• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

North Carolina: A state in decline

BeachBumDeac said:
Not really, because the company will just move those jobs to another state once the tax incentives have expired.
Click to expand...

So all of the state income tax, payroll tax, business personal property tax, unemployment insurance, franchise tax, etc. paid by the company, plus the corresponding taxes paid by its employees, during the period that the company is getting a real property tax break all amount to nothing? Straight bullshit.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
So all of the state income tax, payroll tax, business personal property tax, unemployment insurance, franchise tax, etc. paid by the company, plus the corresponding taxes paid by its employees, during the period that the company is getting a real property tax break all amount to nothing? Straight bullshit.
Click to expand...

all those items have to be taken into account to determine whether the investment makes sense for the state. offsetting those credits are debits for the cost of the incentives, including the incremental costs of building, maintaining, and replacing the public infrastructure supporting the facility. The time value of money also has to be taken into account, as the state is spending money now in expectation of a payback later on down the road. I find that this calculation is almost never done, or if it is done it is not presented in a way that a businessperson would recognize as a ROI analysis.

Even if a particular program is good for a particular state or locality, the point remains that on a national level, it's a completely zero sum game. The whole setup is just a way to move taxpayer dollars to the bottom lines of private businesses. period end of story.
 
There are usually income tax incentives involved too. SC gives an income tax credit of up to $8,000 per employee in distressed counties. That's a shitload of money for a single worker in a distressed county making $26,000.
 
So Lancaster County SC is considered a Least Developed County, so the income tax credit is $4,500. Meanwhile York County is a Developed County so the credit is $1,500. So if you're in Ballantyne, in southern Mecklenburg County, thinking about getting a bigger office and see all those tax incentives, what do you do?
 
Deacon923 said:
all those items have to be taken into account to determine whether the investment makes sense for the state. offsetting those credits are debits for the cost of the incentives, including the incremental costs of building, maintaining, and replacing the public infrastructure supporting the facility. The time value of money also has to be taken into account, as the state is spending money now in expectation of a payback later on down the road. I find that this calculation is almost never done, or if it is done it is not presented in a way that a businessperson would recognize as a ROI analysis.

Even if a particular program is good for a particular state or locality, the point remains that on a national level, it's a completely zero sum game. The whole setup is just a way to move taxpayer dollars to the bottom lines of private businesses. period end of story.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. If a company would pay X dollars in total taxes to do business in California, but pays Y dollars in total taxes to do business in Kentucky because of local tax breaks, then X-Y remains in the private market in one form or another.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No it isn't. If a company would pay X dollars in total taxes to do business in California, but pays Y dollars in total taxes to do business in Kentucky because of local tax breaks, then X-Y remains in the private market in one form or another.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, in that on a national level, zero additional jobs are created. Since the alleged point is to create jobs, it's a zero sum game.

You are correct that less total taxes are paid, which is my whole point. The same amount of jobs are created, and taxpayer dollars are moved onto private balance sheets.
 
if you look at voting patterns by iq, i'd bet the dems would do just fine.
 
Deacon923 said:
Yes it is, in that on a national level, zero additional jobs are created. Since the alleged point is to create jobs, it's a zero sum game.

You are correct that less total taxes are paid, which is my whole point. The same amount of jobs are created, and taxpayer dollars are moved onto private balance sheets.
Click to expand...

No. Additional jobs are directly created if X-Y is used to hire more people. Or they are indirectly created if X-Y is used to purchase other goods or services requiring new jobs. The primary way additional jobs are not created is if the Company goes to California, pays the full X in taxes, and the money is flushed down the California government hole.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No. Additional jobs are directly created if X-Y is used to hire more people. Or they are indirectly created if X-Y is used to purchase other goods or services requiring new jobs. The primary way additional jobs are not created is if the Company goes to California, pays the full X in taxes, and the money is flushed down the California government hole.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with this analysis. Empirical observation indicates it is not true. Companies decide they need to build a new widget plant or call center. They know how much it will cost to build and how many employees will be required to run it. Then they shop that around to three or four states to see how much moolah they can get. The payola just adds to the bottom line of the new operation - which was already determined to be necessary and/or profitable. The decision on # of jobs and capital investment is made before the taxpayer shakedown. I have seen this play over and over again, and you've seen it too.
 
Deacon923 said:
I totally disagree with this analysis. Empirical observation indicates it is not true. Companies decide they need to build a new widget plant or call center. They know how much it will cost to build and how many employees will be required to run it. Then they shop that around to three or four states to see how much moolah they can get. The payola just adds to the bottom line of the new operation - which was already determined to be necessary and/or profitable. The decision on # of jobs and capital investment is made before the taxpayer shakedown. I have seen this play over and over again, and you've seen it too.
Click to expand...

What you say here may be true. However, the fact of the matter is that the money that you say goes straight to the bottom line of the corporation helps to make them more likely to succeed. The more they succeed, the more likely they are to (i) stay in business and (ii) grow in the future. The direct line causation is difficult to show but it makes sense.
 
scooter84 said:
What you say here may be true. However, the fact of the matter is that the money that you say goes straight to the bottom line of the corporation helps to make them more likely to succeed. The more they succeed, the more likely they are to (i) stay in business and (ii) grow in the future. The direct line causation is difficult to show but it makes sense.
Click to expand...

So why give the payola to the largest most successful well connected companies instead of small growing businesses?

I say outlaw it and give all businesses a tax cut.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Rumors of North Carolina's demise are greatly exaggerated.

I love getting lectured by the New York Times, which has not written an objective word in probably 30 or 40 years. Must be cool that NY, NJ, and CT are in such great shape that they can take the time to tell us that we suck down south. Perhaps when Weiner and Spitzer are back in office, to go along with fellow elected liars Blumenthal in CT and Warren in MA, we will learn the better way of doing things.

Elections have consequences. Were these Barack's words or Rahm's?

When someone tells you they have better morals than you, run like hell. Or are they saying that they and Jerry Falwell are two peas in a pod?

I also love the news circle...N&O goes nuts about how we are doomed, NY Times picks up the N&O feeds, then the NC media reports about the NY Times's editorial. It's a self fulfilling news prophecy based entirely on a faulty premise. The only people to blame about how this will hurt NC's reputation are the dumbasses in the NC media who incorrectly are reporting the news in the first place.

Cracks me up that people truly believe there is a "War on Women" or a "War on Education" in this state.

jedi-mind-trick1.jpg


Please. It's called a different way of doing things. Not like NC was exactly the cream of the crop in education as it was. And we probably have had more democratic criminal investigations and prison terms in the last 20 years than every state but LA and NJ combined.
 
lefty said:
It was an editorial, which by definition, is subjective.
Click to expand...

Understood. The point is that by virtue of them being unable to write even a basic news story with a modicum of objectivity, their editorials lack all credibility. I've seen better writing and reasoning in high school papers.
 
Dillon Fence said:
Understood. The point is that by virtue of them being unable to write even a basic news story with a modicum of objectivity, their editorials lack all credibility. I've seen better writing and reasoning in high school papers.
Click to expand...

"A different way of doing things"? Is that what you call it when the legislature hides a regressive abortion bill in an anti-sharia law bill and then a motorcycle safety bill? Get your head out of the fucking sand.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
"A different way of doing things"? Is that what you call it when the legislature hides a regressive abortion bill in an anti-sharia law bill and then a motorcycle safety bill? Get your head out of the fucking sand.
Click to expand...

Or, it's a womens health and safety bill, depending on one's point of view, but you are correct, the dems operated the same way, albeit with bathroom payoffs, so perhaps it is in fact not a different way of doing things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top