backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by grant3.. on Sep 20 at 1:10 PM

Generous tax incentives package helped Nevada score a win over neighbor states

We reported yesterday that the state of Nevada scored a victory over Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico to become the home for Tesla Motors’ massive, $5 billion Gigafactory. Sources for Bloomberg and CNBC confirmed the news, while Governor Brian Sandoval took to Twitter to inform his followers of a “major announcement” for Thursday.
 
Today, Tesla Motors confirmed what everybody has known for the past 48 hours and made the deal official. “The Gigafactory is an important step in advancing the cause of sustainable transportation and will enable the mass production of compelling electric vehicles for decades to come,” said Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk. “Together with Panasonic and other partners, we look forward to realizing the full potential of this project,” said Elon Musk, Chairman and CEO of Tesla Motors.

 
“Tesla will build the world’s largest and most advanced battery factory in Nevada which means nearly one hundred billion dollars in economic impact to the Silver State over the next twenty years,” added Governor Sandoval. “These 21st century pioneers, fueled with innovation and desire, are emboldened by the promise of Nevada to change the world.”
 
Tesla will work together with Panasonic on the Gigafactory, with the latter handling the manufacturing of battery cells and the battery packs that will go into future Tesla electric vehicles. Once completed, the Gigafactory will employ 6,500 people (average wage of $25/hour) and will have a total annual output of roughly 50 GWh in battery, which is enough to support the production of 500,000 Tesla EVs per year.


[Image Source: Reno Gazette-Journal]
 
It should be noted that Nevada was able to secure the Gigafactory thanks in part to its incredibly generous tax incentives package. Tesla’s incentives package is worth approximately $1.25 billion spread out over 20 years according to the Reno Gazette-Journal. In return, Tesla will have to a least $3.5 billion in “manufacturing equipment and real property” within the state and provide $7.5 million/year for five years to the state’s educational system.

Sources: Tesla Motors, Reno Gazette-Journal



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Tax credits per job should be a national strategy
By Mint on 9/4/2014 11:15:09 PM , Rating: 3
Most loopholes bringing corporate tax down from 35%+ to 12% effective should be closed and replaced with at least $2 of tax breaks per hour of employment.

That's a real incentive to favor high employment economic activity over low employment.




By Solandri on 9/4/2014 11:44:34 PM , Rating: 1
Trading off corporate taxes for personal taxes or vice versa doesn't accomplish anything. Corporations aren't sources of productivity; people (their employees) are. A corporation is just a bicycle. It's the employees who do the pedaling, and thus the employees who generate the productivity and profits. If you increase taxes on corporations, they cannot pay for it because they don't produce anything. They pass the taxes on either as higher prices for their products, or lower wages for their employees.

e.g. Say the only tax was a personal income tax, and there was no tax on corporations. One day someone says that just ain't fair, sets all personal income taxes to zero, and puts the entire tax burden on corporations. It's completely naive to think people's purchasing power will increase if that happens. Corporations don't produce anything - their employees do. So the money can't come from the corporation. It has to come from the employees or the customers. If the former, pay will be cut to exactly cancel out the tax reduction (i.e. you're just changing who sends the money to the government from the individual to his employer), or prices will rise to exactly cancel out the increased take-home pay.

Any real increase in average take-home pay comes from one thing and one thing only - increasing people's productivity. Making corporations pay taxes instead of individuals is just a shell game which doesn't change productivity, so cannot change people's take-home pay. (Well, it can reduce it if it takes additional manpower to collect said taxes.)

If you want to target the richest 1% with higher taxes, target the richest 1% with higher taxes. Increase their income tax rate, and/or make the capital gains tax rate tiered based on income. Don't fatten up the tax code with meaningless corporate tax increases which are virtually guaranteed to hit small businesses harder than big corporations (who can afford the lawyers and accountants to find and take advantage of every loophole).


RE: Tax credits per job should be a national strategy
By Mint on 9/5/2014 12:07:32 AM , Rating: 1
There is always a differential effect when you shift taxes around. You're wrong in thinking it doesn't do anything.

A tax break per employee reduces the marginal cost of labor. A tax break on profit does not.

If two companies produce the same product for the same price, with company A having high overhead but low labor costs (say, due to outsourcing) and company B having low overhead but high labor costs, then an shift in taxes can reward B and punish A, relatively speaking. B then grows due to its competitive advantage while A shrinks.

quote:
Making corporations pay taxes instead of individuals is just a shell game which doesn't change productivity, so cannot change people's take-home pay.
If the US economy lost 20M jobs, but total take-home pay remained the same (i.e. those wages went to those who still had jobs), is that just an inconsequential shell game to you?

Even if productivity doesn't change, it's still worthwhile to encourage employment via tax shifts. In reality, though, productivity will go up, because consumer spending power goes up with more people employed.


By Solandri on 9/5/2014 1:48:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There is always a differential effect when you shift taxes around. You're wrong in thinking it doesn't do anything.

Of course there's a differential effect. But both two endpoints of this differential effect lead to the same thing - either take-home pay is cut, or prices increase to devalue your take-home pay (same thing as a pay cut). So any fractional combination of the two will have the same effect as well.
quote:
A tax break per employee reduces the marginal cost of labor. A tax break on profit does not.

A tax break on profit would lead to lower prices, having the same net effect as a pay increase for the employees. The market will compensate for that by lowering wages - i.e. a reduction in the marginal cost of labor.

These things are all connected - you cannot change them independently. Changing one causes a change in the other, leading to the same end result. If every employer decides to double everyone's pay overnight, they have to double prices to compensate. (Non-payroll expenses would also double because the companies you're buying those goods and services from have also doubled their prices.) You'll make 2x as much as you did yesterday, but prices will be 2x higher, meaning nothing has changed. Just that $1 is worth half what it was yesterday.

Like I said, if your beef is with corporate profit ending up in the bank accounts of 1%ers as distributions and capital gains, then increase the tax on those specifically. Don't waste time with shell game tax laws that non-1%ers have to follow.

quote:
If the US economy lost 20M jobs, but total take-home pay remained the same (i.e. those wages went to those who still had jobs), is that just an inconsequential shell game to you?

Even if productivity doesn't change, it's still worthwhile to encourage employment via tax shifts. In reality, though, productivity will go up, because consumer spending power goes up with more people employed.

I just explained why it doesn't work like that. But even if it did, having more people employed by this method wouldn't increase productivity. It would just divide the same amount of productivity over a greater number of people (i.e. you've employed 5 employees to do work which used to be done by 4).

If there was a real productivity gain to be made by having an extra employee, the company would be hiring the extra employee right now. If business expanded so the 5th employee became useful, then business would've expanded so the company would've had to hire an extra employee anyway.


By Mint on 9/5/2014 8:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
No, the end result is not the same. It would only be the same if every business had identical ratios of capital to labor, profit to labor, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I deal with connected variables all the time in engineering. That doesn't mean changing one gives you the same result as changing another. You're taking a very simplistic view of the economy.

I don't know why you're obsessing about take home pay. Why would it be cut? Overall, corporations would pay the same amount of tax under my suggestion as they currently do. What happens is certain corporate behavior is favored over others.

quote:
If there was a real productivity gain to be made by having an extra employee, the company would be hiring the extra employee right now.
Do you seriously think every unemployed person has zero ability to be productive?

I certainly hope not. We have minimum wage to put a barrier in the race to the bottom (and because we lack the will to implement universal income instead). If you lower the marginal cost of labor by $4000/yr, then in many cases a person's productive value can cross over his wage (and other costs).


By Reclaimer77 on 9/5/2014 7:11:09 AM , Rating: 1
Mint is a hopeless Liberal Marxist. Anything he says about economics you can just file in the "tried and failed, everywhere" folder and move on.

His OP is...absurd. Basically he thinks Corporations would hire people JUST to get a few dollars of tax breaks, even if there's not enough business to sustain those employees....

He thinks Corporations hold all the money and dictate economic growth, not a living thriving free market dictating growth and employment demand TO Corporate America.

Because he doesn't believe in Capitalism. Like all hopeless Keynesian retards of his and Obama's ilk.


RE: Tax credits per job should be a national strategy
By Mint on 9/5/2014 10:50:18 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Basically he thinks Corporations would hire people JUST to get a few dollars of tax breaks
No, that's just your braindead interpretation.

$4000/yr per fulltime employee is not just a "few dollars", either. It can easily be the difference between a money-losing hire and a money-making hire.

And please go f*** yourself. You don't know jack about economics or my beliefs, so STFU.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/6/2014 9:33:18 AM , Rating: 1
I know your beliefs and economic leanings all too well unfortunately, you've been spewing them on here for years.

This idea of yours causes so many problems...it's mind boggling you think it's the way to go.

Not to mention it disproportionately favors large businesses and corporations who are able to hire more employees than a small business.


RE: Tax credits per job should be a national strategy
By Mint on 9/6/2014 10:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
It is much more favorable to small businesses, and you'd know that if you were capable of any math.

Consider Apple: 100,000 employees (many outside the US), so $4k tax credit each would be well under $400. That's nothing compared to their $40B profit and $14B base tax.

Big businesses generally would get the least percent deduction. Small businesses could very well pay 0% tax. If a business had 100 employees and made $1M in taxable profit, it'd get a $400k credit, wiping out all the tax it owed.


By Mint on 9/6/2014 10:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh. I meant to write "well under $400M"


By Mint on 9/7/2014 4:24:37 PM , Rating: 3
It was a typo, and I corrected it 18 minutes before this useless post of yours, smartass. Learn to read.

$400M is still next to nothing compared to Apple's tax on $40B in profit.

A small business earning $1M in profit would pay ZERO tax if it got $400k in tax credits from 100 employees.


By Nightbird321 on 9/5/2014 9:37:49 AM , Rating: 3
Top 1% of tax payers pay the same in taxes as bottom 95%. Under non-progressive "fair" schemes, those 1% will pay much less so the bottom 95% will pay much more to compensate. Suppose someone earning 350k$/year pays 40% tax now and someone earning 35K$/year pays 20%. Under flat tax, if we shift the rate to 30% for both, the person making 35k would be hurt a lot more than the person making 350k would benefit in quality of life, as the lower earner has to spend less whereas the high earner merely saves less.

Under fair tax (flat consumer tax), the 350k earner saves a lot so the tax rate be close to 35% for both - hurting the 35k/year earner even more.

If you support these "fair" tax laws, I hope you're in the top 5% at least for it to benefit you.


By ilt24 on 9/5/2014 10:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a fan of the Fairtax plan, but it does include what they call a Prebate that does off set the amount of taxes by people with lower means.

"For example, a two adult/two child family spending at the poverty level has an 0% effective tax rate because the annual prebate of $7,236 refunds all of the taxes they pay on their annual spending of $31,460."

for more detail see:

http://fairtax.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Preb...


By FITCamaro on 9/5/2014 11:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
You assume someone making $350K a year doesn't also hire an accountant to help lower their tax burden. Yes some wealthy people might pay lower overall tax rates. But more people will be paying into the system. Wealthy people spend way more money than poor people. All those vacations, big homes, fancy meals, etc would equal lots of tax revenue.


By RBFL on 9/5/2014 1:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Federal Tax rate for ~350K, using Turbotax non aggressively, is about 25%.

It may be that some people with a lot of money spend a lot. It is also true that many in the fairly rich category probably oversave, from a societal perspective. With the vagaries of medical, college and old age expenses, what is enough? If you don't feel the need for BMW 5 Series, ridiculously big house that takes even more uptake,... you save and self insure. Unfortunately this cuts down current spending and reduces the strength of the economy.

Commenting on people getting richer as productivity goes up, most don't. Over the last few decades only those at the top have gained. It would be nice, and better for the country as a whole, if more of that gain was shared more fairly.


By Spuke on 9/5/2014 2:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wealthy people spend way more money than poor people. All those vacations, big homes, fancy meals, etc would equal lots of tax revenue.
Can't speak for other countries but your average American millionaire is not a big, flashy spender. You don't make money by spending it all or even a good portion of a it. I'll give you a hint, the average price of a millionaires home is $750k. That's more than everyone else, for sure, but WAY less than what you might think. What you see on TV is not reality.


By FITCamaro on 9/5/2014 3:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
$750k is a pretty nice place almost everywhere except in the ridiculous places like San Franscisco or New York. Unless its ocean front or historic property, $750,000 buys you a heck of a house. The average home price in 2010 (last year results available) was $272,000. So you're talking triple.

And I'm not saying millionaires go out and spend all their money. But they are more likely to take trips and eat out more often most likely. And spend more money when they do. The point is that nearly EVERYONE, instead of only 50% of Americans would be paying taxes. Including those earning their income under the table. Like the 15-20 million illegals here (sorry I don't buy the 10-12 million number thats been there for almost a decade).

A FairTax might mean less overall revenue. But with revenue close to $3 trillion dollars, I don't see that as a problem. We need to get our spending back under $3 trillion. Not raise more taxes to pay for all this BS that we're paying for now. The spending increases from 2009 + the stimulus has never gone back down. It's stayed there. Without even a "stimulus" every year.


By RBFL on 9/5/2014 5:55:48 PM , Rating: 2

I think it is a little ungenerous to say they pay no taxes. They certainly pay local taxes when they buy things or rent/buy accommodation. The goods they buy also have multiple taxes built into their cost.

I think the rich are more effective at manipulating the system, $1 in lobbying was valued at >$200 in give back.

Who claims all the tax exemptions, generally people with money. A family on $50K with two people who work aren't putting in $34K into their 401Ks.

A much simpler tax system with much lower levels of social engineering and complexity would be a huge gain to the economy.

If you want to buy a Ferrari instead of a house, go for it - one choice should not be tax subsidized.


By Jedi2155 on 9/6/2014 5:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think you can extend that to all the major areas in Califorinia (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego).

You'd be surprise by how little you get for that price in all these suburban areas. In the past 2 years home prices have risen 20% already. I was thinking about buying a Tesla but a house was a much more practical choice.

Luckily I bought my home right at the low point =D. 3.375% 30 year conv. FTW.


By Mint on 9/5/2014 10:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's be honest, no one gets rich by spending money.
The economy is composed of more than one person.

When you take a broader view, that statement is not true at all. The US economy is mostly driven by consumption. Companies exist to provide goods for people who spend money.

We need to encourage MORE consumption by those who can afford it. That's the only way left to grow the economy, period. There's more money saved in banks than ever before, with trillions sitting idle because private debt is tapped out as a use for that money.

Consider two rich folk earning $500k per year. Person X buys $400k in stuff every year (cars, bling, entertainment, donations, etc), and saves $100k/yr. Person Y just spends $100k/yr and saves $400k/yr, planning to pass his wealth to his kids. What does Fairtax do? It punishes person X and rewards person Y.

Increased saving is good for the economy ONLY when banks have ample lending opportunity and need more deposits to feed investment. We're nowhere near such a situation.


By FITCamaro on 9/5/2014 7:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
If not for the corporation though, those people don't have a job.

And targeting those richest only hurts everyone else since they're the ones that make most people's jobs possible. Their investments. If you want to have everyone pay their "fair share", you take away the current tax system and replace it with one no one gets around with a 10-15% sales tax on everything. Sure people trying to pay under the table can still get around it, but that's easy to track from the business.


RE: Tax credits per job should be a national strategy
By Mint on 9/5/2014 11:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Targeting sales hurts everyone because that's what ALL company revenue, and therefore income, is based on.

It's only the rich that don't spend or invest much that are hurting the economy, and this only became an issue since 2008. Before that, it didn't matter if the rich invested, because even if they didn't, the bank would do it for them (by lending). Today, banks are getting more deposits than they know what to do with, despite 0% rates.

The Fairtax helps these people the most. It's the last thing the US economy needs.


By FITCamaro on 9/5/2014 12:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
I pay $1900 a month in taxes. Don't you think that if I, and millions of others, had that back, that sales of many things would rise a great deal? Which drives employment, investing, etc.

There are extremely few rich people who don't spend more than the average person. Most extremely rich people don't have millions of dollars in the bank. It's in stocks and real estate. But those people are also those who are taking more lavish vacations, buying expensive clothes, eating expensive meals, and more. You don't see a lot of multi-millionaires who live in normal houses in the suburbs, driving a Toyota, and flying coach.


By Spuke on 9/5/2014 6:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's in stocks and real estate. But those people are also those who are taking more lavish vacations, buying expensive clothes, eating expensive meals, and more. You don't see a lot of multi-millionaires who live in normal houses in the suburbs, driving a Toyota, and flying coach.
This is what I was trying to say before. The average American millionaire DOES live this way! That's how they got their money. NOT by living overly lavishly. Your average millionaire is not the Kardashians or anything like that. BTW, most of them drive older American cars. Not the latest car on the block. It's a very small percentage that drive Ferrari 458's and such.


By Mint on 9/7/2014 4:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, you paying $1900/mo in tax means you aren't anywhere near the top few percent. The percent of income you spend on things is likely many times higher than that of the rich.
quote:
There are extremely few rich people who don't spend more than the average person.
Absolute spending is irrelevant. It's the percentage of income spent that makes the difference between 1 rich miser having the same income as 100 blue-collar workers. If they spent the same percent, I'd have no case. Now, to be fair, regular workers without a mortgage putting 50% of earnings into the bank would be a problem too, but that's pretty rare.

Stocks and real estate (including MBSes) are fine, because they eventually pay for some economic activity. It's excess bank deposits that are stalling the economy.

If you're open to me showing data that made me come to this conclusion, I'll share more.

But it's all about generating primary demand. I'd be happy to give the rich $100B in tax cuts if they would spend $200B more than they usually do (i.e. an epic BOGO sale). But there's no way to do that.


By GotThumbs on 9/5/2014 1:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Corporations aren't sources of productivity; people (their employees) are. A corporation is just a bicycle. It's the employees who do the pedaling, and thus the employees who generate the productivity and profits.


But they do hire employees specifically to generate profit, so the company can remain an on-going entity and go as demand for it's products/services grow.

Companies do NOT exists to serve the employees. Businesses exist because they provide products and/or services where there is a need. Employee's do help to produce/provide those products/services and are instrumental in the profitability of the company and it's continuation as an on-going entity. The company is born/created first by the innovators and then hires the employees as demand for the company's product/service increases. No one invests in a company that does not profit and a failing company cannot continue/grow operations if they are not profitable.

Just wait to see the number of fast-food locations that close their doors, if they actually have to pay food assembly workers 15.00 an hour. The store will be forced to reduce staff and expect greater productivity from each employee or raise prices. Consumers will not be willing to pay higher costs for the same basic quality of product or they will simply reduce how often they do eat at those establishments.

Now higher wages could drive an economic opportunity for mechanical food assembly robots, just as robots have increased in the manufacturing of cars.

So many people seem to overlook the economics of the real world.


By FITCamaro on 9/5/2014 2:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one invests in a company that does not profit and a failing company cannot continue/grow operations if they are not profitable.


Sure they do. They're called the government.


By sleepeeg3 on 9/5/2014 10:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
You were right up until you started talking about taxing the wealthiest 1%. They will just move their money offshore.

Also, to be fair, no one should receive tax breaks. Taxes are a percent of your income and everyone should pay the same percent. If you make $500 in a week, then you should pay the same fixed % in taxes. If you work harder or smarter and make $1000 a week, then you pay the same % in taxes. Wasn't this country founded on equality? Why are we rewarding those people who work less or dumber?


By inperfectdarkness on 9/5/2014 2:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's actually not a bad idea--since it ties tax-break-incentive to workers. Since each worker puts in ~2000 working hours per year, that's the equivalent of $4,000 in corporate tax breaks per full-time worker. In order to generate a tax savings of 4M, you'd have to employ 1,000. So perhaps the ratio of $/hour of tax-breaks may be adjusted on a per-case basis...but the logic of this (over other methods of tax incentives) seems sound to me. Even with only $2/working hour tax break, 6,500 people working there would mean a corporate tax savings of 26M annually.

On a different note, Nevada (and Las Vegas in particular) is almost out of water. I can't help but question the rationale behind putting a huge investment like this in a state that--like Kalifornia--has no feasibly concrete method for insuring water supply over the next 50-100 years.


By Mint on 9/5/2014 11:12:49 AM , Rating: 2
A company could easily wind up paying 0% tax this way. I chose $2/hr because I figured 150M fulltime workers would need $300B in tax breaks, and with corporate profit ~$2T, that would be a very substantial reduction of taxes paid on that profit.

(Water is an overblown issue in a country as rich as the US. It now costs only ~3kWh of energy - and wind power costs under 4c/kWh now - to make a cubic meter of freshwater through desalinization. I've seen people bring this up with fracking, too, but it takes <1/1000th of its produced energy to desalinate the <10 million gallons used per frack)


By danjw1 on 9/5/2014 8:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
Employment as with all other economic factors are controlled by a feedback loop between a company and its customers. If customers are buying the companies products, they will hire more employees. If they don't, they will get rid of employees.


By flatrock on 9/8/2014 4:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if it was intended, but they way you stated it makes it sound a lot like another wealth redistribution program. If you give a tax break of $2 an hour, it makes it significantly cheaper to hire people for low paying jobs. It even makes it cheaper to hire more people at a lower rate than less people at a higher rate.
If it is a fixed per hour rebate, it encourages hiring more people, but has a much less significant impact on higher wage jobs.

It's not encouraging the creation of high paying jobs very much. I'm also not sure how this would effect self employed people. We don't want to discourage job creation even if the only job created is both employer and employee.

This would definitely shift even more of the tax burden on high paying jobs which is already driving away a lot of job creation and starting to discourage the immigration of highly skilled labor.


Retail products from the gigafactory?
By Mint on 9/4/2014 11:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest chunk of the tax break is sales tax, but doesn't that imply huge retail sales amounting to >$10B over 20 years?

NV's small population means they aren't going to sell many cars there (maybe $100M/yr in the best case?), and cars bought out of state are taxed in the purchaser's state. Producing battery packs for the Fremont factory, for utilities, or for businesses wouldn't be taxed even without the breaks, as they're B2B.

So is Tesla expecting to sell huge volumes of packs to households wanting to go off-grid?




RE: Retail products from the gigafactory?
By wordsworm on 9/5/2014 1:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I like to think that in 5-10 years I'll be able to take one of those old VW micro-buses and outfit it with an electric engine and a battery pack that can get 500 or so km for a few thousand dollars. I'm just a little worried that Tesla, like all the other manufacturers, will be keeping its batteries for its own cars (and those it makes deals with) rather than sharing the love with the DIY community.


By weaponzero on 9/5/2014 4:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
Have you see the stretchla?


Musk's other company
By Adul on 9/4/2014 8:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
I bet the solar cells will come from solar city which has their own gigawatt factory in the works. Come to think of it all this tech could be easily feed into Musk's other company Space X.




RE: Musk's other company
By bigi on 9/4/2014 9:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
It ain't exactly true that solar city is Elon's company.
He's involved but his cousin(s) are in charge.

Also, I see nothing wrong with it anyway.

and finally, your point being?


Supercharger?
By danjw1 on 9/5/2014 8:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
So, I am guessing that Reno will be getting a Supercharger soonish. That will add to the one that recently went up in Truckee.




To Paraphrase Bill Clinton:
By DougF on 9/9/2014 5:52:26 AM , Rating: 2
"It's all about the jobs." 6,500 new jobs = new homes, new apartments, new cars, new roads, new stores, new schools, new post offices, secondary and tertiary job creation, etc, etc.




Crooked system
By grant3 on 9/20/2014 1:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
1,000 small companies with 6 employees each are told to pay full-tax on everything they do. States give them the finger because they don't have political clout.

Musk shows up and gets a billion dollar break for his 1 x 6,000 employees even though, with his capitalization & sales goals, it's effectively pocket change.

Winning governor issues a press release that effectively says "Tesla gets a special freebie, but don't worry, we have lots of small businesses that will pay a disproportionately large share to cover their portion."




So basically
By FITCamaro on 9/5/14, Rating: -1
RE: So basically
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/5/2014 8:31:42 AM , Rating: 3
Meh. From the Reno Gazette-Journal:

quote:
Top 11 tax incentive deals in the country:

Washington: Boeing, $8.7 billion

New York: Alcoa, $5.6 billion

Washington: Boeing, $3.2 billion

Oregon: Nike, $2 billion

New Mexico: Intel, $2 billion

Louisiana: Cheniere Energy, $1.7 billion

Pennsylvania: Royal Dutch Shell, $1.65 billion

Missouri: Cerner Corp., $1.64 billion

Michigan: Chrysler, $1.3 billion

Nevada: Tesla, $1.25 billion

Mississippi: Nissan, $1.25 billion


RE: So basically
By FITCamaro on 9/5/2014 11:24:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oh its absolutely not the only one. Boeing here in Charleston got over a billion dollars in state incentives. I'm glad Boeing is here. But I still disagree with the fact that other competitors without such deals have much higher operating costs. Gander Mountain is opening a store here and will directly compete with a lot of local businesses which don't have all the nice incentives they do. So they're immediately less competitive. Helping one business put its competitors out of business isn't good for the system.

There's also the pesky problem here in South Carolina that giving money to a company for incentives is expressedly against our SC Constitution. I've brought this up with the governor directly before. Either don't do it or change the law to allow it. You don't ignore the law because it's inconvenient for you.


RE: So basically
By DougF on 9/9/2014 6:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
Do you see "not taxing" = "...giving money..."?
Just curious if you were relating that particular comment to the incentive deal, or something else going on in South Carolina.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki