I'm sorry I don't understand your argument at all. These are new tax breaks. So my argument is that these new tax breaks are taking money from the general public and giving the money in the form of tax breaks to specific corporations. There is no assumption that I know of accept maybe that the businesses would accept the tax breaks and not give the money back to Wisconsin. Thanks for your comments.

ECT: These are new tax breaks. So my argument is that these new tax breaks are taking money from the general public and giving the money in the form of tax breaks to specific corporations. There is no assumption…” The assumption is that the government had the money at the beginning. It’s like a business deciding against placing a product on sale because they would lose money. However, if they never discounted the product price they may not make any money. If a business, Big Box Mart, moved from Illinois to Wisconsin, The government is not losing money because there was no money to begin with. Moreover, the government collects taxes in a variety of ways [sales tax, cigarette tax, fees, employment taxes, etc] just like no discount sale, may mean no money, period. None of the other tax money would have been available to the government if Big Box Mart wasn’t enticed by a government discount. ECT: There is no assumption that I know of accept maybe that the businesses would accept the tax breaks and not give the money back to Wisconsin. As I stated, your thinking is too narrow. The state has many hands in a business’ pocket.

ECT: I'm sorry I don't understand your argument at all. Again, consider my example: Person A, Sam, earns 10,000 dollars from his business. How much belongs to the “general public?” [I would prefer “government” because much of the money spent does not benefit everyone, the general public, equally. For example, a childless 50 year old man does not benefit as much from school taxes as the single mother of 3 teenagers and most people don’t benefit from government subsidies for sports stadiums]. The tax man cannot make him wealthier, which I would consider the common definition of “enriching.” [The exception would be a negative income tax such as the earned income tax credit which doesn’t apply to this situation.] The tax man can only impoverish the individual, decrease his wealth [except for the EITC] Shuttle bin states that a person should consider himself wealthier if the government decides to take 4,000 instead of 8,000. Either way, basic math places taxes in the loss column.

This is a glass is half full/half empty argument. Conservatives like to start from that blank slate. Just as you mentioned, the government did not have the money in the beginning. But, then again, I'm not sure that's correct. If we go back in time to the 1850s and 1860s when our current economy really started to get rolling and start again established. States do not hand out incentives to entice corporations. Corporations move to a particular location for a variety of reasons including proximity to a navigable waterway. Then, as time goes on, railroads are built and more companies come and go. States began levying taxes in a variety of ways. Corporations decide what to do, whether to stay or whether to go. World wars come. A Great Depression comes and this ushers in the era of progressivism. This state can be an agent of good. Taxes can be used to influence business practices. Taxes can be used to promote practices that "help the general public." In the late 1970s and 1980s, Ronald Reagan ushers in this current era of conservatism. Conservative ideals flourish. The government is evil. Taxes are bad. There's no tax cut or tax break that should not be tried and implemented. This is where we are. This is the starting place where Scott Walker finds himself. It is not in some nebulous place where the government doesn't have any money. It is not in some time capsule where there aren't any government revenues. This is where we are. Corporations within the state of Wisconsin, if they're complying with the law, are paying state taxes. For corporations that want to move to Wisconsin, Scott Walker has proposed and passed a law which will give them a break in their taxes. This means that they will have less of the tax burden. So, to use your example, Sam moves his business into Wisconsin and makes $1 million in his first year. For argument sake, his tax burden is 20% of his total income or $200,000. Sam would be expected to pay $200,000 to the state of Wisconsin. But, fortunately for Sam, Scott Walker has implemented his tax breaks. Sam gets to keep an additional $100,000. Now, we can quibble over whether this is enriching Sam or not. The bottom line is Sam gets to keep an extra hundred thousand dollars. This is money that could be going to help failing schools, pave roads or give police and firemen a much-needed raise. Instead, the governor and other Republicans have decided that that money is best spent by returning it to Sam. I would disagree. But, in a nutshell, this is what is happening. I think we can all agree on that. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Sorry Allison able to get back you earlier but work is been a killer. (No pun intended)

Tax cuts 'enrich' in that they allow you to keep more of the money you earn (or realize from investments; not all money is 'earned' in the traditional ' 9-5 ' way). If I didn't have to pay any taxes, my take home pay would be higher, thus, more money for me. Now, in my case, we're not talking big bucks here ,but paying less in taxes (i.e., keeping more of the money instead of sending it to the government) on several million dollars or so? Yeah, that adds up to a pretty significant amount of money. I'd even say 'enrich' - ingly significant. So, it does appear to a lot of us that Person A (Walker) is adding to the wealth of persons B. Basic math kinda shows why it is that Wisconsin loses money due to tax breaks; if I keep more, that's less for you. Period. Since the government now has less money (those taxes you didn't pay but kept for yourself), certain services that the government provides will now have to be cut back because there's no money to pay for them: teachers, firemen, policemen, librarians, health care providers, social workers, and people that are employed in positions that help serve society's more fragile citizens are all at risk of being cut loose by the budget axe, and it will be those who can least afford it who will bear the cost of these tax cuts. Jobs will disappear, salaries will go down, and everyone will feel the loss of public services that keep us safe and enhance our quality of life (trash collection, for one thing, comes to mind :-). What Walker is doing is unconscionable. I hope someone in that state raises the prospect of impeaching him, or recalling him, or whatever they do to governors....

Shuttle Bin: Basic math kinda shows why it is that Wisconsin loses money due to tax breaks; if I keep more, that's less for you Basic math also shows that something is more than nothing. If Wisconsin loses businesses because of their tax policy then they lose much more money (corporate tax, sales taxes, fees, employment taxes, workman’s comp, unemployment) than a business deciding to stay because of a tax break. Similarly, if a tax break attracts a new business, Wisconsin gets much more money even with the tax cut (something better than nothing rule). PS: Impeachment is a legal remedy for a criminal act. You may not like his policy but nothing appears illegal. Recall may be a political solution or waiting for the next election.

You make a valid point. Unfortunately, nothing can also be made to look like something, or at least look like more than it is. Most large companies have become quite adept at exploiting every loophole in the tax system they can find or create, so what looks like it should be something in the form of corporate, sales and employment taxes, workmen's comp and all that other, turns out to be, perhaps not nothing, but nowhere near the substantial something it was made out to be. To me, the heart of the matter is not what should be, but what actually is. State and local governments are facing almost unprecedented shorfalls in revenue; any and all tax cuts diminish that revenue even further, which again, jeopardizes the jobs of vital personnel and the services they provide. There is no way this is a good thing for most of us, and while I kinda get your point, I just can't agree with you if you are holding that these tax cuts are in any way warranted or deserved; they are not, and the cost that the poor and the middle class will pay far outweigh any benefit at all that might be gained by extending additional favor to the corporations who have shipped so many of our jobs overseas, the banks and other financial institutions that drove us to the brink of disaster, and the companies that have hoarded so much cash (MY taxpayer bail-out cash) since 2008 that it now amounts into the billions.

I don’t believe that you would confuse price cuts with revenue cuts (sales can increase revenue) or price increases with revenue increase. Don’t confuse tax cuts with revenue cuts. The point of my something is better than nothing is that cities and states compete for taxpayers like businesses compete for customers. Taxes aren’t the only factor but they are important. Business and individual taxpayers can be attracted or repel by the tax structure. Read this article on Detroit, basket case numero uno. Despite increased tax rates the tax income has been decreasing. Detroit has a lot of expensive nothing these days. http://www.freep.com/article/20110102/COL33/101020437/1336/OPINION/Detroit-must-jettison-its-losing-tax-scheme

The article makes it plain that taxes have risen to untenable levels in an attempt, gone awry, to make up for the loss of revenue caused by a population exodus. The article does not state anywhere that the large numbers of people moving out of the city were motivated by high taxes alone. While the article does indeed, quite admirably illustrate your point about price cuts / increases and their relation to revenue, it is only tangentially related to the point of the original post, which was that Person A (Walker) is adding to the wealth of persons B at the expense of the of the poor and middle - class, and damn the cost. We are not going to agree on this subject, so I'ma go on ahead and keep it movin' so that we don't end up in some futile discussion about things that continue to take us further and further away from what's important here. I come here fairly often, so maybe we'll have a chance to exchange ideas some other time on some other topic.

Hey TCB, good to hear from you as always - From http://www.fox6now.com/news/politics/witi-20110131-walker-tax-bill,0,6398564.story - Even though the tax cut bill he signed Monday and other parts of his legislative agenda have garnered bipartisan support, Democratic critics say much of what Walker is doing is more symbolic than substantive. For example, only $1 million in tax breaks are expected to be given out to qualifying businesses that relocate to Wisconsin under the bill Walker signed Monday. Another tax cut Walker is backing that's tied to every new job created would come with a tax benefit of only between roughly $90 and $315 per job. Even so, Walker argues the changes will improve the state's business climate even as he faces the daunting task of balancing the budget. Aid to public schools, the University of Wisconsin system, local governments and Medicaid programs were all expected to be big targets for cuts in the budget Walker will release on Feb. 22. For his first month in office, though, Walker's been focused on spending money through tax cuts. Two tax cuts he's already signed, along with one that's passed the Assembly, would add roughly $117 million to the state's budget problem over the next two years. The $1 million tax cut bill he signed Monday takes effect this tax year and affects taxes due in 2012. Companies that have not operated in the state for two years could essentially get their corporate and personal income tax obligation in Wisconsin erased for a two-year period. At least 51 percent of the workforce's payroll, or at least $200,000 in wages, must be paid to the workers in Wisconsin in order to qualify. Seems like business is benefiting with taxpayer money.

How can people buy into these GOP lies? In AZ, facing a huge budget shortage, last year they cut transplants for people on public medical saving about $30 million (rough guess since I can't remember). Then in an emergency vote, they cut $400+ per year in business taxes. This with no guarantee whatsoever that businesses need to hire or expand to get the cuts. Recent history suggests they will pocket the money. So now we have an even bigger budget deficit.

$400,000+ per year for 4 years.

I keep typing wrong - its over $4 million a year.

Sorry $538 million. In all, the package will take up to $538 million from state coffers, according to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, although Republicans said new jobs will make up for that loss. Democrats, however, said it is folly to cut taxes while Arizona still faces budget deficits. They warned that if jobs don't materialize in enough numbers to turn the economy around, education budgets are certain to take a big hit. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/16/20110216arizona-budget-tax-cuts-passed-by-legislature.html#ixzz1GmAlZPV2

No surprise. You are 100% correct. Tax cuts have not paid for themselves in th e last 40 years. We don't have one example. Not one.

A difficulty here is that we have made it easy for corporations to move from one sweetheart deal to another. Tax breaks for new businesses are rarely tied to any sort of long term legal/financial commitment. Corporations are not held accountable if they take advantage of tax breaks (or subsidies for plant construction) then pull up stakes and leave when a better deal comes up. Corporations pit states and municipalities against each other, beggaring themselves in an attempt to attract businesses and jobs. Who wins? Um... could it be the corporations? Yes, because the revenue they're excused from contributing to gets made up by there employees. The corporation's shareholders waltz merrily away, because in our system they don't share in much risk when things don't work out. The same thing happens with sports teams demanding new stadiums and tax breaks... the owners and player continue to take out millions upon millions while the fans/taxpayers foot the bill. Our government has over the years allowed similar situations to develop... or caused them to develop. Multinationals send work overseas, but don't pay taxes on foreign profits here. True, they can't spend the money here, but there are many, many ways they manage to enrich themselves. And that's how a PO Box in somewhere like the Cayman Islands becomes home to a multi-billion dollar corporation.

well stated. Thanks for your comment.

We, Americans, have bought into the myth of America, hook line and sinker. We believe an apple pie and mom-and-pop stores. We want to believe that the people that we are electing are not frankly, corrupt. In the 1880s and 1890s it was not uncommon for representatives and congressmen to take bribes on the floor of the Senate or House. It's hard to deny when you vote yes and then somebody brings you a big bag of cash. We don't see that, now, in America. Sure, we see campaign contributions but our Congressman take campaign contributions from multiple different sources. So, that simply muddies the water. The fact that these congressmen take executive positions or lobbying positions in which they are lavished with huge salaries can be explained away by the free enterprise system. It also helps that Americans have an extremely short memory. We can't remember that the tax cuts that were given to a company like Cardinal Health (this is example from Western North Carolina) in order to keep jobs in the area came with no guarantees. Less than five years later the healthcare giant pulled out of Western North Carolina. The company was richer but the people of Western North Carolina are now poorer because they never made that money back in salaries and taxes. Basically, multiple governments (the city of Asheville and Buncombe County) gave taxpayer money to a large corporation which took the money and ran. There was no outrage. There were no protests. No one was calling for the company to return the funds. There was nothing. We seen this over and over again throughout the United States. Once Americans regain the ability to remember things that happened more than two weeks ago, then we can wake up to what is really going on around us. Thanks for your comments.