7 ms·

I've never heard of anything like this. Is this common? (1) Let Foxconn discharge dredged materials or fill wetlands without a permit. The provision would appl

I've never heard of anything like this. Is this common? (1) Let Foxconn discharge dredged materials or fill wetlands without a permit. The provision would apply not only to wetlands Foxconn fills when it's constructing its 1.6 square mile complex, but also to wetlands it fills once its new facility is fully operational. (2) Exempt the company from another state law that requires businesses to create new wetlands when they get permits to fill existing ones. (3) Allow Foxconn to change the course of a stream, or straighten a stream without a permit. (4) Let Foxconn build on a lake or stream bed without a permit. (5) Sidestep a state law that requires environmental impact statements before businesses can begin construction. (6)Let public utility projects begin for the Foxconn complex without approval by the Public Service Commission. Also, Foxconn gets "refundable tax credits" -- does this mean state could end up paying FoxConn cash (not merely a break on taxes)? is this also common? I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs.

jrs235 9y ago
Interesting. What stops foxconn from inserting itself (and "selling" services) to buy a bit of land, fill in wetlands, change stream courses, build a lake, etc., then sell the "improved" land to another company? Maybe even begin construction of buildings to then be sold to someone else?
- tw04 9y ago
  Nothing. Scott Walker is one of the most openly corrupt politicians to ever stay in office. He probably has a back end deal with a"family friend" to make this happen.
  - jrs235 9y ago
    I can't wait to vote for the challengers of any one on my ballot that supported this foxconn bs. Also, the WEDC is a fucking joke. Talk about privatizing profits and socializing losses. The Republicans in this state are the biggest hypocrites, picking winners and losers. Free markets my ass. Makes my blood boil (and I tended to vote just right of aisle).
  - throwwwwaway9 9y ago
    or a gazillion dollar job with a company once he retires from the state job. Maybe not with Foxconn but with a supplier or client of theirs. Wink + nod=
  - martin1975 9y ago
    What evidence of corruption does anyone have that could put him away in jail for a long time?
    - jhiska 9y ago
      None, or they would have used it, but that doesn't stop people on the Internet from gossiping.
      - Posibyte 9y ago
        Corruption doesn't necessarily have to be illegal.
        martin1975 9y ago
        Like adultery, for instance, right?
  - robk 9y ago
    How's that?
SneakyMission 9y ago
> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs. They already do! It's called revenue.
- oarsinsync 9y ago
  >> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs. >They already do! It's called revenue. I give you a job. I pay you $500. You generate $100 of revenue. I'm pretty sure I just lost $400, you gained less than $400 after taxes, and the IRS gets to enjoy the spread. Edit: changed to reflect that there are more winners than just the IRS
  - jonathankoren 9y ago
    1. You're a bad employer, if you're losing $400 per employee, and deserve to be run out of business as per capitalistic market efficiency. 2. I just "won" $300.
    - oarsinsync 9y ago
      1. Agreed. 2. Agreed-ish. Assuming 40% tax, which seems high (unless you live in a country that has nationalised health care) 3. Neither of these things relate to being paid to create jobs. You're not wrong, you're just not on thread.
      - tonyarkles 9y ago
        Just for reference, 40% tax is still high for a country with nationalized health care (Canada): https://simpletax.ca/calculator https://simpletax.ca/calculator At $150k/yr, your marginal tax rate is close to 40%, but your overall tax rate is more like 31%. I'm in Saskatchewan, and every time I've played with different income levels, taking into account the exchange rate, we end up paying very similar amounts of all-in income tax, with ours including (most) health care. (Comparing with California)
        9y ago
mfe5003 9y ago
Wisconsin actually has had a "job creator" tax credit since Walker got into office.
bb88 9y ago
> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs. I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain. Here's a thought experiment: I take one person from my company, fire him, and split the job into two people. Both get paid less than half of the original guy I fired. Yet one of the keeps the old title. Did I create a job? Yes. Did I grow the economy? Doubtful. While splitting one job into two seems far fetched, it's not that far fetched to split 8 jobs into 10, say.
- masklinn 9y ago
  > Did I create a job? Yes. Did I grow the economy? Doubtful. Probably depends on the salary range(s) involved and how deep into "mostly discretionary income" the original employee was (and, I guess, how much they spent v stashed that discretionary income).
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Actually, you arguably shrank it if the new lower salaries both render the receivers eligible for a greater share of public benefits while subjecting them to lower marginal tax rates.
  - bb88 9y ago
    Yeah that's a good point, but that also means there's more rent being paid, more food being bought. So it's probably at best a wash.
- coolaliasbro 9y ago
  > I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain. Agreed. And when the businesses receiving these credits are primarily "creating" low-paying service sector positions, the picture is even more bleak.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
trophycase 9y ago
One of the most sickening things I've ever read.
taoistextremist 9y ago
Living around the great lakes, and knowing what China's like due to lax enforcement of environmental regulations, this kind of stuff terrifies me. Michigan didn't do this kind of kowtowing trying to get Foxconn (to be honest I don't think it would be possible to after the whole Flint water issue), but who knows what kinds of problems will be introduced throughout the watershed when Foxconn exercises any of these allowances.
gnode 9y ago
I wish no business could be paid simply to create jobs. This is just distorting the economy. Arguably, the pressure to spend less on humans where possible drives technological advancement.
ataturk 9y ago
Well, now you see why so many companies relocated to China! They don't want to cover their environmental footprint because it's cheaper and simpler to just avoid that by having the communists sweep it all under the rug. We're all to blame for this behavior--everyone who buys Apple products is to blame. Hell, anyone buying any products is to blame because companies have been getting away with this crap for 200 years.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>I've never heard of anything like this. Is this common? With the scope creep of what is a "wetland" (1)(2) is basically an approval to construct a facility. Wetland regulations are so broad that you basically can't build a large building and a parking lot for the people who will work in it without 9000+ hours of back and fourth with the EPA and local agencies. Last I heard (2017) many man-made drainage ditches would be considered wetlands. (6) is basically an authorization to run power lines to the facility. (3) and(4) are basically an authorization to pave driveways to connect to existing infrastructure Basically all but five are the state saying "we're not gonna bait and switch by bogging you down in red tape once you select a location and get the ball rolling" (5) is the one where they're going out of their way to sweetening the deal and depending on the site selected I really don't see a big issue with it because Foxconn is still subject to federal rules so they're not gonna build a factory somewhere that the risk of environmental impact is large. My problem here is that Foxconn can get quick and easy approval for a facility but Noname Joe's Lumber Supply has to tailor their plans skirt around the laws if they want to build a facility.

jrs235 9y ago

Interesting. What stops foxconn from inserting itself (and "selling" services) to buy a bit of land, fill in wetlands, change stream courses, build a lake, etc., then sell the "improved" land to another company? Maybe even begin construction of buildings to then be sold to someone else?

tw04 9y ago
Nothing. Scott Walker is one of the most openly corrupt politicians to ever stay in office. He probably has a back end deal with a"family friend" to make this happen.
- jrs235 9y ago
  I can't wait to vote for the challengers of any one on my ballot that supported this foxconn bs. Also, the WEDC is a fucking joke. Talk about privatizing profits and socializing losses. The Republicans in this state are the biggest hypocrites, picking winners and losers. Free markets my ass. Makes my blood boil (and I tended to vote just right of aisle).
- throwwwwaway9 9y ago
  or a gazillion dollar job with a company once he retires from the state job. Maybe not with Foxconn but with a supplier or client of theirs. Wink + nod=
- martin1975 9y ago
  What evidence of corruption does anyone have that could put him away in jail for a long time?
  - jhiska 9y ago
    None, or they would have used it, but that doesn't stop people on the Internet from gossiping.
    - Posibyte 9y ago
      Corruption doesn't necessarily have to be illegal.
      - martin1975 9y ago
        Like adultery, for instance, right?
- robk 9y ago
  How's that?

SneakyMission 9y ago

> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs. They already do! It's called revenue.

oarsinsync 9y ago
>> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs. >They already do! It's called revenue. I give you a job. I pay you $500. You generate $100 of revenue. I'm pretty sure I just lost $400, you gained less than $400 after taxes, and the IRS gets to enjoy the spread. Edit: changed to reflect that there are more winners than just the IRS
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  1. You're a bad employer, if you're losing $400 per employee, and deserve to be run out of business as per capitalistic market efficiency. 2. I just "won" $300.
  - oarsinsync 9y ago
    1. Agreed. 2. Agreed-ish. Assuming 40% tax, which seems high (unless you live in a country that has nationalised health care) 3. Neither of these things relate to being paid to create jobs. You're not wrong, you're just not on thread.
    - tonyarkles 9y ago
      Just for reference, 40% tax is still high for a country with nationalized health care (Canada): https://simpletax.ca/calculator https://simpletax.ca/calculator At $150k/yr, your marginal tax rate is close to 40%, but your overall tax rate is more like 31%. I'm in Saskatchewan, and every time I've played with different income levels, taking into account the exchange rate, we end up paying very similar amounts of all-in income tax, with ours including (most) health care. (Comparing with California)
      - 9y ago

mfe5003 9y ago

Wisconsin actually has had a "job creator" tax credit since Walker got into office.

bb88 9y ago

> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs. I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain. Here's a thought experiment: I take one person from my company, fire him, and split the job into two people. Both get paid less than half of the original guy I fired. Yet one of the keeps the old title. Did I create a job? Yes. Did I grow the economy? Doubtful. While splitting one job into two seems far fetched, it's not that far fetched to split 8 jobs into 10, say.

masklinn 9y ago
> Did I create a job? Yes. Did I grow the economy? Doubtful. Probably depends on the salary range(s) involved and how deep into "mostly discretionary income" the original employee was (and, I guess, how much they spent v stashed that discretionary income).
lr4444lr 9y ago
Actually, you arguably shrank it if the new lower salaries both render the receivers eligible for a greater share of public benefits while subjecting them to lower marginal tax rates.
- bb88 9y ago
  Yeah that's a good point, but that also means there's more rent being paid, more food being bought. So it's probably at best a wash.
coolaliasbro 9y ago
> I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain. Agreed. And when the businesses receiving these credits are primarily "creating" low-paying service sector positions, the picture is even more bleak.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

trophycase 9y ago

One of the most sickening things I've ever read.

taoistextremist 9y ago

Living around the great lakes, and knowing what China's like due to lax enforcement of environmental regulations, this kind of stuff terrifies me. Michigan didn't do this kind of kowtowing trying to get Foxconn (to be honest I don't think it would be possible to after the whole Flint water issue), but who knows what kinds of problems will be introduced throughout the watershed when Foxconn exercises any of these allowances.

gnode 9y ago

I wish no business could be paid simply to create jobs. This is just distorting the economy. Arguably, the pressure to spend less on humans where possible drives technological advancement.

ataturk 9y ago

Well, now you see why so many companies relocated to China! They don't want to cover their environmental footprint because it's cheaper and simpler to just avoid that by having the communists sweep it all under the rug. We're all to blame for this behavior--everyone who buys Apple products is to blame. Hell, anyone buying any products is to blame because companies have been getting away with this crap for 200 years.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

>I've never heard of anything like this. Is this common? With the scope creep of what is a "wetland" (1)(2) is basically an approval to construct a facility. Wetland regulations are so broad that you basically can't build a large building and a parking lot for the people who will work in it without 9000+ hours of back and fourth with the EPA and local agencies. Last I heard (2017) many man-made drainage ditches would be considered wetlands. (6) is basically an authorization to run power lines to the facility. (3) and(4) are basically an authorization to pave driveways to connect to existing infrastructure Basically all but five are the state saying "we're not gonna bait and switch by bogging you down in red tape once you select a location and get the ball rolling" (5) is the one where they're going out of their way to sweetening the deal and depending on the site selected I really don't see a big issue with it because Foxconn is still subject to federal rules so they're not gonna build a factory somewhere that the risk of environmental impact is large. My problem here is that Foxconn can get quick and easy approval for a facility but Noname Joe's Lumber Supply has to tailor their plans skirt around the laws if they want to build a facility.