If a government chooses to create or modify laws to attract business that is one thing and is entirely acceptable, so long as the laws are applied to everyone in the state equally and fairly.

When government gets involved in capitalism to the point that it treats one business differently than another, its no longer capitalism. The role of government, as envisioned by the founders was essentially to play referee in economy to protect the best interests of the nation as a whole. But that still meant that all businesses were to be treated equally and fairly. Although corruption has existed since our earliest years, it was never intended that any one business get special treatment over another.

Now, what we used to call corruption, is somehow perfectly acceptable and even debatable by most. A true sign of how far we have fallen in terms of our morals and honor, no doubt.



If businesses are over taxed, it is the moral, ethical and legal responsibility of the government to reduce the taxes to everyone equally, not just select businesses, much less a single multi-billion dollar international company. How is it remotely fair for Boeing to only have to pay a tiny fraction of the property taxes that all of the mom and pop and small and medium businesses in SC have to pay, as one small example?

One of our most basic principles as a country is equal protection under the law. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. Unfortunately, there is just as much discrimination today as there ever was. It just takes different forms and affects different entities than it used too.

Let's not forget that Boeing didnÆt just get tax breaks, they got direct payouts in the hundreds of millions as well.



That may be true, but since the move to SC has zero affect on me personally, IÆm not sure that applies to everyone.

Not really. States have the right to do what they want through legislatures that create/pass laws that are deemed justifiable. To eliminate that would allow for eventual monopolies in a pure capitalistic society.



Because the smaller businesses gain a benefit from Boeing's presence. Perhaps you haven't been involved in the sale of products to users across the spectrum. Normally, the larger the purchasing power, the lower the price..... just another part of capitalism, and it can apply to the contributors of a state economy as well.

The idea that everyone should be treated the same in an economic society is more one of socialism than capitalism..... just on the other end of the financial equation.

Frank

Monopolies are delt with through antitrust laws. Businesses are penalized for violating these laws. (although not much these days anymore, but thatÆs a separate issue) Giving massive financial and tax benefits to a single company is a great way to create and maintain a monopoly, not prevent it, IMO.



ôSomeö businesses benefit, but not all and this argument is another case of the ôends justifies the meansö, IMO. Boeing will also consume a tremendous amount of resources that will have to be made up by other tax payers and resources within the community.

Your sourced cost/benefits proposes that there will be a net benefit, but gives no real details, other than they propose that over three decades, Boeing will generate 3 billion in revenue for the 1 billion that was given to them today. But how much of that revenue would already be generated if Boeing never existed? For example, the prior property owners of the land Boeing built on would still have to pay taxes. Current and future employees of Boeing would likely also have other jobs and also pay taxes.

IÆm not prepared to say that BoeingÆs arrival in SC will not be a net benefit to SC. In fact, it probably will be, if SC eventually becomes the primary production plant, replacing all of the plants in Washington State.

But one of the largest overriding principle for conservatives regarding business is that government stay out of business. I donÆt see how anyone could support this deal and be anything less than a socialist who supports government engineered economic systems.
They canÆt have it both ways and not be disingenuous, IMO.

Then, I guess we're both socialists...... but each from a different tribe. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What you really seem to be against is a managed economy. Governments usually either pay money for welfare that tempts those accepting it to not work - or - they help corporations provide jobs - or - sometimes both at the same time.

While it might be idealistic to not do either (and I'd rather we didn't), I'd much rather nourish competitive business than pay folks to sit idle, including some of the farm programs that pay the farmer not to grow a crop and let his fields go fallow.

Frank

I'm not necessarily against a managed economy or government involvement, although I'm definately against tax payer funded direct and targetted financial incentives to any single private entity. I was mainly pointing out the hypocrisy from those in the conservative economic crowd that still supports this type of tax payer based corporate welfare.

The type of system I prefer is the one that successfully built this country until we abandoned it for the current system. The founders and later forefathers, preferred a bit of protectionism where the government manages import and export through taxation and tariffs and the referring of existing business through reasonable regulation and anti-trust enforcement.

It's pretty clear that the current system has failed miserably for our nation as a whole and when faced with spectacular failure after a long period of success, I tend to think that returning to past practices and policies that generated that success is probably the logical way to go.

On a national level, I would agree, but not on a state level. As long as states have to compete for economic viability, there will be incentives paid to the largest providers of jobs...... another tenet of capitalism..... the ability and freedom to negotiate.



It's a short step from managing imports and exports through taxation and tariffs to subsidizing business. Both favor or penalize one business or industry over another. Take a look around at industries that no longer exist in this country - victims of tariffs and managed trade - the apparel industry comes to mind vividly for me. That one was "sunrise" protectionism for the silicon valley crowd at the expense of the "sunset" textile and apparel makers. How's that working out?

And don't forget that the War of Northern Aggression was the direct result of tariffs and taxation - with funds collected from southern plantation owners used to pay for northern projects.

Frank