7 ms·
GE will move headquarters to Boston
- tmaly 11y agoConnecticut has been very anti-business since governor Malloy came into office. GE moving will be a huge loss to the local economy.
- Someone1234 11y agoI'm sure this had nothing to do with it: > Massachusetts and Boston officials said Wednesday they had offered incentives valued at as much as $145 million to lure the company to the city. The package included as much as $25 million in property-tax relief. Essentially Boston just drove a wheelbarrow full of money up to GE's front door and said "Want this?" and Connecticut couldn't match it. So by being "anti-business" what you mean to say is: "Didn't give away tons of tax payer's money to a private corporation." I'd prefer Connecticut to use money that would have gone to GE to generate other jobs, for example pay people to upgrade the state's infrastructure. GE gets enough tax breaks and government subsidies as is.
- mbowcock 11y agoGE chose to leave Connecticut because of a tax increase on profits made in other states by corporate subsidiaries. They're not the only corporation in Connecticut that's unhappy about the tax. Anti-business or not, it's not exactly a draw for corporations with subsidiaries across the country. The money that Boston threw at them was to keep them from moving to New York.
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago> So by being "anti-business" what you mean to say is: "Didn't give away tons of tax payer's money to a private corporation." Actually, Connecticut only succeeds at maintaining huge corporations relying on government subsidies. Hartford, CT is the country's insurance capitol. The reason the state is so "anti-business" is precisely because they give a bunch of taxpayer's money to publicly-traded mega corporations. The income and property tax cost this saddles on normal taxpayers and small businesses is enormous, and they get very little benefit from it.
- gwright 11y agoThat and the fact that the CT government payroll/benefits expenditures are out of control. Lots of reasons for this but public sector unions and their relationship with politicians (in both parties) plays a big part.
- tmaly 11y agoThey gave us the income tax, and it was supposed to be a temporary thing. We still have it many years later. Spending in CT is out of control. They keep revising the deficit as they use too many rosy assumptions in their budget projections.
- jrlocke 11y agoAs a software engineer in Boston this only confirms my feelings that we are a world leader in innovation. I'm looking forwards the the smart people that this will bring to my great city.
- epoxyhockey 11y agoI'm looking forwards the the smart people [...] I'm not sure that a corporate headquarters is going to bring the kind of people you're assuming that it will bring into Boston. Also, perhaps this win will offset the impending EMC layoffs. It's a good way for a politician to say they are doing something about the state jobs market, even though the package being offered to GE seems very generous and costly.
- eewffwe 11y agoI imagine this will do little but raise housing rates.
- joezydeco 11y agoChicago checking in. We've had a number of corporations move their HQ to downtown and it's done nothing for the job market. Boeing has been here 15 years now.
- progressive_dad 11y agoWell have I got some sweet news for you then: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160111/BLOGS02/160119985/chicago-snares-another-corporate-hq http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160111/BLOGS02/1601...
- joezydeco 11y agoI wonder if they'll close and sell off the Barrington property. That alone will probably pay for the buildout of the downtown offices.
- HillRat 11y agoMy take is that corporate HQs are the equivalent of a major league sports team (though orders of magnitude better for the economy than another stadium). You get a relatively small number of employees and some prestige, but not a lot of secondary industry compared to what production facilities generate -- or used to, anyway. Economic development's a tough game these days; the rules have changed and no one's really sure what the new ones are.
- parfe 11y agoWelfare is awesome when it's gifted to multi billion dollar corporations, I guess.
- mc32 11y agoThat's one way to see it. Another way to see it is MA competing with CT for an employer who would bring employment opportunities to the local economies. It's like NV competing with CA for the gigafactory in the hopes it would jumpstart a more technology oriented economy in the area. CT nor CA should have a monopoly on a company. I'm not advocating that states should race to the bottom, but they should be able to attract employers, else they are not keeping their citizens interests' in mind.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoAttracting employers is at least a goal; but, states should not discriminate in order to achieve their goals. Why does GE get special treatment (at everyone else's expense)?
- mc32 11y agoI think they should discriminate. Why should MA try to attract a company in a dying industry? No, I think they should attract companies which fit into their future vision coupled with the characteristics of their present and predicted future workforce. In other words, think ambitiously and progressively.
- yequalsx 11y agoThe tax breaks and special treatment chase states to compete with each other. It's a race to the bottom. It becomes a question of which state is willing to make its citizens sacrifice the most. It is sort like a feudal society.
- x0x0 11y ago$25m in free property tax from Boston and $120m in subsidies from the state for... (wait for it) 800 employees. I'm sure Boston/MA will be in the black on this well within our {great}^{999} grandkids' lifetimes...
- ecopoesis 11y agoThis is a terrible deal for Boston and the commonwealth. $145 million for 800 employees, or $181,250 per employee, in a state that can't even keep its public transportation system running. Thanks Governor Baker. Did this deal cost us just the Mattapan line? Or are we losing GLX too?
- Alupis 11y ago> $145 million for 800 employees, or $181,250 per employee It seems like a lot, but this is the corporate HQ. The staffers will be re-located and/or hired from the surrounding area - and surely will make nice salaries. Since these executives and other staffers will be living in the area (in large part), they'll put their salary right back into the local economy (buying groceries, cars, houses, paying bills, etc...). Most of those employees will put far more than the $181,250 back into the local/state economy over their tenure at GE.
- s73v3r 11y agoSo? Couldn't one say that about any large company? Should states be constantly cutting taxes for these large companies, and shoving them onto the people who live there now?
- cableshaft 11y agoIt's not too uncommon that cities or states have tax incentives to encourage certain industries to set up shop in the area. Like Atlanta offers a significant tax credit for film, television, and digital entertainment (video games) companies, for example: http://www.georgia.org/competitive-advantages/tax-credits/film-television-and-digital-entertainment/ http://www.georgia.org/competitive-advantages/tax-credits/fi...
- thoughtsimple 11y agoThese are some of the highest paid corporate officers. The state income tax will offset the cost in a few years.
- fredleblanc 11y ago
- thenipper 11y agoThe development of the Seaport/Fort Point area in Boston in the last 5-10 years is pretty crazy. My wife worked for John Hancock down there when we first started dating about a decade ago and there was nothing down there. Now I got to visit her at her job down there and I get lost half the time with all the new construction that is going up. Regarding GE the only people this will really impact is the smaller tech companies as I'm sure it'll jack up the office rents even more.
- languagehacker 11y agoOn the bright side, Boston has multiple industries there, so when they decide to move again, they won't fucking blight the place like they did to Schenectady
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- beambot 11y agoWhat about $180k/employee tax breaks for new startups? These wouldn't irk me so much... if they were applied similarly across the board rather than through backroom deals for megacorps. I'll leave the accounting ("Is this actually worthwhile for the city?") to others: How about equal treatment? I'd consider headquartering a startup in the major tech hubs if they made accommodations similar to what they give the big guys (as if they need it!).
- jkrejci 11y agoJack Donaghy will have none of this.
- gwright 11y agoI've always felt that these targeted tax incentives are in conflict with our notion of equality under the law, due process, and equal protection principles, and so on. Here is an interesting white paper in this regard, Corporate Tax Incentives and the Equal Protection Clause (http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/1FCB7D8DD2F4417485257A32006A2EE7?OpenDocument http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/1FCB7D8...)
- gwright 11y agoIf we construct a political environment where is is perfectly acceptable for the government to throw around favors valued at $100M and more, effectively tilting the economic playing field in favor of certain organizations, is it any surprise that these same organizations spend a lot of time and money trying to get the field to tilt in their favor?
- tmaly 11y agoCT loves to pass their budgets in special sessions at midnight when the public cannot see what is in the budget. It is the total opposite of transparency. And Malloy is hoping for a new job at the federal level.