Slashdot Mirror


Wisconsin Lawmakers Vote To Pay Foxconn $3 Billion To Get New Factory (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Wisconsin Assembly voted 59-30 on Thursday to approve a bill to give incentives worth $3 billion to Taiwan-based Foxconn so that the company would open its first U.S. plant in the state. Foxconn, best known for supplying parts of Apple's iPhones, will open the $10 billion liquid-crystal display plant in 2020, according to Reuters. The bill still has to be approved by a joint finance committee and the state Senate. Both houses of Wisconsin's legislature are controlled by Republicans, and the deal is supported by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a Republican who negotiated the deal. The vote was largely, but not entirely, along party lines. Three Democrats joined 56 Republicans in supporting the deal. Two Republicans and 28 Democrats voted against it. Opponents said the deal wasn't a good use of taxpayer funds. The $3 billion incentives package includes about $2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers and tax breaks valued at about $150 million. The state is also waiving certain environmental rules.

245 comments

  1. Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    he $3 billion incentives package includes about $2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers and tax breaks valued at about $150 million.

    You'll recoup that in like what? A hundred years or so?

    1. Re:Suckers. by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Informative
      FTA:

      Democratic opponents of the deal have pointed out that paying $3 billion to get 3,000 jobs means the state subsidy amounts to around $1 million per job.

      That is just north of $66K for each of the projected 3000 jobs for the nrext 15 years. The jobs are reported to average just over $53K in salary. The full value ($3 billion) only kicks in if Foxconn eventually employs 13,000 workers, but:

      Even if the plant never expands beyond 3,000 jobs, though, Foxconn will get $1.35 billion for building the plant. Assuming even the beginning stages of the deal come together, Wisconsin will be paying $500,000 worth of incentives per job.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Suckers. by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think they target 30 years. Too bad that the factory will close within 10 years. Foxconn already preps for that claiming that there is not enough skilled labor in that region. So why the heck build a factory there? Ah yes, they get to keep all the government handouts.

    3. Re:Suckers. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If your state is facing such desperate unemployment levels that you have to pay the full salaries of Foxconn's employees for decades to create the jobs... then why not just hire people into government jobs where the public reaps the benefits of the work? Create the nation's shortest DMV lines, fully-staffed parks, cleanest sidewalks, etc. Doing so might actually bring in more employers.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it is as much an "local unskilled labor" problem. But more of a "local unskilled politician" problem.

    5. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Neo Nazi talk!

    6. Re:Suckers. by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

      The jobs are reported to average just over $53K in salary.

      Okay, so what's the median salary?

      There's a difference between 3000 people earning $53K each and a few people earning $1M+ with everyone else getting minimum wage, even if both scenarios result in an "average" of $53K.
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're still putting in $10B to get the $3B, so there's risk all around. But whether this risk is reasonable for all parties, it's probably the taxpayers who are going to get screwed the most.

      Anyway, thank you Wisconsin tax payers / bond buyers for the discounts on LCDs I probably won't need in the next 10 years.

    8. Re:Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The headline is a lie. The state is not paying a dime! They are just giving tax breaks for the company to locate the plant there. It will create 3000 jobs which will increase employment. Had they not let the company keep more of the money they earn, they would not locate there and there would be no new jobs created.

    9. Re:Suckers. by Kneo24 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except the first linked article mentions cash payouts. Why use the words, "cash payouts" if that's not what is going on? It even separates out cash payouts and tax incentives.

    10. Re: Suckers. by Bartles · · Score: 1, Troll

      Because the article is written by an anti-walker lefty. Describe these cash payments.

    11. Re: Suckers. by Kneo24 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I stand corrected. It took me a bit of digging, but the cash payout thing is entirely false, apparently. It's all tax incentives in one form or another..

    12. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A Reuters article states "almost $3 billion in cash incentives over 15 years." We can set aside your "lefty" talk and just accept that the state is giving three billion dollars to a Chinese company.

    13. Re:Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be be unskilled polition problem. Whats the normal payoff for a bribe 100 or 1000 times the original bribe.

    14. Re: Suckers. by fortfive · · Score: 1

      Better them than us.

      --North Carolina

    15. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Fixing the economy is literally what Hitler wanted to do - we must always remain in debt to the banks, we must never give in to hatred and financial independence.

    16. Re:Suckers. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The tax revenue from Foxconn is being suspended, and exchanged for a much smaller tax revenue from the people that Foxconn will employ. It's around a 5 cents on the dollar exchange by my estimate, which I suppose is better than 0 cents, but it still seems like a bad deal for the state.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    17. Re:Suckers. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      From a tax revenue perspective it would be ideal if they all made $53K. But if you have a bunch making $20k and a few making $1M, that's going to result in almost no tax revenue.

      It would have been easier to burn the state treasury down.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    18. Re: Suckers. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      the state is giving three billion dollars to a Chinese company.

      Foxconn is not a Chinese company.

    19. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. We should tax the workers AND the company that pays them. Double taxing is a win! Can we find a way to triple tax? More money for government programs so you don't need to work.

    20. Re: Suckers. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Well, I've been reading a couple weeks worth of articles saying it's cash payments. I wonder why so many lies are being spread about it?

    21. Re:Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit like this can only go on for so long before the systems collapse. The fact that this was passed is an indication of the desperation of our times AND of how brittle our system is. More people should be alarmed than are, imo.

    22. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you picked a know biased journalism as a source? You'd do fox news proud.

    23. Re:Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would the state not get taxes from income that the plant makes? maybe people aren't looking at the big picture. they would make $ from shipping and receiving materials for the plant, real estate taxes, income taxes, taxes on profits etc... it's not just as easy as incentives/jobs.

      unless i'm completely wrong, if i am please point out why.

    24. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's "tax rebates" paid in hand and which you do not have to pay back if you never end up with the required amount of tax liability.

      In other words, it's cash payments + a bunch of lies so they can deny it.

    25. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the Chinese Government...

      Based in China? Factories primarily in China? Owned and controlled by the Chinese? yes, yes and yes. Foxconn is a Chinese company. You may try to make a distinction by saying Taiwanese, but it is a distinction without a difference.

    26. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. We should tax the workers AND the company that pays them. Double taxing is a win! Can we find a way to triple tax? More money for government programs so you don't need to work.

      Yes. That's the way that income and corporate tax work. Each transfer from one entity (company or person) to another is taxed. If you don't do that and make special rules for some companies that's how your get tax avoidance and have to raise taxes to compensate.

      This whole "double taxation" meme is crazy. Why stop there? The customer was also taxed and his employer was also taxed and his employers customer was also taxed and her employer and their customer..... Calling it 10 times taxation would be just as logical as calling it double taxation.

    27. Re: Suckers. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You may try to make a distinction by saying Taiwanese, but it is a distinction without a difference.

      The majority of people in Taiwan are ethnically Chinese and speak Mandarin, but saying Foxconn is a "Chinese" company makes about as much sense as saying Apple is British.

      The GPP was apparently implying that taxpayer subsidies are bad in this case because the recipient is "Chinese". That would make some sense since China is a geo-political rival of America. But Foxconn is Taiwanese, and Taiwan is an ally of America.

    28. Re:Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. They just get more H1B's from China and India.

    29. Re:Suckers. by butchersong · · Score: 0

      There would be many jobs created around a manufacturing plant other than the plant's employees. You have to take into account contractors to build and maintain (indefinitely) the equipment. You have deliveries, office equipment.. I mean everything from the Cisco switches, PLC programming from contractors.. to the vending machines.

    30. Re:Suckers. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Except the first linked article mentions cash payouts. Why use the words, "cash payouts" if that's not what is going on? It even separates out cash payouts and tax incentives.

      Because if we use the verboten words, it doesn't sound like we are winning.

      We have to call this freedom incentives or some such.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:Suckers. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      This is the "Privatize profits, socialize losses" part of capitalism. It's in the fine print. You probably didn't read it when you signed up.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    32. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $3 billion is a big number from income taxes of middle class workers

      The big picture is that Wisconsin is paying a third of the cost to make the factory. If this were an investment, then Wisconsin would get a share in the company, or a contract with guaranteed income stream.

      The way this is structured, they will not be able to even measure ROI.

    33. Re:Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the "Privatize profits, socialize losses" part of capitalism.

      Fascism?

    34. Re: Suckers. by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Taiwan is.. in a questionable status. They want to be an independent nation and do their best to act as one, but China believes and claims that Taiwan is a Chinese territory.

      The US officially recognizes Taiwan as a Chinese territory (though apparently they still unofficially treat Taiwan as a separate state in some situations..)

      So claiming that a Taiwanese company is actually a Chinese company is.. unclear. It depends entirely on who you ask at the moment. In terms of international politics, the debate hasn't yet been settled. For the short term at least though, its probably safe to claim that Foxxconn is a Taiwanese company and leave it at that since Taiwan still mostly retains their independence. Who knows how long that will last though. Could change next year, or next century, or never.

    35. Re:Suckers. by clovis · · Score: 1

      Here is the bill from Wisconsin's legislature web site.
      http://docs.legis.wi.gov/docum...
      From the bill:

      Tax credits Under the substitute amendment, WEDC may certify certain businesses to claim income and franchise tax credits if a business begins operations in the electronics and information technology manufacturing zone. WEDC may certify such a business for additional income and franchise tax credits, subject to certain limitations, if the business makes a significant capital expenditure in the zone. If the amount of the credit exceeds the taxpayer's tax liability, the taxpayer receives a refund equal to the excess amount. The total amount of all tax credits WEDC may certify under the substitute amendment is $2,850,000,000. WEDC may seek repayment of tax credits under circumstances specified in the substitute amendment, and WEDC must revoke a certification to claim tax credits if a certified business does any of the following:

      And then a list of things that basically says if Foxconn fails, they have to pay back the money.

      The money is tax credits, not payments.
      However, it appears to me that in this bill (and I do not entirely understand the legalese) that there can be payments made to manufacturers in the tax district in the circumstance that the calculated tax credits exceed the actual tax owed. Due to the way the tax credits are calculated (number of actual people hired and salary, promises kept, etc), this only happens if Foxconn exceeds their promises and the factory is successful. This would be a good thing, if I read it right.

      I'm hoping that someone with more expertise would check this out by reading the bill.

    36. Re:Suckers. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping that someone with more expertise would check this out by reading the bill.

      On /., getting folks to read the focking summary is sometimes a chore.

      Despite that, we've previously been blessed with posters capable of deciphering the legalese and others who'd read the bill, but they were never the same person.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    37. Re:Suckers. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      You'll recoup that in like what? A hundred years or so?

      This link explains when the good taxpayers of WI will recoup their payment to Fox-con.

    38. Re: Suckers. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Can we find a way to triple tax?

      Sales tax.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    39. Re:Suckers. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It will create 3000 jobs

      Yeah, maybe for robots.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    40. Re: Suckers. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Right. We should tax the workers AND the company that pays them. Double taxing is a win! Can we find a way to triple tax? More money for government programs so you don't need to work.

      Of course you can, you tax them when they spend it.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    41. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason every time an agency requests that you double its budget, you keep it where it is and they cry out that their budget was "cut" by 50%. Control the narrative and make sure a win like this doesn't go to people you hate. Also, it's hard to sit down for a $15 cup of coffee with other elites and have them laugh at you for still having low-brow "manufacturing" in your backyard, how pedestrian.

    42. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could tax the investors to the company twice, we shall call it "capital gains tax" and that makes 4x.

    43. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The really interesting thing is that this factory is entirely self contained with every single aspect controlled from within.... or maybe I'm reading that wrong and it's like any other factory that requires hundreds of suppliers and whose workers require hundreds of support companies as well. But let's pretend it's the first thing because they aren't union.

      Two things about this bother me:

      1. This is Slashdot, no one mentions it being odd that an entire new industry may be viable within the US? That a tech company wants to be in the Midwest for its first US presence??? How about relating this to the Asian "ballpoint pen" problem and wondering whether western advanced manufacturing at a decent pay is a thing?

      2. Scott walker is genuininely hated by all wisconsin democrats for his "pro-taxpayer" leanings. Balanced budgets that are truly balanced and very tight fiscal controls. Now suddenly he's the ultimate tax and spend lunatic politician? Seriously, figure out what the hell you hate someone for. This deal and the scale of it being an entire industry into Wisconsin and have every possibility of starting a village in Wisconsin that hundreds of suppliers will join, then other manufacturers (due to the labor pool now being skilled and supplies being available) rinse. Repeat.

      Or they could just spend the $3bn on mke trolleys that run in loops people don't want to go to.

      And yes, I know most of you posting are with labor unions and heir social media branches furious you got cut out.

    44. Re: Suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "tax rebates" paid in hand and which you do not have to pay back if you never end up with the required amount of tax liability.

      In other words, it's cash payments + a bunch of lies so they can deny it.

      Everything you just said is wrong.
      It is not tax rebates, it is tax credits for meeting certain performance goals, and the bill requires repayment of the tax credits if the number of jobs does not hold up or the factory closes.
      Read the actual Wisconsin law. Like every other state, it is online where you can read it unfiltered by ignorant journalists.

  2. That ain't hay by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    The $3 billion incentives package includes about $2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers and tax breaks valued at about $150 million. The state is also waiving certain environmental rules.

    Get that? "Cash payments". Not tax cuts. Straight up baksheesh.

    We were told how GOP government in Wisconsin was going to create this great economic boom by "unleashing" the free market. Now they're just trying to prop up a Potemkin president by using corporate welfare.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:That ain't hay by Kneo24 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I went to the Reuters version for more clarity.

      which would award Foxconn $3 billion over 15 years in mostly cash incentives.

      This only holds true if they end up creating 13k jobs. Otherwise they get about 1.35 billion according to the Ars Technica article.. It's still a tough pill to swallow considering that job creation numbers from this deal are all over the place and it's quite difficult to see how much income tax revenue is generated from this. We also have to consider how much sales tax revenue will be generated from people having jobs, and how many other businesses in the area will be created from people having more money to spend.

      It's all really speculative at this point and those large numbers seem damning due to the amount of unknowns. I don't disagree it looks bad.

    2. Re:That ain't hay by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US government does this all the time. Talk badly about "socialism" when the topic is poor people, healthcare etc, but take money from those people to pay billionaires and wealthy corporations and banks so that they can continue to profit.

    3. Re:That ain't hay by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The math is crazy. They could pay 13,000 people $15,384 per year for 15 years for $3 billion. Which I know doesn't make any sense, especially considering the $3 billion in cash isn't a pre-existing sum and probably represents some kind of long term payroll tax refund, which is why its tied to the employment and projected wage numbers.

      You would think, though, that if they were willing to lay out that kind of money as an incentive it would be better in some kind of startup fund or small business capital expansion program. The same $3 billion could provide $1 million per year to 207 small businesses or startups for 15 years.

      The latter seems like it would be more likely to create a stronger and more diverse economy, especially if the money helps grow established small businesses.

    4. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latter seems like it would be more likely to create a stronger and more diverse economy, especially if the money helps grow established small businesses.

      But it wouldn't provide the kickbacks to the individuals who voted for the bill.

    5. Re:That ain't hay by El+Cubano · · Score: 0

      We were told how GOP government in Wisconsin was going to create this great economic boom by "unleashing" the free market. Now they're just trying to prop up a Potemkin president by using corporate welfare.

      We were also told that the Affordable Care Act would result in an average savings of $2500 per family per year, that the quality of healthcare would improve for everyone, and that if we had a plan and/or doctor that we liked we could keep that plan and/or doctor. It turns out that none of those things were actually true.

      I guess life is all about learning to live with disappointments.

      Of course, the real point is that neither political party in the US is any good actually doing what they say. It absolutely amazes me at how they both promise things that their constituent base want to hear, their base totally eats it up, and yet the plans that get pushed through always end up as a massive corporate handout. The only difference is which corporations end up receiving the handout.

    6. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS!

      As a Canadian who lived in the US for several years i often heard about the negatives of Canada's "Socialist" system..

      At least the CA socialist system puts benefits into the hands of those who need it. $3 BLN to build a factory???

      But sure, because it is "corporate welfare" the US is not a socialst country?

    7. Re:That ain't hay by sphealey · · Score: 2

      = = = We were also told that the Affordable Care Act would result in an average savings of $2500 per family per year, that the quality of healthcare would improve for everyone, and that if we had a plan and/or doctor that we liked we could keep that plan and/or doctor. It turns out that none of those things were actually true. = = =

      Back in the day when I had Really Nice Corporate Medical Benefits I ran the risk of being forced to either change doctors every two years when corporate renegotiated the reinsurance deals with the major carriers. Or I could stay with the same doctor and pay huge percentages out of pocket when the carrier changed from BigCo to SuperBigCo - my choice. I have definitely had to change dentists multiple times for the same reason. Other than a few cherry-picked anecdotes pumped by Bannon/Breitbart I'm not aware of any reliable surveys that show large percentages of people had to change their doctor due to the provisions of the ACA. And since most USisns obtain their insurance through work there was no reason they should have - unless their employer used the ACA as cover to "restructure" (ie cut) their employee benefits.

        If you needed to take an ACA exchange plan and the (private business!) carrier changed that plan, than you might have had to change doctors, but as I noted that can happen when you are on IBM's best corporate plan as well.

    8. Re:That ain't hay by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Canada has its own fair share of corporate welfare. Plenty of governments all over the world play these games with taxpayer money. Here in BC we're building a huge new hydroelectric project (the Site C Dam) in part to provide power for LNG production facilities, none of which are now likely to ever happen due to low energy prices and intense competition.

      A scheme like this in the 21st century is idiotic, though. With increasing automation, even if this plant stays open for 30 years, by the end of it the employees will be a handful of technicians, janitors and managers.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:That ain't hay by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Whatabouterry.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they're just trying to prop up a Potemkin president by using corporate welfare.

      So in other words, they are Democrats.

    11. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buttery Males. Look over there! Nothing to see here. They all do it, but the other side is worse. Deflector shields up, Captain.

    12. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM hasn't offered its "best" corporate health insurance plan for nearly 2 decades.

    13. Re: That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and who would be the consumers?!

    14. Re: That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Republicans, which is the same thing, really. That's the US's biggest problem. They have only two parties that both suck and are mostly interchangeable.

    15. Re:That ain't hay by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Buttery Males.

      Wisconsin -- butter. I see what you did there.

      Kudos.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:That ain't hay by sphealey · · Score: 1

      Everyone who doesn't work for a top-tier tech company has had their health benefits cut proportionally, so although my post started "back in the day" everyone not working for a top-tier firm today is still proportionally worse off. Freedom!

    17. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax cash payments. The people are paying for it.

    18. Re: That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did they sabotage a bill that was written and passed without their input?

    19. Re:That ain't hay by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Of course, the real point is that neither political party in the US is any good actually doing what they say."

      Absolutely.

      And this further illustrates that there isn't this nice left vs. right thing most people think there is. More government spending = more government and more taxes and more debt and more corruption and more waste; doesn't matter WHAT it is spent on, it is still government spending. The right likes it just as much as the left. Apparently the only ones who don't want more spending/taxing are the Libertarians.

    20. Re:That ain't hay by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is the wisconsin government republican

      Do they run on promises of lower taxes and fewer government handouts?

      Is blatant (and stupid) hypocrisy worse than merely being wrong about your projections?

      Especially when, unexpectedly, a dozen states do everything they can to sabotage health care for their own citizens, raising the costs and lowering the savings?

      And did this conversation have *anything* to do with the ACA (which 84% of americans preferred over every single proposal the republicans came up with).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    21. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the GOP didn't have the votes to stop ACA (Dems controlled the the House, Senate, and Presidency at the time), pretty difficult for them to sabotage it.

    22. Re:That ain't hay by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      We were told how GOP government in Wisconsin was going to create this great economic boom by "unleashing" the free market. Now they're just trying to prop up a Potemkin president by using corporate welfare.

      We were also told that the Affordable Care Act would result in an average savings of $2500 per family per year

      Savings in premiums, or total health care costs?

      What would premiums be without the ACA? From what I've read, they'd be considerably higher than they are now. Health care expenses have being increasing dramatically for well over a decade.

      If it's total health care costs, I can easily see the average cost going down because of all of the families that now have insurance coverage instead of paying all of their health care costs themselves.

    23. Re:That ain't hay by bongey · · Score: 1

      Nope it is tax incentives, which means ZERO dollars are actually being lost. If the factory is never built, there would be exactly ZERO dollars collected. But sure keep up the fake news trying to make it look like there paying for the jobs to come. http://www.kttc.com/story/3597...

    24. Re:That ain't hay by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Nope it is tax incentives, which means ZERO dollars are actually being lost.

      Tax credits are cash payments, like the Earned Income Credit (EIC). That means Wisconsin writes Foxconn a check.

      From your link:

      That includes up to $1.5 billion in state income tax credits for job creation. up to $1.35 billion in state income tax credits for capital investment, and up to $150 million for the sales and use tax exemption. In all, Foxconn is eligible to earn $3 billion in tax credits over 15 years.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:That ain't hay by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I've always hated seeing the money going to the companies going to build their plants like in this article. Especially the auto manufacturers because you know that in a few years they are going to back with their hands out asking for more. All they are doing is going around and playing the various states and provinces off of one another to get the best deal.

      I've thought similar yourself. I'd like the government to tell the company to get lost and, if it's an already existing firm, to make 2/3s or 3/4s of the fund available to the employees if they lose their jobs. They can use the money for early retirement (not preferred), going back to school to get retrained, or to open up their own business. Some of the difference in the money would be used to help the startups and the rest would give taxpayers a break. Ideally if the company is just shutting down a production line the older employees would be given the chance to move to another line in order to finish their time at the company.

      A whole bunch of small companies starting up would eventually employ more people and be better area as it wouldn't be dependent on one big employer. One or two small businesses going under can easily be absorbed but a large plant of thousands hurts a local economy.

    26. Re:That ain't hay by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Ontario and the Federal government are always giving money to the auto manufacturers. Of course when the last fruit canning factory in Ontario needed help the Ontario government said no and as a result a lot of orchards in Southern Ontario were ripped up as there were canning facilities to process them. But shortly after that the automakers came along and the cheque book was opened up. Now all our canned fruit comes from China.

      Bombardier just got assistance from the province of Quebec ($1B I think) and they keep asking the Federal government for help too. Lots of companies get assistance. Especially the auto makers.

    27. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the tax breaks are a percentage of payroll, 17% per year. So to get $1.5 billion, $9 billion would have had to be paid out in wages.
      do your research braniacs.

    28. Re:That ain't hay by swb · · Score: 1

      It just becomes an auction for hosting the company and you wind up with states bidding the subsidy up to attract the company.

      I think the only way it makes sense for a deal of this scale is if the subsidies are entirely derived from the success of the business, like a 3% payroll tax refund to the company. It costs the government something, but if the company doesn't deliver as many jobs or they don't pay as well as they said, it winds up being a lower subsidy.

    29. Re:That ain't hay by swb · · Score: 1

      But it wouldn't provide the kickbacks to the individuals who voted for the bill.

      Actually it would -- with the subsidies more widely dispersed, there would be more potential kickback sources and possibly more kickback recipients depending on how the subsidies were awarded.

    30. Re:That ain't hay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you'd get people clamoring about taxpayer money propping up unsustainable businesses. c.f. Solyndra.

      There's no version of of this idea that isn't bad one way or another, they're just bad in different ways. This one probably appeals to the current administration because it's a big-numbers deal that can be announced as a triumph, and the money can be carefully fed back through the appropriate channels^W^W^W^W^W^W monitored and audited.

    31. Re:That ain't hay by Xest · · Score: 1

      You could buy a reasonably sized tech startup from California and just move it to Wisconsin for this price.

    32. Re:That ain't hay by swb · · Score: 1

      I get the general idea that subsidies are bad, but this was seems especially bad on so many levels. The scale of the subsidy to a single company, for one. I'm also fairly convinced there will be a major cultural mismatch between the company and the locals. I'm also thinking that the Wisconsin lacks the human capital to effectively run this plant and it will rely on a lot out of outside experts, with few higher end jobs being filled by locals.

      As far as potentially successful subsidy schemes go, I think something more like a sovereign wealth fund might actually have the fewest drawbacks. It would be roughly about the same model as most private capital investment business with some kind of selection bias -- local firms, growth businesses, maximizing certain types of employment, and perhaps trying to pull off a larger strategic goal of fostering a synergistic business economy that generates network effects.

  3. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    It is tax credits not a check cut to the factory.

    They don't collect taxes for a few years off the plant and in exchange they get a few thousand jobs that pay 50 to 70 k. That's good for all involved.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

      you think a few thousand factory jobs are going to pay $50k-$70k.. hahahaa

      They'll start around $35k and probably top out around $55k. The white collar workers might be in the $50k-$70k range... but that might be a few dozen vs a few thousand people.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Bullshit by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      $2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers and tax breaks valued at about $150 million

      How is a cash payment a deference of paying taxes? Is the wording in the article incorrect? It appears the deference you're talking about only looks like $150 million dollars.

    3. Re:Bullshit by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      It states the average salary will be 53k a year in the article. As long as the low end worker doesn't fall below 30k a year, they will get about 10 million in tax revenue from income tax alone. With that said, it will take some time for that 10 million in revenue to compensate for the substantially large cash payments.

    4. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are already almost no taxes on manufacturers in WI. Anty taxes are already returned to the manufacturer through various credits. This 2.85 billion is additional refundable tax credits which means the entire amount
      I'm WILL be paid to Foxconn in cash from the state. There is no debate about this point.

    5. Re:Bullshit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      It is tax credits not a check cut to the factory.

      It's not tax credits. It's cash fucking payments.

      "The $3 billion incentives package includes about $2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers and tax breaks valued at about $150 million."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That $53k probably includes benefits, insurance, workman's comp, etc etc etc. The take home wages probably will be substantially less.

    7. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "some time"? Yeah, let's just assume 3 times the total net value to the economy over that pure 10 million tax revenue. With that conservative number it'll take them 100 years to recover from the 3 billion handout. (Without seeing an actual GAIN.)

      And let's be honest, once the tax exemptions stop, so will the plant. Leaving those few thousand workers on state welfare.

      Ok, maybe less than 1000. The rest will pack up their belongings and move back to Asia. :)

      In short, this is yet another example of selling the future to make the present look a little less shitty.

    8. Re:Bullshit by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Most of the things you mentioned are taxes or will at some point (eg. pensions) become taxable. What's your point?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Factory workers on the line make between 17 to 25 an hour here in the Midwest. Add in some time-and-a-half overtime pay and 50k for a mid level line worker isn't unreasonable.

    10. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. This will be a mistake that will take them decades to recover from. Good luck Wisconsin.

    11. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like Kansas, it will be another Red state ruined by Republican policies. They get the government they deserve.

    12. Re:Bullshit by jcr · · Score: 1

      The article also says that Foxconn is going to spend $10 billion to build the plant. How much of that ends up as tax revenue? If it's over $2.85 billion, the taxpayers come out ahead.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:Bullshit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It states the average salary will be 53k a year in the article.

      The only way that will be true is if the total number of employees is very, very low. They would have to fill that building with robots, and only a handful of humans. Assembly line jobs will otherwise be the majority of jobs in the facility, and most of them are going to pay much less than $26.50/hour.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Bullshit by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      And as is also stated in the summary, Foxconn will be spending at least 2x that just to build the place. You can bet there are all kinds of 'buy American' clauses in the contract for the construction materials, and the labor will be sourced locally. All of that will be taxed, and all of the economic activity that results from that will be taxed.

      I'm not saying it all pencils out even (or even close), but it's not as dire as some people are screaming about. This is why economists are usually rather smart, and take their time before they weigh in on things - it's a complex system.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    15. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming they purchase all of the materials from overseas and use temporary foreign workers to do most of the construction ... I'd be shocked if Foxconn spends even $1 billion of that within the US, let alone within Wisconsin.

    16. Re:Bullshit by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The only sense in which any taxpayers come out ahead in these bidding games is that if they don't bribe a company then another city/state will. There needs to be national law preventing cities/states from competing with each other in bribes that clearly make a worse deal for the nation as a whole.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    17. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the $10 billion will go towards highly specialised technology equipment. I doubt you can buy most of that from the US, let alone Wisconsin. Wisconsin will most definitely not collect anywhere near that amount in taxes.

    18. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. Most of the required equipment is simply not available from suppliers in the US and even if it is, Foxconn has quality standards that Americans suppliers may not be able to meet. The building and some facilities may be built using US materials and labour, but the expensive things will mostly be imported.

    19. Re:Bullshit by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It states the average salary will be 53k a year in the article.

      If you have a handful of bosses making millions, that pulls the average up quite a bit. Median would be more interesting.

      But $53k a year isn't all that much in modern factories, where each worker is responsible for several high tech processes. The ratio of unskilled to skilled workers is relatively low these days. Sure, there are going to be a need for cleaning crews, cafeteria workers, mail handling and much more, but the traditional floor worker isn't just doing a repetitive job any more. Robots do those, and the floor workers have to handle anything that can go wrong, program and troubleshoot, create test fixtures and procedures and not just be Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times.

      $53k/year might be decent pay for Wisconsin right now, but if it becomes the success they hope, that will change living costs too.

    20. Re:Bullshit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And as is also stated in the summary, Foxconn will be spending at least 2x that just to build the place.

      Oh my. Are you saying that Foxconn is going to have to spend money to build their own goddamn factory? What is the world coming to when a corporation has to actually invest? Is this even America any more when companies are now expected to do something to make money instead of just rent-seeking?

      This is truly the last stage of capitalism when someone rationalizes giving a company $3 billion in cash by saying, "Well, they're gonna spend some of their own money, too!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re: Bullshit by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Most of the machinery is probably built by other Foxconn departments and paid for with a very large markup so that Foxconn US can post a big loss (and therefore not pay any tax) and another Foxconn division can post a large profit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they show a profit this deal guarantees they won't be paying any taxes.

    23. Re:Bullshit by bongey · · Score: 1

      Its fucking TAX CREDITS fucking idiot. http://www.kttc.com/story/3597...

    24. Re:Bullshit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Its fucking TAX CREDITS

      Tax credits are transfer payments, bucky. Cash money payments.

      Google "Earned income tax credits".

      You're mistaking tax credits with tax abatements or exemptions (which Foxconn is getting, too). That means other companies will have to pay to make up the difference. It's the government picking winners and losers.

      Why do you hate free markets?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Bullshit by Altrag · · Score: 1

      So that's a half dozen managers each making $500k+, and a few thousand workers barely scraping past the poverty line. But hey the average is high right? Winning!

    26. Re:Bullshit by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      At what point did I rationalize anything?

      Did you read where I said I'm not saying it all pencils out even (or even close)? How is that rationalizing?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  4. What happened to ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Government should not pick winners and losers.

    Only the Republican party crony capitalists should pick winners and losers using tax payer funds.

    Poor American down with medical bills due to some high way accident? Shit happens. deal with it.

    Taiwanese investors asking for 5 million dollars per job created? Here are the keys to the treasury.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:What happened to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government should not pick winners and losers. Only the Republican party crony capitalists should pick winners and losers using tax payer funds.

      I'm in total agreement with your sentiment but lets look at the other party here.

      Democrats could have spun this legislation as a great middle class jobs generator but yet they overwhelmingly voted against it. And it's not like the Democratic party has a history of being tightwads with taxpayer dollars either. To me it just reinforces the belief that the two parties oppose each other's initiatives just because. It also can be spun that yet again the Democratic party is anti-jobs and anti-middle class leaving us with more crony capitalist Republicans in power.

    2. Re:What happened to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this picking winners and losers? It's not like multiple semiconductor companies are trying to build a factory in Wisconsin, and only one gets the sweetheart deal. Foxconn offered to build one, or was approached by the governor, and they worked a deal to build a very expensive factory. Foxconn could have just as easily told them to pound sand and build it across the state line in Iowa if Iowa was going to hypothetically offer a better deal.

      "Picking winners and losers" usually refers to subsidizing one competing company or industry over another. Subsidizing solar over coal is picking a winner versus a loser. It's also what the detractors of a policy call it when their favorite isn't picked.

      No, what's happening here isn't picking a winner - it's just straight up corporate welfare. They are literally paying a company to build a facility and employ people in it, because they want the job numbers and press. Expect to see Scott Walker's mug in front of many bulldozers and cranes in the near future.

    3. Re:What happened to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no other semiconductor companies trying to build in Wisconsin, and there wouldn't be any if Wisconsin wasn't subsidizing 30% of building it. So there is one semiconductor company, so they are subsidizing the entire semiconductor industry instead of any other industry.

      "Picking winners and losers" usually refers to subsidizing one competing company or *industry* over another."

      It can be both "picking winners and losers" AND corporate welfare.

    4. Re:What happened to ... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democrats -- though plenty corrupt themselves -- very consistently show a less extreme desire to turn government into nothing but way of funneling money to companies. Some of their spending is on things the public actually gets to own and reap the rewards of, rather than spending tax dollars purely to privatize the profits to companies.

      Just because both groups are bad does not mean there's an equivalence. It's easy to see the differences, and easy to see that it doesn't entirely boil down to opposing each other "just because".

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:What happened to ... by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Government should not pick winners and losers. Only the Republican party crony capitalists should pick winners and losers using tax payer funds. "

      Yeah right.... only the Democrat party crony socialists should pick winners and losers using tax payer funds.

      Doesn't that sound just as silly? BOTH PARTIES spend and tax and regulate more all the time. They do it somewhat differently, but they both want bigger government with more power and end up spending more, creating more debt, and making the government larger and larger with more and more corruption and waste.

      Any real change will first require a different voting system (IRV/etc), especially for the primaries.

    6. Re:What happened to ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Oh, yeah. Bothsidism. When it comes to diverting tax payer funds to private corporations there is no equal to the Republicans. Democrats. they too go for spending. But mostly on social things, giving hand outs to poor people. Not wealthy corporations.

      First thing we need is people like to to start saying one side does it with vengeance and vehemence. Then we can reform the elections. As long as you give the most egregious behavior an out, without calling it, we would have destroyed the whole nation before we get the election reforms panacea you are talking about.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    7. Re:What happened to ... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      This is a case where the company was choosing the state, not the other way around, so your argument isn't really relevant. The Wisconsin government was the competitor not the judge.

      I have no idea what Foxxconn is offering to justify a 3 billion dollar handou^Hinvestment.. though I'd be willing to bet that whatever the offer is, it benefits the voting politicians more than the taxpayers who are now on the hook.

    8. Re:What happened to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Democrats also show an extreme desire - although less than that of Republicans - to turn government into nothing but way of funneling money to companies. Most of their spending is on things the public never getsto reap the rewards of - spending tax dollars purely to privatize the profits to companies."

      There, I fixed that for ya.

  5. More corporate welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what happened to financial conservatism? When only 1000-1500 jobs arise from this mirage, who will be left holding the bag?

    1. Re:More corporate welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is conservatism: rob the poor to give to the rich. Always has been, always will be.

  6. As good a deal as a stadium by burtosis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm all for American manufacturing but these high price tag incentives geared at foreign companies for a small number of jobs many of which are temporary looks like a bad idea. There are a supposed 3000 jobs for a 3B price tag or about 1 million dollars per job. It could take as much as 20 years to break even given the tax breaks. Quite frankly I'd be surprised if most of those jobs weren't in building the automated factory, to be discarded after 2-3 years just like the pipeline deals. The manufacturing jobs aren't coming back to the American people unless we count assembly line robots as citizens along with large corporations and actual humans.

    Perhaps (and I know I'm absolutely insane), just perhaps, it would be better for Wisconsin to take that 3 billion dollars and start a universal basic income project instead. Instead of 3000 jobs (many of which are low wage and then dissapear) you could support 10,000 people at 21k a year forever at 7% interest.

    1. Re:As good a deal as a stadium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps (and I know I'm absolutely insane), just perhaps, it would be better for Wisconsin to take that 3 billion dollars and start a universal basic income project instead

      that's socialism!!1 let the free market decide!

    2. Re:As good a deal as a stadium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps (and I know I'm absolutely insane), just perhaps, it would be better for Wisconsin to take that 3 billion dollars and start a universal basic income project instead

      that's socialism!!1 let the free market decide!

      It is socialism. But this legislation is not about letting the free market decide. It's crony capitalism.

    3. Re:As good a deal as a stadium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free market decided that bribing politicians is cheaper than paying taxes.

    4. Re:As good a deal as a stadium by burtosis · · Score: 2

      Lmafo free market good one. If we did have a free market instead of crony capitalism my comcast bill wouldn't be insane for shitty service and my prescription drugs cost twice that of any other first world nation.

    5. Re:As good a deal as a stadium by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Who pays 7% interest with zero risk?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:As good a deal as a stadium by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      It's cash incentives, apparently tied to whether they meet the employment goals. You could read the bill and sound like you know what you're talking about.

      Not that it makes a huge difference, its still a lot of money. But your argument falls flat when you're off by more than an order of magnitude.

    7. Re: As good a deal as a stadium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Student loan companies earn 7% with essentially zero risk, since the debt can't be washed away via bankruptcy.

    8. Re:As good a deal as a stadium by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      America became a victim of its own success, in a way. Cost of living has been driving very high by economic success, until it reached a point where they were no longer competitive in a global manufacturing market - it's just cheaper to build things in China, where not only is labor cheap but environmental laws are also very lax.

      China is going the same way now - their manufacturing industry is booming, but growth is not what it was, and their serious pollution issues mean environmental protection is becoming an issue. Labor is not as cheap as it was either. Many industries are already eyeing Vietnam, the next manufacturing paradise - labor there is as cheap as China once was, cost of living is in the US dollars per day, and the government is so desperate for economic growth they don't need to pay any care to environmental protection.

    9. Re:As good a deal as a stadium by Kargan · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it is currently forecasted to take at least 25 years for WI to recoup its investment, and possibly much, much longer:

      >Officials have said Foxconn, formally known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., will employ about 1,000 people in the second half of 2017 and employment will grow to 13,000 by 2021.

      The bureau based its analysis on Foxconn reaching its threshold of 13,000 employees, Reinhardt said. If the actual employment number was 3,000, the break-even point would be so far in the future that it is "silly to talk about," he said.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/0...

      --
      Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
  7. It's too much money by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They were going to get bought off. The best part? It's $500k per job. It's an enormous waste. Basically more socialism for the wealthy and dog eat dog capitalism for the working class.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's too much money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bite.

      So $500k per job, over 15 years is about $33k a year. Wisconsin will pay $28k a year in welfare, plus so if these people are employed and average paying $5k a year in taxes it'll be a break even.

    2. Re:It's too much money by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      But they could just take that same money and put it into public works programs which would actually improve the common good instead of making a foreign country richer, and it would have the same effect on jobs.

  8. Social degradation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. governments have become DEEPLY corrupt.

    Are you strong enough to look at this photo of Trump?

  9. Kickback City by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Apparently that's what the voters want for their state. We can go on and on about "corporate welfare", etc, but it won't make a difference. This is the "wisdom" of the crowd in action. Reason is extremely feeble when pitted against instinct and emotion. Evolution will determine our fate.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Kickback City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll stay out of their business if they are able to shift their dependency rank below my state.

      Until then, this is taxation without representation.

    2. Re:Kickback City by dryeo · · Score: 1

      This is why propaganda, I mean marketing, is such a great investment for the capitalist.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  10. A giveaway to a foreign multinational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought this was exactly the kind of thing Trump campaigned AGAINST.

    1. Re:A giveaway to a foreign multinational by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Most of what's happened under Trump are things Trump campaigned against. He drained the swamp of swamp water and refilled it with toxic waste.

  11. And the rest of us are paying for it by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wisconsin is already spending other states' tax money, because it cannot keep itself afloat. Now it's going to hand that money to China.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Taiwan != China

    2. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Taiwan != China

      That depends on who you ask, but it's irrelevant to the point; the majority of Foxconn's investment is in China.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Taiwan != China. Yes, they both have China in their official names, but they are two separate countries, even though one (People's Republic of China) doesn't recognize the other much smaller one.

    4. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Not really? According to your link, it's 16th in federal-spending-to-income-tax-dollars and 38th in federal funding as a percentage of state revenue. Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee seem to be the worst off there; to a first approximation it sort of seems like Texas is the only red state with a functioning economy. Probably the more relevant thing to note is that WI seems to have a couple-three billion dollar budget deficit, apparently depending on whether or not you're using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or the governor's numbers. So it's more like it's not at all keeping itself afloat and that we'll end up paying for it later.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    5. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      to a first approximation it sort of seems like Texas is the only red state with a functioning economy.

      I really think that makes my point for me, right? It surely does not detract from it in any way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      38th is better than average, and 16th isn't in the worst offenders. I think that combined with the budget deficit it paints a dismal picture, but by itself your link isn't strongly supportive. In the sense that "functioning economy" implies "high GSP" I don't really want to hold rural states accountable for not having the same productivity as urban ones. That the tech centers are going off the deep end of per capita productivity and agricultural regions are not is not exactly a surprising result.

      If it were necessary to oversimplify the argument, I would not disagree with the statement that red state economic policies tend to fare worse. I think it's probably more fair to not lump them all together and to look a bit deeper into this issue. By your measure, I can't consider Wisconsin to be the problem that some other states represent. However, their use of creative accounting practices to hide a billion dollars of budget deficit is thoroughly damning.

      The advocatus diaboli is me says, "Ah, but are these truly red state economies? Aren't they being forced to fund social programs that many conservatives would rather get rid of?" To which I would reply that the social programs certainly seem to be popular among their beneficiaries, whether or not it matches the rhetoric, but it's a complex picture that probably demands more nuanced considerations than "red vs. blue".

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    7. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      China disagrees. The issue is rather contentious in Taiwan - though nominally semi-independent, China routinely attempts to exercise influence and stifle dissent. The Chinese government puts a great deal of value in national unity, and are not pleased about tolerating what they regard as a breakaway province.

    8. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is your point? wisconsin doesn't appear particularly high on that list. in fact it appears below the median being that it is listed 31st of "most federally dependent states"

    9. Re:And the rest of us are paying for it by bongey · · Score: 1

      Suddenly since Trump every liberal paper is calling them tax payments when they were tax credits the previous 8 years. WFT It is fucking TAX CREDITS god dammit. ZERO dollars would be collected if the factory was never built. Suddently http://www.kttc.com/story/3597...

  12. We had to vote for this deal . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1, Funny

    . . . to find out what's in it?

  13. How is this even possible? by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 2

    Ummm. No? Do people in government really believe this is a good idea? The government shouldn't be doing things like this. Foxconn could be out of business before they even see a profit.

  14. "The Party of Fiscal Responsibility" by Jahoda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone else remember when Republicans were "The Party of Fiscal Responsibility"?

    I guess I just don't understand where making 2.5 billion dollars in cash payments to a foreign company is fiscally responsible.

    But what do I know, I'm just another dumb ass liberal.

    1. Re:"The Party of Fiscal Responsibility" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Nobody is old enough to remember that.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:"The Party of Fiscal Responsibility" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that before or after the CRA passed?

    3. Re:"The Party of Fiscal Responsibility" by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility"? There actions have always been otherwise, at least long term.
      The car analogy is saving money by not doing the needed tuneup or buying the needed tyres while investing in a nice seat cover and using the car as a truck to haul large amounts of plywood. Hey they saved all that money on tyres and a tuneup and are getting better value from that car, fiscally responsible. Especially when the car falls apart after the election so they can blame the other party for wasting money on a new truck.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:"The Party of Fiscal Responsibility" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else remember when Republicans were "The Party of Fiscal Responsibility"?

      No, but I remember Credit Mobiler.

      I guess I just don't understand where making 2.5 billion dollars in cash payments to a foreign company is fiscally responsible.

      Duh. Government always wastes money. So giving it to private individuals is ALWAYS superior.

      But what do I know, I'm just another dumb ass liberal.

      Now shut up and take your medicine. By which I mean get raped up the ass.

    5. Re:"The Party of Fiscal Responsibility" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      '"Anyone else remember when Republicans were "The Party of Fiscal Responsibility"?'

      They never were. Ever. They simply claimed to be.

      ALL of the policies they have in place either were drained, resulted in economic bubbles, or costly shutdowns and resultant debt issues that Dems had to clean up. When the "liberals" cleaned it up, the people who screwed us over complain about restrictive measures, over-involved government, and it's the Dems fault for taking care of the bills.

      Bunch of freaking BS that stupid people buy over and over and over again. Renegotiate NAFTA? Wait, Obama already freaking did. But let's throw that away. Curtail China's expansion? Had that plan in place, Reps threw that away. Force a plan that anyone dealing with China's shit come up with industrial standards and policy that were fair? Had that in place, Reps threw that away, and now China sets the standard since the US left absent any. Shut down immigration and protect industry? Yay, except we lost out on markets and trading partners.

      Rinse. Repeat. You all get rich, while you fuck everyone else you pretended to "care" about while campaigning. Let's see how you handle the debt ceiling.

  15. It's $3B on a $10B purchase by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Given they need to spend $10B in the next 3 years to build the plant, the state gets $560M in sales taxes alone from the construction and another $3-400M as the construction companies pay their workers.

    Plus it's incentives, not an outright cash donation.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      1. And what percentage of that $10B stays within the state? I'm sure lots of that is electronic parts, foreign steel, shipping, etc.
      2. The articles state "The $3 billion incentives package includes about $2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers." But I'm not sure I understand that $2.85 billion in cash payments. I have never heard ofa city giving a cash payment like this, especially to a foreign company. That's ridiculous. Tax breaks alone are debatable, but cash??? I really hope I am misunderstanding.

    2. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Just like the $30 million plant that was going to hire 500 workers in central PA.

      I mean, sure, that plant was never built and they didn't do anything more than open a small office, but this is 100 times larger. And yeah, Foxconn has announced other large projects in Vietnam, Indonesia and India that they never followed through on, but this time is different, right?

    3. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Try reading the article dipshit. Or even the summary.

      It's up to $2.85 in cash payments from the state to Foxconn.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, as an Architec,t I will note that typically clients avoid paying sales tax on the construction costs. I don't deal with this process often, because it is between the Owner and Contractor, but on occasion I see it happening. If the contractor buys the material, and pays tax, the Owner can get out of paying tax once it is "sold" to them as a component of a building. Now if the Contractor busy the material, say in.... China! well, the US is not getting the sales tax on it...

      Very sneaky overall...

    5. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Given they need to spend $10B in the next 3 years to build the plant

      The flaw in that logic is that $10B will go to the state. I can guarantee you that not all of it does. If we look at just materials cost alone, steel will most likely come from China as it is cheaper. Cement will come from other states and possibly overseas. Also it is guaranteed that some of the construction jobs will go to out-of-state and out-of-country workers.

      the state gets $560M in sales taxes alone from the construction and another $3-400M as the construction companies pay their workers.

      Again not all of that money goes to people in the state. Construction projects of this size will be awarded to a large number of subcontractors, some of whom will not be from Wisconsin.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yes, you don't have to pay sales tax in the US on items you will use to produce something or resell but you in turn have to charge sales tax to the entity you sell to. Even if I buy items in China, as a manufacturer, I don't have to pay sales tax on that value (which you should pay if you're using it directly, even if it were purchased out-of-state), but if I resell the item, I have to charge (and in turn pay) the sales tax for the full value I resold it for and in addition, I need to pay income taxes on my profits. There is a thing in most states, that if you make repairs to a property (eg. roof repair) that will not make the property more valuable, then you do not have to pay sales taxes and if it's a mixture of things, you have to pay sales taxes on the portion of items that increase the property value.

      The EU is more complicated, since it has a structure of VAT, even I as a US entity have to pay VAT in the UK (where my company is registered as an international entity) if I do business with any EU entity. So anything I import into the EU from the US I have to pay VAT on the value of the item, then when I resell it, I have to pay VAT on the incremental value of the thing (basically the profits), then the profits I re-import in the US I have to pay income taxes on.

      But there is no way of avoiding sales and income taxes in the US unless you're rich enough that you can donate it or otherwise invest it, but then you still have to pay taxes once you get it into liquidity, it only makes sense to divest your income and then receive it back in capital gains if the cost/risk is lower than the income taxes would've been in the first place (and hence why 0% income tax states like Delaware get all the incorporations).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you don't have to pay sales tax in the US on items you will use to produce something or resell but you in turn have to charge sales tax to the entity you sell to.

      Are you sure that new buildings or services attract sales tax in Wisconsin?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by bongey · · Score: 1

      It's tax credits , not payments http://www.kttc.com/story/3597...

    9. Re:It's $3B on a $10B purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yo fuckface, the tax incentives are a PERCENTAGE of payroll. up to $1.5 billion total at 17% of total payroll per year. so by the time they get the 1.5B in cuts, they would have paid out 9 billion in payroll. the 1.35B is 15% applied to capital expenditures, so both like discounts. read the bill.

  16. Nothing like the smell of pure capitalism by sphealey · · Score: 2

    Nothing like the smell of pure capitalism in the morning. John Galt (a native of Milwaukee) would be proud!

    1. Re:Nothing like the smell of pure capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong Sphealey. There is nothing about this that even remotely resembles capitalism. Capitalism involves the freedom to create businesses and enter marketplaces, thereby offering products in competition with the existing providers.

      When government makes individual deals with tax incentives and cash payments to single companies, government is itself acting in an anti-competitive manner and that's a direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. When this happens, and it happens a lot, the questions we should ask are, "Where is the DoJ? Where is the FBI? Where are the U.S. Marshals? Why isn't government enforcing the law?"

      Perhaps instead of making individual deals with individual companies, government should just lower taxes for everybody. Permanently lowering taxes creates incentives for EVERY business to open up shop in your state, not just one company at a time. Permanently lowering taxes is a great example of treating all the taxpayers the same, so it's not anti-competitive behavior. Wouldn't it be great if government obeyed the law (for once)? Not only that, but permanently lowering taxes releases some of the stranglehold government has on the economy. Simply throttling back in this manner is a great economic stimulus for the entire state's economy as well as those of the local municipalities within.

      In fact, if a state is so desperate to encourage companies to move there and build factories, the best way to do that is to waive all taxes for a few years. If more state governments could just bring themselves to pull their bureaucratic heads out of their collective communist butts for a while, the biggest battery factory in the world might not be located in Nevada. This is one of the reasons why my ongoing general hypothesis is, "Government Always Fails." Take THAT, you bureaucratic failures.

      And by the way, John Galt would not be proud. He's standing next to Captain Picard and myself and we're all doing face palms. It's such a disaster, first that the government behaves in ways like this that violate the law, second that government doesn't enforce the law on itself, and third that you actually think ANY of this is really capitalism. It's terribly sad, all the way around it.

    2. Re:Nothing like the smell of pure capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh

  17. Who cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...about the environment?

  18. Priorities by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

    "Not a good use of public funds" is irrelevant. What's relevant is expansion of corporate welfare and extension of corporate power.

    Go Corps!

  19. so many questions by clovis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this has a very long payback, and my first question is, why would we think that a factory making a single electronic component would have any use ten, fifteen, or twenty years from now? What is the plan, or could it even be repurposed if the technology changes, I.e. OLED screens vs LED screens.

    Are we looking at another Solyndra?
    Does this project have the smell of wrongness that followed the Pfizer at New London project from the beginning?

    1. Re:so many questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this has a very long payback, and my first question is, why would we think that a factory making a single electronic component would have any use ten, fifteen, or twenty years from now? What is the plan, or could it even be repurposed if the technology changes, I.e. OLED screens vs LED screens.

      Are we looking at another Solyndra?

      Well, in Solyndra's case, it was a single instance in a much larger program, and the factory is in use by another tenant, the famed Tesla, so...ok, what's the problem?

      Do you think there's going to be a CRASH in the price of LED displays or something?

    2. Re:so many questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't give 2 turtle shits about the price of LED displays. All he wanted to do was take a shit on Solyndra. He does this crap all the time. Don't feed him.

    3. Re:so many questions by clovis · · Score: 1

      Further research answers some questions. I read the Wisconsin bill; another post. It shows that it isn't cash payments, but rather tax credits.
      So it isn't like Wisconsin loses $3 billion if the factory closes.
      Also, it should be mentioned that nowhere in the bill is Foxconn mentioned. Anyone can come to Wisconsin, build a factory, and get the deal.
      There are certain circumstances in which there would be cash payments, but it appears that only happens if Foxconn exceeds its expectations and promises. That's good. Also, it is in the bill that if the manufacturer does not keep promises, it has to pay the avoided taxes.

      The point I was trying to make is that market forces/technology changes killed Solyndra long before its payback period, so I wonder what happens if the Foxconn project is killed by market forces.
      In Solyndra's case the factory was supported by loan guarantees so we taxpayers were on the hook, and it cost us about $500 billion. We taxpayers got some of that back but we are still in the hole as far as Solyndra. (As other's have pointed out, the overall DOE program was a good success, almost all other projects went quite well)
      Wisconsin's deal does not contain loan guarantees as far as I can tell from the bill, so taxpayers are not on the hook.
      However, the state and local authorities will be paying for roads, schools, water and sewer upgrades as they would for anyone, and they'll no doubt do that with municipal bonds. That's also in the bill that the state will assist local municipalities if a project goes wrong.

      But one thing I'm mentioned was can such a plant be easily repurposed if the market for whatever they decide to make goes away?
      So as you pointed out, in the case of Solyndra that plant is now doing something fairly different for Tesla, then the answer appears to be that this type of facility can be repurposed fairly easily. I've seen over time many factories fail that had to be torn down before the land could be used. You can't easily repurpose a chemical plant into one to make refrigerators.

      As for what Foxconn will be making, LCD screen for consumer electronics, how long will LCD panels rule the market is the question. We're looking at a decades-long tax district, so the long term outlook for the technology should be a consideration.
      If the problems with OLED TV's are solved, will the market for LCD TV's remain strong?
      Would the Foxconn factory be able to convert to making QLEDS if those take off, or would they just walk away as so often happens?

      Look at it another way. Consider plasma screen TV's.
      Suppose the year is 2000, and someone wanted to build a plant to make plasma screen displays for TV's, and the project wanted a tax district and had a long payback time. It would look like a great idea then, but would that plant still be profitable in the USA today, or closed? I'd say profitable for a while and now closed, but it likely would have paid for itself.
      Suppose we asked that question in 2005, and in 2010 for a plasma screen factory.
      Similarly, I suppose Wisconsin should be considering if the factory will be building the technological equivalent of a plasma screen 5-10 years out, and if the investment would be worth it in that time frame.

    4. Re:so many questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further research answers some questions.

      Not mine though.

      I've seen over time many factories fail that had to be torn down before the land could be used.

      This is met by the many factories that were repurposed while still standing.

  20. financial power by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Oh great. I huge communist company right in my state. I wonder if they'll use their awesome financial power to influence government? Considering they're already getting waivers on so many regulations I would say they don't have to. They already own us.

  21. Waiving environmental rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The state is also waiving certain environmental rules.

    Because, who gives a shit about the environment, right ? Certainly not the tax-payer.

    1. Re:Waiving environmental rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rules are for plebians.

  22. Solid Business Plan by boudie2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What company wouldn't want to build a billion dollar high tech factory in a state where people walk around with blocks of cheese on their heads?

  23. repudiatable by Reverend+Green · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yay corporate welfare! Fuck the taxpayers! Rich get richer, debt gets deeper. Yay capitalism!

    1. Re: repudiatable by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You think corporate welfare is capitalism? What are you smoking?

    2. Re: repudiatable by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Duuuuuude, it's this really dank shit called "reality".

    3. Re: repudiatable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know how you'll occasionally find someone defending communism by saying it's not the *real* communism utopia laid out by Marx, and then everyone else points out what every communist system has turned out to be?

      This time, it's capitalism. The brand of capitalism the most stalwart supporters trot out where competition, fair wages, moral businesses, and low prices magically happen on their own is a fairy tale. The *real* capitalism that you find everywhere is marred by monopolies, cartels, anti-competitive behavior, and yes, lots of cronyism and corruption in government.

    4. Re: repudiatable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's where unregulated capitalism ends up.
      The safest way to generate profits is do dabble in politics.
      If you try to compete in a fair market you only end up in a situation where no-one is making any profit.

    5. Re: repudiatable by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is just investing capital in various projects, often businesses, to grow your capital. Combined with a market to create competition, the most efficient are rewarded.
      It's much more efficient to invest a bit of capital in growing the government and transferring tax money to the capitalist then trying to build more efficient factories and such. It is also more efficient to invest a bit of capital in growing the government and using it to socialize the risks in various businesses. Throw in using a bit of capital to generate propaganda to get the people to go along with the capitalist goals and the market will reward that efficiency.
      The trick is to balance the private/public stuff. Some things are a benefit to everyone, think of the fire insurance industry realizing it was better to socialize the fire fighting part. The companies benefited as they didn't have to maintain competing fire departments and worry about fires spreading to those that they've covered with insurance and the people benefited as even those without any fire insurance still had the fire department show up and try their best to put out the fire.
      This particular plant could go either way, generate lots of jobs and stimulate the local economy or plant shuts down in a few years, company gets to write of their investment and build a new plant somewhere where the government is giving out even better incentives.
      The market just rewards efficiency and often investing in government is the most efficient

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re: repudiatable by Bartles · · Score: 1

      The reality is that we haven't had something resembling capitalism in this country for decades.

    7. Re: repudiatable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not "the most efficient" are rewarded. The ones that manage to maneuver best. That could be by being efficient; but more often than not it could be by being larger and driving out smaller competition (chain stores vs mom & pop shops); or by government lobbying or bribery to change the legal situation; or by getting government to have a certain policy (e.g. go to war a lot for the defense industries); or by altering the public's lifestyle, for better (fitness equipment maybe?) and more often for worse (junk food/processed snacks etc).

    8. Re: repudiatable by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      You think corporate welfare is capitalism? What are you smoking?

      You think it isn't capitalism!! It's exactly what happens when capitalism is left unchecked and gets it's way. It's the worst of capitalism.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    9. Re: repudiatable by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Oh. I see. By your own admission it isn't capitalism and you fail to see it.

    10. Re: repudiatable by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Are you replying to someone else? I said no such thing.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re: repudiatable by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Sure you did. You just didn't realize it. When a government has the power to take and redistribute wealth, corporate welfare is the eventual result. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Those who conflate the two can't even fathom people succeeding without government intervention

    12. Re: repudiatable by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      It is both systems, you talking condescending crap, conversation over.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re: repudiatable by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Lol, this is this internet. You can abandon a conversation when you lose an argument, but you can't end it.

    14. Re: repudiatable by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Oh. I see. By your own admission it isn't capitalism and you fail to see it.

      So if I pointed out you were the worst kind of dumb, you'd think that meant you were smart.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  24. better idea by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    How about we just pay those people $40,000 a year to dig holes in the ground periodically, and then have a long vacation? It would be cheaper and probably just as economically long lasting.

    The lawmakers I mean.

  25. Extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extortion has moved away from the illegal mob realms to the (apparently) legal corporate realm. This happens in every state, where a company threatens to move unless they get some tax deal. As if the employee income taxes, and money spent by the employees in the local economy (=sales taxes) will more than make up for the outlay.

  26. Stupid Europeans by Dorianny · · Score: 1

    It is common for European and Chinese states to put money to fund large private projects the big difference with the U.S is that they demand and receive equity or stock on what is essentially a joint venture instead of just hoping that someday their investment will be recouped thru taxes

    1. Re: Stupid Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the possible exception of France, European governments do not generally invest as much tax money in the private sector as US states. You are right about China, though, and about both China and the European governments usually getting better deals.

    2. Re:Stupid Europeans by Altrag · · Score: 1

      But but but.. capitalism! America's gift to the world! You know, where you're given a giant chunk of money by the government that you neither need nor deserve!

      Not like those silly socialist states where people have to earn their money. Geez.

      Oh wait did I say people? I meant "persons" in the corporate sense only, of course. Humans don't belong in that category anymore.

  27. Agreeing to pay $3 for each $18 is a good deal by boley1 · · Score: 2
    From Ponitfact:

    But there are at least two important points to consider. 1. The $3 billion wouldn’t be a gift, as One Wisconsin Now calls it. That’s the maximum amount the state would pay Foxconn, and only if the company spends roughly $18 billion -- about $9 billion for payroll and $9 billion in capital investments.

  28. Is it for real this time? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Last time this came up, I saw this comment posted:
    Is this the Foxconn plant in Wisconsin that's been on the drawing board since 2010?

    and I see a prior article talking about a FoxConn plant in Pennsylvania, that I think never was built.

    Much like some of the comments on previous articles, I'll believe it when I see it. FoxConn probably gets tons of subsidies from the Chinese government. So they are probably shopping to see if they can get that here. Heck, maybe Trump can build the plant with his own money!

  29. What part of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..."$2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers" did you not understand?

    1. Re:What part of... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The part where you deleted the rest of the sentence about tax incentives, which from what some others are saying is really all it is.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  30. Reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unemployed people don't generate good tax revenue, and also tend to get uppity.

    While I too cringe at government waste, even I realize government is not a literal business.

  31. china jobs come back to usa for robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have said it before "when the jobs come back they'll be for robots"
    Wisconsin also is going to allow them to discharge waste into the waterways.
    from this article: https://www.ksl.com/?nid=151&sid=45195563&title=the-latest-gov-walker-to-foxconn-critics-suck-lemons
    "A bill Walker released on Friday would allow Foxconn, without permits, to discharge dredged materials, fill wetlands, change the course of streams, build artificial bodies of water that connect with natural waterways and build on a riverbed or lakebed."
    What could possibly go wrong?

  32. Any other sources? by NetNed · · Score: 1

    From searching online the Ars article is the only one that says they are actually paying real dollars. The are also the only one I can find that says they are changing environmental laws for the plant. All others I have found say there are "environmental concerns". Even the Reuters article referenced in the doesn't mention any of this. Not saying it's one way or the other, just odd that Ars is the only one I could find saying that.

  33. Because that would be stealing money by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    from the taxpayer and giving it to people who don't do any work. What gives you the right to tax me and make me pay so you don't have to work? That's just theft, plain and simple. But these foxconn guys? They're creating jobs. This isn't a handout, it's an investment.

    Or so the argument goes. The folks who actually make it to the polls to vote might actually believe that. The folks that don't believe that horseshit generally have their vote suppressed. During the last election there were reports of 10 hour waits to vote in working class districts. Or any district that might go against the pro-corporate, pro-right wing party.

    Basically we're a pretend Democracy. No different than North Korea really except we've got enough money to throw around that the worst of the poverty is kept at bay.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Because that would be stealing money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do I subscribe to your newsletter?

      Also, what's your affiliate link to tin foil hats?

    2. Re:Because that would be stealing money by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Its a little bit different from North Korea. Nobody's going to shoot you if you badmouth Trump. Nobody's stopping you from moving to another city or another state if you can scrape together the funds for a car and some gas. Freedom might not be cheap in America, but it at least still exists for the most part.

      Of course none of that has anything to do with the joke that is the US electoral system, nor with the government complaining about "socialist" programs for the people while simultaneously handing out billions of dollars to companies that don't need it, but that's still not even close to comparable with North Korea.

    3. Re:Because that would be stealing money by speedplane · · Score: 1

      When republican governments invest in LCD Panel factories, republicans cheer and democrats boo. When democrats invest in Solar power companies, democrats cheer and republicans boo. Neither side is terribly principled here.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  34. Somebody has been greased with nice wads of cash. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Obviously.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  35. And they'll still win the next election by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    thanks to a combination of the Southern Strategy, voter suppression, good marketing and the Democrat's own right wing preventing the party from taking a stand on any economic issue that matters.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:And they'll still win the next election by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I would have agreed with you up until the last month or so.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:And they'll still win the next election by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They've also mastered the art of distraction.

      Current American politics works thus:
      "I have here a detailed economic analy - "
      "LOOK! CROSS DRESSING MEN WANT TO RAPE YOUR CHILD IN THE SCHOOL RESTROOM! Probably immigrants, too."
      "I really think that we need to consider -"
      "WHAT, DO YOU WANT TO SEE OUR DAUGHTERS RAPED? DO YOU NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY?"

  36. Politifact Rates This $3 Billion Story as FALSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "3,000 jobs cost #WI taxpayers more than $3 billion in tax giveaways. Break it down: more than $1 million in taxpayer dollars per job. #foxconn"

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/aug/11/melissa-sargent/wisconsin-offering-pay-taiwan-tech-firm-foxconn-1-/

    PolitiFact verdict: FALSE

    1. Re:Politifact Rates This $3 Billion Story as FALSE by Tempest451 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's $230K per job if you calculate $3billion for the 13,000 proposed jobs created.

  37. Interesting and weird by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Why are the GOP happy to give 3 billion subsidy to Chinese companies, but then scream about a .5 B loan to Tesla?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Interesting and weird by bongey · · Score: 1

      Because the Ars is an Ass and WRONG. WI is NOT giving 3 billion , it is TAX CREDITS, so there is ZERO dollars collected if the factory was never built. http://www.kttc.com/story/3597...

    2. Re:Interesting and weird by toadlife · · Score: 1

      It's $3 billion less in tax revenue that the state will collect, so it's a $3 billion subsidy.

      And only a 25 year payoff for taxpayers. Typical Republican "economic conservatism."

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  38. Sounds fair by stikves · · Score: 1

    If they are going to invest $3 billion in a $10 billion venture, then they should receive 30% equity stake there as well. This will both be fair, and probably a reasonable investment that will bring long term capital to the state.

    However given the history of "socialized loss, capitalized gains" of state - enterprise relations, I'm not keeping my hopes us. Look at what happened then feds bankrolled failing financial institutions during the last crisis. They gave them loans at reasonable rates, sometimes just huge rebates, however the public received nothing in return for taking the risk in these bailouts. We're still on the hook for the huge trillion dollars bill, while the financial institutions recovered.

    1. Re:Sounds fair by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      You bring up an interesting point...the government clearly has a desire to see jobs brought to their state and wants to invest the money, but then why don't they take an equity stake? It seems to make a lot of sense and could go a long way toward making these sorts of investments more palatable to taxpayers. The company can of course buy back their equity in the future if they desire, but that's the way investment works in the business world, so why not the government world? Furthermore, the equity share can be earmarked in some way...say to offset health care costs for the workers, or something like that.

      FWIW, I work for a government contractor, and I can assure you the feds don't just give us handouts. When they give us money for R&D, they then own that R&D.

  39. We'll see... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    We'll see how long the plant lasts.

    Here are several problems with the whole thing: Foxconn can get better qualified and cheaper labor in several of the other countries they currently already have factories at. It's pretty uncertain if Wisconsin will have a workforce to cover for those jobs - it's not about numbers or people looking for jobs, but specialization. An LCD plant is nothing by itself... so either Foxconn is planning for an assembly plant to come next, or they'll just ship most of the production back to China so that those screens are used in actual products. Either way, infrastructure will have major influence there - if it gets too expensive to transport those things, eventually they'll decide it isn't worth it.
    And weirdly enough, LCDs are being replaced by AMOLED panels in recent smartphones and other electronics. Not sure if there's any flexibility in these production lines to switch the types of panels they produce - technology is substantially different.

    So yeah, it's a pretty big bet. These factories are pretty much unsustainable without government incentives and money, so you can expect that the government will be paying for a long time to keep production there. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Foxconn has factories in Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia, India, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, Czech Republic, South Korea, China of course, and it acquired former Sharp plants in Japan.
    In China, just last year, one of their plants fired 60,000 workers because they automated part of the production line.

    One can only hope that this thing isn't being rushed, that Wisconsin is drafting the contract in a way not to get screwed if the whole thing goes sour, and that it really brings jobs to the state. But honestly, the balance tips towards Foxconn in almost every front. I imagine there's almost no advantage in having a factory in the US for the company aside from having physical presence there. It's a PR and marketing move that only makes sense if the US government pays for part of the losses that the company will take in comparison of building that plant in any of the other countries they already have a presence at.

  40. A good use of taxpayer funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good use of taxpayer funds is to finance sanctuary citifies to get more democrats elected with fake voters.

    Now that's the truth.

  41. Glad I don't Live in Wistaxson anymore. by hackus · · Score: 1

    No way are the jobs going to be anywhere near 53K a year, try like 32-40K. Probably no benefits or worthless ones.

    In 5 years this goes bust, at those salary rates most people can't buy what they are putting together after they pay rent, taxes, food and Obamasteel My Dough care.

    I would write down every single name that voted for this and when it does go bust in 5 years string them from a tree.

    Secondly, you know, I wanna start a storage company. I have been working on various storage ideas for a new multilevel file storage system for LINUX which I think would have a lot of commercial potential. Not going to see the light of day because I can't negotiate these sorts of contracts with these companies to legally graft money from the locals.

    No offense, but I will keep my file system code to myself, and everyone who voted for that can go F themselves.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Glad I don't Live in Wistaxson anymore. by Altrag · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about. If you have an idea you think is worth developing, you go talk to a bank or a venture capitalist or something. You don't talk to the government.

      You talk to the government when you're looking for a place to build a giant factory, and you shop around for the best deal. The primary difference is that Foxxconn could easily fund the project on their own, but they're taking a handout because.. why not.

      Foxxconn is doing exactly what they should in this case. Its Wisconsin (and whoever was competing against them) that are absolutely moronic for taking such a bad deal purely to boost their rather abstract "jobs" number (abstract in the sense that it relates zero information about the quality of said jobs, what skill sets they require, how much they pay, etc -- its just an arbitrary number that counts a $100m CEO position as equal to flipping burgers.)

  42. And by meglon · · Score: 1

    ...the poor and middle class will be taxed more to make up the difference. Republicans fucking over people for corporations yet again.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  43. Suicide prevention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they will at least get the suicide prevention nets included with their new factory.

  44. WI could be the global leader in X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take the 3Billion and decide to be the global leader in X (whatever that is) and spend the money on that. WI could have an industrial that has 10x the jobs that the one factory could produce, plus if the industry is started there and truly american then it would not pack up and leave.

    Give the 3 Billion and bet on start ups, that would make even more sense, with that money they could be the epi-centre of startups in America.

    I am saying this as an outsider looking in.

    Buy hey, I guess if China took the jobs and now you can get them back by paying, that makes sense right?

  45. Check the maths by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    If the top earners are taxed at 39.6%, and that only kicks in after $418,000, how odes the state lose revenue?

    At 53K per year, you're in the 25% tax bracket. Let's see what happens if a majority portion of the workers earn $35K instead of $53K to allow for some few dozen padded executive salaries.

    2900 @ 35,000 is 101 million, plus 100 million for 100 million dollar packages. 101 million @ .25 ($25 million) and 100 million @ .396 ($39.6 Million) for a total tax income burden of $64.6 million; versus 53,000 * 3000 for 159 million @ .25 for a total income tax burden of $39,750,000.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Check the maths by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      If the top earners are taxed at 39.6%

      You're a fool if you think they actually pay that.

      When you have that much money, hiring an accountant to exploit the tax loopholes is a net profit.
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Check the maths by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Also, now that I think about it, your math is wrong. You only pay the tax rate on the *portion* of the money within that bracket, not the whole thing.

      So let's say you earn $53K.

      For every dollar above $418,400 you pay 39.6%. We're well below that, though.

      You then pay 35% on every dollar above $416,700 up to $418,400. Still below that.

      Then it's 33% on every dollar above $191,650 up to $416,700. Still below that.

      Then it's 28% on every dollar above $91,900 up to $191,650. Keep going...

      Then it's 25% on every dollar above $37,950 up to $91,900. 25% of $15,050 is $3,762.50.

      Then it's 15% on every dollar above $9,325 up to $37,950. 15% of $28,625 is $4,293.75.

      Finally, you pay 10% on the first $9,325 you earn. 10% of that is $932.50.

      Grand total: $8,988.75 which is an effective rate of 16.96% on $53,000. Multiply that by 3000 salaries and you get $26,966,250 not $39,750,000.

      By contrast, someone making $100 million per year is paying $39,555,818.85 before any deductions... but this is only because you are so far above the lowest bracket threshold that the rest of it is basically noise.
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:Check the maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are applying federal income tax rates. The incentives are being supplied by the state of Wisconsin, not the federal government. So you should apply state of Wisconsin income tax rates.

    4. Re:Check the maths by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      If the top earners are taxed at 39.6%,

      Then that matters jack-shit, because we are talking about Wisconsin tax payer money, not federal taxes.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    5. Re:Check the maths by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Your breakdown of the brackets is spot on, but still, the richest earners don't have a corner on significant deductions.

      In fact, many deductions such as the Earned Income Tax Credit are only available to lower threshold earners. The lower earners possibly also qualify for assistance from the State.

      The point is simply that the lower earners do not necessarily skewer the income tax revenue for the governors.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Check the maths by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      How rude.

      I don't know why you're so surprised. Told you the top of the page check the maths.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:Check the maths by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      How rude.

      Says the guy who made a stupid claim. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, you whiney fiscally conservative shitbag.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  46. Robots ... read "The Midas Plague" by Pohl 1954 by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    ... Malthus was right -- for a civilization without machines, automatic factories, hydroponics and food synthesis, nuclear breeder plants, ocean-mining for metals and minerals...
    And a vastly increasing supply of labor...
    And architecture that rose high in the air and dug deep in the ground and floated far out on the water on piers and pontoons... architecture that could be poured one day and lived in the next...
    And robots.
    Above all, robots... robots to burrow and haul and smelt and fabricate, to build and farm and weave and sew.
    What the land lacked in wealth, the sea was made to yield and the laboratory invented the rest... and the factories became a pipeline of plenty, churning out enough to feed and clothe and house a dozen worlds.
    Limitless discovery, infinite power in the atom, tireless labor of humanity and robots, mechanization that drove jungle and swamp and ice off the Earth, and put up office buildings and manufacturing centers and rocket ports in their place...
    The pipeline of production spewed out riches that no king in the time of Malthus could have known.
    But a pipeline has two ends. The invention and power and labor pouring in at one end must somehow be drained out at the other...
    Lucky Morey, blessed economic-consuming unit, drowning in the pipeline's flood, striving manfully to eat and drink and wear and wear out his share of the ceaseless tide of wealth.
    Morey felt far from blessed, for the blessings of the poor are always best appreciated from afar. ...

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Robots ... read "The Midas Plague" by Pohl 1954 by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      One place to find the story online is in the Galaxy Magazine April 1954 issue at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/ga...

      Starts on page six.

      The story was made into a large novel later called Midas World:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  47. Solyndra paid back the debt plus interest early. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if it were a Solyndra, and you keep bleating on about how this isn't a loan, then it has nothing to pay back at all. Either becoming immediately worse than Solyndra, since it pays nothing, or as good as it, since it can easily pay nothing.

    In either case, Solyndra is a working investment plan. It didn't pan out, but the loan got paid back. Better than 90% of new ventures.

  48. Wisconsin, please invest in R&D and small busi by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    not this handout that abdicates local responsibility for making Wisconsin a better place.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  49. Only because they don't need to by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    North Korea needs to oppress their population more because they don't have enough food. So there's a very real chance somebody might rouse the rabble and overthrow the government. You're not going to rouse the US rabble. You're lucky if you can get 20 neo-Nazis to show up to a rally outside the deep south. And even then you've only got as many in the south because the rampant poverty.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  50. Fuck you and fuck Reuters too ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I quote:

    "Wisconsin is promising an enormous incentive package to seal the deal.
    That includes up to $1.5 billion in state income tax credits for job creation. up to $1.35 billion in state income tax credits for capital investment, and up to $150 million for the sales and use tax exemption. In all, Foxconn is eligible to earn $3 billion in tax credits over 15 years.
    That package will have to be approved by the state legislature. Gov. Walker has called for a special session in order to get those incentives passed.
    The timetable on those incentives is key, because Foxconn wants to start construction immediately to have manufacturing up and running by 2020.
    The company plans to employ 3,000 workers at the outset, who would earn an average annual salary of $53,875.
    The construction of the campus could support up to 10,000 jobs over the next four years and another 6,000 indirect jobs."

    So, do YOU see any mention of cash? Anywhere? Bueller?

    It's ALL in tax credits.
    Even fucking slashdot doesn't check sources any more ... I hate the term "fake news" - it's just plain fucking LIES !!!

    1. Re:Fuck you and fuck Reuters too ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So, do YOU see any mention of cash? Anywhere? Bueller?

      Tax credits are transfer payments. They are not the same as tax exemptions.

      They're cash money.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  51. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's the output of gasses, carbon, and other devastating compounds from this manufacturing process that will be pouring into the Wisconsin air?
    I always thought Wisconsin was fairly clean, now I'm afraid of the environmental impact. I mean, look at China..

  52. Highly myopic piece... by JoeLinux · · Score: 1

    First of all, there is no cash handout...this is 3 Billion dollars in tax incentives. If Foxconn does nothing, they get $0 in taxes, so, where is the harm?

    Also:

    State payouts are contingent on Foxconn's performance at multiple levels...but even if that weren't the case, Foxconn will have to make good on their commitment to spend $8-10 Billion on the construction of the plant, which will employ 10,000 construction workers for several years. There is already talk of Corning building a $1 Billion glass factory nearby to support operations (with another 400 employees), and a conservative estimate of 100 Wisconsin suppliers will also benefit from the manufacturing. This doesn't take into account housing development, payroll taxes, or any number of other tangible benefits.

    I get that $3 Billion is a lot of money, but an analysis focused only on Foxconn misses the point entirely.