Slashdot Mirror


Wisconsin Won't Break Even On Foxconn Plant Deal For Over Two Decades (theverge.com)

Last month, Foxconn announced plans to build a $10 billion factory in southeastern Wisconsin in exchange for $3 billion in tax breaks. While the factory was heralded as a big win for President Trump and Governor Scott Walker, a report issued last week says the plan is looking less and less like a good deal for the state. In the report, Wisconsin's Legislative Fiscal Bureau said that the state wouldn't break even on its investment until 2043 -- and that's in an absolute best-case scenario. The Verge reports: How many workers Foxconn actually hires, and where Foxconn hires them from, would have a significant impact on when the state's investment pays off, the report says. The current analysis assumes that "all of the construction-period and ongoing jobs associated with the project would be filled by Wisconsin residents." But the report says it's likely that some positions would go to Illinois residents, because the factory would be located so close to the border. That would lower tax revenue and delay when the state breaks even. And that's still assuming that Foxconn actually creates the 13,000 jobs it claimed it might create, at the average wage -- just shy of $54,000 -- it promised to create them at. In fact, the plant is only expected to start with 3,000 jobs; the 13,000 figure is the maximum potential positions it could eventually offer. If the factory offers closer to 3,000 positions, the report notes, "the breakeven point would be well past 2044-45."

26 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. Politics.. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While that is possible..

    The major factor here is mostly votes I suspect.
    Basically the local politicians can use public money to buy 'jobs' (at obviously stupid prices, as ITS NOT THEIR MONEY, so they dont care).
    The locals get pummeled with 'we bought new jobs! tech ones even!!' in elections, and vote accordingly.
    The downsides for the politicians are small, and far in the future (never pays off, jobs evaporate, etc), so for them its a win.
    for the locals? not so much (to say the least).

    Remember folks, a politicians ONLY priority is to stay in power, or even better gain more power.
    They sometimes rationalize this to themselves as 'helping' because after all, they see themselves as the best person to be in power.

    The only rational solution is to vote against over pending politicians, however the majority doesnt see that, so it is bordering on impossible.

    Democracy only works when coupled with *personal* *responsibility*. As that has basically been eradicated in public office jobs throughout the west certainly (but not exclusively), democracy is now just a way to swindle the voters.

    Solutions to this are all shot down HARD as not being 'inclusive' or 'fair' - which is likely why the powers that be are pushing such concepts so hard these days (and no, I dont mean removing womens votes, so dont play that stupid strawman, there are plenty of incompetent voters from all genders, beliefs, walks of life..)

    Just remember folks, you are paying the Chinese to give you a few measly jobs back, and you are paying more than the jobs will ever return...
    Does it feel good?

    1. Re:Politics.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "break even" in TFA is only based on tax revenue. Governments don't exist to collect taxes, they exist to serve the people. If you look at the overall gain in secondary business and employment the break even is way sooner than two decades.

      None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma. State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors. We would likely all be better off if there was a federal law to ban this nonsense.

      Just remember folks, you are paying the Chinese to give you a few measly jobs back

      Foxconn is not a Chinese company.

    2. Re:Politics.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, a tax break is not an investment, it is simply fore-going funds they wouldn't get otherwise.

      Tax breaks mean that the public costs involved in starting up that new plant have to be borne by other taxpayers, other companies.

      You may not care about the free market, but this is a case of the government picking winners and losers.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Politics.. by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Foxconn is not a Chinese company.

      That depends on what you mean by Chinese. It's founded and headquartered in the Republic of China (Taiwan), which the US won't formally recognize as a sovereign country to avoid pissing off the People's Republic of China (China), who considers Taiwan part of China ("One China" doctrine). So there's a charade, where the US pretends it's dealing with a Chinese company, and Taiwan doesn't correct them, to keep everybody happy.

    4. Re:Politics.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they don't have the factory, they never get any tax revenue of course.

      Many economists would disagree. If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another. The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks, so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.

    5. Re:Politics.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also Taiwan believes they are the true China and hope that the other part will one day be merged back into Taiwan.

      That is Guomindang dogma, but almost no one in Taiwan believes that. Most would prefer independence, especially after seeing how the CCP has treated Hong Kong.

    6. Re:Politics.. by Whibla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many economists would disagree.

      And many would agree, and many would disagree with both of the previous groups, and still more would disagree with all the others.

      Remember, economists assume everything except responsibility!

      If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another.

      Except, of course, that free movement of labour is also one of the tenets of the free market. And, yeah, I know some people may not be able to move for 'social' reasons, but there's always plenty more people, somewhere, who can. So, other than starting a local business, the only reason to start is business there is because it's going to make more money there than starting it elsewhere.

      The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks...

      Exactly my point above (Yes, you may call me cynical)

      ...so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.

      I suspect it's more a case that Foxconn said something like "We're going to be investing in a factory in the US, who's going to offer to 'benefit' from our largesse?" and the various states fell over themselves in an orgy of mutual back scratching: "We'll start the bidding at a 5% tax break, for 2000 jobs over a 10 year period", "No, come here instead, we'll offer a 10% tax rebate, for 3000 jobs, guaranteed for 10 years", and so on...

      And, just to return to the beginning: They say that Christopher Columbus was the first economist. When he left to discover America, he didn't know where he was going; when he got there he didn't know where he was; and it was all done on a government grant.

    7. Re:Politics.. by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you look at the overall gain in secondary business and employment the break even is way sooner than two decades.

      Ah, the secondary business scam -- the one where businesses claim large multiplier effects on secondary revenue and employment that mysteriously do not apply to other employers in the area since, if true for all, small business owners would be swimming in gold plated swimming pools and unemployment would be -50%.

    8. Re:Politics.. by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

      None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma. State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors.

      No no no no.... This is a global market. The option of placing this factory in the USA anywhere is dependent upon these tax breaks, as the amount of taxes, fees, regulations, etc, to create this factory in some other country is vastly lower. Think about this for a moment... the state is not GIVING them $3 billion dollars. The state is simply NOT TAKING AWAY $3 billion dollars in the form of taxes for some amount of time up-front. You think if this plant was in China there would be a $3 billion dollars in taxes collected from a plant like this? LOL on the contrary, the government would probably be footing or subsidizing the cost of building the plant in the first place.

      We would likely all be better off if there was a federal law to ban this nonsense.

      And on a totally different note, the federal government needs to keep its grimy hands off of state business. The States have the right to certain modes of tax, or not to tax as they see fit. I'm sick to death of people advocating the loss of States' rights just because it happens to result in a ruling that aligns with their personal philosophy. New Hampshire has no sales tax, instead they raise their taxes through real estate taxes. Other states have high sales taxes and low real estate taxes. Diversity and many different personalities and tax structures among the states is a very good thing.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
  2. Re:Funny Accounting by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You need to actually read before you comment.

    They are not being given a tax break on profits, they are being given redeemable tax credits which they can trade directly for CASH each year.
    So, it all becomes a simple matter of applying the Apple/Google/etal tax method of pushing a whole ton of 'licensing fees' back to china to make sure the factory never actually earns a dollar, and then claiming those nice fat credits yearly as cash payments.

    No wonder Foxconn are considering more factories in the US - its basically free money.

  3. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Literally everything in your post is wrong. This is a state thing, not a Trump thing. He might jump out in front of the parade and try to take credit, but this has been in the works since long before he came along and involves Wisconsin tax credits, not federal tax credits. It isn't a trade deal, it is a package of tax incentives to locate a factory in a state.

    The only thing you got right was being snarky about the deal, because crony capitalism and sweetheart deals are worthy of snark. But this deal is standard fare for big factories being newly sited. States bid against each other to draw investment, just like cities bid against each other to see who can give the most money to a billionaire to build a stadium for his NFL team.

  4. Will it even be built, though? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In previous years, Foxconn has promised to build other large plants in other US states - but never actually built them.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Analysis is incomplete by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Fiscal Bureau did not consider the substantial savings that the Social Security and Medicare programs will realize over the years.

    Every employee that jumps off of the roof of the factory will save the state well over $100,000 in retirement benefits that will never need to be paid, which will make the break-even point much sooner. That's why part of this deal stipulates that the plant buildings must all be at least 15m tall, and they must be directly abutted on all sides by concrete pathways.

  6. Re:"tax breaks" by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not "breaking even" because they did not pay any money out to begin with. If Foxconn pays even one dollar in taxes, then Wisconsin has more revenue than it would otherwise.

    That is ridiculous. Of course the state will incur extra costs because of this plant. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

    Then, there is the fact that such an approach has knock-on effects: it becomes a race to the bottom. Other companies will demand similar deals just to stay in the state.

    Go ask Kansas how well things work when you run your budget at the bottom. Ask people how things work when you can't pay your teachers.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  7. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by ghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that the govt does very little for individuals and spends most of its budget on creating an environment where businesses can operate without people just looting them or stealing their IP or bouncing cheques on them you have it ass backwards. Individual income tax needs to be abolished and only corporations should be taxed on their revenue (not profit). They are welcome to distribute all their after tax profits to the owners tax free once they have paid their fair share.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  8. Help me out here... by pedz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    10 - 3 = 7. It sounds like Foxconn is dumping $7B into the state. How long will it take the state to break even from the $7B opportunity cost?

    50 years ago, IBM came to Austin and set up shop. Texas Instruments followed. At this point, it is a thriving tech mecca sucking many people away from Silicon Valley. Why?

    Its not just because of IBM but it is also because of the "pro" business attitude of Austin and Texas in general. At the same time, California has become fairly hostile to business resulting in a carrot and a stick: Texas offering the carrots and California whipping with their sticks.

    Yes... there are pros and cons to each side but you either want growth or you don't. If you don't want growth, that's fine but politicians would run on "no growth" platforms if that were the case. But they don't because generally growth is considered progressive, positive, futuristic, blah blah blah. Voters vote pro-growth. The confusion comes when they find out that pro-growth equates to pro-business. Then they have ambivalence and second thoughts.

    Wisconsin could build upon this seed and over the next 50 years build up to a viable competitive center for high tech manufacturing; or... they could botch it.

    $100 says they botch it.

    1. Re:Help me out here... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      50 years ago, IBM came to Austin and set up shop. Texas Instruments followed.

      And how many employees do those companies have in Austin now? For TI, how many ever?

      10 - 3 = 7. It sounds like Foxconn is dumping $7B into the state. How long will it take the state to break even from the $7B opportunity cost?

      The naivete of people here never fails to amaze me. Or is it ignorance, or even shilling?

      Foxconn is going to spend $10B, but how much of that will be in the state? They will buy equipment, materials, expertise and more from out of state; perhaps even out of the country. For all we know, they might be spending $9B on a license to build products from their parent company.

      It's a race to the bottom and the end result is that there is no money left for the state to operate. Why should not every company in Wisconsin demand a tax break of a similar magnitude, under threat of moving to another state?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  9. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. Trickle down economics doesn't work... never has, never will. Businesses are not what drives the economy, consumers are; if consumers don't spend, businesses blow in the wind and die.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  10. Re:"tax breaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think people would be more than happy if more companies demanded the same treatment, since they would all be creating jobs and building $10B factories.

    A race to the bottom is one we are sure to win, and that is a pity. Infrastructure, defense, and yes social programs for those that need them do cost money.

    There are only two questions really.
    1. How much of those things are we willing to pay for.
    2. Who is going to pay.
    3. (Yes I said two.) The unwritten third is if you don't pay for certain programs and such then how much are you going to pay for law enforcement and jails? That may be higher.

    Some of the best places to live also have high taxes, but then those taxes go to making it some of the best places to live. The real problem is the really crappy places have no real tax base, plus once you get crime and all the rest, you can't afford to fix it. Sure you can jack property taxes up to stupid levels, but then more people leave. Dropping property taxes doesn't magically fix such places, because then you have even less money to work with.

    Personally I think we need fewer sweetheart deals for companies. It invites corruption. We also need it nationwide. A state can lower or raise taxes, but not for specific companies, though taxing pollution and has potential.

    Foxconn didn't get where they are by providing great paying jobs. I'm not sure I buy that they are going to suddenly do so now. To build a factory in America means they believe they can profit more than the same good or service built elsewhere and shipped here, so basically your increase in salary is the shipping costs. When you factor in actually having some environmental controls, assuming Trump's wrecking crew don't ruin them all, well I can't see many people getting paid much.

    Personally, I bet they automate almost everything and that is how they make it profitable. So you likely have some engineers making some decent money, and thats it, and even then, those engineers don't have to be American citizens. They could develop offshore and transfer the results.

    MARGA - Make American Robots Great Again?

  11. Re:Think about the alternative by AaronW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And yet the state still has to cover the cost of things like unemployment, sewage treatment, roads and all the other things that Foxconn and their employees will make use of but won't pay for, since there will be no payroll taxes. The state will have to pay for unemployment when the jobs are automated away, and Illinois will clean up since many of the people will just commute from there over the border. Foxconn now gets the city and state to pay for maintaining all the roads for the workers without paying a dime. Similarly, there are all the other services Foxconn will use and again not have to pay for and the income taxes on the employees won't cover it. The employees won't be paid a huge amount either with an average wage of $53K. The payback time is only the best case scenario. The area already has very low unemployment with companies already having a hard time filling positions. The unemployment rate is 3.3%. It would make a lot more sense for Wisconsin to encourage the plant to be built in an area where there is high unemployment or underemployment, not a place where there is already full employment.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  12. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    In related news, Foxconn has filed an application for 13,000 H1B visa workers for Wisconsin.

  13. Re:Funny Accounting by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe Foxconn should build it's factory somewhere where people don't expect their neighbors to help out with the schools, roads, police.

    By taking huge tax credits, these companies are showing how much they value the communities where their employees live.

  14. Re:Governments don't make profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uhm, yeah. That's exactly their point. If they wanted to they could pay thousands 240,000, and not have polluted rivers that downstream will pollute Chicago and Lake Michigan even more. That would be serving the people.

  15. Re:"tax breaks" by Raenex · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not "breaking even" because they did not pay any money out to begin with. If Foxconn pays even one dollar in taxes, then Wisconsin has more revenue than it would otherwise.

    Nope. I checked the PDF linked in the summary. Foxconn will be receiving a refundable tax credit, which means the state is forecasted to write them a check for hundreds of millions for several years, in addition to any infrastructure expenses the state will occur.

    Don't believe me? Check the PDF yourself, which outlines the estimated payments in Table 1 on page 13. Table 4, on page 17, shows the break-even analysis, which compares the net of state payments and increased taxes.

  16. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From what I read, Foxconn only gets an annual credit IF they employ a certain amount of people in the first place. So when they automate - they stop getitng credits. They don't get bilions up front, they get it paid out over years. Years in which they have to employ so many people to get the credit in the first place.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  17. Business, disrupted by Manqueman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember the old days when someone would start a business, maybe take out a loan to do so, maybe not, then manage the business to make profit while paying a reasonably fair wage, maybe provide health insurance. Apparently that’s no longer considered the proper way to manage a business. Going public with an unprofitable business is considered the right way as well as shaking down the government for handouts as perks. Me, I can’t understand how the new way is better for society. (Yes, I understand that the Foxconn deal, were it to actually happen, would probably be a net good for the hires, but I don't see how the state benefits.