Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: rudder
In many cases the corporate superstores will require towns to output the $$$ to get the store to build. This comes along with a big sell of getting back a lot more tax revenue that is costs to get them to build.
Another thing that a lot of towns do is give tax breaks to these big companies so they will build in their town.
It really is a win-win situation.
Universal Studios Florida was planning a huge expansion and wanted their own exit ramp off I-4. We are talking about a $20+ million project that the city had no plans or no funding to build.
So Universal made a deal with the city. Universal paid for and built the overpass and exit themselves and in return the city gave them tax credits off Universal's now higher tax bills.
Is that really win-win? It's not as if Universal Studios is actually making anything for society - it's an entertainment product, not a wealth-producing product.
So, the money isn't make out of thin air, rather, it's simply redirected resources, probably mostly local (people don't plan a vacation around an off-ramp).
So the same money that would have gone elsewhere - whether saved/invested that helps the economy, or to purchase taxable products - instead goes to pay for their off-ramp.
It's a win for Universal studios - it increases their income for free to them, as the money comes out of the public's tax money. A win for the public is arguable.
And that's an especially benevolent story compare to many of the typical rip-offs that the wealthy owners of these facilities get away with, which often leave the public with big debt.
Craig... why don't you tell the 5000 people who now have jobs at Universal who didn't have those jobs before the expansion that they are not making anything for society.
I did. They are welcome to log on and read it. But for you:
Dear 5000 people at Universal, Universal is not creating wealh-producing products, it is an entertainment business.
I'm happy to oblige you with that important task.
Why was it important again?
While you are at it might as well ban tv, movies, books, magazines, music etc etc since all those aren't making anything for society either.
Less caffeine, John, as you are going crazy with logic again.
Who said anything about banning the entertainment industry? You make straw men as automatically as some people breathe, I guess.
Also, you missed one of my main points.
Orlando doesn't give Universal its tax break and Universal doesn't build the on ramp and its connecting roads and then Universals property value doesn't go up and Universal doesn't pay more taxes.
You are the one who missed one of my points.
And all the millions that went into the expanded Universal revenue instead went into other, taxable business, some more 'productive', and increasing the tax revenue.
The 5000 people get work doing other things for society, that don't get done now.
Tax breaks to attract businesses is one of the smartest things a government can do. Alabama gives Honda millions in tax breaks to help offset the cost of its new factory and in return Alabama gets hundreds of good paying jobs and those jobs lead to increased tax revenue for the state.
You oversimplify. Your statement is like saying violence is good, without knowing whether it's the violence of the police stopping a crimnal, or the criminal robbing a person.
Some tax break policies are good, and others are bad. I laid out the scenario where the tax break in this case might not be so good for the public.
I also said that it's one of the more benevolent examples, another comment you ignored.
On the other hand, Alabama says no tax breaks and Honda doesn't build a factory and thus no new jobs and no extra tax revenue.
More oversimplification. Why, all tax breaks are always good! Governments should spend 100% of their budgets, and borrow to spend more, on tax breaks, because they're all good!
You have a perverse ability for twisting the simple facts.
When there's a case of a corporation finding a way to pressure a local government into a deal that screws the public, you're right there to ignore the facts and post like you did here.
Tax break policies *can* be win-win. Ironically, it was the right here who protested most loudly when the tool was Eminent Domain rather than tax breaks, when a community wanted to revitalize itself into a destination for visitors, and increase the prosperity of local residents, but had to use Eminent Domain to get the property to do it. Or, you might argue that it let a selfish private developer usurp the power of the government to grab private land for his own gain. Or, both might be true.
But they can be win-win. A city offering tax reductions to encourage development that results in increased prosperity for the businesses and the community can be an example.
On the other hand, it's not always the case. There are plenty of examples where the argument was that it's win-win, but in fact, the community lost.
The question is whether you will pretend that's not the case.