4 ms·

Yeah, but just because this happens doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset about it. This is companies strongarming governments into giving them tax breaks. It's ro

by hcg 8y ago

Yeah, but just because this happens doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset about it. This is companies strongarming governments into giving them tax breaks. It's robbing society to enrich a few people at the top. Amazon is following the Boeing example. I fully expect Washington state to give away massive amounts of money the same way they did before.

cronix 8y ago
I fully agree. Giving breaks in terms of property taxes directly affects our schools. So we're just shooting the upcoming generation in the foot to keep jobs here "today"
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Washington state schools get plenty of money.
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    You're saying they get enough money so we should give large amounts of money to corporations? That seems wild and like corporate welfare for the sake of portioning out some money to corporations. Why give corporations a fast-lane to government money because school's are getting some money? To be clear, is your argument really that schools have lots of money so corporations deserve to get some too?
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      There is a difference between giving money to corporations and not taking away money from corporations. I realize a lot of people have the opinion that not taking something they already have is equal to giving them a handout but it really isn't.
  - gowld 8y ago
    WA Supreme Court ruled that schools we not performing at the level demanded by the WA consitution. Funding might or might not be a part of that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
kodablah 8y ago
I admit not being very upset about it. How are they strongarming governments? A government says no and everyone moves on. Or are you saying communities can't get businesses without this strongarming? I don't believe that. I recognize the art of both sides shopping for the best deal for themselves, and with how many of these governments operate against their companies, it's definitely bidirectional. The leverage does seem to be tipped in favor of the largest governments and largest companies, but the general practice seems reasonable.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  Do you have any examples of "many of these governments operate against their companies?" I'm intrigued by this because this isn't how government generally works at all at a local level. They usually work with these companies and give them sweetheart deals knowing that the money will not really come back to the city and the effect will happen years down the road. All the positives for them of working with the company and someone else deals with the issues later that are caused from tax breaks and other deals.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    You can see it in auto sales rules against Tesla, alcohol and zoning restrictions that aren't subject to votes, grandfathering old businesses on all sorts of things like parking lot regulations to denials of permits based reasons like too many restaurants in the area, etc. Some may seem reasonable, some may not. The point is in a transaction, neither side has to accept concessions they are uncomfortable with. Quite often cities make laws that harm or destroy business. Even in cases that are subject to citizen vote, the tyranny of the majority can occur. That's what makes bargaining on both sides of the compromise entirely reasonable.
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      So you're right (and I forgot about it), cities have fought against Tesla but it was my understanding that the push for that was lobbying from the old-school car dealerships and car companies to keep things from changing that would negatively impact their businesses. I don't think most cities have a real dog in the fight and many would welcome new electric car service/business since it's mostly positives for them. Am I wildly off here?
taurath 8y ago
Boeing went through on their threat IIRC and decimated the economy of Wichita. Amazon has more power than municipal or even state governments in some respects in economic terms.
refurb 8y ago
Why shouldn’t gov’t have to compete for business? The only other alternative is to force companies to stay in an area, regardless of how attractive the business climate is.

by hcg 8y ago

cronix 8y ago

I fully agree. Giving breaks in terms of property taxes directly affects our schools. So we're just shooting the upcoming generation in the foot to keep jobs here "today"

skookumchuck 8y ago
Washington state schools get plenty of money.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  You're saying they get enough money so we should give large amounts of money to corporations? That seems wild and like corporate welfare for the sake of portioning out some money to corporations. Why give corporations a fast-lane to government money because school's are getting some money? To be clear, is your argument really that schools have lots of money so corporations deserve to get some too?
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    There is a difference between giving money to corporations and not taking away money from corporations. I realize a lot of people have the opinion that not taking something they already have is equal to giving them a handout but it really isn't.
- gowld 8y ago
  WA Supreme Court ruled that schools we not performing at the level demanded by the WA consitution. Funding might or might not be a part of that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

kodablah 8y ago

I admit not being very upset about it. How are they strongarming governments? A government says no and everyone moves on. Or are you saying communities can't get businesses without this strongarming? I don't believe that. I recognize the art of both sides shopping for the best deal for themselves, and with how many of these governments operate against their companies, it's definitely bidirectional. The leverage does seem to be tipped in favor of the largest governments and largest companies, but the general practice seems reasonable.

hnmonkey 8y ago
Do you have any examples of "many of these governments operate against their companies?" I'm intrigued by this because this isn't how government generally works at all at a local level. They usually work with these companies and give them sweetheart deals knowing that the money will not really come back to the city and the effect will happen years down the road. All the positives for them of working with the company and someone else deals with the issues later that are caused from tax breaks and other deals.
- kodablah 8y ago
  You can see it in auto sales rules against Tesla, alcohol and zoning restrictions that aren't subject to votes, grandfathering old businesses on all sorts of things like parking lot regulations to denials of permits based reasons like too many restaurants in the area, etc. Some may seem reasonable, some may not. The point is in a transaction, neither side has to accept concessions they are uncomfortable with. Quite often cities make laws that harm or destroy business. Even in cases that are subject to citizen vote, the tyranny of the majority can occur. That's what makes bargaining on both sides of the compromise entirely reasonable.
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    So you're right (and I forgot about it), cities have fought against Tesla but it was my understanding that the push for that was lobbying from the old-school car dealerships and car companies to keep things from changing that would negatively impact their businesses. I don't think most cities have a real dog in the fight and many would welcome new electric car service/business since it's mostly positives for them. Am I wildly off here?

taurath 8y ago

Boeing went through on their threat IIRC and decimated the economy of Wichita. Amazon has more power than municipal or even state governments in some respects in economic terms.

refurb 8y ago

Why shouldn’t gov’t have to compete for business? The only other alternative is to force companies to stay in an area, regardless of how attractive the business climate is.