funkpelts Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 I looked around a little and didn't see this story on here yet, so I thought I'd share- http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/25/subaru-asks-indiana-for-212-million-in-tax-abatements/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Jedimaster* Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Pasta Del Rio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coxx Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 who cares if it's a repost. I didn't see it before "Barack Obama, mothaf#%@a! Barack Obama! I'm the president...of hittin' the ass!" -this is not a political view it's merely a quote from a hilarious tv show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 No doubt Lafeyette will give in to Subaru, but if they don't, my freaking gov Mitch Daniels will. Since states and localities seem destined to screw themselves with these tax deals for big corps, then get screwed again when the corp moves to a "better deal" state, I'm wishing for federal legislation making tax preferences illegal by states or localities so they can't compete in this manner. Failing that, I want states or localities to enter into a tax abatement contract stating that if the corp can't guarantee X job increase over an Y year period, the tax abatement is retroactively eliminated and the corp owes the abated taxes as back taxes. Now if our lawmakers just get spines...but they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melayout Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 I first thought tax abatement meant the company doesn't pay up but actually it is just deferring it. So nobody is getting a free ride here. From http://www.fortwayne-ed.org/tax_abatement2.htm : Tax abatement (tax phase-in) was first authorized by the State in 1977. This gave local government the option of allowing certain businesses to phase-in those new taxes that would otherwise be assessed to their property because of new building construction or the purchase of new equipment for manufacturing research and development logistical distribution information technology The types of businesses targeted are those in the manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, commercial and/or service arenas. Retail and residential facilities are not eligible for tax abatement unless located in specially designated areas. For information on eligibility for tax abatement of retail and residential facilities, click RIZ abatements. Tax abatement is a valuable incentive to attract new businesses into the Fort Wayne area. Its major impact, however, is to stimulate reinvestment by existing businesses -- by not penalizing them with a major tax bill when they can least afford it - after having just spent their money for a building and/or manufacturing equipment, or research and development equipment. Because new taxes are phased-in, each year new tax money goes into the community coffers while the businesses retain employees and create new job opportunities for our citizens. Without this incentive, businesses might not make these capital improvements at all! To be eligible for tax abatement, the business must apply for designation as an Economic Revitalization area (ERA) before beginning the capital improvement. I keed I keeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeTrout Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Exactly. It still represents lost revenue, but at some point they still end up paying the full tax for the property. Contrast that with the kind of deals Intel and some others get for their plants, where they simply don't pay taxes at all, and it is a pretty reasonable compromise. Ich bin echt viel netter, wenn ich nuechtern bin. Echt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coxx Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Oh yeah? Well **** you! FU too jackas$ "Barack Obama, mothaf#%@a! Barack Obama! I'm the president...of hittin' the ass!" -this is not a political view it's merely a quote from a hilarious tv show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Exactly. It still represents lost revenue, but at some point they still end up paying the full tax for the property. Contrast that with the kind of deals Intel and some others get for their plants, where they simply don't pay taxes at all, and it is a pretty reasonable compromise. They only pay the bill if they continue in business at that location. In Indy, one airline rec'd a huge tax abatement as an incentive to build a maintenance facility there. 5 or 10 years later, before they actually paid any taxes, they pulled out. City screwed, business gone. If the business can't stand on its own, don't help it. What really irks me is that this is exactly the sort of welfare that anti-government folks scream about, but its going to the rich corps so they don't care. If it helps the poor, that's evil. But as long as it goes to corporations, that's all fine and dandy. I would rather no polity doled it out to the corporations, but if they do, at least be smart and structure it so the company has to pay back any tax savings if it doesn't follow through with its grandiose promises of lots of jobs, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Actually, the taxes just get passed on to the employees (through lower wages and benefits, to compensate for high employment taxes) and customers (sometimes the same people are both...), though the tax entries on the expense sheet, which gets figured in to the cost of doing business, and the cost of the product or service the business sells. Plus with tax breaks for corporations, more of the immediate tax burden gets placed on other businesses, and homeowners, because the government never has enough money, and all they have to do is mandate more be paid, by US. I agree. If a business is too insolvent to operate while paying taxes, then they need to either not do business, or not do business in that location. Tax deferments only serve to mask tax policy problems, and serve the local government to have their cake and eat it too. It generates jobs, by attracting companies to employ people, rather than the company building elsewhere. They also eventually get their tax money, unless the company leaves. I think that tax deferments should either be available to ANYONE, including homeowners, or to no-one. Compete on permanent tax policy. If the gov't wants to attract business to your location, to employ your citizens, then CUT TAXES. DON'T defer or abate them. that is just causing complications, not solving fiscal issues. If companies can't pay the taxes, either do business more efficiently, do business elsewhere, or leave the marketplace, and let someone else do it. If the Gov't charges too much taxes, the public needs to tell them so, remind them that if they tax people out of jobs, people will be too destitute to pay other taxes, including less sales tax, less property tax (less ability to pay, AND a deflated real-estate value) and they'll be killing their own tax base, anyway. If in some cases, the employment is so lucrative, some taxes may not even be required, like corporate income tax. (again, transferred to consumers, as a corporate expense.) The sooner people understand true fiscal conservatism, the better off EVERYONE will be. (and I am not talking about republicanism, which is increasingly fiscally unsound, and not really different than tax-and-spend socialism.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hovied Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 who cares if it's a repost. I didn't see it before agreed! ______________ tHe HoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosedaddy Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 For that matter, F everybody who doesnt care that this is a repost :lol: I guess F me then! :icon_mrgr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coxx Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 this discussion has gone on for a while here even with it being a repost. For the record I never saw the 1st post. Heights is a weenie, LOL. J/K pal You're not a weenie. "Barack Obama, mothaf#%@a! Barack Obama! I'm the president...of hittin' the ass!" -this is not a political view it's merely a quote from a hilarious tv show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eL GaTo Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Aw c'mon, re-runs are allowed in television....it helps people like me, with early stages of Alzheimer's, to watch them again. "Remember..."MODDING is a HOBBY:icon_bigg, not a BAAAD HABIT";) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 I looked around a little and didn't see this story on here yet, so I thought I'd share- It would be good if autoblog boy had distinguished between tax abatements on $212 million versus abatements of $212 million. Subaru of Indiana Automotive Inc. will seek tax abatements on about $212 million in improvements for its plans to start making Toyota Camrys in spring 2007. The company will seek abatements on about $205 million in equipment to be installed to construct the vehicles and on about $7 million in changes to build onto the facility to allow a new stamping press and a new loading dock area, Tom Easterday said Tuesday. He is SIA's senior vice president. It will also seek an abatement on $2 million in equipment to begin producing an overseas version of Subaru's B9 Tribeca. Someone, somewhere can find something bad about a fixed investment of over $200 million in a factory. Sounds pretty good for Subaru and Lafayette, though. Toyota's 10% share in Subaru can't hurt. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 The $200 million investment isn't bad, but why don't people scream about corporate welfare for the already rich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.