Connecticut

[apeman]

What if I told you that this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?

I'd ask you to back it up with some facts. "Kansas" is not an answer.

I'm still waiting GCF.

Why did Aetna and GE leave CT, since they are apparently lying about leaving for objectively, demonstratively favorable tax arrangements?

I haven't the slightest idea. I have no doubt that there are other factors at play.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'd ask you to back it up with some facts. "Kansas" is not an answer.

I'm still waiting GCF.

Why did Aetna and GE leave CT, since they are apparently lying about leaving for objectively, demonstratively favorable tax arrangements?

I haven't the slightest idea. I have no doubt that there are other factors at play.

As I was mentioning in my last post, there's a whole hidden competition between cities to attract corporate HQs and operations, being played out every year in this country. It has nothing to do with the official tax rates, more about subsidies, grants, and regulatory games.

The tax rates have very little to do with why a company moves - yes, it's a factor, but those things don't change overnight.

[apeman]

GCF shifts the argument to "official tax rates" while noting that tax arrangements will attract or repel corporations.

tiresome. Can't get at the truth this way without great hassle.

[SuburbanFarmer]

GCF shifts the argument to "official tax rates" while noting that tax arrangements will attract or repel corporations.

tiresome. Can't get at the truth this way without great hassle.

All I can do is drop the hint, and allow you to follow it up. I'm done writing essays on what's happening, then getting drowned out by shitposting.

The point was made that CT's corporate tax rate was too high, so that would make GE and Aetna move to NYC or Boston. From Hartford.
What do you suppose the real estate difference is between those cities? How is it profitable to uproot and change (probably) a few hundred employees that don't want to commute or move?

The answer is municipal/state handouts to incentivize the move. As I said twice before, it has very little to do with the tax rates.

Or, just keep stomping around and proclaiming my obvious stupidity, lest you be forced to think about something new.

Some links, for those who are interested:

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2014/W ... t_2014.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/ho ... d=all&_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/busi ... -city.html

[apeman]

GCF shifts the argument to "official tax rates" while noting that tax arrangements will attract or repel corporations.

tiresome. Can't get at the truth this way without great hassle.

All I can do is drop the hint, and allow you to follow it up. I'm done writing essays on what's happening, then getting drowned out by shitposting.

The point was made that CT's corporate tax rate was too high, so that would make GE and Aetna move to NYC or Boston. From Hartford.
What do you suppose the real estate difference is between those cities? How is it profitable to uproot and change (probably) a few hundred employees that don't want to commute or move?

The answer is municipal/state handouts to incentivize the move. As I said twice before, it has very little to do with the tax rates.

Or, just keep stomping around and proclaiming my obvious stupidity, lest you be forced to think about something new.

Some links, for those who are interested:

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2014/W ... t_2014.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/ho ... d=all&_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/busi ... -city.html

So let's look at your original assertion and the three sources you cite.

first, here is your assertion which began this exchange:

What if I told you that this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?

POLICY is the word you used.

Source #1 - addresses tax policies
Source #2 - the title is "As Companies Seek Tax Deals, Governments Pay High Price"
Source #3 - the very first substantive content offered is:

“Part of it is that cities are more attractive places to live than they were 30 years ago and are more willing to provide tax incentives, and young people want to be there,” said David J. Collis, who teaches corporate strategy at Harvard Business School.

Tiresome, no one believes that tax policy has "ALMOST NOTHING" do do with this issue. Is it complex and complicated? Sure. Are you wildly overreaching and citing to random sources that do not back up your point? Sure.

[SuburbanFarmer]

GCF shifts the argument to "official tax rates" while noting that tax arrangements will attract or repel corporations.

tiresome. Can't get at the truth this way without great hassle.

All I can do is drop the hint, and allow you to follow it up. I'm done writing essays on what's happening, then getting drowned out by shitposting.

The point was made that CT's corporate tax rate was too high, so that would make GE and Aetna move to NYC or Boston. From Hartford.
What do you suppose the real estate difference is between those cities? How is it profitable to uproot and change (probably) a few hundred employees that don't want to commute or move?

The answer is municipal/state handouts to incentivize the move. As I said twice before, it has very little to do with the tax rates.

Or, just keep stomping around and proclaiming my obvious stupidity, lest you be forced to think about something new.

Some links, for those who are interested:

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2014/W ... t_2014.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/ho ... d=all&_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/busi ... -city.html

So let's look at your original assertion and the three sources you cite.

first, here is your assertion which began this exchange:

What if I told you that this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?

POLICY is the word you used.

Source #1 - addresses tax policies
Source #2 - the title is "As Companies Seek Tax Deals, Governments Pay High Price"
Source #3 - the very first substantive content offered is:

“Part of it is that cities are more attractive places to live than they were 30 years ago and are more willing to provide tax incentives, and young people want to be there,” said David J. Collis, who teaches corporate strategy at Harvard Business School.

Tiresome, no one believes that tax policy has "ALMOST NOTHING" do do with this issue. Is it complex and complicated? Sure. Are you wildly overreaching and citing to random sources that do not back up your point? Sure.

Sometimes, you do have to read beyond the first paragraph, to gain new information...

Source #1 is mostly about other factors that are determined to be "competitive" between cities, such as free internet access, public parks designed around a company, zoning 'gimmies' etc.

From Source #2:

Yet at least 50 properties on the 2009 liquidation list were in towns and states that had awarded incentives, adding up to billions in taxpayer dollars, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Some officials, desperate to keep G.M., offered more. Ohio was proposing a $56 million deal to save its Moraine plant, and Wisconsin, fighting for its Janesville factory, offered $153 million.

But their overtures were to no avail. G.M. walked away and, thanks to a federal bailout, is once again profitable.

From source #3:

“We are going through a change in our work force, and we wanted to be where we could attract millennials,” Mr. Vergnano said. “This is a group that likes to be in an urban setting, with access to public transportation. They don’t want to be confined to a building with a cafeteria or be next door to a shopping center.”

To be sure, cash from the State of Delaware and other incentives played an important role in the decision as well.

In addition to providing Chemours, which produces a range of industrial chemical products, with a $7.9 million package of grants, Delaware overhauled its corporate tax code, sacrificing revenue and easing the company’s tax burden as an added lure to stay put.

[apeman]

What if I told you that this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?

From Source #2:

Yet at least 50 properties on the 2009 liquidation list were in towns and states that had awarded incentives, adding up to billions in taxpayer dollars, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Some officials, desperate to keep G.M., offered more. Ohio was proposing a $56 million deal to save its Moraine plant, and Wisconsin, fighting for its Janesville factory, offered $153 million.

But their overtures were to no avail. G.M. walked away and, thanks to a federal bailout, is once again profitable.

From source #3:

“We are going through a change in our work force, and we wanted to be where we could attract millennials,” Mr. Vergnano said. “This is a group that likes to be in an urban setting, with access to public transportation. They don’t want to be confined to a building with a cafeteria or be next door to a shopping center.”

To be sure, cash from the State of Delaware and other incentives played an important role in the decision as well.

In addition to providing Chemours, which produces a range of industrial chemical products, with a $7.9 million package of grants, Delaware overhauled its corporate tax code, sacrificing revenue and easing the company’s tax burden as an added lure to stay put.

[/quote]

How do those quotes prove or even bolster the contention that "this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?"

Don't all three sources directly indicate that tax policy plays a role?

[SuburbanFarmer]

What if I told you that this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?

From Source #2:

Yet at least 50 properties on the 2009 liquidation list were in towns and states that had awarded incentives, adding up to billions in taxpayer dollars, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Some officials, desperate to keep G.M., offered more. Ohio was proposing a $56 million deal to save its Moraine plant, and Wisconsin, fighting for its Janesville factory, offered $153 million.

But their overtures were to no avail. G.M. walked away and, thanks to a federal bailout, is once again profitable.

From source #3:

“We are going through a change in our work force, and we wanted to be where we could attract millennials,” Mr. Vergnano said. “This is a group that likes to be in an urban setting, with access to public transportation. They don’t want to be confined to a building with a cafeteria or be next door to a shopping center.”

To be sure, cash from the State of Delaware and other incentives played an important role in the decision as well.

In addition to providing Chemours, which produces a range of industrial chemical products, with a $7.9 million package of grants, Delaware overhauled its corporate tax code, sacrificing revenue and easing the company’s tax burden as an added lure to stay put.

How do those quotes prove or even bolster the contention that "this had almost nothing to do with tax policy?"[/quote]

Do you consider massive grants and subsidies to be a part of general "tax policy"?

Is there no distinction between this activity and the corporate tax rate?

Should we just call tax policy "fuck you gimmies"?

[apeman]

Is it your contention that tax give-aways do not fall under the descriptor "tax policy"?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Is it your contention that tax give-aways do not fall under the descriptor "tax policy"?

Not unless all government actions are considered "tax policy".

I didn't get a "tax break" when I got subsidized student loans. The corn subsidy that's ruining our food supply is not "tax policy".