In order to lure Amazon to Tennessee, the state gave it free land, job training assistance and $12 million in property tax breaks. The story says the deal is standard for a company that promised to bring 1,400 jobs tot he state this year.
And on top of that Amazon wants to remain sales tax free in the state
so much for the idea of fair competition, how is a little guy supposed to compete when the government can give such benefits to the big players who don't have any justification for needing the help. we really need a national law to reduce this sort of bribery so that it doesn't continue to be a case where one place has to offer it or someone else will.
If I wanted to open my own company how much help would I get from the government? nothing. but If I am google/amazon etc then I can write a wish list of freebies and likely get it, it's absurd and killing competition
Agreed 100%. This is wrong. Laws need to apply to everybody equally.
It is telling, though, that a state recognizes the way to attract businesses is to lower taxes (for specific businesses). It would be great if they could carry the thought one step further and reduce taxes across the board so existing businesses could expand and other businesses might want to consider TN.
__________________
__________________
February is PALIN-FREE month. Whatever you do, don't mention Sarah Palin's name. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin.
Agreed 100%. This is wrong. Laws need to apply to everybody equally.
It is telling, though, that a state recognizes the way to attract businesses is to lower taxes (for specific businesses). It would be great if they could carry the thought one step further and reduce taxes across the board so existing businesses could expand and other businesses might want to consider TN.
the problem with your line of thinking is that eventually someone has to pay, yes if one state is cheaper will attract more businesses but at the end of the day the government costs money to run, so they will never lower all taxes (especially to nothing as they did here) because most companies are not nationwide and able to locate anywhere.
the trick is to give everyone the same advantage and disadvantages and not as you suggested (not directly but logic would say) shift the tax load from businesses to individuals
the problem with your line of thinking is that eventually someone has to pay, yes if one state is cheaper will attract more businesses but at the end of the day the government costs money to run, so they will never lower all taxes (especially to nothing as they did here) because most companies are not nationwide and able to locate anywhere.
the trick is to give everyone the same advantage and disadvantages and not as you suggested (not directly but logic would say) shift the tax load from businesses to individuals
I'm a big fan of reducing the tax burden for everyone who pays taxes by reducing spending. There are very few states that aren't operating in the red which suggests their governments (state and local) are spending more than they can hope to bring in. If they raise taxes too much, they'll kill business.
__________________
February is PALIN-FREE month. Whatever you do, don't mention Sarah Palin's name. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin.
I'm a big fan of reducing the tax burden for everyone who pays taxes by reducing spending. There are very few states that aren't operating in the red which suggests their governments (state and local) are spending more than they can hope to bring in. If they raise taxes too much, they'll kill business.
sigh..........
how did we get from certain businesses paying nothing to this?
LOL! You can say whatever you want about my posts, but the inescapable implication of the tax waivers for Amazon was to entice them to come to Tennessee. Had the taxes not been waived, would Amazon have set up shop there? I'm guessing probably not.
Is it a stretch to conclude, then, that more businesses would be attracted if the corporate tax rate was more attractive? I guarantee you that would be the case in New York State. It may be true for TN, too.
Since a state can't hope to continue offering the services it does with less revenue and since raising taxes on individuals is not the answer, I'm left with "cut spending". You can disagree all you like, but my answer was neither distracting nor misleading.
__________________
February is PALIN-FREE month. Whatever you do, don't mention Sarah Palin's name. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin.
LOL! You can say whatever you want about my posts, but the inescapable implication of the tax waivers for Amazon was to entice them to come to Tennessee. Had the taxes not been waived, would Amazon have set up shop there? I'm guessing probably not.
Is it a stretch to conclude, then, that more businesses would be attracted if the corporate tax rate was more attractive? I guarantee you that would be the case in New York State. It may be true for TN, too.
Since a state can't hope to continue offering the services it does with less revenue and since raising taxes on individuals is not the answer, I'm left with "cut spending". You can disagree all you like, but my answer was neither distracting nor misleading.
yes but you pretend there are not any complications from that action.
why don't we just make minimum wage 1 million a year? there are complications. I HAVE NO DOUBT that reducing taxes to nothing for all companies would greatly benefit companies at first,but eventually that tax money will have to be made up by someone, and since you feel businesses shouldn't be taxed then the individual has to then pay more.
parroting the GOP line of "cut spending" is garbage, cut spending BEFORE reducing taxes and I'll give it credence but doing so first is just making more problems and just about as smart as buying a new mercedez during the sophomore year of college because you will probably make more once you graduate. get the available money first then reduce taxes, otherwise you are just placing more debt on our budget.
If you hear a politician tell you they are going to cut taxes and they don't have an attached plan to reduce spending to it to balance the two out all they are doing is preying on people's stupidity so they can get re-elected and pass the debt on so future politicians will have to deal with or pay that debt.
yes but you pretend there are not any complications from that?
I never said that. Certainly there would be complications. Since a huge percentage of spending is done at the social level and infrastructure must be maintained, the logical cuts would go toward social spending. This will tick a lot of people off. It's complicated. And it is probably impossible to implement by virtue of voters ousting legislators who cut their hand-outs in favor of those who pledge to restore them.
One way or another, I see social spending programs being cut. This isn't a matter of being easy, uncomplicated, or even desirable. It's necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
why don't we just make minimum wage 1 million a year? there are complications. I HAVE NO DOUBT that reducing taxes to nothing for all companies would greatly benefit companies at first,but eventually that tax money will have to be made up by someone, and since you feel businesses shouldn't be taxed then the individual has to then pay more.
I didn't say businesses shouldn't be taxed. I said the tax burden should be lowered for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
parroting the GOP line of "cut spending" is garbage, cut spending BEFORE reducing taxes and I'll give it credence but doing so first is just making more problems and just about as smart as buying a new mercedez during the sophomore year of college because you will probably make more once you graduate. get the available money first then reduce taxes, otherwise you are just placing more debt on our budget.
First, ease up on the GOP/Republican schtick, will ya? I'm not a Republican. I don't like the Republican party. Second, I'm fine with cutting spending and deferring lowering taxes if the purpose is to bridge the enormous budget gaps. But ultimately, lowering taxes is desirable.
__________________
February is PALIN-FREE month. Whatever you do, don't mention Sarah Palin's name. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin.
..............Since a huge percentage of spending is done at the social level and infrastructure must be maintained, the logical cuts would go toward social spending. This will tick a lot of people off. It's complicated. And it is probably impossible to implement by virtue of voters ousting legislators who cut their hand-outs in favor of those who pledge to restore them.
One way or another, I see social spending programs being cut. This isn't a matter of being easy, uncomplicated, or even desirable. It's necessary.I didn't say businesses shouldn't be taxed. I said the tax burden should be lowered for everyone.
And there is the biggest problem of all (the hand-outs).....(funny, how it seems this is what always comes up in so many of the forum debates...)
And to me, taking less from someone is not a handout.... The handouts are the ones where folks get more than they are putting in. What RedJeep is calling a "handout" is actually an incentive. There is a big difference. Oh wait.... I guess giving people more than they put in is an incentive....TO VOTE FOR THE ONE PROMISING THE HANDOUTS.
And on top of that Amazon wants to remain sales tax free in the state
so much for the idea of fair competition, how is a little guy supposed to compete when the government can give such benefits to the big players who don't have any justification for needing the help. we really need a national law to reduce this sort of bribery so that it doesn't continue to be a case where one place has to offer it or someone else will.
If I wanted to open my own company how much help would I get from the government? nothing. but If I am google/amazon etc then I can write a wish list of freebies and likely get it, it's absurd and killing competition
This actually goes on more than people realize. In terms of cutting spending, I feel it all starts with our elected officials taking a pay cut FIRST, then going from there! Never works like that though. Everyone at the top gets the breaks, and everyone else picks up the slack, blah blah blah!
Linear Mode
