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.
Lots of empty office space on the Kansas side. This part isn't news.
A lot of speculating in this article and a lot of non-comments. So, an interesting situation, but not a lot of facts yet.
Quote:
“Where is Missouri? Where is regionalism? Where are the civic and business groups that claim to have Kansas City’s interests first?” Funkhouser asked.
This kind of handwringing has gone on for decades. It's the number one reason for the problem the city of KC faces. You can't run a city that attracts and retains large companies by taking them for granted and then pouting when you learn too late that someone else has made them a better offer.
Quote:
One Kansas incentive program in particular has proved highly effective. The Promoting Employment Across Kansas, or PEAK, program allows employers bringing new jobs to keep 95 percent of their payroll withholding tax. Missouri has no similar incentives geared towards retaining jobs.
After 3 decades of companies jumping ship, why hasn't some sort of incentive program been created?
Kansas has looked at their incentive programs as an investment. Why hasn't there been more effort in this regard on the MO side?
Quote:
“We’ve heard it’s a large number, a multiple of what Missouri could put on the table, five times more,” said Jeff Kaczmarek, president and CEO of the Kansas City Economic Development Corp.
“Of course we want AMC to stay in their hometown. They grew up here, expanded here and had their first theater here. We’re working right now to put together a package for them … we’re treating this as an imminent decision, something we need to respond to quickly.”
That's great and for their own sake, I hope they can. But why did they not start "responding" many years ago? Or even 1-2 years ago when the leadership at AMC began to shift?
This is not a sudden phenomenon!
If they "can't" compete. Then they might just have to change course and figure out how to survive with fewer large downtown employers.
It seems that Overland Park may be doing a better job at being a corporate suburb than KC is doing that being an urban core. <shrug>
Maybe the roles are shifting?
I do know that whining and blaming OP for succeeding and suggesting they (or any other force) cut them off at the knees, so that KC can catch up is not the answer. (I'm not saying brewcrew is suggesting this.)
One Kansas incentive program in particular has proved highly effective. The Promoting Employment Across Kansas, or PEAK, program allows employers bringing new jobs to keep 95 percent of their payroll withholding tax. Missouri has no similar incentives geared towards retaining jobs.
In an earlier thread about the KC earnings tax, I was against KCMO doing some kind of a rebate or whatever this shenanigan is called, and I am just as much if not more dead set against Kansas doing this kind of crap, too.
So, the business across the street from whatever new kid on the block we're talking about has to pay more than their fair share of taxes in order to lure a company to come to Kansas. Does that seem fair to anybody? If the company wants to relocate, fine. Let them. But to treat a new company differently under the law? What the hell good is the 14th amendment if this kind of cronyism, back-scratching, bribery or whatever you want to call it, is allowed to take place?
In an earlier thread about the KC earnings tax, I was against KCMO doing some kind of a rebate or whatever this shenanigan is called, and I am just as much if not more dead set against Kansas doing this kind of crap, too.
So, the business across the street from whatever new kid on the block we're talking about has to pay more than their fair share of taxes in order to lure a company to come to Kansas. Does that seem fair to anybody? If the company wants to relocate, fine. Let them. But to treat a new company differently under the law? What the hell good is the 14th amendment if this kind of cronyism, back-scratching, bribery or whatever you want to call it, is allowed to take place?
Okay, let's shrink the scale for a moment.
Let's say you own a small business and you employ 10 people. Business is good but it could always be better. The challenge of course is hiring the right new person who will make the company grow.
Along comes the perfect applicant. Just what you need. But this person could go to work anywhere. If you want this person in your shop, you are going to have to offer an incentive. Maybe a signing bonus, maybe a higher salary. It might even cost you a little at first, but this person has the potential to generate a net income.
Is it "fair" to your 10 loyal employees that they don't get these same perqs offered to them? Are they "harmed"? Or might it also be a net gain to them as well to be working for an even more successful company down the road?
Is this "cronyism, back-scratching, bribery"? Or is this just the way the business world works?
Does the stellar new employee "owe" the old company anything? They may have tried really hard and really liked this person and wanted to keep her around. But in the end, what exactly is owed to whom here?
Should companies not be allowed to pursue the best opportunities for them just as individual people are? Should local governments not be allowed to decide for themselves what risks and investments they are willing to make just as a business does?
Now, I'm not at all saying that it's always great when this kind of thing happens. There are always winners and those who get hurt. Sometimes things don't always pay off as it might have been hoped. So I am not advocating an every-man-for-himself/screw-everybody-you-can mentality here.
But placing limitations and restrictions on rudimentary competition among businesses (and local government is a business and should be run like one) is a pretty slippery slope.
In an earlier thread about the KC earnings tax, I was against KCMO doing some kind of a rebate or whatever this shenanigan is called, and I am just as much if not more dead set against Kansas doing this kind of crap, too.
So, the business across the street from whatever new kid on the block we're talking about has to pay more than their fair share of taxes in order to lure a company to come to Kansas. Does that seem fair to anybody? If the company wants to relocate, fine. Let them. But to treat a new company differently under the law? What the hell good is the 14th amendment if this kind of cronyism, back-scratching, bribery or whatever you want to call it, is allowed to take place?
I must confess that, perhaps for the first time, I find this argument compelling. I guess it makes a difference to hear it from a person not known to have a powerful anti-suburban, pro-urban bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samantha S
Okay, let's shrink the scale for a moment.
Let's say you own a small business and you employ 10 people. Business is good but it could always be better. The challenge of course is hiring the right new person who will make the company grow.
Along comes the perfect applicant. Just what you need. But this person could go to work anywhere. If you want this person in your shop, you are going to have to offer an incentive. Maybe a signing bonus, maybe a higher salary. It might even cost you a little at first, but this person has the potential to generate a net income.
Is it "fair" to your 10 loyal employees that they don't get these same perqs offered to them? Are they "harmed"? Or might it also be a net gain to them as well to be working for an even more successful company down the road?
Is this "cronyism, back-scratching, bribery"? Or is this just the way the business world works?
Does the stellar new employee "owe" the old company anything? They may have tried really hard and really liked this person and wanted to keep her around. But in the end, what exactly is owed to whom here?
Should companies not be allowed to pursue the best opportunities for them just as individual people are? Should local governments not be allowed to decide for themselves what risks and investments they are willing to make just as a business does?
Now, I'm not at all saying that it's always great when this kind of thing happens. There are always winners and those who get hurt. Sometimes things don't always pay off as it might have been hoped. So I am not advocating an every-man-for-himself/screw-everybody-you-can mentality here.
But placing limitations and restrictions on rudimentary competition among businesses (and local government is a business and should be run like one) is a pretty slippery slope.
Samantha, your argument is excellent and applicable to private business. But local government is a business? Hmmmm....how do you figure? I've never considered it as such, and my gut disagrees with your suggestion that local governments playing around with the tax code as a "business" investment is perfectly valid and ethical. I'm afraid I just don't see it that way and, further, see a huge problem in principle with a government seeing filling its treasury as full as it possibly can as part of its operating routine and reason for existence .
Samantha, your argument is excellent and applicable to private business. But local government is a business? Hmmmm....how do you figure?
Local government takes in revenue and in return provides services. How is it not a business?
It's certainly different than a private business because its purpose is for the public good, as opposed to being strictly for profit. But its a business with each taxpayer as a shareholder, and even more beholden to those shareholders because taxpayers can't just up and sell their stock! (Well, I guess they can move, but I digress ... )
The leaders of the business aren't supposed to be just filling the treasury as their reason for existence. But they are supposed to be making sure there is enough money to provide the services that are expected of them. If growth is desired and expected, then more money will be needed to sustain that growth and keep up with the necessary services. If the tax code is the main source of revenue, then it might sometimes be necessary to make investments that involve taxes.
Well, for one thing, it has no capital of its own at risk, and it doesn't have any owners or investors to whom profits or losses will be distributed. There is no 'do or die' mentality among the management because cities, while some have gone bankrupt, do not cease operations and liquidate in the manner companies do when they fold. If they want more money, they just wring it out of somebody.
Local government takes in revenue and in return provides services. How is it not a business?
It's certainly different than a private business because its purpose is for the public good, as opposed to being strictly for profit. But its a business with each taxpayer as a shareholder, and even more beholden to those shareholders because taxpayers can't just up and sell their stock! (Well, I guess they can move, but I digress ... )
The leaders of the business aren't supposed to be just filling the treasury as their reason for existence. But they are supposed to be making sure there is enough money to provide the services that are expected of them. If growth is desired and expected, then more money will be needed to sustain that growth and keep up with the necessary services. If the tax code is the main source of revenue, then it might sometimes be necessary to make investments that involve taxes.
Again, how is this not a business?
I don't begin to understand your train of thought here, Samantha. So I doubt we're going to get anywhere in the debate. Government is simply not a business. So, to me, asking how it is not a business is something like asking how an elephant is not a tiger.
This topic has been touched upon in this forum repeatedly, as we all know. And it has almost always been in the context of Johnson County vs. KCMO. I therefore tended to focus not on the tax games, but instead viewed it as part of the war on "suburbia" and tended to dismiss the views of the "other side" as the usual and expected attacks that have become so fashionable and so required in the minds of our meticulously programmed young people.
But upon taking another look outside of the JOCO-KCMO war at this practice of playing games with taxes to promote growth, it has a foul stench and is clearly unfair.
Government is not business and the comparison of offering an outstanding job applicant more money to government offering new business a lower tax rate is not valid. Should government offer an individual billionaire a more favorable sales or state tax rate to move to and spend money in their city/state? Government exists solely for the purpose of providing essential services and should never view its citizens or corporate residents as with big rotating dollar signs above their heads.
Well, for one thing, it has no capital of its own at risk,
Lots of businesses operate on little to no capital. That's why, for example, there is a whole new branch of the legal profession just for "Intellectual Property"
Quote:
and it doesn't have any owners or investors to whom profits or losses will be distributed.
The taxpayers are the shareholders.
Quote:
There is no 'do or die' mentality among the management because cities, while some have gone bankrupt, do not cease operations and liquidate in the manner companies do when they fold. If they want more money, they just wring it out of somebody.
Lots businesses just close up shop because there is nothing to liquidate. And have you heard of "Detroit"?
We may just have to agree to disagree here.
But using an investment and business-like approach is what has propelled JoCo and contributed greatly to its success as a corporate suburb and the lack thereof has contributed greatly to losses KC has suffered as an "urban core".
Looking at this on an even larger scale: Are federal governments obligated to forgo competing against each other for economic success? Of course not. Should they be? Well, that would be a pretty tough sell in this country! Do you know how many small countries the US has stomped on in the name of making its "shareholders" richer?
Then you have people arguing that the fed has too much power. More power should be returned to to the states! Okay well, if you are going to do that, then states will be competing against each other and that is what is happening here. If one state has an advantage, well, that's just too bad for the competition.
Again, I am NOT saying that all of the above is great and the way it should be. I'm saying that this is the world we live in and they way our capitalistic society operates. It just is.
When two competitors are peers, an agreement to cooperate makes sense and can work because it's mutually beneficial. When one has an advantage that is working so well, then expecting or forcing it to stop competing and succeeding contradicts the very foundations of our society.
What kind of alternative approach would you suggest in this situation and those similar to it? What should be done differently and who should be the one to enforce it?
This topic has been touched upon in this forum repeatedly, as we all know. And it has almost always been in the context of Johnson County vs. KCMO. I therefore tended to focus not on the tax games, but instead viewed it as part of the war on "suburbia" and tended to dismiss the views of the "other side" as the usual and expected attacks that have become so fashionable and so required in the minds of our meticulously programmed young people.
Agreed. I am trying hard not to do this.
I would really like to understand how you think it should work differently.
To whom is it "unfair" and who should be the presiding authority over making it "fair"?
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.
