Slashdot Mirror


Apple Plans $1 Billion iDataCenter

1sockchuck writes "Apple is planning a major East Coast data center to boost the capacity of its online operations, and may invest more than $1 billion in building and operating the huge server farm. That's nearly twice what Google and Microsoft typically invest in their massive cloud computing centers. The scope of the project raises interesting questions about Apple's plans, and has politicians in North Carolina jumping through hoops to pass incentives to win the project. The proposed NC incentives build on a package for Google that later proved controversial."

8 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Tax breaks for the rich? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:

    would offer income tax breaks to companies that invest more than $1 billion over nine years

    Why should a company receive more tax breaks because they've gotten big enough to be able to drop $1 billion on a data center? If they can afford $1 billion, they can afford whatever taxes apply. How about you cut the taxes for small companies who struggle because of monopolies like Apple? Stop helping the companies who obviously don't need the help, and start helping the businesses who are risking having their doors closed forever because of a shitty economy.

    Frankly, I'm sick of seeing the rich get the gold platter treatment.

    1. Re:Tax breaks for the rich? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its simple, this will create jobs. Apple is going to hire a massive amount of contractors to build this, probably have to hire some consultants, have to buy the hardware, etc. All this goes to help other companies and the economy. Honestly, it makes more sense to just abolish most taxes and establish a pay-per-use system and abolish all government granted monopolies, but thats just me....

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Tax breaks for the rich? by j1mmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Business taxes should be the first to go, because businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do. The only thing governments accomplish when they tax businesses is they raise the cost of goods and services.

    3. Re:Tax breaks for the rich? by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last year, Maryland raised marginal tax rate on millionaires. This year, the number of millionaires in Maryland dropped by 30% and total tax revenue collected from them dropped as well.

      Are you implying that many millions in Maryland left for other states because of the tax? Have you considered that perhaps there were many millionaires who lost a lot of money, and therefore were no longer millionaires?

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    4. Re:Tax breaks for the rich? by slamb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last year, Maryland raised marginal tax rate on millionaires. This year, the number of millionaires in Maryland dropped by 30% and total tax revenue collected from them dropped as well.

      You seem to be trying to lead readers into believing that the tax increase caused the drop in millionaires. If so, you're badly mistaken or dishonest, and judging by your post's score some people were stupid enough to fall for it.

      Correlation is not causation! larry bagina failed to mention other, more significant factors. Namely that we're in a recession! The S&P 500 index went down 36% between 2008-01-01 to 2009-01-01! Many, many, many people's income and net worth has gone down (though not all of us were so lucky as to be above $1 million to begin with), and tax revenue has fallen all across the US! Several major states are broke! Given the economic climate, it's ridiculous to even suggest that the tax increase is at all related to the drop in millionaires without doing much better, such as:

      • showing theoretically that the tax increase was significant enough to cause so many people to no longer be millionaires.
      • showing that many millionaires have moved out of Maryland.
      • using a comparable state with no tax increase as a control, demonstrating that Maryland's fall was much greater. (This is hard, though, because there are so many things different between states, so it's a tough argument to make that another is "comparable".)
    5. Re:Tax breaks for the rich? by McGiraf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point, if you ignore the Monaco part, it's that if the wealth is mostly controlled by a few they have the power influence legislation to accommodate them by threatening to leave (people or corp.). By using this power they grab even more of the wealth and more of the power. Better ditribution of wealth prevents this from happening.

    6. Re:Tax breaks for the rich? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correlation is not causation!

      Wow, I hate that sentence. I don't think I've ever seen it used properly here. The correct objection in this case is: "one data point does not indicate a correlation."

      If the OP watches Maryland raise and lower taxes many times, and if the number of millionaires in Maryland tracks well enough to yield a strong probability that a correlation exists, THEN you may object that correlation does not imply causation. Although in that case you're arguing that a third factor consistently both causes Maryland to raise taxes and millionaires to leave.

  2. Surprise? by Longjmp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, Apple is changing from a hardware company to a media company. Who would have guessed that after iTunes, iPods and iPhone (iPad next?) Seriously.

    --
    There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.