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.
Goya needed a new building as their present facility is too small and the opening of Seaview Drive makes parking on the roadway no longer possible. The cost of moving out of state would be very expensive for them and cause a major disruption of their operations.
I have no doubt they could have built a new facility with a lot less is tax rebates. Who is next for the handout?
Goya needed a new building as their present facility is too small and the opening of Seaview Drive makes parking on the roadway no longer possible. The cost of moving out of state would be very expensive for them and cause a major disruption of their operations.
I have no doubt they could have built a new facility with a lot less is tax rebates. Who is next for the handout?
Goya needed a new building as their present facility is too small and the opening of Seaview Drive makes parking on the roadway no longer possible. The cost of moving out of state would be very expensive for them and cause a major disruption of their operations.
I have no doubt they could have built a new facility with a lot less is tax rebates. Who is next for the handout?
This was the belief as countless manufacturers and other businesses left the state over the past 30 years. Don't underestimate the attractiveness of other states' taxes, labor force, and regulatory environment.
Goya needed a new building as their present facility is too small and the opening of Seaview Drive makes parking on the roadway no longer possible. The cost of moving out of state would be very expensive for them and cause a major disruption of their operations.
I have no doubt they could have built a new facility with a lot less is tax rebates. Who is next for the handout?
I'm confused. From what you are saying it looks like they needed to move regardless. Why would moving out of state have been a major disruption since they needed a new facility anyway as opposed to moving within the state?
If I was trying to figure out who was "bluffing" I certainly wouldn't put a company that already knew it had to move on the top of my list.
I'm confused. From what you are saying it looks like they needed to move regardless. Why would moving out of state have been a major disruption since they needed a new facility anyway as opposed to moving within the state?
They would need to hire an entirely new work force for one.
I thnk some people are really having a problem with the math. They focus so much on the tax break side they literally can't see any other aspect of this.
369 workers. Say they are making $40,000 a year on average
6% tax rate, those 369 workers would bring in $909,600 a year in tax revenue to the state.
I realize it is not the only consideration, but it does not seem like something that is going to pay off anytime soon
369 workers. Say they are making $40,000 a year on average
6% tax rate, those 369 workers would bring in $909,600 a year in tax revenue to the state.
I realize it is not the only consideration, but it does not seem like something that is going to pay off anytime soon
How many of those workers would be filing for unemployment benefits and what would that cost be? Those 369 workers are also consumers, buying goods and services.
In the here and now, the state has around 94 billion dollars of debt, plus it needs additional tax revenue to operate every single year. The states yearly revenue is around 80 billion.
How can the state afford tax breaks when it is swimming in debt?
What is your solution to fix the existing problem? You are talking about idealogy, but it brings no solution to the table. "Aggressive tax cuts" are not feasible when the state is in such poor shape
At some point you gotta stop crying over spilled milk, realize what the situation is, and work out a way to fix it
The way to fix it is to cut spending and sell assets. It is that simple. And that complex. Remove the government from doing what it should not be doing in the first place, and the rest will fall into place beautifully. The state should not be providing:
1) Food
2) Housing
3) Pensions
4) Health Care
5) Libraries
6) Museums
7) Cultural
8) Entertainment
9) Gambling
10) Business grants or handouts of any kind
And I'm just getting warmed up. The state is also a major regulatory nightmare. The state should vastly decrease onerous and unnecessary regulation of a whole host of private activities from insurance, real estate, manufacturing, casinos, medical providers, hell even hairdressing.
I estimate that the goverment is 5 times as big as it should be. You could cut it by 80% and it would still be too big.
No offense, but we're not talking about NASA engineers here.
Pretty much what I was thinking. And that isn't a knock on anyone. Just the reality.
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.