Larger trained workforce.
More jobs that pay reasonably (i.e. way above minimum wage).
Funded by state and local property taxes.
6 Likes
The reason for this bit of COMMUNISM!!! is in the first paragraph of the story: make more people available to work for the “JCs”, at the expense of the general public.
Steve
It’s a logical way to address the manpower shortage. Companies providing day care is better but difficult for small employers like restaurants to implement.
I think its a good use of property tax money. The percentage of property taxes paid by business is usually concealed. I think 50% or more many places.
1 Like
Companies could give their employees day car vouchers, but, of course, companies would not want to pay for that, so would avoid hiring people with spawn.
So, instead, companies have the day care expense subsidized by homeowners, instead of paying for it themselves. Much like low pay employers who tell their employees to sign up for food stamps and Medicaid, so their payroll is subsidized by taxpayers.
Steve
Re: subsidized by homeowners
I disagree. As i said before i think businesses pay over 50% of property taxes. That is a fair way to subsidize day care.
1 Like
I would like to see some data. I tried to find a business/residence split for the township I live in, but came up empty. Of course, “JCs” are routinely handed large tax abatements to “create jobs”, tho the bar was lowered in Michigan to “maintain jobs”, for CAPEX that companies should be making in their normal course of business. In Michigan, businesses used to pay a personal property tax to cities, but the former Gov repealed that tax, with a promise to defund something else at the state level, to free up money collected from the “use tax”, and send that money to the cities to replace the revenue lost by “unburdening” the “JCs”.
“Hopefully it’ll come across to our citizens as a job-creator,” Snyder said after a bill-signing ceremony in Lansing, where he was joined by a Ford Motor Co. representative, Dearborn’s mayor, legislators and others.
The proposal is the latest business-friendly tax restructuring effort sought by Gov. Rick Snyder, who worked with lawmakers last year to eliminate the Michigan Business Tax and replace it with a six percent corporate income tax that two-thirds of businesses don’t have to pay.
Mich. Legislature OKs Business Property Tax Repeal - CBS Detroit (cbsnews.com)
3 Likes
Me too. When I ask for that info in my community it is not available. Authorities do not want that info out apparently.
But yes, all those large office buildings and shopping centers do pay property taxes. Sometimes they get tax breaks to build but usually for a limited time. Most foot the bill.
The Ford EV battery plant near Marshall, MI, the one that has since been put on the back burner, and the fire turned off, received a 15 year abatement. The way it works in Michigan is, when that abatement runs out, update some equipment, which would be due for update in the normal course of business, and threaten to close the plant and take the “jobs” away, unless another generous abatement is granted for the updates.
While Ford put the price of it’s plant in Marshall at $3.5B, state and local subsidies totaled some $1.7B-$2.2B. If Michigan still had the old gang of (L&Ses) in charge, “we the people” would probably have shouldered the entire $3.5B.
Didn’t Wisconsin get rogered over a deal with Foxconn?
2 Likes
Yes, manufacturing companies can do that. Tougher for office buildings and shopping malls that rent their space.
Walmart is known to play that game. When property tax exemption expires, they build a new store a few miles away with new exemption and close the old one. In this area that was often about adding groceries. In this area most stores have groceries.
Tricky part is that Walmart’s real estate arm (connected to the Kronkes of St. Louis Ram’s fame) is owned by family. Must have some good accountants.
1 Like
Of course, the economics of it are indisputable. But you still have the problem that black and brown families might benefit from it, making it a non-starter in large swaths of the nation.
intercst
2 Likes
Yes, in the US no doubt someone will add a racial component.
There are in fact stay at home moms who don’t work because they don’t earn enough to pay child care. They may even be married.
When major companies provide day care for their employees what are the demographics of those who use that service? Mostly black and brown? I doubt it. Mostly parents with young children i suspect.
1 Like
Thank you DrBob, for bringing some real data to the discussion.
Steve
1 Like
If I’m just earning enough “to pay for child care”, I’m probably better off just staying home with my kid, than turning the child over to a stranger.
intercst
1 Like
That may be true “right now”, but it definitely isn’t true over the long-term for people. Because childcare lasts 10 years, maybe 20 years, but a career (or even just a typical lifetime of working) lasts 40-45 years. Staying home for 10-15 years and eliminating all work experience for that period of time, results not only in no wages (even if it would otherwise net close to zero after childcare) for those 10-15 years, but also extremely lower wages for the next 20-30 years of one’s work career.
1 Like
You’re welcome. It is important to note that the data are for California, so there are probably Prop 13 effects.
DB2
California is not alone. Some decades ago, Michigan adopted the “Headlee amendment” which caps the y/y increase in property tax on homes. During a long period of price inflation, if you don’t move, there can be a significant difference in the valuation of your home, vs the taxable value. If you do move, the taxable basis is reset to the valuation when you bought your new home.
Another factor, state vs state, is the bias of the tax regime. Some states are more interested in giving the “JCs” a life of ease, and passing the bill to the Proles. That would skew the business/resident property tax distribution.
Steve
2 Likes
A contributing reason why he is not in elective office.