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.
2) Let me present the Branson issue from another angle. By attracting retirees with tax breaks you are doing exactly the same thing as attracting businesses with tax abatements and other perks. Basically some other area is losing tax revenue and you are gaining their local spending, purchase of property, jobs or whatever it is they bring to the table while they aren't helping to carry as much of the tax burden. Whether that money ends up in a corporations pockets...in turn dividends...which goes to typically pension funds and older retirees.... or just goes directly to older retirees makes no difference.
Basically, I disagreed with many premises in the Branson article but thought it was worth pointing out as at least it contained hard facts.
This is nowhere NEAR the same thing. Branson was actually bringing about new population growth with these tax incentives, whereas luring businesses across the state line within the KC metro does not. Yeah, a few office drones are going to buy their lunches in Kansas instead of Missouri, but that's about it for total economic development.
One thing that hasn't been added to this discussion yet is the environmental impact. Anytime a large business moves within the same metro area, the majority of its employees will not relocate. Therefore the employees who chose their place of residence with the commute in mind will probably have to commute much further, if the move is of any distance at all. The only exception to this is if a company realizes that most of employees live in a different part of the metro, so they decide to move their office there. But there's no indication that this is what's been happening in KC.
One thing that hasn't been added to this discussion yet is the environmental impact. Anytime a large business moves within the same metro area, the majority of its employees will not relocate. Therefore the employees who chose their place of residence with the commute in mind will probably have to commute much further, if the move is of any distance at all. The only exception to this is if a company realizes that most of employees live in a different part of the metro, so they decide to move their office there. But there's no indication that this is what's been happening in KC.
This is very true. My mom worked for Midland loan and took the ward parkway express to downtown for years. When they were poached by JOCounty she was forced to drive to corporate woods and she hated it. She said everybody except those that lived in JO County did not want to move. A lot of people that lived in North kc, blue springs etc found new jobs if they could or were forced into a much longer commute.
Downtown is equal distance to much more of the metropolitan area. JOCounty is not. Also downtown has a lot of express bus routes from the suburbs.
Let me present the Branson issue from another angle. By attracting retirees with tax breaks you are doing exactly the same thing as attracting businesses with tax abatements and other perks. Basically some other area is losing tax revenue and you are gaining their local spending, purchase of property, jobs or whatever it is they bring to the table while they aren't helping to carry as much of the tax burden. Whether that money ends up in a corporations pockets...in turn dividends...which goes to typically pension funds and older retirees.... or just goes directly to older retirees makes no difference.
Basically, I disagreed with many premises in the Branson article but thought it was worth pointing out as at least it contained hard facts.
I see your point, but I still think there's a difference, if a subtle one.
The retirees moving to Branson from out of state still represent a net revenue gain for the receiving state, because while they may not pay income taxes, they will be paying taxes on the homes they occupy (which are likely built specifically because someone's moving there) and the goods they purchase there.
The workers who follow their boss to the jobs subsidized by their own income taxes, from what I can tell, produce no net revenue gain for the state, at least in the case of an intrametropolitan move such as the ones we're talking about here. The workers won't move in most cases, so there's no new property tax revenue (and even if they did, it might well be to an existing home in the receiving state, thus producing no new property tax revenue still), and the sales taxes they may pay by eating lunch or bringing their dry cleaning with them into the receiving state are a drop in the bucket compared to the tax revenues the receiving state foregoes. And if any of those workers already lived in the receiving state prior to the move, their income taxes are now lost to the state as well. That also goes for any workers already living in the receiving state who opt to take the jobs left vacant by those who refused to follow their boss across the state line.
And in the case of metropolitan Kansas City, it's a double whammy because both the receiving state and the state giving up the business end up with a net loss of tax revenue - and the states are next-door neighbors. The game, in other words, is probably dragging the regional economy down rather than stimulating it.
[...]The only exception to this is if a company realizes that most of employees live in a different part of the metro, so they decide to move their office there. But there's no indication that this is what's been happening in KC.
There's been a good bit of research on corporate relocations within a metropolitan area that show that the strongest correlating factor in the move is where the CEO lives. In the case of firms that moved to New York City to its suburbs in the decades following World War II, the correlation between "new headquarters location" and "shorter commute for the boss" was 1:1. No other factor had that strong a correlation.
Maybe someone might want to examine the reshuffled deck chairs in KC to see whether that's the case here too.
There's been a good bit of research on corporate relocations within a metropolitan area that show that the strongest correlating factor in the move is where the CEO lives. In the case of firms that moved to New York City to its suburbs in the decades following World War II, the correlation between "new headquarters location" and "shorter commute for the boss" was 1:1. No other factor had that strong a correlation.
Maybe someone might want to examine the reshuffled deck chairs in KC to see whether that's the case here too.
I'm sure it has some to do with it, but I doubt it has much. KC is such an easy commute city. It's not like Philly or NYC or DC. Plus, a lot of these moves have been literately across the street type moves. Many of the moves in both directions are in the Plaza to South KC area. So From the Plaza to 435 and along 435 on the MO side. So when you move from Ward Parkway or 103rd and Holmes or even the Plaza to Leawood or Overland Park the difference in commute time can’t really be considered a huge factor. Actually, you can tell a lot of the moves stay close to state line just so they can take advantage of the incentives, but not alter commutes.
The Downtown to South JoCo moves have been the only moves that might have this CEO contributing factor. I know AMC would not have moved when they were ran by Stan Durwood, but once they changed management, their new CEO might have lived in JoCo and so they were fine with moving (even while most employees lived all across the metro). I don't know that to be the case. The CEO of AMC could live in Platte County or the Plaza for all I know, but it's possible.
This is nowhere NEAR the same thing. Branson was actually bringing about new population growth with these tax incentives, whereas luring businesses across the state line within the KC metro does not. Yeah, a few office drones are going to buy their lunches in Kansas instead of Missouri, but that's about it for total economic development.
One thing that hasn't been added to this discussion yet is the environmental impact. Anytime a large business moves within the same metro area, the majority of its employees will not relocate. Therefore the employees who chose their place of residence with the commute in mind will probably have to commute much further, if the move is of any distance at all. The only exception to this is if a company realizes that most of employees live in a different part of the metro, so they decide to move their office there. But there's no indication that this is what's been happening in KC.
It decreased tax revenue somewhere else because someone got lured by a tax cut to an area built up my spending taxpayer money.
It's pretty clear cut.
They are building an area with actions that decrease other areas tax revenue. Yes or no?
Plenty of source. Pick up the KC Business Journal and read about every development proposed in JoCo. Start with all the newest stuff in the newest areas like Prairie Fire, Corbin Park, the new hotels in Olathe and Lenexa (Embassy Suites and Hyatt place etc). Any new office development, any new retail center, any new hotel. It's not just tifs, it's not just 10 or 20% of a project cost, it's super tifs, star bonds, etc, it's well over 50% of the cost of the projects. In affluent outer suburban greenfields.
There is plenty of source. You and every other Kansan just do not care to know about it.
Your refusal to source your claims is surely impressing the writer that started this thread.
heck you sourced your post when gloating about the kid that got killed in Kansas so why not now?
Your refusal to source your claims is surely impressing the writer that started this thread.
heck you sourced your post when gloating about the kid that got killed in Kansas so why not now?
So, you are really that clueless that you actually do not know about all of these incentives? Well, that explains a lot. I post threads about it all and the time with links. You and others hate the threads. Well, you rarely come to the KC forums, but when you do, you seem pretty out of the loop. I really need to prove this to you??? I mean seriously???
I'm pretty confident the OP probably knows more about this than you do then.
So, you are really that clueless that you actually do not know about all of these incentives? Well, that explains a lot. I post threads about it all and the time with links. You and others hate the threads. Well, you rarely come to the KC forums, but when you do, you seem pretty out of the loop. I really need to prove this to you??? I mean seriously???
I'm pretty confident the OP probably knows more about this than you do then.
We're still waiting to see your sources. I mean after all you are the person that claimed Missouri didn't even give incentives.
Largely you just run around telling whoppers and then dodging requests to source your claims.
At this point I'm just showing the op what we have to deal with in terms of honesty and rationality.
We're still waiting to see your sources. I mean after all you are the person that claimed Missouri didn't even give incentives.
Largely you just run around telling whoppers and then dodging requests to source your claims.
At this point I'm just showing the op what we have to deal with in terms of honesty and rationality.
Never said MO didn't give out incentives. I have started threads about corporate welfare in MO as well. Namely Cerner and the abuse of tifs for shopping centers in Blue Springs and Lee's Summit. I have also slammed the Freightquote project even though that was in direct response to the Kansas poaching. I do think the KS side has been far more aggressive in poaching MO companies, but I have never even remotely said that MO does not give incentives.
Do NOT say something that is a flat out lie and say I said it.
And every one of my "initial" posts or threads which mention incentives includes links to a story that shows where I got my info (typically KC biz journal or KC Star). Do I post those links every time I mention them in later threads? No. Sorry. You never come into the KC forum. Stick to the Kansas forums where you all can continue to ignore all of what Kansas has been doing.
I actually have links saved. If the OP wants to see them, I will post them. Not wasting time with you, so you can rebuttal with a story about Branson or the Rams.
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.
or just goes directly to older retirees makes no difference. 
