But that same welfare could be used other ways to create jobs. For example infrastructure jobs. Go spend $200m upgrading the state's infrastructure, that will require many jobs.

Or heck go start a startup incubator program. I bet you can get a lot of value out of that even if just to help new businesses cover the cost of a business license and to navigate employment law for their first few employees.

There's a bunch of ways to create jobs with a boat load of money, giving it to a corporation that barely pays taxes as is is not one of the better ways.

GE creates lots of middle-class jobs. Startups create very few jobs in comparison, the jobs they do create are often out of reach of ordinary people, and many startups probably destroy jobs on net by automating-away things that previously took human labor without growing the demand side of the equation.

To be fair, infrastructure jobs are almost all temporary while GE will generally provide permanent and higher quality positions. The incubator might be a better general idea, but I'm not sure Boston is the best city to take advantage of that considering that many of the region's colleges end up promoting local entrepreneurship in their own ways.

> a corporation that barely pays taxes

I'm unsure how this really matters in regards to GE HQ relocation?

They pay 100% of the taxes they are legally obligated to pay - if you're unhappy with that amount, change the laws. But lets not pretend they're an evil corporation solely on the grounds of them not paying more taxes.

It's not somehow patriotic to pay more in taxes than you legally owe.

> if you're unhappy with that amount, change the laws.

That's what they tried to do so GE left the state...

> It's not somehow patriotic to pay more in taxes than you legally owe.

But they go one step further, they actually dodge taxes they're meant to legally owe using loopholes.

If GE paid the same proportional taxes as a locally owned sandwich shop I'd be happy.

> That's what they tried to do so GE left the state

This is what happens when states and nations have ridiculous tax laws and rates. People and corporations leave. If anything, we should be advocating CT fix their corporate tax laws, because it's costing them tax revenue.

> dodge taxes they're meant to legally owe using loopholes

That's the law you are describing. These so-called "loopholes" are parts of the tax code specifically inserted to allow people (and corporations) the ability to reduce their annual tax liability. Nobody (and no corporation) does any wrong by using the law to their advantage.

Change the law (remove the loopholes) if it's upsetting. Otherwise, they're doing things the right way.

I was moved by GE's patriotism when they realized they would have to dredge the PCB pollution dumped in the Hudson River -- then promptly lobbied for a retroactive tax cut to fund it.

Well, consider regulatory capture. In such an environment your view is incorrect. I believe we are in such an environment.

> regulatory capture ... I believe we are in such an environment

I think we'll have to disagree on this. I don't see any signs or evidence that Boston politicians are cozying up with GE executives for kick-backs and what-not.

I don't either. I do see evidence of business interests ensuring that the effective tax rate on corporate profits is quite a bit lower than the nominal rate and that this fact will not change regardless of voter preferences.

I’m not defending this deal, but: I don’t think $200m buys as much infrastructure as you might think

8.2% of a Big Dig, for instance.

More like 1%... http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/12/7-things-that-cost-less-than-...

Off by a factor of 10. And I thought $2b was a significant cost for moving a freeway....

Yeah, $200m doesn't seem to go very far on infrastructure these days. Didn't the SF Bay Bridge come in around $10bn?

more like <1% of a Big Dig