Jump to content
VAtrainfan

Norfolk Mayor: NS decision to move HQ to Atlanta "imminent"

Recommended Posts

This has been coming for some time apparently, but Norfolk Mayor Kenny Alexander today told reporters that the city's counter offers to keep Norfolk Southern's headquarters in Norfolk have fallen on deaf ears and the railroad is intent on moving to Atlanta, and that the city of Atlanta is close to approving a $1.75B tax incentive deal.

 

https://pilotonline.com/business/ports-rail/article_9a1a3842-c71f-11e8-87b9-6b6829282ae5.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

and that the city of Atlanta is close to approving a $1.75B tax incentive deal.

[rolls eyes] Here we go again with cities offering absolutely massive tax incentives just to get multi-billion dollar companies to put their headquarters there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine whats going on behind the Scenes with the New Amazon Headquarters hustle??!!!🤔😥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, that is big money...can't blame businesses for doing what's in their best interest....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, that is big money...can't blame businesses for doing what's in their best interest....

True, but you can blame cities and states for choosing to lose out on billions of dollars in tax revenue on something which really is not in their best interest.

Edited by cpotisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is more complicated than it is being suggested, and I don’t know how the whole picture looks. It is arguably reasonable to forego some tax revenue to seriously enlarge your tax base. The devil is in the details in each case as to whether net net the taxing region comes out ahead over a reasonable period of time, say 15-30 years. So I think an unequivocal claim that in all cases such deals are detrimental is relatively baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is more complicated than it is being suggested, and I don’t know how the whole picture looks. It is arguably reasonable to forego some tax revenue to seriously enlarge your tax base. The devil is in the details in each case as to whether net net the taxing region comes out ahead over a reasonable period of time, say 15-30 years. So I think an unequivocal claim that in all cases such deals are detrimental is relatively baseless.

I agree that the devil is in the details, and I didn't mean to make an umbrella statement about all tax incentives. However, all too many of them are unnecessary and detrimental, and in those cases it is fair to say criticize them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it is more complicated than it is being suggested, and I don’t know how the whole picture looks. It is arguably reasonable to forego some tax revenue to seriously enlarge your tax base. The devil is in the details in each case as to whether net net the taxing region comes out ahead over a reasonable period of time, say 15-30 years. So I think an unequivocal claim that in all cases such deals are detrimental is relatively baseless.

I agree that the devil is in the details, and I didn't mean to make an umbrella statement about all tax incentives. However, all too many of them are unnecessary and detrimental, and in those cases it is fair to say criticize them.
My main concern is that all too often I have found that those who criticize have no more clue than I do about the overall picture and the necessity or lack thereof. It comes often from a doctrinaire political position rather than based on demonstrable facts. Edited by jis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is more complicated than it is being suggested, and I don’t know how the whole picture looks. It is arguably reasonable to forego some tax revenue to seriously enlarge your tax base. The devil is in the details in each case as to whether net net the taxing region comes out ahead over a reasonable period of time, say 15-30 years. So I think an unequivocal claim that in all cases such deals are detrimental is relatively baseless.

The real problem I have with Atlanta throwing 1.75 billion at NS is that they might not see the massive expansion in tax revenue. A lot of these new employees will probably live in the suburbs and spend a majority of their money there. It would make more sense if there was regional incentives too, but that article made it sound like it was City incentives only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×