LOL No, I am with the Federal government and that was what I was referencing, the feds. Sorry for not being clear about that.
One of the main things that made Russia go bust. Was all of the government jobs and if memory serves me government creates a tax that the government can't consume.
Without the incentive, a lot of those private businesses would not be able to build the new facitlities. Keep in mind those new facilities create new jobs and payroll that creates additional collections of federal payroll taxes. Both in the construction phase and also in the long term employment phase. The hope is that in the long term, the government will actually take in more in taxes than they would have without the expansions.
So some businesses need help from the government to succeed? I don't believe that, what do believe is they look for the best deal to maximize their profits. Which is their right and I have zero issue with.
Yeah, like this group that got the Dems to give them millions before they closed their doors. SWEET! http://www.lvrj.com/business/amonix...months-heavy-federal-subsidies-162901626.html
And this Obummer sweet deal http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...obama-drive-to-aid-clean-energy-startups.html
I understand the purpose and am not necessarily opposed to it but, from what I have been reading lately, the state governments, around here anyway, are not making up the loss of money through these incentives so the taxpayer is the one that is losing. I don't imagine the workings on the federal level are much better.
I wonder if anyone actually tracks the success of these programs in a non-partisan way? My guess is that they dont. In the end, I would think the additional payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, etc. that these expansions create might float the boat. Maybe not, like anything, there is probably more than enough waste, fraud, and abuse to ruin a good thing. One could also argue that a certain percentage of the expansions would happen even if there was not a tax incentive...???
