I've never heard of anything like this. Is this common?

(1) Let Foxconn discharge dredged materials or fill wetlands without a permit. The provision would apply not only to wetlands Foxconn fills when it's constructing its 1.6 square mile complex, but also to wetlands it fills once its new facility is fully operational. (2) Exempt the company from another state law that requires businesses to create new wetlands when they get permits to fill existing ones. (3) Allow Foxconn to change the course of a stream, or straighten a stream without a permit. (4) Let Foxconn build on a lake or stream bed without a permit. (5) Sidestep a state law that requires environmental impact statements before businesses can begin construction. (6)Let public utility projects begin for the Foxconn complex without approval by the Public Service Commission.

Also, Foxconn gets "refundable tax credits" -- does this mean state could end up paying FoxConn cash (not merely a break on taxes)? is this also common? I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs.

Interesting. What stops foxconn from inserting itself (and "selling" services) to buy a bit of land, fill in wetlands, change stream courses, build a lake, etc., then sell the "improved" land to another company? Maybe even begin construction of buildings to then be sold to someone else?

Nothing. Scott Walker is one of the most openly corrupt politicians to ever stay in office. He probably has a back end deal with a"family friend" to make this happen.

I can't wait to vote for the challengers of any one on my ballot that supported this foxconn bs. Also, the WEDC is a fucking joke. Talk about privatizing profits and socializing losses. The Republicans in this state are the biggest hypocrites, picking winners and losers. Free markets my ass. Makes my blood boil (and I tended to vote just right of aisle).

What evidence of corruption does anyone have that could put him away in jail for a long time?

None, or they would have used it, but that doesn't stop people on the Internet from gossiping.

Corruption doesn't necessarily have to be illegal.

Like adultery, for instance, right?

or a gazillion dollar job with a company once he retires from the state job. Maybe not with Foxconn but with a supplier or client of theirs. Wink + nod=

How's that?

> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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).

Living around the great lakes, and knowing what China's like due to lax enforcement of environmental regulations, this kind of stuff terrifies me. Michigan didn't do this kind of kowtowing trying to get Foxconn (to be honest I don't think it would be possible to after the whole Flint water issue), but who knows what kinds of problems will be introduced throughout the watershed when Foxconn exercises any of these allowances.

>I've never heard of anything like this. Is this common?

With the scope creep of what is a "wetland" (1)(2) is basically an approval to construct a facility. Wetland regulations are so broad that you basically can't build a large building and a parking lot for the people who will work in it without 9000+ hours of back and fourth with the EPA and local agencies.

Last I heard (2017) many man-made drainage ditches would be considered wetlands.

(6) is basically an authorization to run power lines to the facility. (3) and(4) are basically an authorization to pave driveways to connect to existing infrastructure

Basically all but five are the state saying "we're not gonna bait and switch by bogging you down in red tape once you select a location and get the ball rolling"

(5) is the one where they're going out of their way to sweetening the deal and depending on the site selected I really don't see a big issue with it because Foxconn is still subject to federal rules so they're not gonna build a factory somewhere that the risk of environmental impact is large.

My problem here is that Foxconn can get quick and easy approval for a facility but Noname Joe's Lumber Supply has to tailor their plans skirt around the laws if they want to build a facility.

Wisconsin actually has had a "job creator" tax credit since Walker got into office.

> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs.

They already do! It's called revenue.

>> I wish every small business could be paid to create jobs.

>They already do! It's called revenue.

I give you a job. I pay you $500. You generate $100 of revenue.

I'm pretty sure I just lost $400, you gained less than $400 after taxes, and the IRS gets to enjoy the spread.

Edit: changed to reflect that there are more winners than just the IRS

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed-ish. Assuming 40% tax, which seems high (unless you live in a country that has nationalised health care)

3. Neither of these things relate to being paid to create jobs. You're not wrong, you're just not on thread.

Just for reference, 40% tax is still high for a country with nationalized health care (Canada):

https://simpletax.ca/calculator

At $150k/yr, your marginal tax rate is close to 40%, but your overall tax rate is more like 31%. I'm in Saskatchewan, and every time I've played with different income levels, taking into account the exchange rate, we end up paying very similar amounts of all-in income tax, with ours including (most) health care. (Comparing with California)

Once you consider the typical US co-payments to actually use health care, it's cheaper in Canada. Getting an MRI in California cost me close to $1K out of pocket, despite fancy insurance that paid most of it. In Canada it's pre-paid in taxes.

Also when you consider that we don't have to pay anything for insurance to cover that. The MRI costs $0 out of pocket, covered by the healthcare that is already factored into our equal-cost taxes.

There's still a benefit to having health insurance for covering stuff not covered by the gov't plan: vision, dental, some fraction of prescription drugs, etc. I do have a health plan through work, but I think it costs somewhere around $50-75/month to cover all of that stuff for my family.

Absolutely. If you add decent insurance to income taxes as a basic cost of living, it's cheaper in Canada. I moved to Canada from California and even before becoming a permanent resident I needed to use the health service as a family member was sick. I will be forever grateful for the excellent service and zero cost at point of use even for my family as (tax paying) temporary workers. I'm now raising Canadian kids to do their part to pay back the system that saved their mother's life.

It's pretty wild. At one point, I forgot to renew my health card and had a bit of a fall that tweaked my wrist. I went to the clinic by my house and they warned me that I'd have to pay out-of-pocket for the services, but I could submit the receipt after renewing my health card and get reimbursed.

Doc felt my wrist, asked me to go to the radiology clinic next door for a digital X-Ray, and to come back to discuss what he saw on it. Doctor visit: $30, X-Ray: $30.

When the two options are: use your provincial health card or pay cash, costs can stay relatively low.

1: isn't that the business plan of most vc backed startups

I wish no business could be paid simply to create jobs. This is just distorting the economy. Arguably, the pressure to spend less on humans where possible drives technological advancement.

One of the most sickening things I've ever read.

So... Foxconn can get tax breaks, and environmental regulation exemptions, good for them, but what about other businesses?

Say I have a business (does not have to be in Wisconsin... say, Texas) doing something similar to Foxconn. So I have to pay taxes - no tax breaks as for Foxconn, and no environmental regulation exemptions.

So now, how can my business compete with Foxconn? They get all the breaks and I get none. Basically, that will shut my business down. Employees will be fired, shareholders will lose their money, etc.

That should be added to the tally when we are looking at the overall impact of such sweetheart (for the Foxconn) deals on the economy.

Let's go one step further.

No states are allowed to favor FC because it might risk an incumbent. FC takes business to Canada. Canadian economy is now slightly stronger than the US, USD drops slightly. Zero US jobs were created.

>> Canadian economy is now slightly stronger than the US

But... is it? That was kind of my point. It is not clear at all.

So in Canada in particular, I remember big issues with the likes of GM and Ford. Here is what happens:

1/ Government attracts GM with tax breaks, will finance infrastructure, provide loans etc, etc.

2/ GM says "great". Builds the plant, employs people. This is the good part.

3/ Once the tax breaks expire, GM declares that the plant is not profitable anymore and shuts it down.

4/ So... was the plant beneficial to Canada? Depends who you ask. Some pundits add the numbers and say that Canada lost money in the deal, some say Canada gained.

What is obvious is that government spent a boatload of money to provide a job to like 3,000 people for three years.

Some argue that it would have been much cheaper to just give that money to random 3,000 people.

Just put provisions against state aid in NAFTA.

It works pretty well for the EU. No more race to the bottom in environmental regulation or taxation.

your plan sounds good until you remember that suggesting gov regulation in the US will get you killed as a mutant commie.

*intellectual property mafias exempt.

I like this next step, but once you cross countries it gets significantly more complex. I doubt Canada would be a drop-in replacement.

Let's say there are no nationwide standards. Texas attracts a California company with no minimum wage, no taxes, very little regulations. In this imaginary situation, Texas "created" jobs. But we are all worse off.

It seems like we cannot leave anything we consider important to the states or local government or we risk a race to the bottom.

Or maybe we should leave everything possible to the states, so that we collectively get the most competitive system versus the world.

I don't think that we should toss out all federal standards, but I do worry about the pretense that we can operate our states as a giant cartel/union who collectively agree to not sharpen their pencils "against" each other, rather than seeking to be genuinely competitive in a world market.

> I do worry about the pretense that we can operate our states as a giant cartel/union who collectively agree to not sharpen their pencils "against" each other

Of course, no sane person will disagree with what you said. This is why we need international diplomacy (carrots and sticks) to force the world to follow suit. I think there are several problems and we can't please everyone. In my example, it is little consolation to tell someone in California that their jobs aren't going overseas. "Don't worry. It is just going to Texas. Nothing to see here. Move along." What good does it do to them? Should they just move to Texas following the jobs? What will happen is standards will lower everywhere.

Here is an outrageous idea (don't actually do this): disband these united states and all states individually join the European Union. We will quickly see how important the federal government has been for each and every one of us in the world stage.

I suspect I'd agree with you over beers more than is apparent on HN text, as we naturally focus on and discuss the differences much more than the agreement.

In your hypothetical, should we tell the person in Texas who doesn't get the new/moved job, "Don't worry; you are going to stay unemployed because someone in California is doing that job, not someone overseas."?

> "Don't worry; you are going to stay unemployed because someone in California is doing that job, not someone overseas."

I think I'd agree with you a lot as well but the problem with "moving" the job from California to Texas is that it is a net loss for us as a nation. No company will choose change if all else are the same. They picked Texas because they can get more for less. So, the Texan worker will get less than what the Californian was getting. I mean look at non-compete clauses. I think if you enforce a non-compete clause it is only fair that you have to pay them a certain amount of money (I think fair amount is market rate but I don't know how to calculate it) for NOT working. This to me is common sense and yet this is not the law in all fifty states.

Worse is when we are talking about negotiated tax "discounts" or regulation "waivers" to companies. These do not hurt anybody directly so nobody feels the pain in the short term. However, we are all worse off because of it.

Define "net loss"

To someone who thinks CA has an insane regulatory environment then TX getting the carrot part of the deal and CA getting the stick part of the deal is a net gain.

So be it. Ensuring CA jobs stay in CA is something the 49 other state governments should give exactly zero shits about. Their responsibility is to their constituents not some other state. If CA doesn't like it that's exactly the kind of thing the federal government exists to mediate.

The usual scam is for your Texas company, if it is large enough, to start a public search for a new place of business, and encourage other cities to submit open bids. As they race to the bottom, your own city and state will feel like they should offer you tax breaks to stay. So you accept those, and you get free money. Or, if your intention as CEO was to move closer to your kids in Denver, then you accept their offer.

A lot of pollution is stuff where a little bit of it is more or less harmless, but it gets bad when lots of people do it. It can make sense to grant special case exemptions rather than lowering standards as a whole.

For example, it's common for old cars to be exempt from emissions regulations, and small aircraft are still allowed to use leaded gasoline. (Arguably the leaded gas use by small aircraft is still big enough that it should be stopped, but regulators don't seem willing to actually do it.)

Of course, granting it to one company just because they're building a factory you want is naked favoritism, not the sort of at least vaguely sense-based decisions we'd want to have.

is it because Apple needs Foxconn?