But there is no sense of entitlement... it is always the stupid among “the people” who shoot themselves in the foot with “fair tax” and “muh socialism”.

    Yes, people in NYC made the same mistake and lost that much tax revenue, because they were thinking with their socialist hearts. Good for them. Now, they made their state even less attractive, and gave that business away to some other state. Got to love positive feedback loops.
    Now, those roads and infrastructure that Amazon was “ entitled to”  will not be used by that evil corporation and people will be paying from their pocket even more to maintain the infrastructure. Since no new jobs were generated, the tax burden will be just a bit more heavier on the existing residents....which are already fleeing and NY is already experiencing the loss in revenue due to higher taxes and the capital flight.
    smh.
    Idiots never learn that business can move out, but the infrastructure and schools that are so costly and were built to a future revenue model, are stationary and have to be paid for NOW and always, whether a business leaves or not. 
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 28 of 33
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,873member
    zoetmb said:

    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor. You are not, and as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    IMO, your views are as jumbled as the people you're responding to and certainly, much nastier.   

    It's an over-simplification to believe that taxes always result in higher prices because there are competitive factors at work.  And taxes are a small portion of most companies' cost structures and that's when they actually pay the taxes - many Fortune 500 companies like Amazon don't.   So there is not a direct relationship between taxing companies and higher priced products.   You act is if every penny in taxes is indirectly paid for by consumers.   Furthermore, since most companies are into maximizing profits, there is no evidence whatsoever that removing their tax burden would result in lower prices - they would just use it to increase profitability as the recent corporate tax breaks largely proved.   Hiring went up only modestly and salaries didn't really increase at all. 

    You argue that we're not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, but infrastructure that supports the ability of companies to earn profits is built with tax dollars as are the schools, roads and health systems (be it what they may) that enable the labor supply.   So companies shouldn't be entitled to the fruits of my labors either, if I don't work for them, but they are, because it benefit society as a whole.   How well would companies do if there was no interstate highway system or airports everywhere?    

    Having said that, sometimes, practicality has to play a role.  So even though I'm a leftist and emotionally, I didn't like the idea of the government giving any corporation a tax break, sometimes it's the smart thing to do.  

    Emotionally, I was opposed to New York State giving Amazon tax breaks - a company that is highly profitable and somehow doesn't manage to pay any Federal income taxes, but I think the people of NYC were wrong for keeping Amazon from building a headquarters in Long Island City.  Amazon was promising 25,000 $150K jobs.   That would have been $3.75 billion in annual compensation, which generates about $21 billion in total economic activity.   I think it was well worth the trade-off.  I understand the fears of people who lived there - that the area would have become gentrified and housing costs could have skyrocketed, but much of LIC is already gentrified and unlike other regions, assuming Amazon mostly hired from the local area, people would have commuted to work just like they do today, so it wouldn't have necessarily increased the demand for housing in LIC.    And even if 20% of those workers came from outside the area and moved here, another 5000 people in NYC is not really noticeable.   5000 more people in a place like Seattle (population 730,000) has huge impact.



    Much of your post sounds reasonable. I happen to agree with your stance on Amazon are in New York. The thing I will disagree with you on is corporate taxes in general. Corporations, in reality, never really pay taxes. They simply will not let taxes affect their bottom line. They will find that money somewhere, be at less employment, lower wages, higher prices or a combination of several factors.  You are correct that higher corporate taxes don’t necessarily translate to automatically higher prices. But, it is a very complexity you reference and that obscure the truth. Corporations are not just going to sit back and make less money. It’s simply an economic reality. Even if we shift to a gross receipts tax, they will find the money somewhere. The old mantra “corporations don’t pay taxes, people pay taxes” rings true.   This is why I have long been a proponent of replacing all income taxes with a national sales tax.. Certain necessary items could be exempted as they are now with most state sales taxes. The government could adjust rates in various sectors to promote growth.
  • Reply 29 of 33
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,251member
    crowley said:
    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a soft socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor.  And as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    A more reliable sign of economic illiteracy is when people claim that an economic behaviour is true ALL of the time.  That and throwing "socialist" around as a pejorative.

    Taxes don't always get passed along to consumers.  A competitive market helps with that.
    Socialism is not a pejorative, it is just a shitty system in and of itself, that delivers none of the things it promises, while creating a lot of suffering/death and humiliation.
    competitive market will make sure that high taxes either get automatically passed along if the price is competitive, or the business becomes not profitable and the business closes due to high taxes. There is no other way around it. No sane business owner would be willing to absorb the cost of the high taxes by giving thicker profit margin to his/her competition. It makes zero financial/business sense.
    What?  You could just as easily make a lazy claim that no sane business owner would price their product higher than an equivalent competitor; it makes no business sense.  In reality of course, things are a lot more nuanced.

    I'm just going to gloss over the socialism nonsense.  No one cares about your opinion on that subject.
  • Reply 30 of 33
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,119member
    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor. You are not, and as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    Sick burn.

    Your mistake (as whatever it is you are, probably some libertarian type who abhors socialism but is fine with Medicare and 911 services) is that you are only focused on the tax incentives, when there has been actual tax payer money already spent on this project — over $200M in taxpayer money in Racine County and Mount Pleasant for land acquisition, etc — with another $570M to go, which they're on the hook for regardless of whether Foxconn meets their obligations. Infrastructure like power lines are to be paid by the public utility company's 5 million customers! So who is "entitled to the fruits of another person's labor" again?

    It's an over $4 billion dollar package (the largest in history for a foreign company in the US). They're already missing targets and it's looking like a bait-and-switch boondoggle. Foxconn pulled shit like this in Brazil and India previously. It's projected Wisconsin won't even be in the red on this deal until 2050, if at all.

    My point, though, is that I don't believe we need to be giving away any tax incentives, spending any of our tax dollars, or giving out handjobs or anything else — to huge international megacorporations. 
  • Reply 31 of 33
    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor. You are not, and as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    Sick burn.

    Your mistake (as whatever it is you are, probably some libertarian type who abhors socialism but is fine with Medicare and 911 services) is that you are only focused on the tax incentives, when there has been actual tax payer money already spent on this project — over $200M in taxpayer money in Racine County and Mount Pleasant for land acquisition, etc — with another $570M to go, which they're on the hook for regardless of whether Foxconn meets their obligations. Infrastructure like power lines are to be paid by the public utility company's 5 million customers! So who is "entitled to the fruits of another person's labor" again?

    It's an over $4 billion dollar package (the largest in history for a foreign company in the US). They're already missing targets and it's looking like a bait-and-switch boondoggle. Foxconn pulled shit like this in Brazil and India previously. It's projected Wisconsin won't even be in the red on this deal until 2050, if at all.

    My point, though, is that I don't believe we need to be giving away any tax incentives, spending any of our tax dollars, or giving out handjobs or anything else — to huge international megacorporations. 
    Sick burn INDEED. 
    How cute, you went to 911 and Medicare, yet, I have no problem with financing 911, but I have a huge problem with 63% of the US budget being WASTED on social security and welfare. None of that goes to 911, sorry. Welfare apparatus  outgrew its usefulness at this stage. Now it is being abuse constantly by people who know how to game the system, as well as by people running the system itself. Both profit from having. The only person who is not in the net positive, is the taxpayer. 
    What you don't understand, is that your assumption that the bigger gov-t is the only way to go forward is INSANITY. Private sector can easily outrun the gov-t in terms of the quality of services and the lower cost for those. Yet, it is people like you who ignore that every day and pretend that the gov-t is the only way to go about doing the business of improving lives. Literally the history of the world is full of examples of private companies creating technologies and tech to do that, WITHOUT the gov-t. Yet, you will be the first one to bring up the crazy argument about all that being sponsored by the gov-t via research grants, while simultaneously decrying tax incentives and giving out taxpayer money to the corporations. 
    Yeah, you are THAT delusional... 
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 32 of 33
    toddzrx said:
    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    Not so much this.  The statement makes no sense.  Think about it.
    Compelling argument.

    rcfa said:

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.
    So much this.
    What is really amazing is that some NPSc do not understand that a tax cut is not a handout. 
    Let me clarify it: 
    HANDOUT - is when you do not own the money, that someone else generated, yet you ended up getting the money (for some obscure reason), despite having NO connection to the chain of a producer <----> a consumer .
    TAX CUT - is when you actually made those money as a person/company by generating value, and then the gov-t allows you to KEEP MORE of your earned money, by taxing your income to a lesser extent.
    Do you understand the difference?
    It's not just tax cuts, but billions in subsidies aren't handouts? Okay, great, thanks for the etymology lesson — but what's your fucking point?

    The people decrying socialism are mad about what they perceive to be handouts, whether it's tax breaks or other subsidies. This isn't any different, except it's being applied to a fucking profitable international mega-corporation that absolutely 100% does not need these subsidies, whereas we have people in our country working full time and struggling to stay above water. Foxconn should pay every cent for what they need to set up shop in that state. It's bullshit.
    My point is that incentives =/= handouts. Your mistake (as a socialist) is to think that you or someone else is entitled to the fruits of another person’s/company labor. You are not, and as such, you misconstrued tax incentives for “hand outs”.
    That is what my (i quote) “fucking point” is.
    Another mistake economically illiterate, like you, often make is thinking that by taxing a corporation, you are taxing that corporation. In reality, that tax ALWAYS gets passed along to the consumer. Corporations themselves always shift the tax burden to the end of the chain - a consumer and they rarely care what the real tax burden is, as long as everyone else has to pay it. So, of course the irony here, is that you scream that companies need to be taxed more, while in reality what you are advocating is that you and other fools will be the ones picking up the tab for that “fair corporate tax”.
    IQ curve is a bitch when your are in the middle of the curve, or to the left of the median/mode, I suppose...
    Sick burn.

    Your mistake (as whatever it is you are, probably some libertarian type who abhors socialism but is fine with Medicare and 911 services) is that you are only focused on the tax incentives, when there has been actual tax payer money already spent on this project — over $200M in taxpayer money in Racine County and Mount Pleasant for land acquisition, etc — with another $570M to go, which they're on the hook for regardless of whether Foxconn meets their obligations. Infrastructure like power lines are to be paid by the public utility company's 5 million customers! So who is "entitled to the fruits of another person's labor" again?

    It's an over $4 billion dollar package (the largest in history for a foreign company in the US). They're already missing targets and it's looking like a bait-and-switch boondoggle. Foxconn pulled shit like this in Brazil and India previously. It's projected Wisconsin won't even be in the red on this deal until 2050, if at all.

    My point, though, is that I don't believe we need to be giving away any tax incentives, spending any of our tax dollars, or giving out handjobs or anything else — to huge international megacorporations. 
    Sick burn INDEED. 
    How cute, you went to 911 and Medicare, yet, I have no problem with financing 911, but I have a huge problem with 63% of the US budget being WASTED on social security and welfare. None of that goes to 911, sorry. Welfare apparatus  outgrew its usefulness at this stage. Now it is being abuse constantly by people who know how to game the system, as well as by people running the system itself. Both profit from having. The only person who is not in the net positive, is the taxpayer. 
    What you don't understand, is that your assumption that the bigger gov-t is the only way to go forward is INSANITY. Private sector can easily outrun the gov-t in terms of the quality of services and the lower cost for those. Yet, it is people like you who ignore that every day and pretend that the gov-t is the only way to go about doing the business of improving lives. Literally the history of the world is full of examples of private companies creating technologies and tech to do that, WITHOUT the gov-t. Yet, you will be the first one to bring up the crazy argument about all that being sponsored by the gov-t via research grants, while simultaneously decrying tax incentives and giving out taxpayer money to the corporations. 
    Yeah, you are THAT delusional... 
    It took you four months to come up with that? 
  • Reply 33 of 33
    rcfa said:
    Just work on WTO rules that declare any sort of deals like this illegal government subsidies. Period.

    There’s no need for corporate welfare payments like these. Let companies set up shop where it makes economic sense for them without distorting the market with tax-payer funded subsidies.

    It’s amazing that those decrying socialism the loudest are the same people enthusiastically dishing out handouts to corporations.

    Time to stop the insanity, then there’s no need for such controversies. 

    Companies set up shop where it makes sense for them, and people go where the jobs are, and if they don’t want to leave they will have to accept lower pay, which in turn may attract jobs. That’s how markets are supposed to work.
    The States are free to engage in any kind of deal making, including subsidies, if they do not violate the law.
Sign In or Register to comment.