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

Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 196 posts

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#181

Post by refurb »

cma wrote: post #93
refurb wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. People this it’s a choice between: A) company moves here pays $0 in tax or B) company moves here and pays $5M in tax. When in reality it’s a choice between: A) company comes here and pays $0 in tax or B) company doesn’t come here and net taxes are still $0

We have a coordinating union of states though, we don't need states to be pitted against each other to subsidize existing wealthy owners.

That seems like a ridiculous idea. The very purpose of the states is “50 different experiments”. I want states pitted against each other.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#182

Post by refurb »

eigen wrote: post #156
refurb wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. People this it’s a choice between: A) company moves here pays $0 in tax or B) company moves here and pays $5M in tax. When in reality it’s a choice between: A) company comes here and pays $0 in tax or B) company doesn’t come here and net taxes are still $0

According to [1], its: A) company comes here and pays $0 in tax. and city "took on hundreds of millions in debt that was supposed to be repaid by property taxes". B) company doesn’t come here and net taxes are still $0. city doesnt take on more debt. B looks better. [1] https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...

No offense but if a city can’t negotiate a decent agreement they kind of deserve to get screwed on it.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#183

Post by 8note »

tfehring wrote: post #129

For comparison: - The deal negotiated by former governor Scott Walker was expected to cost taxpayers between $172k and $290k in government funding per job created. [0] - $80 million for 1,454 employees, the provisions of the updated deal per TFA, is $55k each. - The US average cost of similar programs is $24k. [0] It's not obvious whether this is a good deal, but unlike the original it's not obviously a bad deal. [0]…

Hopefully those jobs pay more than 55k to the employed, and the government is doing better than just paying people to set up their own factory

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#184

Post by 8note »

hayst4ck wrote: post #164
hnworthing wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Terry Guo briefly ran for president of the Republic of China. I have reservations about Foxconn too, but I’m not sure I understand why this bit is relevant. The Republic of China = Taiwan, a US ally. (Mainland China is the People’s Republic of China). This is akin to Bloomberg running for president. Also it’s Terry Gou and not Guo.

My understanding is that he ran under KMT, which is the much more China friendly party.

I wouldn't fault a Canadian prime Minister for running with a US friendly platform.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#185

Post by jryle70 »

evgen wrote: post #158
stevehawk wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people keep downvoting this sentiment. Cities have two options: (1) Attract a business that wouldn't otherwise come, which when it exists will attract more people that pay state/local sales taxes and increase demand for property, which in turn increases property price, which increases property taxes. (2) Don't attract the business. . . .. nothing comes after that.

And once again the law of the excluded middle strikes. No, the only two options are not the ones you suggest. The other option, that you conveniently ignore, is that cities build a good infrastructure that attracts talent and the businesses come to either serve the talent or employ the talent -- no subsidy needed. By now there must be entire libraries, or at least large warehouses, filled with case studies from HBS a…

> The other option, that you conveniently ignore, is that cities build a good infrastructure that attracts talent and the businesses come to either serve the talent or employ the talent -- no subsidy needed.

How do cities pay for that good infrastructure? either with tax revenue or debt (bond). Very often cities want to attract businesses precisely because their commercial base is in decline, with very little room to hike tax. As for debt, such a city may have low credit score making it hard to get loans, or being saddled with high interest rate.

Giving incentive to businesses allows them to stabilize long term revenue, at the same time adding local jobs. That's the theory. The reality of course include both good and bad examples of such scheme. Foxconn is a bad example.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#186

Post by Jordrok »

mbg721 wrote: post #168
api wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a speculation that some fraction of the tech-libertarian crowd likes him precisely because he was a dumpster fire. He helps discredit the state. Keep electing candidates of that quality and seasteading schemes start looking attractive.

Trump's appeal is precisely that he's the worst candidate apart from all the others, and the opposition keeps proving his point. Plenty of people would have preferred a non-dumpster-fire conservative, but didn't get to pick. Meanwhile, Biden was nominated purely to be an easy mouthpiece for the DNC, (certainly not on his record for race and crime issues,) but had every corporate and media voice possible behind him.

This is such a lame excuse. In 2016 there were 16 other candidates in the primary, and 4 in 2020. Literally every single one of them would have been a better choice. If all else fails, you don't vote. Don't pretend like there weren't options.

Self-righteously holding your nose and voting for a dumpster fire is still voting for a dumpster fire.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#187

Post by hayst4ck »

8note wrote: post #184
hayst4ck wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that he ran under KMT, which is the much more China friendly party.

I wouldn't fault a Canadian prime Minister for running with a US friendly platform.

Why? Is geography or military danger the key element, economic deals, or easy borders?

Taiwan is a vibrant liberal democracy that feels very western. China is a fascist ethnostate.

China is threatening Taiwan's ability to self determine with military force, economic sanctions, and any other means of coercion at their disposal. China has demonstrated it's bad faith via denial of 1 country 2 systems, as well as a pineapple (miliworms) and pineapple cake (ractopamine) ban done clearly in bad faith (not for the reason stated).

The equivalence you have made is absolutely false. The relationship between Taiwan and China, the relationship between foxconn and china, and the releationship between Terry, the KMT, China, and the US, are all quite complicated.

Above it was claimed that Foxconn/Terry are Taiwanese and therefore American Allies, but Foxconn's business is primarily conducted in China and the KMT are definitely the party that China is aiming to corrupt Taiwan's leadership through. It's complicated.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#188

Post by mannerheim »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #120
altendo wrote: post #61

I am always struck at the amount that states and municipalities are willing to write off in order to attract companies. On one hand, I understand that companies want to take the best deal, but on the other hand, at times local governments are willing to give up so much money in tax revenue. I remember reading about the competitions for Google Fiber and Amazon's second HQ - it felt absurd the amount cities and states…

you cant "give up" tax revenue you haven't collected

You certainly can if it's property taxes. Someone's going to own the land either way, so offering property tax incentives is giving up tax revenue.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#190

Post by mbg721 »

Jordrok wrote: post #186
mbg721 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's appeal is precisely that he's the worst candidate apart from all the others, and the opposition keeps proving his point. Plenty of people would have preferred a non-dumpster-fire conservative, but didn't get to pick. Meanwhile, Biden was nominated purely to be an easy mouthpiece for the DNC, (certainly not on his record for race and crime issues,) but had every corporate and media voice possible behind him.

This is such a lame excuse. In 2016 there were 16 other candidates in the primary, and 4 in 2020. Literally every single one of them would have been a better choice. If all else fails, you don't vote. Don't pretend like there weren't options. Self-righteously holding your nose and voting for a dumpster fire is still voting for a dumpster fire.

I'm not so sure they all would have been better. Republican voters are wary of candidates who get into an establishment position and then abandon conservative policy--for all of Trump's personal ills, most of his voters were pretty happy with him from a policy standpoint. If you know that your party's nominee is going to be vilified by the media regardless, it does make some sense to pick one who's not going to waste time trying in vain to be likeable.
Post reply on HN