Up for Debate: Corporate tax breaks

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 1:23am

Do you approve of Mayor Karl Dean's use of corporate tax breaks to spur development in Metro? Or would developments such as those planned by HCA as well as Gaylord and Dollywood have happened on their own?

137 Comments on this post:

By: Ummm... on 4/3/12 at 5:58

Local tax breaks to attract industrial development (i.e.- JOBS) are pretty easy to justify. It's the giveaways to those who don't need or deserve them (e.g. World champion polluters "Big Oil" subsidies protected by congressional Republicans at a time when their profits are soaring) that are unconscionable.

Off topic, yesterday BenDover said of Obama: "he's a lot more critical toward world powers that are, in fact, cooperating with the US than he is to world powers who hate us. Dismiss it if you will but these are facts."

Sorry, Bennie, I don't just dismiss it, I think its pure BS. If you think you have "facts" let's hear your proof, little mister.

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 6:08

I'd like to hear the rationale of keeping big oil subsidies. As much as some here whine about entitlements, how is this not one?

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 6:18

On the listed topic though, no, they wouldn't have happened on their own. Tax breaks are bargaining chips that businesses use to get a sweet deal. If Nashville doesn't offer them, someone else will. Welcome to 21st century America.

Somewhere, Gordon Gekko is smiling.

By: Loner on 4/3/12 at 6:25

Good morning, Nashville.

Do you approve of Mayor Karl Dean's use of corporate tax breaks to spur development in Metro? Or would developments such as those planned by HCA as well as Gaylord and Dollywood have happened on their own?

Just as there is a "moral hazard" in giving "money for nothing" to individuals, there is a moral hazard in doing so for corporations as well. They both get to expect the generosity and both tend to be ungrateful to the donors....and both groups tend to believe that they can't survive without the aid....and both groups have their champions in government.

So far, however, the nation's poor have not formed their own Super-PAC, like the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest corporations have done...or will do. The poor may get left in the dust of Citizens United....from now on, the Super-PACs will rule the political landscape...foreigners and foreign corporations will now be able to purchase US politicians as never before....it's wide open, baby....the entire US Federal Government is For Sale & On Sale....thanks to the Bush family's lasting legacy on the US Supreme Court....the Bush-family American screw-job will continue for many years to come.

By: Loner on 4/3/12 at 6:38

Speaking of the Bush-family legacies on the USSC, the Supremes voted 5-4 that strip searches are legal, for any offense, even if contraband is not suspected....if stopped for DUI and "booked", one can expect to be further humiliated by being stripped naked and stared at by policemen....I expect that police cameras will record these strip searches.

Let's hope that one of the 5 right-wing judges gets hauled into police HQ and strip-searched for no good reason....purloined police photos of a naked Supreme Court Justice would go viral on the internet and it would be poetic justice in action.

Your Davidson County Sheriff is happy with the decision...here's a quote from an article on the subject: Daron Hall, the president of the American Correctional Association and sheriff of Davidson County, Tenn., said the association welcomed the flexibility offered by the decision.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html

Obama will have "flexibility" after November...Daron Hall and the boys have "flexibility" right now...Yeeee Haawwww...Bend over, Ben Dover....and squeal like a right-wing pig....Daron Hall wants video of your genitalia.

By: Loner on 4/3/12 at 6:47

Spitting on the sidewalk? Strip search!

Playing a saxophone on the sidewalk? Strip search!

Caught smoking a joint? Strip search!

Violating the chickens-in-the-city ordinance? Strip search!

Food truck violation? Strip search!

Occupying Nashville? Strip search!

Bald tires? Strip search!

Loud muffler? Strip search!

Doing 43 MPH in a 30 MPH zone? Strip search!

By: Loner on 4/3/12 at 7:00

The new Police Mantra will now go out across the fruited plain...If in doubt, strip 'em out.

I'm certainly looking forward to viewing strip search police videos on those police reality shows on cable TV...maybe a show dedicated to just police strip searches could be successful?

Operation: Humiliation....tune in tonite!

By: Ummm... on 4/3/12 at 7:00

In other news, our "focused like a laser on jobs" Republican-led state legislature is once again keeping government out of your life by saving the world from the dire threat of "saggy pants." This is obviously designed to spur growth in the belt and suspenders industry.

By: dargent7 on 4/3/12 at 7:22

Why do NFL team owners (our own Bud Adams) relocate their teams and change their names? Tax breaks and incentives.
Adams didn't come to Nashville from Houston for the weather.
Naming the Oilers to the Titans was no deal breaker. For enough cash, he'd of called them a more appropriate name: The Nashville Pink Ladies".
Throw in a new stadium and the deal is done.
Whatever Karl had to give Miss Dolly to build her theme park here is worth it in the short run (jobs) and long run, tax revenue.

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 7:28

What kind of jobs are we talking here, Darge? Seasonal? Barely above minimum wage? Amusement parks are usually targeted to high school/college kids, not mainstream folks.

I'm not complaining, in this economy, any jobs are good, but let's not pretend that this is the answer for a middle-aged, college educated worker who's been unemployed for a while...

By: Kosh III on 4/3/12 at 7:48

Welfare for rich corporations should only be offered if there is a genuine ROI and the jobs to be created are in the areas most affected such as Scott County which has almost 20% unemployment. Brentwood doesn't need it.
-------------

Why are avowed conservatives not outraged over the SC decision to abolish the 4th Amendment? I just looked at the website for 3 leaders(Drughbaugh, Beck and Oreilly) plus Fox news; it's not even mentioned.

This was a shameful decision and is a giant right-wing-approved step towards Fascism.

By: dargent7 on 4/3/12 at 7:52

gD: Building Dollywood is going to take a year. So, construction. Then you have, like you said, minimum wage jobs as employees, that's something (full benefits), but consessions, etc. employ older folks. I've never been to Pigeon Forge's Dolly so don't know the set up. Beer sales?
I'm sure the Corp. has to pay the city some tax as they yearly operate.

By: Rasputin72 on 4/3/12 at 7:54

The name of the game today is "tax breaks for companies bringing jobs." If Nashville does not do it some other city or county will. It is truly a farce for every city or county but without it Nashville and their political hacks will get none.

I strongly suggest that any family making less than $150,000 dollars a year move to another county. Davidson County has nothing here for you.

By: yogiman on 4/3/12 at 7:56

Well Kosh III, you should enjoy youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 8:04

Darge, you are making my argument. Our economy is increasingly white collar. This only temporarily benefits blue collar jobs and seasonal employees. It doesn't seem like a long-term solution.

I'd be more excited if manufacturing were coming. Again, don't get me wrong, any jobs are nice, but Nashville should think about something more than tourism all the time.

By: BigPapa on 4/3/12 at 8:10

Honestly I do not know where I stand on this issue. Purely on a moral note I think it's wrong. However in reality the competition for jobs and BIG employers and big industries is so fierce I don't blame governments for doing any and everything to attract those business to their states and communities.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/3/12 at 8:11

Moonglow1: Haslam plans to sign the creationism bill. Monkeys are back in business in TN. Speaking of monkey business, corporate America is Corporation USA, Inc. So tax breaks whatever. They hire a team of high priced lobbyists to get whatever they want. Corporate America, the benevolent entity bringing you the minimum wage jobs.

Corporations are suffering so all they can offer are the minimum wage jobs. After all, the CEOs need the money for their million dollar stock options, half mil salaries and private jets. Corporate USA needs that multi-million slush fund to manipulate elections and hire more lobbyists so they can dump toxic sludge in your back yard. So what if you die of cancer. One less minimum wage mouth to hire. So yeah, give em a tax break. Why not. It's a game. A charade. They own the USA. Minimum Wage Jobs whatever-brought to you by your favorite Corporation.

P. S. In Today's Business Journal, it was noted that small business lending was almost non-existent recently. The multinational corporations are making sure The Little People get nothing. Nope-dont you dare start a business. You don't belong in the America, Inc. Club.

By: Kosh III on 4/3/12 at 8:11

Yogi, you truly have a sick obsession. That youtube thing has NOTHING to do with what I said. The topic is corporate welfare, not Obama being a member of the oldest Christian denomination in the US.

By: slacker on 4/3/12 at 8:16

Dolly said: ''its her gift to Nashville'' minus the 60% tax break for 12 yrs.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/3/12 at 8:18

Moonglow1: Loner, speaking of Sheriff Hall who was previously employed at CCA, I hear he may make a run for Governor probably after Dean's term.

I read the American Correctional Association is a very powerful lobbying group. They want those jails and prisons filled.

Strip searches-oh yeah, strip search half the TN legislators-the dunk driver who initiated the Guns N Bars law or Hawks, the wife beater. There are so many to choose from.

By: dargent7 on 4/3/12 at 8:29

The Music City Convention Center is only providing "temp" jobs to build it. Then employ 1,000, full time. Mainly 25-40 year olds.
I'm 48 an nobody wants a 48 year old "Bell Captain", waiter.. Maybe bartender.
If you go to any and all of the bars in Dtw. the waitstaff and bartenders are 25.
Nashville isn't Maui, but still a tourist destination.

By: yogiman on 4/3/12 at 8:29

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Kosh III, NCP issues a subject and there has been times when I haven't see one post on the subject they offered.

And many other times you may get one or two posts on NCP's subject then it's 'Katie bar the door.'

So, to change the subject ... again, what do you think of Obama's remarks to the "unelected" Supreme Court about the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law?

He said he was confident they would uphold the law and reminded them they were appointed, not elected, to the court.

And in a highly combative salvo, he made it known he is a staunch defender of his law that all Americans buy health insurance... whether they want it or not.

By: BenDover on 4/3/12 at 8:37

Evil Exxon makes about 2 cents per gallon of gasoline in profit. Taxes on that same gallon average around 48 cents. To me, 2 cents per gallon is a small price to pay to assure that there's fuel in those pumps when I pull in to fill up my truck.

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/

By: yogiman on 4/3/12 at 8:40

You're right on one issue, Kosh III, I do have an obsession against your beloved usurper in the Oval Office.

And speaking of my obsession to get him out of that office, I must say you have an obsession of idiocy in wanting him there. How can a person with reasonable sense of intellect want someone in the highest office in our nation when they don't even know his name? And especially one who is willing to spend millions to keep his identity secret.

Doesn't that even make you wonder, Kosh III?

By: BigPapa on 4/3/12 at 8:49

For those staunchly against giving any corporate tax breaks put yourself in the seat of the governor or mayor.

A major corporation comes to you and says it will be willing to relocate to your city. It will bring not only professional corporate jobs but also lower end jobs, however they want big tax breaks. How do you say no to that?

How do you justify your position to the voters?

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 8:51

Ignore the troll

Ben, you're avoiding the issue. The issue is should big oil keep receiving entitlements. It seems to me that subsidies, if given, should be for industries that are struggling. Does big oil qualify?

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 8:54

I understand that position, papa. And if you see a major corporation and/or manufacturing company come to Nashville, be sure and let me know...

If you see the city government promoting business in places other than Opryland or downtown, you be sure and let me know.

There's a reason more corporate headquarters are located in Williamson County and manufacturing located in Spring Hill or Smyrna.

By: BenDover on 4/3/12 at 9:09

Oil just like any other industry gets tax breaks in order to help induce certain behavior. Obama's just pulling this bogus legislation out to try to transfer blame for his horrendous energy policy to the oil companies. The net effect of taking away some of the tax incentives will be to just de-patriate more operations to countries who are not so punitive; and to increase the cost of a gallon of gas at a time when we are already poised for $5 a gallon when they switch to the summer blends. Ironically it's Obama who is again all hat and no cattle; but that's OK he's got the media whirling his spin machine at mach 3... so his approval won't suffer.

What's interesting to me is how many people bite on the idea that sticking it to someone else is going to make it better for them. It's just an ignorant zero sum mentality that doesn't realize that hammering 'big oil' is just going to add to an inescapable and even more regressive tax on the consumers... many of whom can least afford it.

By: BigPapa on 4/3/12 at 9:12

You dont think Nissan was given concessions from Williamson Co? You think Smyrna or Spring Hill played that straight up?

By: bfra on 4/3/12 at 9:13

Ben - If Obama was giving away free gas, you & yogi would find some inane objection for that, also.

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 9:14

So, in other words, big oil is holding taxpayers hostage and it's best to just let them run amuck. That's a sound energy policy.

I wonder what the net loss would be for big oil if they were to lose the subsidies. I can only hope they can survive on hundreds of millions in profit rather than billions.

By: BenDover on 4/3/12 at 9:14

Government can't give to one person without taking away from another bfra. That's the point.

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 9:15

Yes, I do, Papa, and I thought I made it clear that I understand that position. My comment was that Nashville, even though it does offer tax incentives, can't compete with outlying counties anyway.

By: yogiman on 4/3/12 at 9:15

You can say "ignore the troll" all your little heart desires, gdiafante. Especially if you're so ignorant of an unknown man sitting in our nation's highest office and aren't interested in knowing who he is and what his intentions are.

How can it be you are more interested in companies moving to Nashville on a tax gimmick but have no interest in a man sitting in the highest office of our nation who refuses to identify himself as he is making his moves to take the nation over?

This whole situation can only be happening because he knows he's in that office illegally and ignorant citizens are letting it happen. And even if he, in fact, received a majority of the popular votes, I presume you should know you cannot win a vote if you aren't legally eligible to be on a ballot.

By: slacker on 4/3/12 at 9:17

Less govt. means less giving to one person, and taking away from another?

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 9:19

There's the fallacy in your argument, Ben. You don't mind robbing Peter to pay Paul if you happen to be Paul. Stealing is illegal and it should apply to Exxon or a welfare queen.

You can cease any budget talk, now. You're not serious about spending and/or entitlements.

By: slacker on 4/3/12 at 9:20

Nashville has to feed the entertainment beast. Other than the ''old money in Nashville, the majority of high earners live in adjoining counties.

By: BenDover on 4/3/12 at 9:21

I just pointed out that they are making about 2 cents a gallon in profit, gd. That's a very small price to pay for the service rendered if you ask me.

Oil's at least as complicated as a pencil, I would say.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

By: yogiman on 4/3/12 at 9:24

You're right on one thing, bfra. I'm against a illegal occupnat in the Oval Office being there regardless of what he does, whether it's in your favor or not.

Unlike your acceptance of anyone in office regardless that you don't know if they're there legally or not, I prefer and demand only legal occupants in office.

By: Ummm... on 4/3/12 at 9:26

Bennie says: "Government can't give to one person without taking away from another bfra."

We finally agree Bennie- Bush gave the military over a trillion dollars from the treasury to fight his unjustified wars (Iraq was supposed to "pay for itself," by the way) and took any chance of sustaining a decent economy away from the average American. Maybe you aren't completely clueless after all.

By: Ummm... on 4/3/12 at 9:34

Two cents a gallon is a misleading assertion Bennie-boy. In 2011, BP's profits were up 114% over 2010, Shell's up 54%, Chevron's up 42%, and the higher crude prices go, the bigger their profits become. I'm just wondering, how much kool-aid do you have to drink to be able to defend mega-corporations' bilking of the taxpayers? Must be a lot...

By: BenDover on 4/3/12 at 9:34

Well Bush's costs were a one time expense Ummm based on a decision to enter the wars by bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and strongly supported by the democratic leadership at the time.

What do you have to say about Obama running $1,400,000,000,000 in year over year deficits with no end in sight while these one time costs of Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down?

By: Loner on 4/3/12 at 9:41

With their armies of tax accountants and tax lawyers, I am surprised that Exxon shows any net profit at all on a gallon of gasoline...it's the old shell game....look at the gross, not the net...the "net" is a highly manipulated figure.

By: BenDover on 4/3/12 at 9:46

2 cents a gallon in profit compared to the 48 cents in taxes is the view that offers perspective about who is demagoguing on the issue.

By: BigPapa on 4/3/12 at 9:52

The discussion of Nashville vs out lying counties is a different conversation. The overall issue of providing tax incentives in order to attract businesses to a state, county or city is another.

Is it fair to offer Dollywood, Nissan, GM or Dell special offers in order to get them here while you tax the h ell outta the guy running a small business?

By: Ummm... on 4/3/12 at 9:55

When discussing Bush's idiotic wars, all the Teapublicans (including Bennie) shout, "But the Democrats supported them, too," as if presidential leadership after 9/11 was "by Democratic consent only." Methinks they should take discredit where discredit is due.

By: BenDover on 4/3/12 at 9:57

The master of that manipulation is GE loner. If the US would bring its rates down to what the rest of the civilized world is using then we could abandon all of these non-value-added machinations and cronyistic exemptions and then focus on producing goods rather than pushing paper.

By: Loner on 4/3/12 at 9:59

Bipartisan majorities to go to war, Ben?

True, 29 Democrats, mostly Zionist Jews, joined the neocons in voting to give Bush & Cheney authorization to strike Iraq...but Bush hit Afghanistan so fast and hard after 9-11-01 that I don't think anybody bothered to get the usual fig-leaf of authorization from the US Congress...the nation was mad with anger in the days following 9-11 and the neocons worked the masses like dumb asses....For the Iraq invasion, however, it took false WMD claims, MSM jingoism and phony Israeli intel to get the Dems to join in with the neocons on the Iraq War decision.

That "one time expense" is now over 1.3 trillion and rising...no end in site...check it out here:

costofwar.com/en/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html

A trillion is a thousand million and a million is a thousand thousand....for those who were educated in the Bible-believing, Christ-centered schools. That figure is almost beyond comprehension....and the Republican Party is largely responsible for that incredible waste of time, troops & treasure...and now we have a chicken-hawk draft-dodging Mormon, who would be US Commander-In-Chief, (and submissive vassal to the Israeli PM), apparently representing the Republican choice in November....Mitt Romney is the best that the GOP has to offer....pitiable!

By: BenDover on 4/3/12 at 10:03

I still don't think it was a bad decision, Ummm... we would have been irresponsible not to have taken out Saddam given the information at hand. The fact that some of the justifications turned out to be bad intel. doesn't make taking Saddam out wrong. The Dems. fleeing the cause for political expedience and undermining the efforts is a bit disgraceful; but W had big enough shoulders to carry us through instead of abandoning Iraq, as Obama championed, to certain civil war and chaos.

By: gdiafante on 4/3/12 at 10:05

No, it's not Papa. Taxpayers are overly critical regarding Metro because they're losing out on companies. Case in point: Nissan's HQ. This requires metro to sweeten the offers even further and all they can attract is tourism. I don't think people would mind so much if Nashville were actually competitive with other industries.

Who wouldn't rather see a solid manufacterer come to Antioch rather than a snow park in Opryland?