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

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

VAtrainfan

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
256
Location
Portsmouth, VA
Hey, that is big money...can't blame businesses for doing what's in their best interest....
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 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.
 
Once you pay "protection money", there is no end to it....
default_wink.png
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Back
Top