Hacker News Reader

Comment by MattSteelblade | Hacker News Reader

This hits home as a Wisconsin resident. Best case scenario, we're looking at 2042 to turn a profit[1].

[1] http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/bill_summaries/2017...

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it's not an actual loss at any point is it? The refundable tax credits just pay back what the state collected, which isn't really a "loss".

It's a combination of cash payments and tax exemptions.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/16/how-w...

But the cash is a refund of employee payroll taxes and other benefits derived from Foxconn's investment isn't it? It's a sweet deal for Foxconn but I still don't see where the rest of the state actually pays out. I could be reading it wrong of course, but that was the impression of the EITM zone I had.

What year would Wisconsin turn a profit off of Foxconn if it didn’t build a factory there at all?

This is very much a prisoner's dilemma race to the bottom situation.

What if nobody was willing to pander to foxconn at all? How much tax would they be paying then?

Presumably this year, if they paid each person as outlined above because they'd be getting income tax back from the individuals.

They could even pay those people $30,000 a year for ten years to work on civic projects and achieve even more 'profit' or return on investment.

I am confused. Who is "they" in these sentences: Foxconn, WI, or an employer other than Foxconn?

It can't be Foxconn because the parent statement requires Foxconn doesn't come to WI.

WI getting back in tax a portion of what they paid out in full can't be a net income gain because the employee gets to keep some.

If it's an employer other than Foxconn, which doesn't get any deal, then I agree that would be best for WI. But which employer is that?

By then Foxconn would almost certainly have moved on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com