foxconn picks wisconsin for its us plant

[yathis]

Payment in the form of tax breaks.

[Eliehlers]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

no but id like to know where in Wisconsin it is if you know.

in Kenosha or Racine county 

[Brooksie359]

I dont want to have to look up where that is. can i get a town or something.

[DutchTexan]

22 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Sigh, wonder how much our idiotic governor is paying to have them come....

So, encouraging investments to flow toward your state is a bad thing. Thanks for clearing that up. I've gone my entire life thinking the exact opposite!!?

[Eliehlers]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I dont want to have to look up where that is. can i get a town or something.

i dont know what town/city its going to be in there only saying the county right now we should know as early wednesday

[Brooksie359]

Just now, Eliehlers said:

i dont know what town/city its going to be in there only saying the county right now we should know as early wednesday

well then tell me when you know.

[Eliehlers]

update 

the plant will most likely be built in mt.pleasant  

the official announcement will be 4pm tomorrow unknown if east cost or cst time 

 

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

6 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

So, encouraging investments to flow toward your state is a bad thing. Thanks for clearing that up. I've gone my entire life thinking the exact opposite!!?

Smart investments sure... paying Carrier 7 million dollars a year for 600 jobs is a terrible investment...

 

And this governor has an even more horrific track record with these sorts of breaks and incentive... Not to mention just blatantly (and illegally) neutering clean air and water enforcement statewide (as a particular favor to John Menard).

 

But hey, it's totally possible when the dust settles that he didn't massively overpay for this non-transpartent multi-state bidding war. I'm just not waiting on baited breath.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

paying Carrier 7 million dollars.....

........

he didn't massively overpay for this.....

You do understand that tax breaks =/= "paying", right?

[Ryujin2003]

I thought there were rules for posting news articles, that includes a summary and opinion/analysis from the poster. Not just a link with "what do you think".

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

You do understand that tax breaks =/= "paying", right?

One. Actually it does. 2. Literally paying.... because the money always comes from somewhere. For example, in the Mercury case, the "tax breaks and incentives program" was funded by an increase in sales tax in the local area. Direct from the general populous. 

 

Sometimes its even more overt, like the city of Fond du Lac buying 22 acres of land Mercury didn't want for 2.7 million dollars for the express intent of selling it at a loss  (they sold it for 1.1 million in the end.)

 

Also looks like this will be a 1-3 BILLION dollar incentive program...

 

http://www.wkow.com/story/35970943/2017/07/25/1-3b-in-incentives-to-lure-foxconn-to-wisconsin?cid=facebook_WKOW_27

 

 

[Thunderpup]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:01 AM, goodtofufriday said:

Its a 10bill facility and its only creating 10000 jobs? Yesh

large buildings filled with expensive equipment cost a lot of money.

 

10,000 jobs, if that is the average number of employed per year is very good and will add millions in yearly tax revenue.  

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, Thunderpup said:

large buildings filled with expensive equipment cost a lot of money.

 

10,000 jobs, if that is the average number of employed per year is very good and will add millions in yearly tax revenue.  

Suppose it added 100 million dollars a year in tax revenue... Still a 30 year investment at the currently expected 3 billion dollar incentive package (well actually 30 years plus however long the incentives last).

 

I mean it really just depends how this is structured... And 10K jobs is obviously a "best-case situation". So we will see. Cool, but costly.

[Eliehlers]

update #3 

it will have up to 13,000 jobs and will be 20 million sq feet  

did i forget to mention that the lcd will be 8k resolution

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/07/26/scott-walker-heads-d-c-trump-prepares-wisconsin-foxconn-announcement/512077001/

20 million part is about 10 minutes into the viedo

[Thunderpup]

15 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Suppose it added 100 million dollars a year in tax revenue... Still a 30 year investment at the currently expected 3 billion dollar incentive package (well actually 30 years plus however long the incentives last).

 

I mean it really just depends how this is structured... And 10K jobs is obviously a "best-case situation". So we will see. Cool, but costly.

You also have to take into account whether the plant reduces the local unemployment as well as those currently living on some welfare service.   So while adding additional tax revenue it could help alleviate tax burdens elsewhere.

 

That being said you are correct that it really does "just depends", and it's a little too soon to write this off as being good or bad.  

 

Overall though people need to realize that some jobs simply aren't viable here in the U.S without some sort of incentive program or an overhaul on the tax code.  While others need to realize that government incentives aren't always good investments, and we should cut company's off if they do not fulfill their end of the bargain. 

[Teddy07]

On 26.7.2017 at 1:11 PM, Jito463 said:

You do understand that tax breaks =/= "paying", right?

He is a liberal that does not work well with logic

[Teddy07]

 

On 25.7.2017 at 5:01 PM, goodtofufriday said:

Its a 10bill facility and its only creating 10000 jobs? Yesh

This guy totally gets it wrong @Thunderpup, @Curufinwe_wins. Foxxcon is spending $10 billion to build the factory of course. Why do you even think the government builds the factory for Foxxcon. 

It´s like telling someone 1 + 1 = 2

 

 

[Yoinkerman]

Inb4 it costs taxpayers 35b and creates 1200 jobs filled mostly by foreign nationals

[VFe]

1 hour ago, Teddy07 said:

He is a liberal that does not work well with logic

 

What he's saying makes perfect sense from the perspective of an accountant. Loss of revenue is essentially the same as spending money in accrual accounting.

 

Thus you need to balance what losses you take against what future gains you hope to make,i.e. Will sacrificing 3bil of potential revenue generate 3.9bil down the road? and if it does over what time period? if it generates it over 50 years for 900mil, chances are you could of made a smarter investment. 

 

If you want a great example of his this plays out in a smaller(but quicker) scale, I highly recommend taking a look at how the VFX industry operates.

 

In reality most of these deals amount to little more than welfare.

[dtaflorida]

On 7/25/2017 at 10:01 AM, goodtofufriday said:

Its a 10bill facility and its only creating 10000 jobs? Yesh

That's only to build the place. Once that's done it'll be an automated factory that employs no more than 10 people. Taxpayers got robbed. Foxconn got a free factory.

[Jito463]

13 minutes ago, VFe said:

 

What he's saying makes perfect sense from the perspective of an accountant. Loss of revenue is essentially the same as spending money in accrual accounting.

 

Thus you need to balance what losses you take against what future gains you hope to make,i.e. Will sacrificing 3bil of potential revenue generate 3.9bil down the road? and if it does over what time period? if it generates it over 50 years for 900mil, chances are you could of made a smarter investment. 

 

If you want a great example of his this plays out in a smaller(but quicker) scale, I highly recommend taking a look at how the VFX industry operates.

 

In reality most of these deals amount to little more than welfare.

Except there's no "loss of revenue", because there's no existing plant at this time.  At worst there would be reduced tax revenue from a new factory (maybe even none), but that doesn't automatically make it into a payment.  Temporarily reducing taxes to bring in a new company (none of the tax breaks like this are permanent) is not even remotely close to paying to bring in a new company.

[VFe]

17 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except there's no "loss of revenue", because there's no existing plant at this time.  At worst there would be reduced tax revenue from a new factory (maybe even none), but that doesn't automatically make it into a payment.  Temporarily reducing taxes to bring in a new company (none of the tax breaks like this are permanent) is not even remotely close to paying to bring in a new company.

 

There isn't a plant at this time, but those resources could be used elsewhere. Thus there is an opportunity cost associated with allocating resources away from other things(that might be more or less profitable). If you give them a 3 billion break, and they don't generate at least 3 billion dollars, and you had the capacity to do anything with those resources that *could* have generated 3billion or more, you have lost that revenue(and essentially "payed" them).

 

So I'm gonna say this and I want to be clear that I'm not trying to be combative, just informative, but many of the people in favor of these deals clearly do not have the financial knowledge to properly assess it. So well I hate analogies, I'm going to extend this to a layman understandable analogy in the hopes of achieving some clarity.

 

If I have stewardship over a track of land, and someone comes in seeking to rent a parcel, we may agree that the parcel and associated services are worth $100/m. I then may strike a deal with the person, I will not charge them rent for 1 year, under the expectation that the improvements they make to the parcel will exceed the value of the rent.

 

If the improvements they made never amount to $1200 or more, I have lost the difference between the rent and the improvements, because well I may have never had that money in hand, I lost the opportunity to get it from someone else permanently(I can't get that time/opportunity back), and thus I took a loss on the realized value of the arrangement; and have essentially paid the other party, who was able to use my resources for their own benefit in the meantime.(even if it isn't upfront cash, the government *is* allocating resources here that could be used elsewhere on potentially better opportunities.).

 

There's also the risk(very high risk), that after the arrangement ends, they simply pack up and take their improvements elsewhere.

 

That's how most these deals actually play out, they just keep asking for more welfare until you're no longer willing to pay, then they move(again, look at the VFX industry for a great example of how this plays out very quickly).

 

I can't say for sure this is a failure, but historically speaking, they almost universally are; so supporting them seems misinformed at best.

[Curufinwe_wins]

20 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Suppose it added 100 million dollars a year in tax revenue... Still a 30 year investment at the currently expected 3 billion dollar incentive package (well actually 30 years plus however long the incentives last).

 

I mean it really just depends how this is structured... And 10K jobs is obviously a "best-case situation". So we will see. Cool, but costly.

 

55 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except there's no "loss of revenue", because there's no existing plant at this time.  At worst there would be reduced tax revenue from a new factory (maybe even none), but that doesn't automatically make it into a payment.  Temporarily reducing taxes to bring in a new company (none of the tax breaks like this are permanent) is not even remotely close to paying to bring in a new company.

So with that said... some of these things are explicitly payments instead. Like again the example of Mercury having property bought from them that was "underwater/toxic" then explicitly sold for a loss. But see above, because everyone seems to be not recognizing that I am not "opposed to any deal" I am just very cautiously pessimistic about this, because bidding wars like this almost never are sound investments in the end (just like how sports teams tend to over pay for FA's when there isn't a cap on pricing)

 

Stuff like this...

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

 

I mean yes, this is probably better than being held hostage for sports money of already existing teams. But, this is also expected to be much more money than any single stadium etc etc. So the concern is that the "heavy on jobs projections, light on details" means they signed a really terrible deal and they don't want the details to become public.

[Eliehlers]

1 hour ago, dtaflorida said:

That's only to build the place. Once that's done it'll be an automated factory that employs no more than 10 people. Taxpayers got robbed. Foxconn got a free factory.

Yah a 20 million sq foot building is only going to employ 10 people

[Donut417]

Thats cool, Wisconsin can have Foxconn. Michigan has Amazon.