What about these gifts to Toyota

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:35:13 -0500, Mark A wrote:
>
>
>>"News" > wrote in message
>>news:V9SdnZ4jBJseG9nUnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@speakeasy. net...
>>
>>>Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less charity,
>>>less, less, less, less.
>>>
>>>Enjoy your race to the bottom. First one there loses, big time.
>>
>>How can it be less? When there was nothing but farm land or undeveloped (and
>>untaxed) land there is no real estate tax, no sales tax, no payroll, no
>>economic development. If they don't get the tax breaks in the US, they will
>>build cars offshore.
>
>
> Wow. Usually I dont; have trouble with Pretzel Logic, but this one is
> giving me a headache. Raising people's wages causes lower bottom line?
>

When the jobs and tax base are taken from a traditionally higher wage
and services area, yes. A lower municipal bottom line. A race to the
bottom. You didn't bite on it, apparently.

On 14 Dec, 13:11, News > wrote:
> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:07:26 -0500, News wrote:
>
> >>>How do you figure?
>
> >>>Toyota is still turning a profit even though sales are down.
>
> >>>GM shows a loss on the auto business when cars are selling. They make
> >>>their money on financials.
>
> >>>Toyota keeps people employed even when the plant is shutdown.
>
> >>>All that adds up to taxes coming in.
>
> >>Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less
> >>charity, less, less, less, less.
>
> > Huh? Why am I even discussing this with you?
>
> > In some areas, all there were were minimum wage jobs. Toyota came in and
> > started paying wages competitive with some Union scale jobs.
>
> > So, rather than making $6.75 an hour, Joe Blow is now making $19 an hour.
>
> > And he doesn't have disposable income?
>
> > Please...explain this one to me. I *REALLY* want to hear how you came up
> > with this.
>
> I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
> making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.

It is as always a question of demand and supply.
In new companies you can hire in a lot of less qualified workers and
most of the job is done by robots.
In GM introducing robots did not allow management to make the same
cost reductions because of contracts with unions done in the past.
The unions defend their own existance to the point of extinction.
They rather make sure 100% loss for everyone than 50% reduction for
many.

"Mark A" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> news
>> Close attention to the workings of your city or town council will reveal
>> that such dealings are not always based on good business sense.
>> Unfortunately, such close attention might require ripping yourself away
>> from television once or twice a month.
>
> Not everyone exercises good business sense all the time. But sometimes
> they are good business sense. But the bottom line is that in a democracy,
> the majority rules, and if you don't like it you can try to elect someone
> else or move.
>


Sorry to have bothered you. I just realized you'd never once followed an
local project or new law from start to finish by being physically present
multiple times and dealing with the local politicians involved.

Thanks for clarifying that.

"Mark A" > wrote in message
...
> "News" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less charity,
>> less, less, less, less.
>>
>> Enjoy your race to the bottom. First one there loses, big time.
>
> How can it be less? When there was nothing but farm land or undeveloped
> (and untaxed) land there is no real estate tax, no sales tax, no payroll,
> no economic development.


That's a pretty big generalization there, Marky boy. Are you saying that
farm land and undeveloped land are not subject to assessment and taxation?

Remember that you used the words "there is no....", which all educated
readers will interpret to mean "always", as in "there is always no tax" on
that type of land.

Are you sure?

"Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:26:44 -0800, wrote:
>
>>> > Only problem is, Toyota makes a *profit*.
>>>
>>> > YEah, setting up a company that operates at a loss is pretty stupid,
>>> > isn't it?
>>>
>>> Profit or loss is not the issue.
>>>
>>> The issue is municipalities issuing incentives to steal other
>>> municipalities' businesses and tax revenues.
>>>
>>> Not even a zero sum game, a race to the bottom.
>>
>> The rightwingnuts can't comprehend anything beyond rightwingnut
>> rhetoric.
>
> To the contrary; we know that it's better to have people working than to
> be asking the government for money.
>
> The L00ney Left can't seem to grasp that WORK is better than Welfare.
>
>
>


You can't generalize. When you read about state or local government giving
some sort of incentive to a business in return for building a facility, it
doesn't mean you have enough information to say it's a good idea.

Locally, we've had a couple of projects that have gone bust in big ways. In
one instance, a project created 30 jobs here and 200 in Mexico, but of
course the sales pitch initially said 200-300 jobs would be created. Now,
all such plans are being looked at with extreme scrutiny. In another, my
town announced the construction of a 300 slip marina to address the needs of
transient boaters. There was just one problem: No business plan of any kind.
No need for the marina whatsoever. So, what made the town council so goofy
about the project?

Bribes.

Mark A wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So you pay $250,000.00 per job? So you use taxes to pay the wages from
>> which taxes are then deducted.
>> You must be an economist.
>
> Most of the tax breaks are on property taxes or other taxes that would not
> exist if the company did not move there and build a facility on vacant land
> or farmland. How much do you think you can tax farmland or vacant land?
>
>

They gave them $350 Million.

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:59:34 -0500, Tim wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:10:18 -0500, Tim wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think this is a loan, is it? It is giving Toyota the money to
>>>> pay these workers wages for 7 or 8 years, from the taxpayer and workers
>>>> themselves. This is what has to stop.
>>>
>>> It's called getting the manufacturer into your area. See, they aren't
>>> dumb. They know that 4,000 underemployed people put more of a drain on the
>>> system than giving the manufacturer a tax break. it works well because
>>> instead of having 4,000 people making minimum wage, paying taxes at the
>>> minimum wage rate, and often asking for assistance such as fuel assistance
>>> or Food Stamps, you now have 4,000 people paying IN taxes at a higher rate.
>>> While they may not be making as much as if they had 4,000 people paying
>>> higher taxes AND a corporation paying taxes, they are still coming out
>>> ahead.
>>>
>>> This is where 'trickle-down' works. Now you have 4,000 people with REAL
>>> wages and more disposable income, so more people are going to open shops
>>> in the area, and again the 'lost' taxes are more than compensated.
>>>
>>> So, they didn't really give anything away. They're probably laughing their
>>> asses off at Detroit.
>> So you pay $250,000.00 per job? So you use taxes to pay the wages from
>> which taxes are then deducted.
>> You must be an economist.
>
>
> They aren't 'paying' anything. They have given Toyota tax breaks for
> moving the factory into the town.
>
> In the long run, it makes economic sense. Like I said, 4-6,000 people
> *working* is a lot better than 4-6,000 people NOT working, or making
> minimum wage.
>
> The tax incentive will run out, and then the factory will be paying taxes.
>
> The town is coming out ahead.
>
>

http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/lo...ces_printstory

"...We know the direct subsidy is $350 million right off the bat. That’s
the amount Mississippi will borrow to aid the Toyota plant. State
officials have yet to disclose the amount of future tax breaks. If the
Nissan plant is a guide, the total subsidy will be about a half billion
dollars..."

On Dec 14, 8:26*am, Gosi > wrote:
>
> It is as always a question of demand and supply.
> In new companies you can hire in a lot of less qualified workers and
> most of the job is done by robots.
> In GM introducing robots did not allow management to make the same
> cost reductions because of contracts with unions done in the past.
> The unions defend their own existance to the point of extinction.
> They rather make sure 100% loss for everyone than 50% reduction for
> many.

This argument is old and specious. The robots were introduced many
years ago so just retirement, death, and job resignation should have
reduced the workforce. The PA turnpike workers resisted EazyPass
until the got a clause that said no one would be layed off and allow
normal factors to reduce the workforce. A win-win because the
workforce is far below the numbers at the time of introduction of
eazypass.

You have no concept of how vehicles are made today or how GM operates, if
that is what you believe.

Do us a favor and add "in my opinion" to what you choose to post. You will
seem far less goofy if you simply posted what you believe as your opinion
rather than fact After all you are entitled to you own opinion no mater
how convoluted it may be. LOL


"Gosi" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Dec, 13:11, News > wrote:
>> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote:
>> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:07:26 -0500, News wrote:

> It is as always a question of demand and supply.
> In new companies you can hire in a lot of less qualified workers and
> most of the job is done by robots.
> In GM introducing robots did not allow management to make the same
> cost reductions because of contracts with unions done in the past.

"Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:25:42 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>>> To the contrary; we know that it's better to have people working than to
>>> be asking the government for money.
>>>
>>> The L00ney Left can't seem to grasp that WORK is better than Welfare.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can't generalize. When you read about state or local government
>> giving
>> some sort of incentive to a business in return for building a facility,
>> it
>> doesn't mean you have enough information to say it's a good idea.
>>
>> Locally, we've had a couple of projects that have gone bust in big ways.
>> In
>> one instance, a project created 30 jobs here and 200 in Mexico, but of
>> course the sales pitch initially said 200-300 jobs would be created. Now,
>> all such plans are being looked at with extreme scrutiny. In another, my
>> town announced the construction of a 300 slip marina to address the needs
>> of
>> transient boaters. There was just one problem: No business plan of any
>> kind.
>> No need for the marina whatsoever. So, what made the town council so
>> goofy
>> about the project?
>>
>> Bribes.
>
>
> Seems to me you just generalized.

No. I described two specific projects and their final outcomes. If you think
"bribes" is a generalization, you're wrong. It's too strong a word, but I
interpret what actually happened as "bribery". One town council member
received enormous (legal) contributions from a construction company, which
expected something for its money after he was elected. The councilman gave
the rest of the board the hardest sell imaginable. His sales presentation
was based on lies, but apparently, that's not illegal.