Re:Memo: Foxconn cost to Wisconsin nearing $4.5B
by lr4444lr on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @08:19AM
(#16167624)
Actually, you arguably shrank it if the new lower salaries both render the receivers eligible for a greater share of public benefits while subjecting them to lower marginal tax rates.
Re:Memo: Foxconn cost to Wisconsin nearing $4.5B
by bb88 on Friday January 19, 2018 @12:52AM
(#16184396)
Yeah that's a good point, but that also means there's more rent being paid, more food being bought. So it's probably at best a wash.
Re:Memo: Foxconn cost to Wisconsin nearing $4.5B
by coolaliasbro on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @08:58AM
(#16167882)
> I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain.
Agreed. And when the businesses receiving these credits are primarily "creating" low-paying service sector positions, the picture is even more bleak.
Re:Memo: Foxconn cost to Wisconsin nearing $4.5B
by masklinn on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @07:35AM
(#16167365)
> Did I create a job? Yes. Did I grow the economy? Doubtful.
Probably depends on the salary range(s) involved and how deep into "mostly discretionary income" the original employee was (and, I guess, how much they spent v stashed that discretionary income).
I always thought tax credits for businesses were more related to numbers rackets than to actual economic gain.
Here's a thought experiment:
I take one person from my company, fire him, and split the job into two people. Both get paid less than half of the original guy I fired. Yet one of the keeps the old title. Did I create a job? Yes. Did I grow the economy? Doubtful.
While splitting one job into two seems far fetched, it's not that far fetched to split 8 jobs into 10, say.