Not based on what the article says. If the factory never would have been built in the first place, the taxes never would have been paid.

Before: 0 jobs, $0 taxes (factory doesn't exist)

After: 13,000 jobs, $100M taxes (down from $300M if no tax concessions were given, as per article)

The incentives would cost the state about $200 million a year but Foxconn's payroll in Wisconsin could reach $700 million a year, Walker's office said.

Also the $3B is the cost over a decade, not in a single year.

> If the factory never would have been built in the first place, the taxes never would have been paid.

That does not make the incentives any difference than a cash payment in exchange for building the factory.

> The incentives would cost the state about $200 million a year but Foxconn's payroll in Wisconsin could reach $700 million a year, Walker's office said

The relationship between “would” and “could” in that sentence is quite important.

I don't see it that way.

Let's create another scenario. We are family members. Whatever I earn, I give you half.

Scenario A: I never get a job, you end up with $0.

Scenario B: I get a job, but only if you agree to take 25%, not 50%. I take the job paying me $100 and you get $25.

It's not cash out of anyone's pocket.

> That does not make the incentives any difference than a cash payment in exchange for building the factory.

Sure it does. A state writing a check for, say $100 million dollars requires spending $100 million dollars (possibly borrowing it to do so). Giving $100 million dollars in tax reductions requires spending $0. The former may not be feasible, while the latter generally is, so the two are not equivalent.

Giving $100 million in tax incentives, conditioned on a specific act, requires just as much spending (or more, if the income from the cash payment itself would have been taxable) as giving a $100 million cash payment, with the same conditions, with no special tax treatment.

That people can fail to see this may explain why these deals are politically popular, though.

There is no cash payment. The alternative to not giving the tax concession is not getting any tax revenue from the company.

Now, if you wanted to complain about companies taking the tax break and not following through, I'd agree with that.

If you keep more of your money through a change in tax policy, you are suggesting that the government gave you money? I'd argue that you are keeping what was yours all along.

Being bled less isn't the same as receiving a blood donation.

> If you keep more of your money through a change in tax policy, you are suggesting that the government gave you money?

That's a complicated question in the case of generally applicable changes in tax policy, like a new tax credit available to anyone who posts on internet discussion boards.

It's a simple, straightforward “yes” when the change in tax policy only applies to me, and only for a specific action (post on HN about the Foxconn factory deal, and get $5000 of your federal income tax.)

The latter is more like a government contract (but without the competitive aspects and other controls designed to assure fairness and public value.)