Boeing Bribes Better

[Grace62]

Those companies? Which companies are you referring to?
BMW, Mercedes, what? They all have made long term investments in the US. They have not delivered the promised number of jobs. I'm not aware of any consequences, are you?

I don't "trust" Boeing more than EADS, I am looking at data. It's not clear what you're looking at.

[Grace62]

Wondering if it's just all dandy to have foreign investment in the US, especially the way it's been done in southern states? Have a look at this, written in '99, about BMW, which has continued to expand in the area AND continues not to pay taxes. SC and other states give away the store, do nothing to make these businesses pay a fair share in exchange for the profits they earn, nothing to support their crumbling schools and infrastructure, in exchange for relatively low wage non-union jobs:


"The company, which has assembled luxury cars in Greer, S.C., since 1994, is the state's most famous business trophy and the subject of much political pride. But in many ways it is a typical recipient of South Carolina's business largess.

BMW Group earned worldwide profits of about $500 million in 1998. Its publicly traded stock has doubled since it opened its South Carolina plant.

But, thanks to incentives, BMW's South Carolina plant has escaped millions of dollars in taxes and costs that industrial companies expect to pay in developed nations.

BMW paid only $1.4 million in state taxes of all kinds in 1998 and $6.7 million in local taxes, mostly building and equipment taxes to one small school district. Together, that's less than 2 percent of what the company paid in worldwide taxes for the year.

Government giveaways permeate BMW's finances.

South Carolina taxpayers spent $40 million on a runway for BMW's planes. They furnished millions more for BMW worker "training," including whitewater rafting trips for BMW executives. The company pays $1 a year to lease its $36 million piece of land. It pays no land tax to Spartanburg County. Building and equipment tax on the first phase of BMW's plant is 43 percent lower than what established businesses have to pay. Tax discounts on BMW's second phase are even bigger -- 62 percent -- even though the expansion couldn't have been built anywhere but Greer.

BMW has never paid South Carolina's 5 percent tax on corporate profits and shows no signs of doing so for years. Start-up and depreciation costs will delay profitability "until early in the next century," said BMW spokesman Bobby Hitt. But even then, tens of millions of dollars in incentive credits will keep BMW immune to income taxes for much longer.

BMW uses as many services as other companies. Its 2,500 employees have just as many school-age children as workers at other businesses. Its trucks wear down South Carolina's roads just as much as other companies' trucks. Thanks to the incentives war between the states, however, BMW has been able to carve its own special deal, a deal shielding it from obligations for other services that most South Carolina companies accept as the cost of doing business.

But it isn't just luxury-car manufacturers that are getting lucrative incentives in South Carolina. Unlike some states, which have spent heavily on auto plants but limited handouts for lesser operations, South Carolina has invited hundreds of businesses to sup at the incentives trough.

"It's a feeding frenzy," said Mat Self, chairman of Greenwood Mills, a big, historic textile company in the center of the state. "Not only do you have the state doing incentives, but you've got localities and services doing it. What are the infrastructure needs that are not being funded?"

Sweetheart tax codes

More than 200 companies have won property-tax discounts similar to BMW's from South Carolina cities and counties -- although the state doesn't know the exact number; it didn't track the deals until 1997."

[Carnos Jax]

So are you saying EADS doesn't care about its long term business in the U.S., and was just looking to blow its wad on this one deal? BMW, Mercedes, et. al. weren't looking to break into a new market by promising to create jobs in said market, so none of the tenants of your argument apply...your data appears to be inappropriate.

P. S. - I just noticed your last post. Now those may be valid arguments. But notice, Boeing's been resorting to such practices too. What is it doing assembling the 787 in South (North?) Carolina if it has under used capacity in Washington and Kansas? Why is Beechcraft getting to keep their employees state income tax (instead of giving it to Kansas)? To me, I'm seeing less and less difference in foreign companies and domestic ones.

[Grace62]

Uh, BMW and Mercedes had NO manufacturing base in North America when they opened plants in SC and AL. Are you under the impression that no EADS products are currently purchased by American companies? So the US would be "new" market for them? That's not true, of course. US airlines fly Airbuses, do they not?

I find this discussion rather pointless. You cannot show anything to back up this "EADS will provide 50,000 US jobs claim."
Maybe another commenter will help you.

[Carnos Jax]

No one said they had a manufacturing base before hand. What I said is they weren't using the promise of a manufacturing base as incentive to a new customer market in order to gain (or neutralize) an advantage that it's competitor had (BMW was already a statistically significant player in their particular segment of the U.S. market).

I'm sorry you feel this way. You seem to be blind to much of the issue, losing the forest for the trees. It's as if you've adopted a tribal mentality and are incapable of looking at this in an unbiased manner.

BTW...we're talking about the defense market, in which they're a tiny player.

[Mac1337]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
And what if they don't? It is a lot easier to keep Boeing's feet to the fire than some French company.

Lord knows you can't trust those cheese eating freedom hating surrender monkeys!!
Funny how many red staters were dying to go to work for them when some Euros (oops, dollars) where dangled in front of them. Amazing what a few years can do.
Do you realize you are arguing with yourself?

[Carnos Jax]

[Grace62]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=Dakota]
And what if they don't? It is a lot easier to keep Boeing's feet to the fire than some French company.

Lord knows you can't trust those cheese eating freedom hating surrender monkeys!!
Funny how many red staters were dying to go to work for them when some Euros (oops, dollars) where dangled in front of them. Amazing what a few years can do.
Do you realize you are arguing with yourself?
Do you realize you always say that when you lack for a comeback?

[Uncle Wig]

Unfortunately, the ones who are getting screwed here are the men and women who will crew this new tanker, and the pilots who will rely on it for refueling.

The EADS proposal is (was) considerably more capable and modern than the Boeing proposal. The Air Force preferred this twice before.

While I am glad to see an American company get the contract, it bothers me that the Air Force is not getting the best airplane. And it really bothers me that Boeing was unable to come up with an airplane that is better than the competition.

[Mac1337]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=Dakota]
And what if they don't? It is a lot easier to keep Boeing's feet to the fire than some French company.

Lord knows you can't trust those cheese eating freedom hating surrender monkeys!!
Funny how many red staters were dying to go to work for them when some Euros (oops, dollars) where dangled in front of them. Amazing what a few years can do.
Do you realize you are arguing with yourself?
Do you realize you always say that when you lack for a comeback?
You are arguing against giving the contract to France with CJ then turn around and defend them with me, which happen to be on your side? You need some fresh air, woman.