The Barnyard

Yeah, but with strings attached. They had to guarantee 3,800 jobs.

So, how you voting? 1 or 2?

A tax break doesn't "give away money," it lets someone keep their money.

You do realize the story from the Seattle Times is referring to 160 million a year in tax breaks for twenty years was provided by the state of Washington to Boeing.

When it's a break that your car dealership or my business or Steve Cook's restaurant doesn't get it's corporate welfare, just like writing a check.

Companies who gets special subsidies use roads, water and sewer lines, need cops and educated employees just like the rest of us. It costs money for those things. If you don't borrow the money from China it takes taxes. It's called the government choosing winners and losers.

Companies that use public roads, cops, firemen, sewer, etc. without paying their share of taxes are freeloaders. It raises taxes for everyone else.

Taking a handout is freeloading. it isn't capitalism. I've defended medicaid patients with AIDS, some of them kids, getting help to pay for life saving drugs.

Boeing doesn't need handouts to survive. As Jack posted, they're getting even bigger handouts from Washington State. These huge companies create this game where they make states compete for their business. And politicians who never met a big company they wouldn't bend over and take it up the ass for can't wait to give them the store. And. we taxpayers are left holding the bag.

In Boeing's case in SC they're getting a Billion dollars in subsidies and they're required to spend $750 miliion of their own money and create 3,800 jobs. That's more public money than private. It's no less socialism than Venezuela except at least there the people get a share of the profits. In America, where big business is concerned, the taxpayers absorb the risk and the billionaires get the profit. Again, that ain't capitalism.

And of course, like Willard and Bain did, as soon as these incentive deals are done, these companies up and whore themselves out to the next state willing to let them suck on it's taxpayers' teat. Or they send all the jobs pverseas.

They oughta all be given a cigarette and a blindfold and shot at dawn.

Of course I take every deduction I can. I don't spend any money lobbying for special breaks for myself, but if I had the money and influence to gain from it I might. I'm no saint.

But I'm not a shareholder of Boeing, I am a South Carolina taxpayer and voter. I expect no better from Boeing's management. If I were in their shoes I might rig the game too. I do expect better from my representatives who, in theory at least, work for me.

I read an article about the NLRB lawsuit with Boeing. The NLRB had subpoenaed internal documents as Boeing debated moving the new plane's production to South Carolina. One document showed Boeing had done a cost-benefit analysis of the move. It showed that building the new plane in Washington state would be more profitable because the workforce there was so much better educated, trained and productive, and infrastructure and quality of life was superior so planes could be built more quickly and with fewer mistakes. But factoring in much lower wages and South Carolina's subsidies made the Palmetto State the most cost efficient choice.

I'd like to see my home state compete for good jobs on the basis of a trained and well-educated work force, good roads, ports and railroads than how cheap our citizens will work and how much corporate welfare our politicians dole out.

So what's your vote?

On the question in the OP.

Glad to hear you love it when states have individual mandates for health insurance enforced by tax penalties, though. Thanks for sharing.