3 ms·
In an article this long and $4.1 Billion in the title, it would be nice to see a simple listing of the subsidies. It is hard to know what is really being given
by njarboe 8y ago
In an article this long and $4.1 Billion in the title, it would be nice to see a simple listing of the subsidies. It is hard to know what is really being given to Foxconn. Seems like a combination of tax breaks and public infrastructure projects. Spending $300 million to expand an interstate near the factory a bit quicker that was slated for expansion anyway, should maybe not really be considered a public subsidy to Foxconn.
- p-squared 8y agoMy recollection from earlier stories covering this deal is that "subsidy" actually means "tax break". If that's correct, then the tone of this story is very misleading.
- simplify 8y agoHow so?
- p-squared 8y agoThe term "subsidy" implies that the state is actively paying out cash to Foxconn. If I'm correct that these are actually tax breaks, then the state is merely claiming less tax revenue from Foxconn than state law would otherwise dictate. That's tax revenue that the state wouldn't see at all in the absence of Foxconn. And if Foxconn's locally-generated revenue ends up being smaller than originally anticipated, then it would stand to reason that the effective reduction in tax revenue is reduced as well. The article goes on and on about wasted subsidy funds (there are other valid criticisms of the deal, but this is the big one). The Foxconn deal may not be working out, but if everything is structured in terms of tax then the state finances are not really getting impacted.