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.
I posted about this when it was Panasonic got a deal like this about a year ago from moving to Newark from Secaucus.
It set a bad precedent. Of course Goya and every other company is going to "consider moving out of state" if it means NJ will give them a huge tax break like this to stay. Some might actually be considering moving out of state, but everyone is going to claim to be considering it now that these huge deals are being given out.
do you expect many companies to not consider moving to another state if another state looks more attractive? you can't neglect current businesses when unemployment is 8%.
do you expect many companies to not consider moving to another state if another state looks more attractive? you can't neglect current businesses when unemployment is 8%.
I agree with the giantrutgers. They set a bad precedent. Any company that is currently in the state that doesn't line up for multi million breaks is foolish.
I agree with the giantrutgers. They set a bad precedent. Any company that is currently in the state that doesn't line up for multi million breaks is foolish.
any company that's in the state that doesn't consider a move to a state that's trying to attract business is also foolish.
so, what would you prefer NJ's response be to that situation?
Do I like it? Heck no, but what's the alternative? Unfortunately because of the policies in some states, the companies kinda have NJ by the balls.
do you expect many companies to not consider moving to another state if another state looks more attractive? you can't neglect current businesses when unemployment is 8%.
Unemployment in the state is actually over the 9.1% national average. It is in the 9.5% area I believe.
You gotta believe the unemployment situation is going to improve within 5 years max, otherwise we are all in a whole lot of trouble.
These tax breaks might be penny wise in the short term, but they are going to be dollar foolish in the long run.
Unemployment in the state is actually over the 9.1% national average. It is in the 9.5% area I believe.
You gotta believe the unemployment situation is going to improve within 5 years max, otherwise we are all in a whole lot of trouble.
These tax breaks might be penny wise in the short term, but they are going to be dollar foolish in the long run.
Which sounds peachy until company after company departs the state for greener pastures. Greener pastures "works". Exhibit A: India.
The state should not wait to be "held up" by companies seeking to keep more of what they earned and own in the first place. The state should offer aggressive tax cuts up front so that we become the "greener pasture".
Remember to keep in mind what a tax "break" is. A decision to let a party keep more of their own property. It's quite disgusting that we forget that money earned is money owned. And that we are in the debt of the income earners who agree to be "held up" by the state.
Which sounds peachy until company after company departs the state for greener pastures. Greener pastures "works". Exhibit A: India.
The state should not wait to be "held up" by companies seeking to keep more of what they earned and own in the first place. The state should offer aggressive tax cuts up front so that we become the "greener pasture".
Remember to keep in mind what a tax "break" is. A decision to let a party keep more of their own property. It's quite disgusting that we forget that money earned is money owned. And that we are in the debt of the income earners who agree to be "held up" by the state.
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
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
Fair question. But how can the state afford to lose 100% of the Goya tax revenues if they leave, plus the jobs (and related taxes)?
These tax breaks might be penny wise in the short term, but they are going to be dollar foolish in the long run.
Funny, I see it as the exact opposite. It hurts in the short term, but over a longer period of time will make a lot of money for NJ if the companies stay in NJ.
Fair question. But how can the state afford to lose 100% of the Goya tax revenues if they leave, plus the jobs (and related taxes)?
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.
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.