-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Amazon packing after South Carolina House vote
- Thread starter Infohawk
- Start date
Nintendesert
Diamond Member
1,249 jobs is why. Those people pay taxes. So now the state will get nothing.
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
So any company with over 1248 employees should be exempt from sales tax?
Do you care about a fair marketplace at all?
wuliheron
Diamond Member
The tax break would just be for Amazon and is what is called a "sweetheart deal".
This isn't some high tech factory or office building. Its a warehouse that provides low paying jobs in one of the poorest states in the union. The entire state economy is probably dependent upon just such low paying jobs and they need every penny they can get.
Amazon's problem is that for the most part people have not taxed internet sales as a way to encourage the growth of the market. Now that times are hard, everyone is looking at taxing the internet and Amazon knows if they start paying sales tax in one state the others will demand the same. The real question isn't whether Amazon or S.C. is being greedy, but whether in these desperate times other states will now make the same demand for internet sales taxes.
Last edited:
sportage
Lifer
Every state does these sweet heart deals to get companies to come or get companies to stay. In iOwa, Wells Fargo got just such a deal when they moved into the Des Moines area. Otherwise, Wells Fargo would and could have went elsewhere and found another sweet heart deal. This it typical. Im surprised anyone is surprised. This is how the game is played. Duh.
wuliheron
Diamond Member
Not always.
Walmart became infamous for conning unsuspecting small towns into excessive sweetheart deals, and then driving all the local small stores out of business. They provided low paying jobs that merely replaced higher paying small businesses and then sent the profits back to their corporate headquarters. In essence, they actually took money more money out of the place then they put in and lowered the local tax base.
As a result places like New York city that grew wise to the scam passed laws forbidding Walmart to build there. Of course, Walmart likes to protest that it is unamerican and that they provide jobs for the poor, but lowering the local tax and turning shopping areas into ghost towns is not to anyone's advantage if it can be avoided. At some point the state simply has to draw a line and say it is simply no longer to their advantage.
Last edited:
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
Whatever the reasons, SC just lost 1250 jobs. They might have been McJobs but still... I'm sure Amazon would have found 1250 people to fill the positions.
Pre-mature ejaculation? Wait for them to build the facility and start shipping. Wait a year or two THEN change the law and start slightly raising the tax rate... It's like boiling a crab... you never throw a live crab into boiling water... you drop him in a warm pot and slowly raise the temp.
Can't blame Amazon though. I'm sure there are other places that will give them the biz friendly environment they are looking for.
Pre-mature ejaculation? Wait for them to build the facility and start shipping. Wait a year or two THEN change the law and start slightly raising the tax rate... It's like boiling a crab... you never throw a live crab into boiling water... you drop him in a warm pot and slowly raise the temp.
Can't blame Amazon though. I'm sure there are other places that will give them the biz friendly environment they are looking for.
This is an ongoing problem, playing regional governments off one another for ridiculous subsidies, whether states or countries.
If you're a person or small person, where you can't just change states or countries easily, screw you, no breaks.
But if you're big enough to say 'we're going to make a plant so big it'll kill you politically to lose it, and we're playing several states in a race to the bottom', screw taxpayers.
Here are your sweetheart deals, tax breaks (let others pay your share), taxpayer money for infrastructure, buildings, loans at below market interest or even forgiven...
It's just one more way that concentrated power stomps on the public.
If you're a person or small person, where you can't just change states or countries easily, screw you, no breaks.
But if you're big enough to say 'we're going to make a plant so big it'll kill you politically to lose it, and we're playing several states in a race to the bottom', screw taxpayers.
Here are your sweetheart deals, tax breaks (let others pay your share), taxpayer money for infrastructure, buildings, loans at below market interest or even forgiven...
It's just one more way that concentrated power stomps on the public.
Your rhetoric shows some of the problem talking about this.
A big business demands all kinds of excessive benefits that screw the public and taxpayer - extortion. Huge tax exemption, taxpayers buying things, etc.
Then when politicians put the public interest first and say no, they're called 'unfriendly to business'. No, they're not. They're unfriendly to abuse of the citizens and extortion.
The fact it can make financial sense for big business to get away this extortion doesn't change that it's screwing the citizens, any more than the fact that 'too big to fail' Wall Street companies/banks where it makes sense to give them bailouts and exemptions that screw taxpayers rather than have the economy destroyed changes the fact that they're screwing the citizens.
The solutions we need are for governmental cooperation - states, countries - to not let them get away with a 'race to the bottom' forcing taxpayers to give away too much.
Many of these deals devastate local economies, leaving them in massive debt (the people who approved it long gone), paying hundreds of thousands of dollars each for jobs paying $30K, taking money out of schools and roads for the public to pay for the concessions to the big businesses.
Government should take steps to prevent abuse of power.
wuliheron
Diamond Member
Not just any McJobs, but McJobs that Amazon demanded the people of S.C. bend over and grease their ass for. If that's your thing I'm sure you'll find plenty of employers willing to give it to you. Evidently it wasn't S.C. thing and they felt they could pass this time. We'll just have to see if Amazon can find someone else more willing or not. If not, then obviously the market just won't go that low anymore.
Last edited:
Because socialism for big business is the 'free market'.
They're powerful and use that power to extort government - that's just 'good business'.
Last edited:
LegendKiller
Lifer
American's and their naive concepts of "fair" is exactly what got us into this fucked up situation with China and others. It's utterly amazing that we are the only country on the planet who retains this utterly foolish concept of "fair" while being bludgeoned to death by every other country not playing "fair".
This isn't fucking Star Trek, nor is it utopia. Growth the fuck up.
Jobs are needed, jobs are now lost.
I'm not sure you understood his point. You are defending big business playing states off each other for huge concessions at the public's expense, do you mean to do that?
Allowing big business to use Chinese labor without penalty, killing US jobs, is on the OTHER side from the post you're criticizing.
You seem to be criticizing the use of cheap labor in China without protection at the same time you are criticizing the argument it would be 'fair' not to do so.
LegendKiller
Lifer
So what if they get concessions?
Not sure what "sides" you're talking about. The reason why China's "labor" is cheap is not because they have cheap labor.
highland145
Lifer
I'm divided. 1250 jobs and a net $11M income for the state. But I hate people that get special treatment over everyone else.
It's not an issue of getting special treatment over everyone else, it's a simple equation: the state has to decide if it's an overall net benefit to the state or not. Benefits - concessions = net result. If the net result is not favorable, the state declines and the business can go somewhere else. What's the problem?
jackschmittusa
Diamond Member
It seems to me that the concession they wanted was not a give away like most here are talking about.
It's about forcing them to collect sales tax from every S.C. resident that buys from them, even though they are not technically selling in the state, merely having a presence there.
So, the choice for S.C. was simple. Either gain jobs and revenue by exempting them from becoming a state tax agent (even though they are not selling from a location in the state), or get nothing. They chose nothing.
It's about forcing them to collect sales tax from every S.C. resident that buys from them, even though they are not technically selling in the state, merely having a presence there.
So, the choice for S.C. was simple. Either gain jobs and revenue by exempting them from becoming a state tax agent (even though they are not selling from a location in the state), or get nothing. They chose nothing.
Exactly. The issue is / was that if the business has a presence in the state, it is responsible for charging/collecting state taxes in that state. Amazon was willing to build a job-bringing warehouse in SC, but they didn't want it to mean they'd have to charge/collect sales tax from everyone in the state. The state said "no", and so they chose not to build there. I see no issue with it, each side did exactly what they were supposed to do, look out for their own best interests.
Thump553
Lifer
Nothing pisses me off more than seeing a competitor waltz into the area with a sweetheart deal from the taxing authorities-a deal not available to my small business and in fact a deal that I pay for, in effect subsidizing my competition through the government.
The politicians win, of course, by being able to claim they brought in xxx new jobs. They forget about the existing employers they weaken and overtax-employers that will jump to another state/town if they are big enough.
If I was in charge of writing the federal and state constitution I would make sure to prohibit such patently unfair practices.
Congrats to SC. And an especially dumb move on Amazon's part for not locking the deal in before starting the project.
The politicians win, of course, by being able to claim they brought in xxx new jobs. They forget about the existing employers they weaken and overtax-employers that will jump to another state/town if they are big enough.
If I was in charge of writing the federal and state constitution I would make sure to prohibit such patently unfair practices.
Congrats to SC. And an especially dumb move on Amazon's part for not locking the deal in before starting the project.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
