5 ms·
I don't dispute that point - however, investment in a company that can't turn a profit by a magnitude of $750 million of our tax dollars and area doesn't seem t
by JohnStudio 9y ago
I don't dispute that point - however, investment in a company that can't turn a profit by a magnitude of $750 million of our tax dollars and area doesn't seem to be a wise use of dollars. That's really my overarching concern. There's no real benefit to the local economy, so why do it? That's my business mind, not my political mind on what's good or not for the environment. In the end it's tax dollars (rather high at that) that I'm putting directly into these incentives .. asking for some better investment is all.
- GiorgioG 9y ago> There's no real benefit to the local economy, so why do it? You're assuming the politicians have the area's best interest at heart. Start by thinking - what's in it for them? Good press for bringing in a nationally recognized brand to the area. Maybe campaign contributions from said company. Maybe you get thrown some more campaign contributions from the construction companies that get work out of the deal.
- zardo 9y agoThe reality is, the companies have all the cards in these deals. They have more information, better information processing, and critically, they have options. Keep in mind the opportunity cost for these deals. Cut the company a tax break, or continue to not collect taxes on a vacant lot. If Buffalo actually brought cash to the table... that was quite a gamble.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- methodin 9y agoWhat does profitability have to do with an investment to bring a company to a region? I've never heard of a profit-sharing agreement between a company and city/local government.
- m3kw9 9y agoOr you can say there are many way worse investments. This is actually a company that demonstrate they can make things work and have a record for deliveries