51–60 of 180 posts
So glad we didn't have another public circus to select the destination cities. This is how the Amazon process should've gone. And good for Austin, it's a great city with a lot of tech talent, glad to see it grow.
Big corps love to brag about "adding jobs", but don't like to brag about the "tax incentives" they are getting. There are usually huge costs for the whole community. Austin tax incentives for Apple seem to be relatively small [1], but Foxconn factory in Wisconsin is an extreme case. I highly recommend the Replay All podcast episode on this [2][3] [1] https://www.statesman.com/news/20120901/austin-council-oks-8... [2]…
it's weird to frame net new revenue as a "huge cost the whole community" Taking less money from someone who is building a business in your area is not a cost. They have a choice on where to build, and tax burden is one of many factors in that choice.
Its the same in the EU where Ireland had very low CGT - that's one reason Google has a big office there - access to an educated English speaking work force is another
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new people will be paying sales taxes, property taxes and state income taxes.
Though usually not enough to make up the difference in incentives. If we take the Amazon NY incentives at face value, each employee needs to pay $25k in taxes to make up the difference just on the initial tax break alone. That doesn’t count extra expenditures for expanded public transportation or nearby development. That’s also if amazon hires the proposed 40k new employees on day one, which they won’t. There’s a goo…
And the state and NYC preying in aid the problems with its tube system is deeply cynical, maybe try to be 1 less corrupt and competent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's weird to frame net new revenue as a "huge cost the whole community" Taking less money from someone who is building a business in your area is not a cost. They have a choice on where to build, and tax burden is one of many factors in that choice.
And many states in the US compete in the same way eg the states that have much lower state income taxes its ok for them. Its the same in the EU where Ireland had very low CGT - that's one reason Google has a big office there - access to an educated English speaking work force is another
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being downvoted, but nobody is engaging with the sensible points that you're making. While viewing these in the lens of a corporate handout, it is definitely a practice that deserves a close look, pretending that entire state governmental bodies in the US are acting outside of their own best interest (both fiscally and politically) deserves a conversation
Like people, states might decide to form a union to increase prosperity for their citizens by bargaining with corporations as a collective. It makes it more difficult for adversaries to overpower individual states in a union. This could consist of an obligation to uphold revenue (taxes) which is used to provide certain living standards (e.g. medical expenses, feeding grandma, etc...) through a social guarantee. How d…
Why do you think BT has a big engineering presence in all 4 parts of the UK? or why the BBC was forced to move to Manchester
Big corps love to brag about "adding jobs", but don't like to brag about the "tax incentives" they are getting. There are usually huge costs for the whole community. Austin tax incentives for Apple seem to be relatively small [1], but Foxconn factory in Wisconsin is an extreme case. I highly recommend the Replay All podcast episode on this [2][3] [1] https://www.statesman.com/news/20120901/austin-council-oks-8... [2]…
it's weird to frame net new revenue as a "huge cost the whole community" Taking less money from someone who is building a business in your area is not a cost. They have a choice on where to build, and tax burden is one of many factors in that choice.
So - any idea just where they’ll KUT the expansion? The domain is too far away, right?
[1]: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2018/12/13/appl...
[2]: https://www.google.com/maps/search/Corporate+Campus/@30.4347...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's weird to frame net new revenue as a "huge cost the whole community" Taking less money from someone who is building a business in your area is not a cost. They have a choice on where to build, and tax burden is one of many factors in that choice.
I see what you're saying, but, to paraphrase the article, giving a billion dollar company an 8.6 million tax break when you're shutting down social programmes can be a tough pill to swallow. On a parallel note, I'd like to underline just how good the tech giant has it. Since it can move anywhere, you have to give it excessive gifts for him to come to you. So the giant gets those rewards, simply because he's a giant.
This acts as a check on just how much of a tax break a municipality is able to give them, as public funds are needed to support that infrastructure. Austin, Seattle and Culver City seem to be striking the right balance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the choice either. How about no tax breaks for companies, we enforce existing corporate taxes on those companies, and we raise the marginal income tax rate on very high earning individuals?
At the state and local level, that just means companies will leave your state and go somewhere else. In a globalized world, the same thing is true for countries. There is a reason France has an effective 11% corporate tax rate: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the... (Chart 2). If you want to pay for the safety net, do what Europe does and tax middle class people who can't just move to a lower…
>Only about 2.4% of US-based millionaires change their state of residence in a given year. Interstate migration is actually more common among the US middle class, and almost twice as common among its poorest residents, who have an annual interstate migration rate of 4.5%.
Companies follow people, not the other way around.