Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WE all know that the big businesses of america have Trillions in the bank. But how should they spend that money? In Seattle, Amazon has spent over a Billion dollars not just building their new Headquarters, but also provide new infrastructure, and gentrification to the south lake union area in downtown Seattle. Should more businesses invest into the cities they are in? Schools or Transportation or etc? Most big businesses could invest a small portion of their profits and greatly improve their communities. Should the private industry take part in the growth, progression, and revitalization within all major cities across the United States?
No we should give them more tax breaks so they can create more jobs. Most projects here, outside of chemical plants, never build their own infrastructure as far as I know. The state always builds it.
I like the idea in theory. The better they could make the community, the better employees they will attract. However, I have a hard time not expecting lots of strings if business were to be involved. They won't do anything that won't directly benefit themselves first and the most. It may take time for their true interests to be revealed. If a company can do it and show they truely have the community's best interest at mind, I'd be in full support. I guess I have to see it to believe it.
Looking at things that have gone from public control to private have left a bad taste in my mouth. Prisons, toll roads, red light cameras, etc. etc.
I think a lot of businesses DO invest a portion of their profits to help improve their communities...through school partnerships, charities, and the arts. But when it comes to infrastructure, I think it greatly depends on what they want to get done.
I.e., if a company is building/expanding, and they want a new interstate exit where one previously did not exist, they can approach the powers at be and offer to foot some of the cost. Or if they want a rail line extended or station added where one previously did not exist, they could do the same. But from what I've seen, a lot of municipal and state governments add that kind of stuff as an incentive for the relocation or expansion (because of, at least perceived, increases in tax revenue that would cover the cost). It's a desperate world out there to either keep or add jobs. Businesses have put themselves in a position of superior bargaining power.
When you're talking public companies, they have a responsibility to their shareholders...and whether you like it or not, most of those shareholders wouldn't like the idea of a company spending its profit (THEIR profit) on something that they could bargain for without spending a penny. Infrastructure improvements are very expensive, and not nearly as sexy or noteworthy as donating to a 'noble' cause like education or the arts. In the end, it's not going to give them their PR bang for the buck.
Whether or not you think they should invest in infrastructure is very different to whether or not they will.
Plus, would they have any control over this after it's built. Would it be "their" roads/rails? Can they control access? Will they own the land that the roads/rails are built on? Are they on the hook for maintenance? Etc.
I also think that some would argue that businesses already pay for their share of roads via taxes...it's the responsibility of the government to determine where that funding goes.
Property Tax. In theory, this tax should have the the owner of the land give back to the community that was built around him that valuates the owners land. Other than that, a business shouldn't be obligated legally to improve the community.
Depends on what you call business and what you call infrastructure. Getting build-outs of road, transit, recreational, and environmental facilities as part of major development deals is pretty standard, but there is plenty of room to get smaller scale side agreements to do X in addition to doing Y where X is something independently beneficial to an area. These are called proffers in some places and they can be an integral part of zoning and licensing approval processes. A little creative government can actually go quite a long way.
Property Tax. In theory, this tax should have the the owner of the land give back to the community that was built around him that valuates the owners land. Other than that, a business shouldn't be obligated legally to improve the community.
Property Tax. In theory, this tax should have the the owner of the land give back to the community that was built around him that valuates the owners land. Other than that, a business shouldn't be obligated legally to improve the community.
Georgism is about 135 years old. It has about five actual adherents. Six now, if we are to count yourself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
