5 ms·

Welfare is awesome when it's gifted to multi billion dollar corporations, I guess.

by parfe 11y ago

mc32 11y ago
That'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 ago
  Attracting 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      The 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...
  - mc32 11y ago
    It's not the 800 but the other things that those 800 bring and represent. What do you propose to do? Forbid them from moving to MA, forbid MA from attracting employers? Maybe just allow them to move to Geneva or Dublin.
    - wavefunction 11y ago
      They can't afford Geneva, Dublin more likely. As for your RFP: just don't do anything. You want to move here? Welcome. You don't. No big deal. That's $181,250 per employee in tax-benefits. I'd be interested to hear what you think those 800 people "bring and represent" other than another screwing of tax-payers for the benefit of corporations.
      - ChrisLomont 11y ago
        800 probably well paid employees, that buy houses, who pay property tax, who pay local income tax, who pay for local restaurants, entertainment, and other items, a company that will hire from the local region, that will need services and provide revenue for many other local businesses. And this is just after 3 seconds thought. Another 3 seconds will likely reveal more.
        s73v3r 11y ago
        Another 3 seconds will reveal that your thinking is similar to the justification used for spending public money on stadiums, and giving tax breaks for movie filming. Both of which have been proven to have negative effects on the local economies.
    - gherkin0 11y ago
- parfe 11y ago
  The subsidy gives GE a competitive advantage over their competition on every contract they bid on, every hire they offer a salary to, every item they sell on the open market. GE can operate below the margin a fairly competing company operates at, forcing them out of business. The government picked a winner and created losers.
  - mc32 11y ago
    That's pennies considering their annual CoGS ecpenses and revenue. It's not nothing, but its unlikely to figure into any pricing.
    - parfe 11y ago
      Convenient how they managed to get a handout so large it convinced them to move their international headquarters, yet so small it doesn't negatively affect their competition.
      - mc32 11y ago
        Long term strategy, leases, access to workforce, business climate, etc. The money isn't nothing, but its also not a lot of money considering the size. It's the equivalent of a sandwich shop selling $1,000,000 in yearly revenue worth of $8 sandwiches getting an $850 break on rent or taxes per year allowing half a penny in savings per sandwich served. Wow that really kills the competition.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "I'm not advocating that states should race to the bottom, but they should race to the bottom." If a state is competitive, then it should be able to be competitive without giving away sweetheart tax deals.
mikestew 11y ago
I recall (meaning, I can't substantiate this) some years ago that someone concluded that corporate welfare (this included sports stadiums) ended up being a net loss in most cases. Sure wish I knew where to even start to find that.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Stadiums: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-b... http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/Full-Text100.pdf http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/Full-...
  - TTPrograms 11y ago
    Stadiums are a clear loss for the local economy, but isn't it totally different from a company like this with many high payed employees paying income tax, as well as demand for local prototyping / consulting services?
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > Stadiums are a clear loss for the local economy, but isn't it totally different from a company like this with many high payed employees paying income tax, as well as demand for local prototyping / consulting services? Yes, but from my understanding, the scenario you outlined does not exist (net benefit from tax incentives). Example: Nevada has no income tax. The only benefits it'll see from the Tesla Gigafactory is any sales tax from the purchasing of manufacturing equipment for the location, and the trickle down from the economic activity from the workers who relocate to work there. I only used Tesla as an example because it was fresh in my mind, and you asked about income tax, which Nevada doesn't have.
      - TTPrograms 11y ago
        MA has income tax.
rayiner 11y ago
Welfare is awesome when it brings to your state pretty much the only thing voters care about: jobs.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  But that same welfare could be used other ways to create jobs. For example infrastructure jobs. Go spend $200m upgrading the state's infrastructure, that will require many jobs. Or heck go start a startup incubator program. I bet you can get a lot of value out of that even if just to help new businesses cover the cost of a business license and to navigate employment law for their first few employees. There's a bunch of ways to create jobs with a boat load of money, giving it to a corporation that barely pays taxes as is is not one of the better ways.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > a corporation that barely pays taxes I'm unsure how this really matters in regards to GE HQ relocation? They pay 100% of the taxes they are legally obligated to pay - if you're unhappy with that amount, change the laws. But lets not pretend they're an evil corporation solely on the grounds of them not paying more taxes. It's not somehow patriotic to pay more in taxes than you legally owe.
    - yequalsx 11y ago
      Well, consider regulatory capture. In such an environment your view is incorrect. I believe we are in such an environment.
      - Alupis 11y ago
        > regulatory capture ... I believe we are in such an environment I think we'll have to disagree on this. I don't see any signs or evidence that Boston politicians are cozying up with GE executives for kick-backs and what-not.
        11y ago

Welfare is awesome when it's gifted to multi billion dollar corporations, I guess.

by parfe 11y ago

Welfare is awesome when it's gifted to multi billion dollar corporations, I guess.

mc32 11y ago

That'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 ago
Attracting 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    The 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...
- mc32 11y ago
  It's not the 800 but the other things that those 800 bring and represent. What do you propose to do? Forbid them from moving to MA, forbid MA from attracting employers? Maybe just allow them to move to Geneva or Dublin.
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    They can't afford Geneva, Dublin more likely. As for your RFP: just don't do anything. You want to move here? Welcome. You don't. No big deal. That's $181,250 per employee in tax-benefits. I'd be interested to hear what you think those 800 people "bring and represent" other than another screwing of tax-payers for the benefit of corporations.
    - ChrisLomont 11y ago
      800 probably well paid employees, that buy houses, who pay property tax, who pay local income tax, who pay for local restaurants, entertainment, and other items, a company that will hire from the local region, that will need services and provide revenue for many other local businesses. And this is just after 3 seconds thought. Another 3 seconds will likely reveal more.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        Another 3 seconds will reveal that your thinking is similar to the justification used for spending public money on stadiums, and giving tax breaks for movie filming. Both of which have been proven to have negative effects on the local economies.
  - gherkin0 11y ago
parfe 11y ago
The subsidy gives GE a competitive advantage over their competition on every contract they bid on, every hire they offer a salary to, every item they sell on the open market. GE can operate below the margin a fairly competing company operates at, forcing them out of business. The government picked a winner and created losers.
- mc32 11y ago
  That's pennies considering their annual CoGS ecpenses and revenue. It's not nothing, but its unlikely to figure into any pricing.
  - parfe 11y ago
    Convenient how they managed to get a handout so large it convinced them to move their international headquarters, yet so small it doesn't negatively affect their competition.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Long term strategy, leases, access to workforce, business climate, etc. The money isn't nothing, but its also not a lot of money considering the size. It's the equivalent of a sandwich shop selling $1,000,000 in yearly revenue worth of $8 sandwiches getting an $850 break on rent or taxes per year allowing half a penny in savings per sandwich served. Wow that really kills the competition.
s73v3r 11y ago
"I'm not advocating that states should race to the bottom, but they should race to the bottom." If a state is competitive, then it should be able to be competitive without giving away sweetheart tax deals.

mikestew 11y ago

I recall (meaning, I can't substantiate this) some years ago that someone concluded that corporate welfare (this included sports stadiums) ended up being a net loss in most cases. Sure wish I knew where to even start to find that.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Stadiums: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-b... http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/Full-Text100.pdf http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/cromptonrpts/files/2011/06/Full-...
- TTPrograms 11y ago
  Stadiums are a clear loss for the local economy, but isn't it totally different from a company like this with many high payed employees paying income tax, as well as demand for local prototyping / consulting services?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > Stadiums are a clear loss for the local economy, but isn't it totally different from a company like this with many high payed employees paying income tax, as well as demand for local prototyping / consulting services? Yes, but from my understanding, the scenario you outlined does not exist (net benefit from tax incentives). Example: Nevada has no income tax. The only benefits it'll see from the Tesla Gigafactory is any sales tax from the purchasing of manufacturing equipment for the location, and the trickle down from the economic activity from the workers who relocate to work there. I only used Tesla as an example because it was fresh in my mind, and you asked about income tax, which Nevada doesn't have.
    - TTPrograms 11y ago
      MA has income tax.

rayiner 11y ago

Welfare is awesome when it brings to your state pretty much the only thing voters care about: jobs.

Someone1234 11y ago
But that same welfare could be used other ways to create jobs. For example infrastructure jobs. Go spend $200m upgrading the state's infrastructure, that will require many jobs. Or heck go start a startup incubator program. I bet you can get a lot of value out of that even if just to help new businesses cover the cost of a business license and to navigate employment law for their first few employees. There's a bunch of ways to create jobs with a boat load of money, giving it to a corporation that barely pays taxes as is is not one of the better ways.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > a corporation that barely pays taxes I'm unsure how this really matters in regards to GE HQ relocation? They pay 100% of the taxes they are legally obligated to pay - if you're unhappy with that amount, change the laws. But lets not pretend they're an evil corporation solely on the grounds of them not paying more taxes. It's not somehow patriotic to pay more in taxes than you legally owe.
  - yequalsx 11y ago
    Well, consider regulatory capture. In such an environment your view is incorrect. I believe we are in such an environment.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      > regulatory capture ... I believe we are in such an environment I think we'll have to disagree on this. I don't see any signs or evidence that Boston politicians are cozying up with GE executives for kick-backs and what-not.
      - 11y ago