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

171–180 of 242 posts

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

#171

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #155
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they can't even start families? You say that like it's a bad thing. Humanity is a plague, we breed uncontrolled and our population keeps growing and growing. There is no need for anyone to start a family, there is no shortage of humans.

Would the people who down-vote care to explain why they support unbounded population growth ? That would be great.

Your premise is that anyone having children at all is equivalent to unbounded population growth. If literally everyone stopped having children, humans would obviously become extinct.

Moreover, it is generally considered a sound principle that successful professionals should be encouraged to have children. Whatever combination of genes, knowledge and resources allowed them to become successful themselves is more likely to lead to a successful next generation. And high income earners are more likely to accept paying taxes to fund good schools and other programs for children if they have their own children to make use of them.

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

#172

Post by Aaargh20318 »

turk183 wrote: post #159
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the people who down-vote care to explain why they support unbounded population growth ? That would be great.

I read things all the time that espouse the benefits of large families and how important it is to keep society fit by having more children. It's like they want to keep the Ponzi going by adding more and more people. It's quite clear, especially in places like China, India, and Indonesia that runaway population growth is incredibly destructive to the environment. If government and taxation and retirement systems requi…

> If government and taxation and retirement systems require more and more population in order to operate successfully it's all coming down at some point.

Yup. And the longer you wait to fix it, the more painful it's going to be.

It also seems like most people are driven purely by instinct, the moment you even suggest they shouldn't breed like rabbits it's regarded as the most offensive thing you could possibly say. It's weird, I don't see how they suggest we keep going. When should we stop ? 10 billion, 15 billion ? Or just wait until society collapses and we go extinct ?

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

#173

Post by cabalamat »

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…

> 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?

Let's say I have a house or small business. Do I get a property tax abatement? If I don't, Apple shouldn't either. Big corporations should pay their fair share of taxes.

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

#174

Post by [deleted] »

dahdum wrote: post #128
MattSteelblade wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a combination of cash payments and tax exemptions. http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/16/how-w...

But the cash is a refund of employee payroll taxes and other benefits derived from Foxconn's investment isn't it? It's a sweet deal for Foxconn but I still don't see where the rest of the state actually pays out. I could be reading it wrong of course, but that was the impression of the EITM zone I had.

[deleted]

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

#175

Post by zdkl »

cabalamat wrote: post #173
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…

> 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? Let's say I have a house or small business. Do I get a property tax abatement? If I don't, Apple shouldn't either. Big corporations should pay their fair share of taxes.

The other side of this debate is that as a small business, if you find a municipality willing to deal with you in terms favourable to your business, you'd be a fool not to work with them.

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

#176

Post by nogbit »

jdhn wrote: post #154
murph-almighty wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, although Seattle is working hard to change that. Just curious- how does Washington get funding without income tax?

I would assume through sales tax & property taxes.

Very high sales tax and very high propety tax. No worries, governments will always want more money and more time, we will be just like California before long.

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

#177

Post by tacomonstrous »

murph-almighty wrote: post #153
lumberjack wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 But they'll move across borders because of the effects of politics. My parents are looking to move from NJ after they retire due to the high tax obligation- not just income, but gasoline, tolls and property taxes as well. It's more tolerable when you're working but a little less so when your income stream isn't as high.

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.

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

#178

Post by gragas »

bb88 wrote: post #103

Iowa is a very short sighted state. On one hand they're trying to be this tech savvy state by bringing in Apple and Google data centers, on the other hand getting decent broad band is terrible in all the rural parts of the state. So they did what any conservative state would do and relied upon the free market to get them high speed bandwidth. And that's not been real successful. So they had to subsidize it. From this…

I'm glad we're not a tech savvy state.

A huge portion of the people I've met in tech are class-A douche bags. They are obsessed with salary, or the fact that they work for X instead of Y. They are extremely elitist.

All of my friends who went to high school in the Bay Area have classmates who killed themselves over (lack of) prestige.

You won't see any of that in Iowa. It is a much more honest place. People work hard but aren't obsessed with where you want to college or how much money you make.

I would be genuinely sad if Apple or Google opened a SWE location in Iowa. The culture is basically the antithesis of the old Midwest.

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

#179

Post by selimthegrim »

jdhn wrote: post #154
murph-almighty wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, although Seattle is working hard to change that. Just curious- how does Washington get funding without income tax?

I would assume through sales tax & property taxes.

WA has an extremely complicated business tax on receipts where you have to throw a dart and guess which category your takings fall under.

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

#180

Post by KekDemaga »

tacomonstrous wrote: post #177
murph-almighty wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People just aren't going to move across borders because of politics But they'll move across borders because of the effects of politics. My parents are looking to move from NJ after they retire due to the high tax obligation- not just income, but gasoline, tolls and property taxes as well. It's more tolerable when you're working but a little less so when your income stream isn't as high.

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 does not provide much value for your tax dollar and I imagine many other people make the choice I made every day.
Post reply on HN