What is lost is the investment the american tax payer has placed within these corporations. The US (the american people) has made the world a safer place... one in which corporations can invest and feel that the US will continue to be a world leader and keep things secure (politically and economically). These actions cost money and that money is from taxes. Corporations who are leaving the US have forgotten about investing back into the country that allowed them to succeed.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: What is lost is the investment the american tax payer has placed within these corporations. The US (the american people) has made the world a safer place... one in which corporations can invest and feel that the US will continue to be a world leader and keep things secure (politically and economically). These actions cost money and that money is from taxes. Corporations who are leaving the US have forgotten about investing back into the country that allowed them to succeed.
Its complicated. How high would you say is too high to be taxed to stay here out of the goodness of their hearts? Even if it means poor returns, or even closing plants or stores, or going out of business? If we as consumers"vote" with our wallets how do the companies "vote"?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-26-2014).]
Not to mention all of the infrastructure in the country that allows them to transport their supplies to their stores and allows consumers to get to their stores. This is pretty much driven by wall street and the constant pressure to lower expenses and improve so called shareholder value. That being said our tax code is a big mess and needs to be revamped to reward companies for staying here but I think every corporation should pay a minimum tax, remember this is a tax on profits so if there's no profit there's no tax.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
What is lost is the investment the american tax payer has placed within these corporations. The US (the american people) has made the world a safer place... one in which corporations can invest and feel that the US will continue to be a world leader and keep things secure (politically and economically). These actions cost money and that money is from taxes. Corporations who are leaving the US have forgotten about investing back into the country that allowed them to succeed.
What is lost is the investment the american tax payer has placed within these corporations. The US (the american people) has made the world a safer place... one in which corporations can invest and feel that the US will continue to be a world leader and keep things secure (politically and economically). These actions cost money and that money is from taxes. Corporations who are leaving the US have forgotten about investing back into the country that allowed them to succeed.
1. The world is not a safe place. 2. The U.S. is not a world leader unless we are talking about Prison population. 3. The U.S. will continue to not be a world leader as long as people keep thinking like you do. 4. A Company can, and does invest in the US if they are not based there. 5. Companies are not "allowed to succeed" in the US, they succeed despite Government interference. 6. Puff puff pass man.
Its a business. You have one to make money.Lots of companies buy other companies. I dont have any problem with moving headquarters to Canada. They have to pay less taxes...more profit. Their managements purpose is to maximize profits for stockholders. The US government is responsible for them moving. They tax people into doing things like this so they have no reason to gripe. They should be glad they keep stores open in the US to pay income and sales taxes to the US and state governments. There are literally thousands of companies that move out of the country to get better benefits. The government does its damnest to tax and inhibit businesses from turning a profit. They dont reason out that they dont make more tax income by overtaxing/regulating business....they get less because companies do just this. Like said already, they cant have their cake and eat it too (government). They penalize business with things like Obamacare programs which causes companies to lay off people, but then turn around and cry when businesses dont hire more....duhhh.
Not to mention all of the infrastructure in the country that allows them to transport their supplies to their stores and allows consumers to get to their stores.
One just has to look at the likes of Detroit, Flint and Saginaw, here in MI to see what happens when cities (taxpayers) bend over backwards to keep a company. The company requires infrastructure from the city and yet pays little in taxes to create/support this and when the company leaves, the city is stuck with the larger infrastructure and unsellable complexes/land. The company... well, because they wanted to make a few more bucks, moved everything to a new city.... and the cycle repeats.
As a taxpayer, everyone here should be upset at the welfare businesses get... but yet, many here bow down to corporations. Interesting.... think about this the next time you drive by that big industrial complex paid for with your tax dollars.
BTW, to keep this on topic.... what happened to the quality of donuts in the past few decades (I have had Tim Hortons). I have to travel 1.5 hrs to a little bakery that makes the BEST donuts, pastries and cakes. Everything else tastes bland and "processed".... The prices are pretty much the same, but the quality is very different. I am guessing that people accept lower quality food and start to think it tastes good
Its a business. You have one to make money.Lots of companies buy other companies. I dont have any problem with moving headquarters to Canada. They have to pay less taxes...more profit. Their managements purpose is to maximize profits for stockholders. The US government is responsible for them moving. They tax people into doing things like this so they have no reason to gripe. They should be glad they keep stores open in the US to pay income and sales taxes to the US and state governments. There are literally thousands of companies that move out of the country to get better benefits. The government does its damnest to tax and inhibit businesses from turning a profit. They dont reason out that they dont make more tax income by overtaxing/regulating business....they get less because companies do just this. Like said already, they cant have their cake and eat it too (government). They penalize business with things like Obamacare programs which causes companies to lay off people, but then turn around and cry when businesses dont hire more....duhhh.
We have healthy workers, clean air/water, safe products... yeah... those dang regulations... how dare the government think about it's people. Maybe you would like to live in China... I hear businesses pretty much run the country. The water has a nice metallic taste and you can pay your employees very little and make them work long hours. Woo hoo!
Originally posted by jaskispyder: What is lost is the investment the american tax payer has placed within these corporations.
What is lost on you is that the American tax payers did not invest in these corporations. The shareholders have. I see you bought into Nobama's "you didn't build that" bullzhit.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: The US (the american people) has made the world a safer place... one in which corporations can invest and feel that the US will continue to be a world leader and keep things secure (politically and economically).
Then lets tax everybody in the world, .
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: These actions cost money and that money is from taxes. Corporations who are leaving the US have forgotten about investing back into the country that allowed them to succeed.
Originally posted by maryjane: The truth about "tax inversions".
Good info maryjane. I do take one exception.
quote
... thus freeing it from its harsh but patriotic duty to pay U.S. income taxes.
Patriotic duty to pay taxes, .
quote
Originally posted by Csjag: Not to mention all of the infrastructure in the country that allows them to transport their supplies to their stores and allows consumers to get to their stores.
You might have it azz backwards. The infrastructure allows local cities/towns/areas to survive. Which is why everybody vied for a spot on the trail drive, wanted a railroad line to come through, same with highways.
quote
Originally posted by Fats: 1. The world is not a safe place. 2. The U.S. is not a world leader unless we are talking about Prison population. 3. The U.S. will continue to not be a world leader as long as people keep thinking like you do. 4. A Company can, and does invest in the US if they are not based there. 5. Companies are not "allowed to succeed" in the US, they succeed despite Government interference. 6. Puff puff pass man. Brad
Originally posted by cliffw: What is lost on you is that the American tax payers did not invest in these corporations. The shareholders have. I see you bought into Nobama's "you didn't build that" bullzhit.
Really? The companies built the roads and infrastructure? The sewer/water supply? Paid for snow plowing? The traffic signs and lights? The police to patrol? The fire department to be on standby? Maybe you need to check your city records and look who actually paid for these items in your town. Nah... let me save you some time..... the city paid.... with taxpayer money. Don't give me that "you didn't build that" line... that just shows how brainwashed you have become and you can't even see the truth when it is right in front of you.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Really? The companies built the blah blah blah ? Maybe you need to check your city records and look who actually paid for these items in your town. Nah... let me save you some time..... the city paid.... with taxpayer money.
I never said the companies built them. Towns build infrastructure for their survival/profitability/comfort of life. Not so a company can succeed. Towns usually beg companies to come ... with taxpayer monies, ie tax incentives. People used to give land to the railroads, to get them to build a "spur" into town.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Don't give me that "you didn't build that" line... that just shows how brainwashed you have become and you can't even see the truth when it is right in front of you.
Brainwashed would describe you, not me.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-27-2014).]
Really? The companies built the roads and infrastructure? The sewer/water supply? Paid for snow plowing? The traffic signs and lights? The police to patrol? The fire department to be on standby? Maybe you need to check your city records and look who actually paid for these items in your town. Nah... let me save you some time..... the city paid.... with taxpayer money. Don't give me that "you didn't build that" line... that just shows how brainwashed you have become and you can't even see the truth when it is right in front of you.
"Companies" did indeed build all that. Both in practice and thru the taxes they pay to the govt sector that authorized the projects. They further paid for the projects thru the taxes and fees that individual employees' paid in.
Guess Who is funding this buyout and move?
None other than the darling of the liberal establishment, an ardent supporter of President Obama, and namesake of the Buffett Rule.
quote
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is providing $3 billion of financing for Burger King Worldwide Inc.’s planned takeover of Tim Hortons Inc. and will earn 9 percent annual interest on the investment.
Berkshire is taking a preferred equity stake and won’t be involved in managing the restaurant business, according to a statement today from Burger King.
"Companies" did indeed build all that. Both in practice and thru the taxes they pay to the govt sector that authorized the projects. They further paid for the projects thru the taxes and fees that individual employees' paid in.
Nope, not here. We give tax breaks to companies because they promise jobs. You should visit MI and see what happens when companies don't actually pay taxes.... but instead hand out empty promises.
Employees paying taxes is not the same a a company paying taxes for the services that company uses.
(BTW, I am not talking about all companies, as there are companies that do pay for things and are good members of the community, etc.... but they are usually small businesses)
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 08-27-2014).]
Really? The companies built the roads and infrastructure? The sewer/water supply? Paid for snow plowing? The traffic signs and lights? The police to patrol? The fire department to be on standby? Maybe you need to check your city records and look who actually paid for these items in your town. Nah... let me save you some time..... the city paid.... with taxpayer money. Don't give me that "you didn't build that" line... that just shows how brainwashed you have become and you can't even see the truth when it is right in front of you.
Case in point: They're building a new Gander Mountain near here. They chose an intersection of a major highway near an existing shopping center. Prime real estate due to the roads and infrastructure in place. Guess what - they had to pay a premium for that land because of that. That infrastructure increased the value of that location, which the company paid when they bought it. The company then pays to build on that location.
Also, the company pays property tax on that property. The value increase due to infrastructure means they pay more in taxes each year. Then the company pays to build the store, which also increases the property value and raises the property taxes - so they get to pay extra taxes on improvements the taxpayer didn't pay for.
Case in point: They're building a new Gander Mountain near here. They chose an intersection of a major highway near an existing shopping center. Prime real estate due to the roads and infrastructure in place. Guess what - they had to pay a premium for that land because of that. That infrastructure increased the value of that location, which the company paid when they bought it. The company then pays to build on that location.
Also, the company pays property tax on that property. The value increase due to infrastructure means they pay more in taxes each year. Then the company pays to build the store, which also increases the property value and raises the property taxes - so they get to pay extra taxes on improvements the taxpayer didn't pay for.
Too funny...
"Prime real estate due to the roads and infrastructure in place." Who build these? Gander Mountain didn't. Sure they paid for the land, but they didn't pay the city for the land.... they paid a developer.... and it was a one time deal, and who said that they actually paid an amount that covers the infrastructure (and the future expenses of maintenance?)
The property taxes won't increase over time, enough to pay to expand/repair that road, or patrol it, or to cover the cost of police to arrest shoplifters, or to pay for the court to handle the case, nor will it cover the cost of the Fire department who has to up their equipment to handle large buildings etc... Then, when gander mountain leaves and moves to a new location, all of these services are still in place and yet the building is empty... it starts to fall apart, no one buys it, bringing down the value of other properties....
Why would they pay the city for land someone else owned?
If you think companies and their employees don't pay for all this stuff, let them move out and see how quickly the infrastructure and basic services fall apart and the city itself goes deep into debt. Oh wait, just go look at Detroit.
Why would they pay the city for land someone else owned?
If you think companies and their employees don't pay for all this stuff, let them move out and see how quickly the infrastructure and basic services fall apart and the city itself goes deep into debt. Oh wait, just go look at Detroit.
I didn't say they would pay the city for the land... that is the point. The city improved access to land they didn't own. Correction... the taxpayers paid to improve access/infrastructure to land owned by a business (developer most likely).
So... now, we are saying employees pay for these things... that would still be the taxpayers.... not the company.
Yes, come to Detroit... come to Flint... come see what happens when cities bend over backwards for companies and then get screwed when they leave.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: My comment in parenthesis..
We have healthy workers (that cant afford healthcare thats shoved down their throat or dont get care), clean air/water (thats not safe or clean in many places at all..Toledo for instance), safe products (that fail quick or get massive recalls)... yeah... those dang regulations... how dare the government think about it's people (the US government politicians dont give a damn about its 'people'). Maybe you would like to live in China.. (we are in 'China' now..cheap pay, inferior products and a dictator) . I hear businesses pretty much run the country (worked out fine here in the last 100 years as opposed to now). The water has a nice metallic taste and you can pay your employees very little and make them work long hours (ya in the US its sulfur,brine, chemical runoff or algae toxic water, minimum wage and 70 hour weeks). Woo hoo! (ya that).
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 08-27-2014).]
"Prime real estate due to the roads and infrastructure in place." Who build these? Gander Mountain didn't. Sure they paid for the land, but they didn't pay the city for the land.... they paid a developer.... and it was a one time deal, and who said that they actually paid an amount that covers the infrastructure (and the future expenses of maintenance?)
The property taxes won't increase over time, enough to pay to expand/repair that road, or patrol it, or to cover the cost of police to arrest shoplifters, or to pay for the court to handle the case, nor will it cover the cost of the Fire department who has to up their equipment to handle large buildings etc... Then, when gander mountain leaves and moves to a new location, all of these services are still in place and yet the building is empty... it starts to fall apart, no one buys it, bringing down the value of other properties....
■The property tax gives state and local governments a stable and reliable source of revenue. Its base is immobile and, as real property values rise over time, revenue grows with no rate change. Tax jurisdictions generally just adjust the rate as needed for the budget.
◦In total, local governments – counties, cities, townships, school districts, and special districts – get 30 percent of their general revenue and 75 percent of their tax revenue from property taxes, a total of $427 billion in 2010. ◦Independent school districts rely most heavily on the property tax for own-source general revenue, receiving 77 percent from this source in 2007 (more recent data unavailable). They also receive intergovernmental aid, usually from the state. ◦Counties raise 39 percent of own-source general revenue from the property tax, while property tax revenues make up 34 percent of own-source general revenue for cities and townships. ◦States get only a small fraction of their tax revenue from property taxes, about 2 percent in 2010. However, states that lack a sales tax or an income tax (or both) typically rely more heavily on property tax revenue: the levy’s share of total state tax revenue exceeds 8 percent in Vermont, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Arkansas, Washington, Montana, and Michigan. Some states, including Michigan, Vermont, and New Hampshire, have recently enacted state property taxes as part of school finance reform.
Those property taxes are paid in perpetuity to government regardless of who owns the property. The largest increase in property taxes will happen when land is developed, i.e. building a shopping center on the land. Government doesn't pay for that, the developer does, but government gets increased revenue because of it. You complain about business tax breaks, but those are given to attract business. More people working in the area, more commerce in the area, all of it brings more tax revenue into the government.
Deficit spending aside, government does nothing that hasn't been paid for by taxes of some kind. We build schools and roads - and pass a bond referendum to pay for it. That hikes up everyone's property tax rate to pay for that additional infrastucture (personal and corporate rates).
Here's another example from personal experience, When I built my house, my first year property tax was on the value of the plot of land. After *I* paid to have the house built, my property tax went up over 450% because I had increased the value of the property. The money to buy the land came out of my pocket. The money to build the house came out of my pocket. The increased property taxes come out of my pocket and will continue to do so as long as I own the property. The roads in my subdivision were built by the developer and included as a portion of the price for my lot. Once completed, ownership was "turned over" to the city. The city owns the streets without paying to have them built.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-27-2014).]
Originally posted by jaskispyder: My comment in parenthesis..
We have healthy workers (that cant afford healthcare thats shoved down their throat or dont get care), clean air/water (thats not safe or clean in many places at all..Toledo for instance), safe products (that fail quick or get massive recalls)... yeah... those dang regulations... how dare the government think about it's people (the US government politicians dont give a damn about its 'people'). Maybe you would like to live in China.. (we are in 'China' now..cheap pay, inferior products and a dictator) . I hear businesses pretty much run the country (worked out fine here in the last 100 years as opposed to now). The water has a nice metallic taste and you can pay your employees very little and make them work long hours (ya in the US its sulfur,brine, chemical runoff or algae toxic water, minimum wage and 70 hour weeks). Woo hoo! (ya that).
Wow... poor quoting... and a lot of opinions not based on facts. Water quality? Really... are you going to argue that? Product safety? Dictator? So, we are living in China... cheap pay? As a business owner, what have you done to fix this? I am sure you paid your employees every well, right? I am sure they could afford to own a plane, be a pilot, have a place in Belize, own multiple luxury cars, like you say you have. You must have been one good employer!
Those businesses that ran our country so well....I am sure they have gone out of their way to pay their employees well above min. wage and offer great retirement options, health care insurance, etc. You know, so they can retain those workers. I hear CEOs will take pay cuts to help their company out and they listen to their employees and they would never think of closing down a plant unless all other solutions were exhausted.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Nope, not here. We give tax breaks to companies because they promise jobs. You should visit MI and see what happens when companies don't actually pay taxes.... but instead hand out empty promises.
Promises like "hope and change", "the most transparent administration in history", "a President for all the people", a President who will be the great uniter and not a divider". You believe in promises, ? Promises that your elected phucks believed ... without getting no guarantees or contractual remedies ? Elections have consequences.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: I didn't say they would pay the city for the land... that is the point. The city improved access to land they didn't own. Correction... the taxpayers paid to improve access/infrastructure to land owned by a business (developer most likely).
What kind of dumb phucks would improve access to land they didn't own ? Perhaps they thought of it as an investment. An investment which might attract jobs and thus generate more taxpayer ability. Forever, even with a change of land owners. Perhaps every investment is not a good one. Do you really think a business is gonna open on raw land when improved land is available (at a higher cost, and tax rate) ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-27-2014).]
Originally posted by jaskispyder: We give tax breaks to companies because they promise jobs.
You actually believe that ? You give tax breaks to companies because, if you don't, someone else will. Companies do not need to promise jobs. If a company is there, there will be jobs.
Originally posted by cliffw: Companies do not need to promise jobs. If a company is there, there will be jobs.
I am talking filled jobs... not unfilled. Any company can have unfilled jobs.
BTW, this is usually a requirement for tax breaks.... x number of jobs (filled positions) to be created. I believe it because it is true. It is usually part of an agreement for said tax breaks.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 08-27-2014).]
Wow... poor quoting... and a lot of opinions not based on facts. Water quality? Really... are you going to argue that? Product safety? Dictator? So, we are living in China... cheap pay? As a business owner, what have you done to fix this? I am sure you paid your employees every well, right? I am sure they could afford to own a plane, be a pilot, have a place in Belize, own multiple luxury cars, like you say you have. You must have been one good employer!
Those businesses that ran our country so well....I am sure they have gone out of their way to pay their employees well above min. wage and offer great retirement options, health care insurance, etc. You know, so they can retain those workers. I hear CEOs will take pay cuts to help their company out and they listen to their employees and they would never think of closing down a plant unless all other solutions were exhausted.
Thanks for the laugh...
Thanks, I do great quoting huh...
You didnt see the news where Toledo had no water for days because of algae ? yes, Ill argue that. In case your too stupid to find it heres a link for you on safe water....http://www.weather.com/news/toledo-ohio-water-algae-lake-erie-20140802
Safe products....sheesh where to begin with the numbers of people injured or killed with safe products...lets see GM ignitions, baby car seats, poisoned foods, the number of those products is too astronomical to list.
I didnt have employees...I worked on my own. No one did anything up to my standards. I had one employee once I paid VERY WELL. He did exactly what was told to do, how I wanted it. He was in high school and made more per week than his dad did...part time. He worked till he started college after 2 years. Other than him, I worked for all my own money...never got a business loan or one from anyone else. Yes I did good work for a great price so I made a lot. After running my own business for decades before the current POS moved in the white house, I did fix it very well for me... I retired on my own hard earned savings. On that and what the government OWES me, Im still living better than you are Ill bet. And Obuma cant touch a penny of it.
Yes, in case you havent looked out the door in the last 6 years, you are living under an Obuma dictatorship.
Yes good companies pay good employees well from what Ive seen and know first hand. You work for a crap company, or do crap work, expect crap pay. You want to have a 10 hour @ week job that pays $30 @ hour for you to sit on your butt.
The countries best years, after WWII were that because all businesses flourished and anyone who wanted one, had as decent a job as he was willing to work for. Business was great and the government didnt butt into everything. Now the government runs, or at least tries to run every business...or runs them out of business....or like BK, they move out.
Its refreshing to see you can laugh at yourself, you stupid moronic democrat. ROFLMAO @ U.
Im enjoying myself. Dont have to do anything ever, have a nice big house, another nice big new house on the lake, and older house on the ocean in Belize, a plane, a motorhome, but sorry to say just one car for everyday. I also have $750,000 in just a checking account plus my savings account...so im just fine thank you very much. I do just what I want to do. Just finishing a restoration paint job on a 62 Corvette and making more on it that you make in months, and the owner cant wait to write the check. Green becomes you.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 08-27-2014).]
So.... a few days because of algae toxin (and yes, I heard about it before you as one of our labs in town was contacted immediately to prepare for testing of samples that were to be flown in) and you believe we have water quality issues? So, what about the other 363 days of consistent high quality water right at their fingertips?
I see you are STILL blaming Obama and now we have a dictatorship...yeah that story is getting old.... BTW, I thought you were going to put up an anti-obama bill board, way back when. Where is a picture of that? If not, there still is time (and we now know money isn't an issue). If life is so bad here, why haven't you moved to Belize? Nothing is stopping you from leaving... you even have a plane... so really, no excuse. My guess is that life isn't too bad for you, under this "dictatorship"....
The reason for the prosperity after the war was because the US was the winner. We had the industrial might and we had a lot of other countries that needed what we had. That is not the case today. Thanks to outsourcing over the past 30 years, we don't have our manufacturing base and other companies have caught up with us. Pretty basic history there... but feel free to blame others... it seems to be your way... excuses, excuses.
BTW, I am tired of your excuses.... don't bother responding.... it is getting tiresome calling you out...
(sorry to the OP, as this is off-topic).
quote
Originally posted by rogergarrison:
You didnt see the news where Toledo had no water for days because of algae ? yes, Ill argue that.
I didnt have employees...I worked on my own. No one did anything up to my standards. I had one employee once I paid VERY WELL. He did exactly what was told to do, how I wanted it. He was in high school and made more per week than his dad did...part time. He worked till he started college after 2 years. Other than him, I worked for all my own money...never got a business loan or one from anyone else. Yes I did good work for a great price so I made a lot. After running my own business for decades before the current POS moved in the white house, I retired on my own hard earned savings. On that and what the government OWES me, Im still living better than you are Ill bet. And Obuma cant touch a penny of it.
Yes, in case you havent looked out the door in the last 6 years, you are living under an Obuma dictatorship.
Yes good companies pay good employees well from what Ive seen and know first hand. You work for a crap company, or do crap work, expect crap pay. You want to have a 10 hour @ week job that pays $30 @ hour for you to sit on your butt.
The countries best years, after WWII were that because all businesses flourished and anyone who wanted one, had as decent a job as he was willing to work for. Business was great and the government didnt butt into everything. Now the government runs, or at least tries to run every business...or runs them out of business....or like BK, they move out.
Its refreshing to see you can laugh at yourself, you stupid moronic democrat. ROFLMAO @ U.
Im enjoying myself. Dont have to do anything ever, have a nice big house, another nice big new house on the lake, and older house on the ocean in Belize, a plane, a motorhome, but sorry to say just one car for everyday. I also have $750,000 in just a checking account plus my savings account...so im just fine thank you very much. Green becomes you.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 08-27-2014).]
Originally posted by jaskispyder: BTW, this is usually a requirement for tax breaks.... x number of jobs (filled positions) to be created. It is usually part of an agreement for said tax breaks.
I don't think so. A company can only offer projections. Perhaps it can guarantee a certain number of initial jobs. Many times a relocation is from one state to another. Just as companies have to compete with one another, cities/states/nations have to compete with each other to keep companies which provide jobs/citizen tax base revenue. If red states are offering a better business environment, blue states are at fault for forcing a worse one on companies. The same can be said for the US tax system.
Your not calling me out on anything. Your wrong with just about everything except in your made up dreamland world. Sorry, I dont recall ever saying anything about a billboard....If it was me, Id like to see a link...then ill agree with you.
Obuma being called out is never enough...till hes gone. Ill harp on it till the day he leaves. I dont care if your tired of anything. I get tired of you too, and a few others on here. Just dont read anything I say and youll be fine. You dont like what you read ... tough. I didnt order you to read it.
Toledo was just a quick example because its close and recent. Then I turn on the news and guess what, Pelee Island in Lake Erie is told not to drink their water as of today because its contaminated. All the water in southern Ohio tastes like sulfur and has for 50 years. It makes me gag to drink it. Even Columbus city water is nasty and we get boil alerts all the time.
back on topic...I hope BK does well with its move. They will make more money and build more stores to hire more people + make themselves more money. If enough companies do this, maybe the US government will take notice and figure out what theyre doing wrong.
I support them...think Ill go get a few Whoppers right now.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 08-27-2014).]
A boycott works if everyone does it.... People sure complain, but they are not willing to change their habits. If BK lost half of their customer base here in the US, they would change, by either leaving or keeping headquarters here. If they leave... no big deal, as another company will step in and sell their product.
You are correct. There's nothing at Burger King that I can't get a few hundred feet away.
My food commentary on Burger King... ugg for a burger. I did stop at a Tim Horton's when on one of my road trips... ugg. It was some "breakfast sandwich" bacon egg and cheese (how can you screw that up?) on a cold soggy English muffin. Their coffee was terrible, I make better.
I didn't say they would pay the city for the land... that is the point. The city improved access to land they didn't own. Correction... the taxpayers paid to improve access/infrastructure to land owned by a business (developer most likely).
So... now, we are saying employees pay for these things... that would still be the taxpayers.... not the company.
Yes, come to Detroit... come to Flint... come see what happens when cities bend over backwards for companies and then get screwed when they leave.
There is a lot of cleaning up that needs to be done and who is going to do it? Those companies that left? Nope.
(Geez, this is really getting off-topic....)
Where did the city get the money to improve the infrastructure? Taxpayer. Where did the taxpayers get the money to pay those taxes? From their employers as a return for their labor. Who were the employers? The companies. The only exception to this is floating a bond issuance, in which case, the taxpayers again pay for it and .where do the taxpayers get the $$ to pay off the issuance of the improvement bonds? Same as above.
No campany has an eternal obligation to stay in one location, any more than any employee has an obligation to forever stay with any company, in any city, or in any state or nation. Anytime any individual person considers making a move, one of the first things they do is seek out information of how high the taxes will be in the new location. No one ever complains that they do this. Let a company do the same and they suddenly become evil incarnate.
Happens here in MI. Specific number of people employed for tax breaks.
Just how it works... why would anyone give tax breaks based on promises of jobs created.... doesn't work that way around here. There is talk about requiring repayment if number of jobs are not created, in some cases.
Originally posted by maryjane: Anytime any individual person considers making a move, one of the first things they do is seek out information of how high the taxes will be in the new location. No one ever complains that they do this.
In the thread about Americans renouncing their citizenship, many complained that they were unpatriotic for taking their money and leaving to save on taxes.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Happens here in MI. Specific number of people employed for tax breaks.
Sorry. I can not believe that. In all due respect, I do not mean to ridicule you as gullible but perhaps that is the bill of 'promises' your elected phucks (mine are phucks too) led you to believe. A company can only give projections. Business waters allow projections to be met, or not. City officials then have to determine how realistic the projections may be, thus making projections of their own.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Just how it works... why would anyone give tax breaks based on promises of jobs created.... doesn't work that way around here. There is talk about requiring repayment if number of jobs are not created, in some cases.
I would like to know more about theses talks. They must have a history of examples of being duped. I also see such a proposal as a hindrance to attracting business, as I have never heard of that happening anywhere. A prospective business will go elsewhere to places their hands are not tied. More business friendly.
Originally posted by cliffw: Sorry. I can not believe that. In all due respect, I do not mean to ridicule you as gullible but perhaps that is the bill of 'promises' your elected phucks (mine are phucks too) led you to believe. A company can only give projections. Business waters allow projections to be met, or not. City officials then have to determine how realistic the projections may be, thus making projections of their own.
Believe it... There are requirements on tax abatements... here are some examples (news articles). Instead of calling me gullible, try researching and asking yourself... "hey, could this be true?". As a taxpayer, if you let your city give out tax abatements based on promises and no formal requirements (claw back) then you should be very upset.
50 jobs retained: http://www.mlive.com/news/s...aders_approve_t.html According to the company's application for the certificates, no new jobs will be created as a result of the new investments, but 50 jobs will be retained.
Performance requirements: http://www.tennessean.com/s...hill-maury/14650699/ The abatements are tied to performance criteria requiring the companies to show proof of at least 80 percent achievement of their projected employment and investment figures by a certain date.
http://millelacscountytimes...ent-for-coin-tainer/ Both the county and city offers carry job and wage goals to be met by Coin-Tainer. The county’s tax abatement, for example, calls for Coin-Tainer retaining at least 29 full-time-equivalent jobs in the county and increasing the number of full-time-equivalent jobs to 35 within 24 months and to a total of 40 within five years. The county proposal also calls for Coin-Tainer, if it should accept the abatement, to maintain jobs for the abatement term. The full-time-equivalent positions would have to include a wage of at least $11 per hour including benefits.
The county’s tax abatement also carries remedies if Coin-Tainer does not meet the operation and job goals, namely having to repay the tax abatement subsidies according to a formula based on the number of years into the abatement period when the goals were not met.
http://indianapropertytaxre...-council-orders.html The agreement states that if a business ceases operation in an Economic Revitalization Area at any time during the term of the agreement, the city may immediately terminate tax abatement deductions and require the recipient to repay all or a portion of those tax savings.
http://www.wcnc.com/story/m...led-air-hq/14645299/ In the case of Sealed Air, the city says part of the $4 million business investment grant must be repaid if the company moves from Charlotte within five years of the end of the grant term.
http://www.hendersondispatc...-time-to-create-jobs McMillen said if the job creation goals are not met, a proportionate share of loan funds would be repaid by the property owner through a claw back provision in the loan performance agreement.
Believe it... There are requirements on tax abatements...
So you've proven when the businesses meet those requirements, the "corporate welfare" is actually in the best interest of the city, government, and taxpayer. It's only a problem when the investment goes belly up. That's true of any business venture, as anyone who's ever invested money can attest.
So you've proven when the businesses meet those requirements, the "corporate welfare" is actually in the best interest of the city, government, and taxpayer. It's only a problem when the investment goes belly up. That's true of any business venture, as anyone who's ever invested money can attest.
No... I only proved that these formal (legal) agreements exist and there are requirements (and repayment clauses)... it isn't just "free money"... or it shouldn't be free money. When it works, yup... great! When it doesn't, the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook. If that is the case, then stop using tax payer money for these gambles. Time to come up with a better solution (like cutting taxes in general vs these special deals). I said cut taxes, not go tax free.
That is the way it is in MI. The more jobs you "promise" to create, the bigger the tax breaks.
Yup, one of the factors that destroyed Saginaw (and other cities). Times are changing and tax payers are getting smarter about how their money is handled when it comes to these programs.
.
.
?
?
