You're kidding, right? You think that the only money Boeing gives back to
the community is the $100 million in wages given to new hires? What about
the people already working for Boeing who would have left the area if Boeing
moved?

Uh, they're already gone. Boeing moved to Chicago, and the "new hires" are
about 1/30th of the number of folks that Boeing laid off here in the last few
years.

Also, have you ever looked at a P&L? Wages make up about 1/5 of
total expenses.

Less than that, if you're got a clever Republican running the company. :-)

On top of that, there is a trickle down effect of the
people who work in jobs that service those 2000 people *and* the people
already working for Boeing.

That $3 billion saved your community. Without it, Everett/Mukilteo would
look like Allentown, PA when they were (to quote Billy Joel) "closing all
the factories down".

Bullshirt.

Take 1.5 billion of the same money, give it (don't even loan it) as matching
capital grants to people who have presented a *qualified* business plan for an
enterprise that will create jobs in the community and you will see far more
than 2000 jobs result, plus all the spin off jobs from suppliers, retailers,
service workers, etc.

Figure half of the enterprises go TU within
2-3 years. Still way, way, ahead of buying jobs from Boeing at $1.5mm apiece.

In a few years, when it's time to build the next plane, Boeing will come around
once again with the tin cup and demand even more concessions.

We ought to just get in bed with the Mafia.
At least they are obvious when shaking a victim down.

Everytime I bust my suspension on a pothole in the road or watch them close a
fire station or a library I can be ever so grateful that your cronies in the
Center for Business Supremacy, or whatever, think that government services
should be withheld from common people, but provided to their companies at a
newly reduced charge.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You're kidding, right? You think that the only money Boeing gives back
to
the community is the $100 million in wages given to new hires? What about
the people already working for Boeing who would have left the area if
Boeing
moved?

Uh, they're already gone. Boeing moved to Chicago, and the "new hires" are
about 1/30th of the number of folks that Boeing laid off here in the last
few
years.

Also, have you ever looked at a P&L? Wages make up about 1/5 of
total expenses.

Less than that, if you're got a clever Republican running the company. :-)

On top of that, there is a trickle down effect of the
people who work in jobs that service those 2000 people *and* the people
already working for Boeing.

That $3 billion saved your community. Without it, Everett/Mukilteo would
look like Allentown, PA when they were (to quote Billy Joel) "closing all
the factories down".

Bullshirt.

Take 1.5 billion of the same money,

How do you "take the 1.5 billion"? You don't have the 1.5 billion if Boeing
isn't there. It was in the form of tax incentives (ie--money they *would*
collect *if* Boeing stayed *and* they were taxed at the pre-negotiated
rates). If Boeing is not there, they don't pay the money anyhow...*AND* you
lose the benefit that you gain from having such a large employer in the
community.


You're putting me on here, right?

You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.
The question was "where will we put together the few parts of the 7E7 that will
be built in the US"

I guess they decided it will be here, since we forgave $1.5mm in taxes for
every middle class job they restored. Woo hoo.

You would be surprised to know that a lot of the opposition to the Boeing
shakedown came from *very* conservative interests here.

Boeing: We're leaving unless you make radical improvements to the roads and
other infrastructure in the state, especially those we haul parts over. We're
leaving unless you do something to establish workable public transportation in
the Puget Sound coridor so that our employees are not spending so many hours
every day stuck in traffic. We're leaving unless you upgrade the quality of
your education system so that we can hire a greater number of literate and
qualified trainees."

"Oh, by the way, if you expect *us* to participate in paying for any of our
demands, we're leaving anyway."

Yeah? Don't let the door hit you on the stabilizer.

On 28 Jul 2004 05:46:10 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.
The question was "where will we put together the few parts of the 7E7 that will
be built in the US"

I guess they decided it will be here, since we forgave $1.5mm in taxes for
every middle class job they restored. Woo hoo.

You would be surprised to know that a lot of the opposition to the Boeing
shakedown came from *very* conservative interests here.

That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form. But sometimes you have to weight the
costs/benefits, and take a gamble.


Boeing: We're leaving unless you make radical improvements to the roads and
other infrastructure in the state, especially those we haul parts over. We're
leaving unless you do something to establish workable public transportation in
the Puget Sound coridor so that our employees are not spending so many hours
every day stuck in traffic. We're leaving unless you upgrade the quality of
your education system so that we can hire a greater number of literate and
qualified trainees."

"Oh, by the way, if you expect *us* to participate in paying for any of our
demands, we're leaving anyway."

Yeah? Don't let the door hit you on the stabilizer.

Well, you can't fault Boeing. They're the ones in a position to
bargain. They can pull up stakes and move, if it's in their best
interests to do so. If their current home is up to their standards
then they have some incentive to stay.

You can make the case just how "unfair" this line of reasoning is, but
it's a fact of life in the business world. My company right now is
jumping through hoops as our largest customer keeps getting larger and
larger and continues to pile on their seemingly increasing demands on
our products and schedules. Many of us question why we bend over so
much for them, but the answer is obvious to anyone who wants to stay
in business.

He who holds the most gold, makes the rules.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form.

They certainly like corporate welfare and fixed, "no bid" contracts,
which are nothing more than corporate welfare.



--
We have nothing to fear..
....but four more years of George W. Bush.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:


That's not surprising, if you think about it. Conservatives do not
like welfare in any form.

They certainly like corporate welfare and fixed, "no bid" contracts,
which are nothing more than corporate welfare.


Sort of like the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton during the Clinton
Presidency?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.

And you know that how? In today's day and age, Corporations aren't usually
bluffing when they say they're going to move a plant.

As long as it's legal for a states to selectively offer tax incentives
(aka--bribes) to certain businesses, the practice will continue. It would
take legislation from the Federal level to prohibit the act...and they'll
never get involved in a state's right to conduct business and commerce
within the state (as they shouldn't).

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:34:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You're putting me on here, right?

Nope.

Boeing wasn't really "going" anywhere.

And you know that how? In today's day and age, Corporations aren't usually
bluffing when they say they're going to move a plant.

As long as it's legal for a states to selectively offer tax incentives
(aka--bribes) to certain businesses, the practice will continue. It would
take legislation from the Federal level to prohibit the act...and they'll
never get involved in a state's right to conduct business and commerce
within the state (as they shouldn't).

Sure. It's the states competing for future tax revenue. They offer
"sweet" deals to attract companies, who will (hopefully) settle there
for the long term. Even at the reduced tax rate (Which usually rises
over time), the states (and counties) make more tax money than if the
company never located there.

Corporate tax revenue offsets residential taxes. That's why counties
which have a high density of commercial businesses usually have lower
residential taxes.

Of course there are some third world countries who don't tax at all...
Uh oh......

Dave

On 28 Jul 2004 04:06:43 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You're kidding, right? You think that the only money Boeing gives back to
the community is the $100 million in wages given to new hires? What about
the people already working for Boeing who would have left the area if Boeing
moved?

Uh, they're already gone. Boeing moved to Chicago, and the "new hires" are
about 1/30th of the number of folks that Boeing laid off here in the last few
years.

Also, have you ever looked at a P&L? Wages make up about 1/5 of
total expenses.

Less than that, if you're got a clever Republican running the company. :-)

On top of that, there is a trickle down effect of the
people who work in jobs that service those 2000 people *and* the people
already working for Boeing.

That $3 billion saved your community. Without it, Everett/Mukilteo would
look like Allentown, PA when they were (to quote Billy Joel) "closing all
the factories down".

Bullshirt.

Take 1.5 billion of the same money, give it (don't even loan it) as matching
capital grants to people who have presented a *qualified* business plan for an
enterprise that will create jobs in the community and you will see far more
than 2000 jobs result, plus all the spin off jobs from suppliers, retailers,
service workers, etc.

Figure half of the enterprises go TU within
2-3 years. Still way, way, ahead of buying jobs from Boeing at $1.5mm apiece.

In a few years, when it's time to build the next plane, Boeing will come around
once again with the tin cup and demand even more concessions.

We ought to just get in bed with the Mafia.
At least they are obvious when shaking a victim down.

Everytime I bust my suspension on a pothole in the road or watch them close a
fire station or a library I can be ever so grateful that your cronies in the
Center for Business Supremacy, or whatever, think that government services
should be withheld from common people, but provided to their companies at a
newly reduced charge.


The bottom line: Those big businesses provide the lifeblood to provide
many community services. Local governments are motivated to do
whatever they can to retain those bigger businesses as they are all
too cognizant of the fact that if those businesses leave, the loss in
tax revenue will have to be made up for by the residents, in the form
of higher property and income taxes. Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't be
bribed to move.