Apple Gets Tax Break Approval for Arizona Sapphire Glass Facility

[Solomani]

Tax breaks are a standard way for individual states to tempt corporations to build factories and establish headquarters in their state. The Arizona government obviously feels that the jobs created and revenue flowing into the local economy, as well as the halo effect from having Apple building stuff in their state, is a net positive for them.

You're most likely trying to lecture some socialist hipster. Not someone who actually has taken a Business 101 college course.

Yes, this is how business deals are done. If the State of Arizona deemed that the "deal" would be detrimental or too expensive on their end, they would not have made a deal with Apple at all.

Apparently, AZ came to the conclusion that giving Apple a tax break will pay dividends in the long run and will more than pay for itself. This, of course, is a calculated business risk. But this is how many business deals are made. The socialist hipsters don't quite get this.

 

[9000]

Who on this board goes out of their way to pay more in taxes? If it's a measure you advocate, I'd love to see you write a check to the IRS just for the heck of it.

These tax breaks happen because the communities benefit and get a greater economic boost from the large influx of jobs over corporate taxes.

Jobs > taxes. If you disagree than you think Detroit can be fixed by raising corporate taxes and driving out business over attracting businesses and creating jobs.

Yeah, but then Arizona steals jobs from other states by tax sheltering. Sure it benefits Arizona, but mostly Arizona. Kinda like China sucking in all of our business.

I'd be all for every state establishing the same corporate tax, quite low and definitely lower than what the hipsters in California charge, and not giving any specific company a tax break.

 

[Solomani]

I'd be all for every state establishing the same corporate tax, quite low and definitely lower than what the hipsters in California charge, and not giving any specific company a tax break.

You're wishing nonsense. States are states. They are supposed to have some degree of autonomy and individuality. If a state wants to be moronic and tax all the corporations to death and drive them away, then that state can do so. But a neighboring state could choose to do the opposite, which is to attract businesses by having a business-friendly environment and low-tax policies.

If a state wanted to allow more social freedoms and legalize marijuana, then by all means that state's citizens can vote to do so. But another state might not agree. States should NOT be cookie-cutter entities. Otherwise, what's the whole point of a "state"? Might as well dissolve the States and just make them provinces of the USA.

 

[9000]

If a state wanted to allow more social freedoms and legalize marijuana, then by all means that state's citizens can vote to do so. But another state might not agree. States should NOT be cookie-cutter entities. Otherwise, what's the whole point of a "state"? Might as well dissolve the States and just make them provinces of the USA.

You're putting words in my mouth. States are expected not to attack other states economically.

 

[alphaod]

That makes sense. Don't pay public school taxes when you're clearly not a residence.

 

[Solomani]

You're putting words in my mouth. States are expected not to attack other states economically.

I said nothing about states attacking other states, you did. Clearly I was talking about the states having a right to be competitive. If a state has sound policies, they can attract good profitable businesses. Providing tax breaks is just one of the many examples used.

 

[macUser2007]

...

Apple is paying tax. A lot more tax than the empty land generated...

Sure. But when I go and build something on empty land, I don't get tax breaks.

If a small business has to expand, they have to consider the tax consequences. Big business negotiates the tax consequences. There is a difference, and if you think about it, it's not a good one.

For state/local governments it's often a race to the bottom where large companies are concerned, but then they have to get the revenue from somewhere, so they raise taxes on the smaller businesses.

And yes, large companies have the $$$ to structure and defend practices like 16 month contracts for "independent contractors," while small businesses will get buried by the Franchise Board if they tried to claim that their employees were not employees.

Some are apparently more equal than others. It's the way things are, but don't pretend that it's good for everyone.

Apple would have built somewhere anyway, with or without the tax breaks - most likely at the same location. Just like a small business.

Nope.

Shy? Not good with words? Or, just dim?

 

[macUser2007]

...Apparently, AZ came to the conclusion that giving Apple a tax break will pay dividends in the long run and will more than pay for itself. This, of course, is a calculated business risk. But this is how many business deals are made. The socialist hipsters don't quite get this.

Or, someone in Arizona wanted to go on TV and announce that they just brought xxxxx thousand jobs to their district. Today. Before the next election. This may be the "dividends" in the short run and they may well trump any revenue repercussions in the long run.

Or it may be state representatives who are either flattered to wine and dine with the Apples, or are hoping that a favor done today is remembered and returned tomorrow.

In many private businesses, especially smaller ones, business deals done based on such calculations may get you fired or even prosecuted.

But in much of government, like in this example, or in very large or badly managed corporations, this is business as usual.

 

[Parkin Pig]

Think about what a tax is... it's public money. Companies don't pay taxes, their customers do. So a tax to Apple is a tax to you. Tax breaks simply remove the unnecessary transfer of money and [theoretically] lowers the costs for everyone.

That explains why the iPhone is so cheap, and Apple can afford to practically give away 16GB of memory for only $100 extra over base models.

 

[snipper]

Now replace Apple with private taxpayers like you and me. We all take legal loopholes to minimize the taxes we pay. The only thing different is the scale here.[…]

So your accountant negotiates with the government for you, about the hight of your taxes?

The 'only thing different' is that your government DOES negotiate on the scale of Apple(, Shell and Ikea), but not with you.

----------

Think about what a tax is... it's public money. Companies don't pay taxes, their customers do. So a tax to Apple is a tax to you. Tax breaks simply remove the unnecessary transfer of money and [theoretically] lowers the costs for everyone.

Would you prefer that unreasonably high taxes deter grown and development? Because that's what happens in the real world.

This is so stupid that it made me laugh!

So basically, let's just ban all taxes and everything will be a lot cheaper!




(Oh, and then we'll just ban everything that's paid with taxes too, like the army, public roads and all that kind of nonsense.)

 

[sportsfan]

How old fashioned are you? The reason that I ask this is because the stock market has been around for like, oh, I don't know....A HUNDRED YEARS. Even Ford became publicly traded in the 50's. This is society.

The difference with the stock market nowadays is shareholders are held waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up as the most important, followed very closely by upper Mgmt, then somwhere way doooooooooooooooooooooown low are employees, society, and environment.

 

[tdream]

There still paying taxes on several levels. Federal , State, City and Sales taxes. Its just a lower percentage than if they did not get the tax breaks but if we did not even give them one they would certainly go to another town that did. Look at there server farms they went to areas that they can get tax breaks but people forget about the positive side of it.

Au contraire mon ami, they use the same tactics to get tax breaks on a state level as they do to avoid paying tax at an international level and all levels. Funneling all possible profits to low tax havens in Ireland and what not.

My humble suggestion for the corporation and individual is there should be a lowest taxable point at which no further tax breaks are allowed. Let's say 20% the minimum a person or corporation can be taxed is 20% any further legal loopholes and off shoring banking techniques should not interfere with this. Any further attempt to reduce payable tax should be considered illegal.