4 ms·

$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

by 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
  There's a third option: forbid states and municipalities from offering incentives to individual organizations like this. If the company wants to move to a location (or stay at one) to be there, fine; but it shouldn't move (or stay) because that location gave it the best bribe.
  - mc32 11y ago
    It's an incentive, not a bribe. No one is secretly getting money illegally. I think governments should be able to make a calculus as to whether something like this will benefit their constituency. This is not PR or high profile loss leader or trophy white elephant or other gimmick like the olympics or new stadiums. This is a bet on the company improving the local economy attracting other employers, competitors, increasing competition for employees, etc. If I lived in MA I'd be all for this, just like SF bet on twitter reviving mid-Markt street --which it has.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Forbid them from giving sweetheart tax deals. Which is NOT forbidding them from attracting employers.
qmalzp 11y ago
That works out to $180k per employee. If average income per employee is $100k, at a 5% state income tax rate, it would take 36 years to make back the money.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Under the theory that Boston and MA bear zero costs. Which is certainly untrue.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  There's the added costs for those additional people in terms of traffic congestion, schools, and other services. There's also the lack of a guarantee that GE will stay long enough, or that they won't demand an even bigger tax break when this one expires.

by x0x0 11y ago

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
There's a third option: forbid states and municipalities from offering incentives to individual organizations like this. If the company wants to move to a location (or stay at one) to be there, fine; but it shouldn't move (or stay) because that location gave it the best bribe.
- mc32 11y ago
  It's an incentive, not a bribe. No one is secretly getting money illegally. I think governments should be able to make a calculus as to whether something like this will benefit their constituency. This is not PR or high profile loss leader or trophy white elephant or other gimmick like the olympics or new stadiums. This is a bet on the company improving the local economy attracting other employers, competitors, increasing competition for employees, etc. If I lived in MA I'd be all for this, just like SF bet on twitter reviving mid-Markt street --which it has.
s73v3r 11y ago
Forbid them from giving sweetheart tax deals. Which is NOT forbidding them from attracting employers.

qmalzp 11y ago

That works out to $180k per employee. If average income per employee is $100k, at a 5% state income tax rate, it would take 36 years to make back the money.

x0x0 11y ago
Under the theory that Boston and MA bear zero costs. Which is certainly untrue.
s73v3r 11y ago
There's the added costs for those additional people in terms of traffic congestion, schools, and other services. There's also the lack of a guarantee that GE will stay long enough, or that they won't demand an even bigger tax break when this one expires.