What about these gifts to Toyota

"News" > wrote in message
t...
> I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
> making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.

Maybe that other Joe Blow didn't deserve to be making $40 per hour.

"News" > wrote in message
t...
> Tell it to Flint, Michigan.

Flint MI is a perfect example of GM's race to the bottom: unrealistically
high wages and benefits paid to GM workers, that make manufacturing cars
there unprofitable.

Mark A wrote:
> "News" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>>I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
>>making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.
>
>
> Maybe that other Joe Blow didn't deserve to be making $40 per hour.
>
>

How about you? Whatever you make, there's someone somewhere who will do
a better job for less. Worried?

Mark A wrote:

> "News" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>>Tell it to Flint, Michigan.
>
>
> Flint MI is a perfect example of GM's race to the bottom: unrealistically
> high wages and benefits paid to GM workers, that make manufacturing cars
> there unprofitable.
>
>

Or was it poor management, factory design, product development and quality?

> wrote in message
...
> This argument is old and specious.

The argument in current and quite to the point. The unions will not allow
robots to take over their jobs. By the time all the current workers die, the
US autoworkers will be out of business. In the meantime, they move
production offshore.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

Obviously there is some small property tax on the undeveloped land, but you
can't tax a factory or retail store that doesn't exist, so the idea that you
are giving up taxes is wrong. You can't give up something you don't already
have.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

That is sort of like saying that because the governor of Illinois seeks
bribes for appointing someone to a vacated senate seat, that governors
should not be given the authority to do this in any state.

Or like saying that because some students cheat on exams, that schools
should just abolish them.

How about this: since a fair number of people cheat on their taxes, let's
abolish taxes and then this argument about tax breaks becomes moot.

"Mark A" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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?
>
> Obviously there is some small property tax on the undeveloped land, but
> you can't tax a factory or retail store that doesn't exist, so the idea
> that you are giving up taxes is wrong. You can't give up something you
> don't already have.
>

In some locales, vacant land is still assessed at hefty rates based on
"potential", an absurd idea, but still, it happens.

"Mark A" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> That is sort of like saying that because the governor of Illinois seeks
> bribes for appointing someone to a vacated senate seat, that governors
> should not be given the authority to do this in any state.

No, it's nothing like that at all.



> Or like saying that because some students cheat on exams, that schools
> should just abolish them.

No, it's nothing like that at all.

> How about this: since a fair number of people cheat on their taxes, let's
> abolish taxes and then this argument about tax breaks becomes moot.

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> 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..."

Just because they borrow $350 million does not mean it is a subsidy. If a
town has new residents, they usually need new roads, schools, sewers, etc.
Governments almost always borrow to build out these things, it doesn't mean
its a subsidy. Even if there were no tax breaks to the company moving in,
the government would borrow money to build out the infrastructure for the
new residents.

BTW, there is no tax break on the homes of the employees, and other
businesses that sprout up to support the new residents. So there is plenty
of tax revenue to pay off the bonds used to build out the infrastructure.

I am sure that there are cases when the tax subsidies are irrational and it
would be a mistake to offer tax breaks in every case. However, when I hear
the outright distortion and lies from arguments like this, when we know the
government always borrows money for capital improvement projects, then it
discredits the people who make these outrageous claims.