Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 242 posts

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#191

Post by quadrangle »

eridius wrote: post #132
quadrangle wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no states did these tax breaks, Apple would still need a data center. This is nothing more than corporations playing states against each other for the result of corporate profit and public loss.

Sure, but why would all states refuse tax breaks? It's a pretty obvious means to convince a company to choose that state. This is "nothing more" than the free market at work.

> This is "nothing more" than the free market at work.

Exactly! And by their very nature, free-markets are susceptible to races-to-the-bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom

So, yes, here they are at work doing one of the examples of free-market behavior that work against the public interest.

Here's another variant of my comment above: If all the workers refused to work in abusive conditions for low pay, the companies would still need to hire workers. And you could reply "Why would workers refuse that? Accepting abuse and low pay is a pretty obvious means to convince a company to hire you over others — the free market at work."

Are you one of those people who blindly thinks that the algorithm of "free market" necessarily (tautologically) results in the best situation for everyone?

The entire concept of a corporation exists within a government framework, not a completely free market. They are a complex organization of people making decisions as a unit. So too can states do the same or even work together and decide collectively not to make decisions that worsen the state-vs-corporation power structure…

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#192

Post by conanbatt »

fulafel wrote: post #59
colechristensen wrote: post #24

These are property tax abatements. I don't see the big deal. Apple has to pay the property tax equal to the farmland for the next 20 years instead of the much higher tax on the datacenter property. Who cares? Unless someone is arguing the datacenter is going to use a lot of tax funded city services (police? fire? ... ?), Waukee isn't giving Apple anything. On top of that Apple is pledging to give them $100M for vario…

Companies are supposed to pay taxes so we can have schools, healthcare, basic income etc. When they bid countries or states against each other to get tax breaks and governments play the game, citizens lose. Yes, it happens in other cases too, and citizens should also protest against those other cases.

Its not a bid of countries and states, its a bid of governments. And who wants the government 'to win' ? Not the citizens..

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#193

Post by abalone »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #165
abalone wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pressure to eliminate them is good and the state that best eliminates them wins This is nonsense. By this logic, corporate pressure to eliminate environmental regulations is "good" because they are "ineffective programs". You assume, wrongly, that the benefits of public investment realize themselves within a timeframe that matters to the bottom lines of individual corporations. In reality, markets reward short-term…

> By this logic, corporate pressure to eliminate environmental regulations is "good" because they are "ineffective programs". Environmental regulations prevent a harm. A dollar value can be attached to the harm, the cost to compensate victims and clean up the damage. If a company is polluting but not providing enough value to compensate for that pollution then they're a parasite and the state does not benefit from av…

You're again wrongly assuming that the public costs of all pollution can be tied back to the bottom lines of individual corporations within a timeframe that affects their decisionmaking, or even at all. If this were the case, global warming wouldn't be happening. Not all externalities can be internalized; that is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#194

Post by reaperducer »

lumberjack wrote: post #150
lend000 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When they bid countries or states against each other I have nothing to say specific to this case, but there is a market for governments (very distorted since options are very practically limited for most people, although corporations have an advantage here), and we should encourage competition in this market, as well as political markets. Competition results in better products. Washington already won me over [parti…

Competition between governments is harmful to citizens because in general, labour is never going to be as mobile as capital. And this is not just limited by regulations and laws (which it is). People just aren't going to move across borders because of politics, unless things get really bad. It just costs too much to move.

> People just aren't going to move across borders because of politics, unless things get really bad. It just costs too much to move.

Perhaps in the EU or some other part of the world, but in the United States, the population is fairly mobile.

People move from state to state all the time because of job opportunities, taxes, family, healthcare, etc...

I saw a statistic while ago that said that something like 30% of Americans moved in the last five years.

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#195

Post by reaperducer »

lend000 wrote: post #127
fulafel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are supposed to pay taxes so we can have schools, healthcare, basic income etc. When they bid countries or states against each other to get tax breaks and governments play the game, citizens lose. Yes, it happens in other cases too, and citizens should also protest against those other cases.

> When they bid countries or states against each other I have nothing to say specific to this case, but there is a market for governments (very distorted since options are very practically limited for most people, although corporations have an advantage here), and we should encourage competition in this market, as well as political markets. Competition results in better products. Washington already won me over [parti…

> Washington already won me over [partially] due to not having a state income tax and yet having infrastructure comparable to my previous high-tax state

Same thing happened with me. I moved my company from Illinois to Washington because of Illinois' draconian taxes and Washington's comparatively business-friendly atmosphere.

Of course, then things started changing in Washington and I've since moved my company to Nevada. But then, that just proves the point about American mobility and state government competition.

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#196

Post by reaperducer »

abalone wrote: post #126
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with states competing with each other. If one state has poor schools then companies won't want to be there because they won't be able to find competent employees. If one state has no government healthcare subsidies then employees there will demand higher wages so they can pay for healthcare. The states that have better schools and more subsidies will have correspondingly higher taxes. The only…

> Pressure to eliminate them is good and the state that best eliminates them wins This is nonsense. By this logic, corporate pressure to eliminate environmental regulations is "good" because they are "ineffective programs". You assume, wrongly, that the benefits of public investment realize themselves within a timeframe that matters to the bottom lines of individual corporations. In reality, markets reward short-term…

You assume, wrongly, that corporate pressure is the only pressure that governments face.

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#197

Post by dpatru »

fulafel wrote: post #59
colechristensen wrote: post #24

These are property tax abatements. I don't see the big deal. Apple has to pay the property tax equal to the farmland for the next 20 years instead of the much higher tax on the datacenter property. Who cares? Unless someone is arguing the datacenter is going to use a lot of tax funded city services (police? fire? ... ?), Waukee isn't giving Apple anything. On top of that Apple is pledging to give them $100M for vario…

Companies are supposed to pay taxes so we can have schools, healthcare, basic income etc. When they bid countries or states against each other to get tax breaks and governments play the game, citizens lose. Yes, it happens in other cases too, and citizens should also protest against those other cases.

> Companies are supposed to pay taxes so we can have schools, healthcare, basic income etc.

This is just government-enabled theft. Politicians promise people "free" stuff that is extracted by threat of violence from someone else.

Companies provide services that their customers choose to pay for. Profitable companies provide services efficiently so that everyone involved (customers, owners, employees) are better off. Their existence is a social good because profitable companies make everyone better off without coercion. They embody peaceful cooperation and civilization. They are not "supposed to pay taxes", except in the mind of politicians who seek to increase their own power and wealth by appealing to the envy and covetousness of their voters.

If you want something, make it yourself or get it from others through peaceful cooperation. Do not take it by force from someone else, either personally or through a proxy (government).

Edit: I realize that a world without coercion and violence is an ideal that will not be realized, but I think we should be trying to bring it about anyway. This means promoting peaceful exchange (free markets, private companies) and discouraging coercion and theft (government).

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#198

Post by tacomonstrous »

KekDemaga wrote: post #180
tacomonstrous wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you made the parent's point for them. Your parents are moving, yes, but only after they're no longer part of the labor force.

I live in PA on the border of NJ and I worked in NJ while I was looking to buy my house. Buying in NJ would of cut my commute at the time by 45 minutes each way but the property taxes were nearly $600 a month compared to under $1300 a year in PA for a similar home (the PA home is in a better neighborhood and isn't a townhouse as well). I made the choice to buy in PA then after a year or so found a PA job. NJ just doe…

Not everyone lives close enough to a state line to relocate without changing jobs though. I personally live in a different state than my job, though not for tax purposes. It's possible to do this in the Northeast, but in few other places.

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#199

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kasey_junk wrote: post #189
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My assumption is that states operate in a competitive environment. The ones that respect their own self interests will succeed. The ones that don't will fail.

But states (at least in the USA) can't fail as they are back stopped by the federal government. So failed states become a drain on everyone & at the same time the most economically challenged within the state pay the brunt of that failure as they cant move.

> But states (at least in the USA) can't fail as they are back stopped by the federal government.

No they aren't. A failing state doesn't look like Mad Max, it looks like Michigan or West Virginia or Mississippi. The federal government has no constitutional obligation to bail them out.

> So failed states become a drain on everyone & at the same time the most economically challenged within the state pay the brunt of that failure as they cant move.

The risk of failure is the price of success. Either states make their own decisions and take their own lumps, or we have some Borg Collective mandatory national conformity to complex corruption-informed uniform regulations with 2000% bureaucratic overhead.

Example: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/

Re: Iowa's handout to Apple illustrates the folly of corporate welfare deals

#200

Post by Retric »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #199
kasey_junk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But states (at least in the USA) can't fail as they are back stopped by the federal government. So failed states become a drain on everyone & at the same time the most economically challenged within the state pay the brunt of that failure as they cant move.

> But states (at least in the USA) can't fail as they are back stopped by the federal government. No they aren't. A failing state doesn't look like Mad Max, it looks like Michigan or West Virginia or Mississippi. The federal government has no constitutional obligation to bail them out. > So failed states become a drain on everyone & at the same time the most economically challenged within the state pay the brunt of t…

If you compare inflow vs outflow of federal funds, WV and Mississippi are being bailed out. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...

Michigan actually does not look bad on a wide range of metrics. It's unemployment rate is right at the national average and it get about as much money from the federal government as it gives back. People pay attention to it because it's close to average not because it's failing.

EX: "Michigan's poverty rate dropped 0.4 percentage points to 15.8 percent last year but the nation saw a bigger drop of 0.8 percentage points to 14.7 percent."

Post reply on HN