SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The lawmakers in Wisconsin voted in favor of an incentives package worth up to $3B for Foxconn. The total value of the package depends on the number of jobs that Foxconn creates in the state, so, effectively, the state is paying about $500,000 for each new job.
Most of the incentive is in the form of cash payments from the state to Foxconn, not just tax waivers. The cost to the residents of the state is about $1,200 per household.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wisconsin Lawmakers Vote to Provide up to $3B in Subsidies to Foxconn.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 53 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Revenge is a meal best served cold.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:18AM (6 children)
There are often things that I say boggle my mind, but this really takes the cake in mind-boggling territory. These are the same people who cry that any increase in the minimum wage will destroy America. These are the same people who say that we can't afford to feed hungry children in American schools. These are the same people who say that America couldn't possibly move to tax-funded universal health care, even though it would actually cost significantly less for the average American versus the ridiculous rates we pay to the health insurance companies. Yet they are willing to _pay_ a private corporation half a million dollars in cash money for every job they create. What type of math is this? I don't remember learning this in school. How the hell could, at best, a few hundred minimum-wage jobs be worth that kind of waste of taxpayer funds? They'd be better off just taking that $3B and writing a $1,000 check to 3 million low-income Wisconsins.
How this is not simply called corruption is beyond me.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 1) by Virindi on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:45AM
What if I don't want to pay for any of these things?
Just because our elected officials make a mockery of our principles does not mean those principles are inherently invalid.
Corrupt payouts come from both sides of the aisle. Often the beneficiaries are even the same.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:51AM (4 children)
"How this is not simply called corruption is beyond me."
This.
The population of Wisconsin is under 6 million, so this is $500 per person, or maybe $2000 per family. If you took a vote, the chances that the majority of voters would approve this? Need we ask? The state would be economically better off, if they reduced state taxes by this amount.
I really hope someone will dig into the money trail. It's a sure bet that some of this money is flowing back to the politicians through campaign donations, or perhaps even more direct routes. It would be really nice to see some jail time, if not for corruption, at least for malfeasance.
It's so easy, to spend other people's money. Especially when some of it lands in your own pocket.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday August 20 2017, @05:41PM (3 children)
The population of Wisconsin is under 6 million, so this is $500 per person, or maybe $2000 per family. If you took a vote, the chances that the majority of voters would approve this? Need we ask? The state would be economically better off, if they reduced state taxes by this amount.
They DID take a vote. The people voted for representatives and a governor who champion this. The people (a majority of them at any rate) are getting exactly what they voted for.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:18PM (1 child)
Campaigns are not single-issue, I don't believe the option on the ballot was "let's just give corporations money". Maybe voters were afraid of the gayification that a Democratic administration would bring, so they voted GOP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @07:26AM
Exactly. Just because people voted for someone in a two party system that encourages voting for who you see as the lesser evil does not mean they agree with all of their policies. General mandates do not exist and I am tired of seeing people pretend otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @11:25PM
A vote marred by unlawful gerrymandering (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533519165/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-wisconsin-gerrymandering-case). The GOP should not have the dominance in the state house that they do.