eyephone said:
hello said:
eyephone said:
hello said:
eyephone said:
HMart said:
Compressed-Village said:
NJ Christ, Christie, offer a sizable 7 Billion tax incentive. The competition is tough. Amazon sure got everyone aroused.
That guy is corrupt as hell
The combination highest tax incentives and desirable location wins. How is that corrupt?
I would say its definitely corrupt if the tax incentive is only for a particular company. If the tax incentive is for everyone and anyone, then no.
Okay you can get real also.
You asked how something is corrupt. Well if someone in govt is providing special "incentives" for a specific person or company, then the simple truth is that it is corrupt. If you want me to say whether this is real life or not, well then that is a different story. Unfortunately we all know that real life is corrupt as hell.
I say it?s competition. Let?s say if you were looking for a new job with a recruiter. The recruiter sets you up with two interviews. You do well on the both interviews and get two offers.
Company A offers you 10% more money than your current job.
Company B offers you 25% more money than your current job, and offers a signing bonus.
Is it corrupt for Company B to offer more money and a signing bonus? Is it fair that Company B is offering more because they are backed by private equity or it makes more money than company A. Bottom line is good companies will pay for top talent. If it?s fair or not, oh wells. (On the other hand, there are also companies that are super cheap.)
Same thing with cities or states offering more incentives. The cities and states better hope their incentive package have a good ROI in the long run. (Because it can put them in the red.) You know how that goes, might have to cut services, layoffs, etc..
If Chris Christie was a CEO of a private company, and New Jersey was the corporation, then the analogy would be more applicable. Private actors can pretty much do anything they want, aside from committing murder and sexual assault.
However, that isn't the case here. Governors/mayors/etc. aren't private sector CEOs who answer to a board of trustees. They are public officials. There are different standards involved when it comes to private vs. public actors. There is typically more scrutiny when it comes to those who serve the public in such capacities, and that's because tax payer money, and likely some type of federal funds, etc. may be involved. Such as, would the city end up having to foot the bill for road repair work due to additional trucks being driven in the area (via tax payer money, or federally funded assisted programs which again, usually comes from tax payer money, etc.), while the corporation gets a fat tax break? That's just one silly example.
Now, if the incentives given by the public official to the private corporation are at the expense of the general public, then that's a problem, but then again, up to debate. Again, whether or not the incentive given results in bettering the community, etc. in the future, and the pros would ultimately outweigh the cons, again, is up for debate.
