Travis County Gives Final Approval to Tax Incentives for Apple Expansion in Austin

[3282868]

Actually, the people (us regular folk) tell other people (the electoral college) who to vote for, and those other people ultimately decide who to give the votes to. MOST of the time, the EC gives all their votes to one person; MOST of the time, the EC votes for who us regular folk tell them to vote for. SOMETIMES, they vote the other way, and you have people who can win the popular vote, but lose the over-all election.

The electoral vote is antiquated, back to the days of the Pony Express. When is this nation going to move to the Popular Vote???

 

[zewazir]

Actually, the people (us regular folk) tell other people (the electoral college) who to vote for, and those other people ultimately decide who to give the votes to. MOST of the time, the EC gives all their votes to one person; MOST of the time, the EC votes for who us regular folk tell them to vote for. SOMETIMES, they vote the other way, and you have people who can win the popular vote, but lose the over-all election.

That's only for the president. All federal congress critters are directly elected by the people of their respective states. At one time the state legislatures selected senators, but that was (unwisely, IMO) changed by the 17th amendment.

----------

The electoral vote is antiquated, back to the days of the Pony Express. When is this nation going to move to the Popular Vote???

Hopefully, never. Because the office of the president is executive, not representational. The idea that the electoral college was put in place due to inadequate communications is a myth. It was put in place to deliberately place a barrier between the popular vote and the presidency, so that high population centers do not have undue influence over the rest of the country.

 

[zewazir]

It's a hard equation. First, even when Apple does create the jobs I'm betting those will be filled by people already living here so the net growth in taxes collected will not be that much. Second, many of these people won't be living in Travis county. Many, if not most will reside in the outer communities so Travis county will have given up a chunk of property taxes that won't be recouped. Same goes for individual spending. Those same folks will probably do their shopping outside of Travis county too.

How do you calculate there will be little difference in tax revenues? If the people already living in the area get the majority of jobs, who fills the jobs those people will be vacating to work for Apple? Or is everyone unemployed? If so, then the drop in dependency on state funds in the various forms of unemployment and welfare would have the same net effect as increased tax revenues on the local and state budget even if no other taxes are collected.

----------

First, to say that we are do not live in a democracy is a blasphemy

Not blasphemy, simple truth. We are a constitutional republic, by deliberate design. I suggest you research what the founders thought of a democracy.

Corruption comes in many forms, not the least of which is POWER. Government is corrupted by power. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The corruption of government is more due to usurping power the constitution never meant for them to have than the influence of big money. A huge faction of government is far more in love with the poverty stricken - whom they deliberately keep there through their purposely mis-designed "assistance" programs, than anything big money can bring them. Every warm body dependent on government assistance is a vote. 100,000 poor votes is worth far more in the realm of political power than a few hundred votes from millionaires.

 

[a.jfred]

That's only for the president. All federal congress critters are directly elected by the people of their respective states. At one time the state legislatures selected senators, but that was (unwisely, IMO) changed by the 17th amendment.

It's always amazed me that people complain about their elected officials, and then turn around and re-elect them. I've never quite understood that phenomenon, much like I've never understood how Austin residents can vote to pass every bond issue (okay, pretty much everything gets passed, but we'll focus on one thing here) on the ballot & then complain that their property taxes went up (Am I the only one who actually bothers reading them?)

 

[donnaw]

How do you calculate there will be little difference in tax revenues? If the people already living in the area get the majority of jobs, who fills the jobs those people will be vacating to work for Apple? Or is everyone unemployed? If so, then the drop in dependency on state funds in the various forms of unemployment and welfare would have the same net effect as increased tax revenues on the local and state budget even if no other taxes are collected.[COLOR="



Well, Austin already has a huge tech industry. I may be mistaken (but I doubt it) that the jobs Apple will create will require some tech expertise. These jobs will most likely be filled by people already employed. Yes, the jobs that are then opened will need to be filled but as things 'trickle down' the total impact on tax revenues will not be the same as if that many new people move into the area
.

Also, as I pointed out, I highly suspect any who do move into the area won't live in Travis county. If you lived here you would understand the geographical layout and understand that they will most certainly live in one of the surrounding communities that are NOT in Travis county.

I'm not disputing that this is a good thing. But saying that Travis county will reap the majority of the benefits is naive at best. Hence my statement that the city of Austin and the surrounding entities should kick something in too. Having seen this type of agreement given here in past years and seen the outcomes, I fail to see how the loss of the property tax revenues will be recouped by the county.[COLOR="#808080"]

----------

[/COLOR]

That's only for the president. All federal congress critters are directly elected by the people of their respective states. At one time the state legislatures selected senators, but that was (unwisely, IMO) changed by the 17th amendment.

It's always amazed me that people complain about their elected officials, and then turn around and re-elect them. I've never quite understood that phenomenon, much like I've never understood how Austin residents can vote to pass every bond issue (okay, pretty much everything gets passed, but we'll focus on one thing here) on the ballot & then complain that their property taxes went up (Am I the only one who actually bothers reading them?)

I read and research each and every one. Some I vote for and some I don't. But then I don't usually complain about my property taxes. I appreciate the amenities those taxes provide. But I do wish we had the option to vote on the same type of tax bennies that the city officials hand out all the time. Same goes for the state officials (re: Formula 1 race tracks at the same time we are in a deficit sitituation).

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not disputing that this is a good thing. But saying that Travis county will reap the majority of the benefits is naive at best. Hence my statement that the city of Austin and the surrounding entities should kick something in too. Having seen this type of agreement given here in past years and seen the outcomes, I fail to see how the loss of the property tax revenues will be recouped by the county.

What loss of tax revenues? The loss of revenues that they wouldn't have received if Apple didn't expand in Austin?

Again, you appear to be arguing imaginary numbers. I would bet that Travis County officials had hard numbers to make their decision on. Unless you just want to start with the assumption that they are either corrupt or idiots. Which is a completely reasonable assumption for elected officials.

 

[zewazir]

Well, Austin already has a huge tech industry. I may be mistaken (but I doubt it) that the jobs Apple will create will require some tech expertise. These jobs will most likely be filled by people already employed. Yes, the jobs that are then opened will need to be filled but as things 'trickle down' the total impact on tax revenues will not be the same as if that many new people move into the area.

And where will the people come from to fill in the vacated jobs? Whether the purpose is to work for Apple, or to fill a job because someone else quit in order to work for Apple, new people will be moving into the area in response to Apple building there.

Also, as I pointed out, I highly suspect any who do move into the area won't live in Travis county. If you lived here you would understand the geographical layout and understand that they will most certainly live in one of the surrounding communities that are NOT in Travis county.

I'm not disputing that this is a good thing. But saying that Travis county will reap the majority of the benefits is naive at best. Hence my statement that the city of Austin and the surrounding entities should kick something in too. Having seen this type of agreement given here in past years and seen the outcomes, I fail to see how the loss of the property tax revenues will be recouped by the county.

Yet the new employees (as demonstrated above) will be working there, which means increased presence, which means more people buying lunches and possibly breakfasts, snacks, filling up their cars on their way home, stopping of for flowers because they almost forgot their anniversary, etc. etc. etc. And in response, businesses expand, new businesses come it to take advantage of the increase presence. All of that activity generates sales tax revenues, as well as additional property tax revenues for the county. It may be that the county won't get the largest share of total benefits of Apple moving in to the area, but you can pretty much guarantee the benefits will more than pay for the tax breaks the county government agreed to in order to convince Apple to build there.