Charlie does not let Lisa near those scary ultra loud crinkly biodegradeable Sun Chips bags.

Stories
 
Chip Industry Wants $50 Billion To Keep Manufacturing in US
from the closer-look dept.
The U.S. chip industry said as much as $50 billion in federal incentives will be needed to halt a decades-long trend of manufacturing moving overseas as China spends heavily to become a leading semiconductor producer. From a report:
The federal government needs to deploy $20 billion to $50 billion to make the U.S. as attractive a location for plants as Taiwan, China, South Korea, Singapore, Israel and parts of Europe, the Semiconductor Industry Association said in a study released Wednesday. Failure to do that threatens U.S. leadership of the sector as a whole, it added. The lobbying group, which represents companies such as Intel and Qualcomm, is making the pitch at a time when it believes Washington is more open to listening. The China-U.S. trade war and supply-chain disruptions caused by the pandemic have revealed the risks of having such vital components made abroad.
Posted by msmash 6 hours ago
business usa us semiconductor

Close Ad

123 Comments
Help
All
Outstanding
Funny
Oh wow.... (+1)
Malays2 bowman in a few seconds
"Nice little economy you got there. It would be a real shame if something bad happened to it....."
Reply  Share
 Flag
Corporate Welfare (+5, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward 6 hours ago
Gotta love these welfare queens leaching off the American tax payers.
Here is an idea - pay your fucking taxes and then we can talk about bailouts or 'incentives' or whatever you hypocrites call your corporate welfare.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
Anonymous Coward 6 hours ago
If they could afford the taxes, they can afford to sell cheaper. No gov money needed. Its just greed that drives these stupid ideas.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+4, Interesting)
ShanghaiBill 5 hours ago
No gov money needed. Its just greed that drives these stupid ideas.
This isn't about "greed'. It is about national security.
Semiconductors are a critical industry. Everything depends on them, including every weapon system.
So is it worth $50B to keep semiconductor manufacturing on-shore?
In my opinion, no, it isn't worth it. Taiwan and Korea are reliable American allies. Even for $50B, we are only going to keep a small trailing edge portion of the industry. Any real product is still going to rely on foreign parts.
Rather than relying on "self-sufficiency" for security, we should build strong alliances with our friends and avoid pointlessly antagonizing our adversaries.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+4, Interesting)
timeOday 5 hours ago
The other question is whether a domestically-subsidized chip industry violates international trade agreements. If so, we would not find much of a global market for our chips. They would be banned or face stiff import tariffs around the world. Losing the export market would drive the cost of domestic production that much higher still. The result is a death spiral as the 'freedom chips' fall further behind in both price and performance.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+4, Informative)
ShanghaiBill 4 hours ago
The other question is whether a domestically-subsidized chip industry violates international trade agreements.
There are exceptions for national security. For instance, France has declared yogurt making to be critical to national security, and Canada has a strategic maple syrup reserve. So I think America can justify subsidies for semiconductors. We have done so in the past.
If so, we would not find much of a global market for our chips. They would be banned or face stiff import tariffs
Indeed. America can subsidize them for domestic use, but exporting subsidized chips would violate trade agreements.
Losing the export market would drive the cost of domestic production that much higher still. The result is a death spiral as the 'freedom chips' fall further behind in both price and performance.
Indeed. America has subsidized semiconductors in the past, while falling further and further behind. There is no reason to expect this time to be different.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
AmiMoJo 3 hours ago
France tried, the EU rules prevented it.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+4, Insightful)
I'mjusthere 5 hours ago
So is it worth $50B to keep semiconductor manufacturing on-shore?
No, even if they did adhere to the agreement; which they won't. They'll use the money to do stock buybacks and for CEO bonuses - total waste of money - and move out of country anyway because of reasons.
They'll use "campaign contributions" (bribes) to get a one-sided deal that favors them and fucks us over. Nothing would happen to them when they double crossed us. And they'd come back for money.
IF these chips are soooo important, then how about spending a fraction of that money to build a fab plant or two owned and operated by the DOD?
Frankly, this is just a bullshit scare tactic to extort money out of the US taxpayer. And most of these chip makers are ALREADY multinationals. Having a factory here does jack shit. Even IF we had some sort of WWIII and these plants stayed, supply chains would STILL be disrupted because of our globalized supply chains.
tl;dr: BS scare tactic by the industry to get free money.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+2)
ShanghaiBill 4 hours ago
No, even if they did adhere to the agreement; which they won't.
They aren't going to get a check for $50B. The subsidies would be in the form of higher prices for government contracts mandating "made-in-America" components.
how about spending a fraction of that money to build a fab plant or two owned and operated by the DOD?
Do you have any idea how much a modern fab costs to build and operate?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+2)
cb88 4 hours ago
TSMC's 3nm fab cost something over 20billion... so There really is no reason you couldn't build a 3nm fab in the USA + a couple 7nm fabs for $50B, $50B is enough to start a brand new fab and operating costs until it breaks even most likely...

We already have fabs in the USA from which CPUs are sold across the glow many last gen AMD chips were diffused in NY... etc.. then shipped to China for dicing and assembly into a package. If they were the best CPUS people would buy them just as they always have reguardless of any incentives.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
Archtech 4 hours ago
Rather than relying on "self-sufficiency" for security, we should build strong alliances with our friends and avoid pointlessly antagonizing our adversaries.
Good advice, Bill. But excuse me, I just gotta....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare 
Anonymous Coward an hour ago
I suppose you laugh at trade embargoes too.
The world theater matters and if you think more than a fraction of these multinationals exist as a supply chain here, if you think they're even remotely near the word "self-sufficient" on local soil, Archie, you'll need to excuse me as well.
Your lifestyle is supported by several industries and forms of expertise. You wear, eat, sleep, etc in things beyond your self-sufficiency, because you chose to focus on marketable strengths rather than spread yourself across shit others can do for you. Can do better.
Teenagers can figure this out, but if it seems complex then laugh on.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+3, Interesting)
dgatwood 4 hours ago
Semiconductors are a critical industry. Everything depends on them, including every weapon system.
So is it worth $50B to keep semiconductor manufacturing on-shore?
In my opinion, no, it isn't worth it. Taiwan and Korea are reliable American allies.
And are practically potato cannon distance away from China. In the event of another actual world war, provided the whole world doesn't get nuked, trusting countries that are so easily land-invadable or inflatable-raft-invadable by the country that is statistically most likely to be on the opposite side of that war is dubious at best.
Any real product is still going to rely on foreign parts.
You're not wrong, but having a silicon manufacturing presence somewhere other than eastern Asia is still pretty security-critical no matter how you look at it.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
hackertourist 3 hours ago
 Taiwan and Korea are reliable American allies.
Taiwan has a target painted on its back - which has rapidly gotten bigger over the past few years. One more crisis in the USA, and China will feel free to invade.
South Korea is in a better position, if only due to the nutjobs North of them.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare 
Anonymous Coward an hour ago
Taiwan has become a direct path for the movement of information from the west to Mainland
Anything that Taiwan does at this point to protest actions from the Mainland are just kabuki (theater of a predictable nature)
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+2)
GroundBounce 2 hours ago
Sorry, don't hang our national security on Taiwan, unless the US makes a FULL commitment to defend Taiwan against an attack by the PRC with whatever effort is necessary - strong enough of a commitment to become a deterrent. Right now, we appear to the CCP as a paper tiger. Regardless of how you feel about the probability of the PRC invading Taiwan at any given time or whether the PRC will take the risk of doing so, the threat is there and must be accounted for in our national security strategy. Both Taiwan and South Korea are ideologically reliable partners at the moment, but Taiwan is heavily threatened by the PRC.
If Taiwan gets attacked, even if we defend them, those resources will be offline or compromised for a long time. That leaves South Korea as our least-threatened alliance partner. I've been designing chips for 35 years and I've dealt with both Korean (Dongbu, etc.) and Taiwanese fabs (TSMC, UMC) and the Taiwanese ones are better. Global Foundries is good but doesn't offer everything TSMC does. We ABSOLUTELY need to retain/regrow onshore cutting-edge, sustainable semiconductor capabilities to maintain stable national security. There's just no other option. It will have a cost. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful about how any funding or assistance is structured, and make sure it includes ways to keep companies accountable, but after working in this industry for my entire career (which makes me biased, I admit), I believe we absolutely must retain the lead in this technology, onshore as well as with reliable partners.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare 
Anonymous Coward 2 hours ago
Rather than relying on "self-sufficiency" for security, we should build strong alliances with our friends and avoid pointlessly antagonizing our adversaries.

Fortunately we've got just the right stable genius in charge to pull it off.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
DrMrLordX 2 hours ago
Add to this the fact that China is rapidly become LESS attractive as a location to move your business. Of all the times to ask for money to not move to China, why now? China jumped the shark. Sure, they want to keep spending money on moving more semicon (and other industries) to their country, but its becoming increasingly clear that doing so has ugly consequences for IP management and potential future supply chain interruptions as China starts up more trade disputes.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
jellomizer 5 hours ago
The Race to the bottom is a big problem with the American Economy.
The products that are strong exports from America are expensive quality product.
The products that seem to become soon to be outsourced are the cheap low quality products in which people only buy on price.
The trend with technology is making more disposable products vs a quality technology that we can use for decades. Any country can compete with cheap if you are willing to exploit you human capital.
If a company is willing to invest in its human and technology capital. Then they can focus on making a more quality product that you can sell for more.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+4, Insightful)
Rockoon 6 hours ago
I think the essential problem with giving an industry special benefits, as well as an industry wanting special benefits, is the part where its "special."

How about a non-special tax incentive. How about EVERY industry gets a tax credit for selling 100% American goods within America.

As far as "special" solutions go, notice how Intel/etc arent asking for "special" Tarrifs on foreign fabrication, and in fact lobby against it. The problem they really wish to solve is clearly not what they are claiming.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
AmiMoJo 3 hours ago
These kinds of things damage international trade. As much as domestic sales benefit, overseas sales suffer because other countries notice you are giving your own companies a boost that theirs have to compete with.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
fenrif 3 hours ago
Is that why no one trades with or does business in China then?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
AmiMoJo 3 hours ago
It's why countries don't do better trade deals with China and just rely on WTO rules instead, yeah.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
fenrif 2 hours ago
And this of course has really harmed China.
Crippled the country even.
If only they could trade with bespoke trade deals like literally every other country on the planet, eh?
One might wonder why the WTO even has a set of rules since they are so awful and lop sided against one of the parties.
But wait, you said "overseas sales would suffer" not "overseas sales would be conducted with slightly different regulations." Hmm....
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
AmiMoJo an hour ago
Well actually the WTO rules do limit what they are doing. Just today the WTO ruled against the US trade war with China. Eventually it will lead to some kind of restitution. The US can of course make similar complaints if China breaks the rules.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
thegarbz 6 hours ago
Gotta love these welfare queens leaching off the American tax payers.
Not really. They are just being realistic. These companies make a fortune by producing in China. It stands to reason that if the government wants local industry they'll have to pay up.
"Pretty please forgo your profits to help #MAGA" Isn't going to get you very far.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
spun 5 hours ago
No, it stands to reason that if industry wants access to American markets, THEY should pay up. Don't want to make jobs here? Fine, we have plenty of people who will, and THEY can reap the benefits. Fuck China, we won't lose a thing if we cut them off. 100% tariffs for murdering, freedom hating, free market destroying state capitalists.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
timeOday 5 hours ago
You can try to hide the costs of rolling back globalization by using mandates such as trade restrictions instead of incentives. That doesn't make the costs go away, they're just hidden in higher prices etc. Better to see the costs up front and make the decision.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
Rob Y. 3 hours ago
Well, then you need to equalize the costs. A global minimum wage and global environmental standards would be a good start. Then what you lose in cheap imports, you gain in larger markets of people that can afford your stuff. The trick is to produce a prosperous global middle class without destroying the planet in the process. Easier said than done, but the current trends are sure to destroy the planet, while producing a global lower-middle class - including a large swath of the U.S. population.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
cygnusvis 5 hours ago
 Fine, we have plenty of people who will,
No, we dont. The USA has a un-surprising lack of talent in chip manufacturing (or any manufacturing). The reason is that we convince kids to go to college instead of going to manufacturing (because jobs arent there). We dont have people that will produce chips in the USA, and we dont have the capital to produce chips in the USA.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
spun 4 hours ago
The richest country in the world lacks the capital to make modern factories? The country where everyone else sends their kids for an education, lacks the education?
I don't buy it.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
gweihir 5 hours ago
Sooo, you think the US can do without semiconductors in the future? Because that is pretty much what would happen.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
spun 4 hours ago
Funny thing, as a patriot, I believe in our country and our remarkable citizens. Why don't you?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
gweihir an hour ago
Funny thing, as a patriot, I believe in our country and our remarkable citizens. Why don't you?
A) I am not a patriot. That is a kind of stupidity I stay far away from. It blinds you to the truth.
B) If I were a patriot, I wold not be cheering mindlessly for the US, but for some entirely different country.
Also, invalid AdHominem argument is invalid.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
spun 39 minutes ago
Patriotism is not nationalism. Learn the difference. Patriotism is mature love, with eyes wide open. If you see your friend is being an asshole, you'd tell them and try to help them not be such an asshole, right? That's patriotism. I love my country and so I want to fix it.
Nationalism is "My country right or wrong." It's toxic, dependent love.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
thegarbz an hour ago
No, it stands to reason that if industry wants access to American markets, THEY should pay up.
That's not how companies work. That's at best how tariffs work, or how Putin's Russia works. Not something you should ever wish for America. The government has no business deciding winners and losers, they decide performance metrics at best.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
spun 41 minutes ago
For fucks sake, the government already decides winners and losers, just look at this story! The industry wants a hand out. Giving it to them would be deciding winners and losers.
We subsidize all sorts of American industries. We do not have a fee market, and the capitalists who control our society do not want one. They want to capture, corner and control every market they can find. Competition is anathema to capitalism.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare 
Krishnoid 5 hours ago
How about "Build the chips, not the wall?" . I mean, it's not like the wall project's going that well, and I hear the actual budget is kind of comparable.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
cygnusvis 5 hours ago
Its cute that you think budget means anything. 50 BIL is NOTHING to the US gov.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
WindBourne 4 hours ago
No.
Simply taxing them say 5-10% on GROSS sales unless they produce here, will likely move them here.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
thegarbz an hour ago
Don't be stupid. At best you can apply a tarrif, but a government taxing a specific corporation to get them to move is some Putin's Russia level of bullshit. An incredible slippery slope.
I'm not normally an advocate for small government, but fuck you idea is horrible.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare 
coastwalker 6 hours ago
Interestingly the strategic subsidy of semiconductor manufacturing overseas seems to have stolen America's lunch. It appears that there is and never has been any such thing as the "free market". Don't you think it is time to revisit that ideology and and join the rest of the world?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+3, Insightful)
spun 5 hours ago
Join the rest of the world in kowtowing to people who own everything but built nothing? Nah.
If the free market is a myth, well buddy, I have a system that maybe we should actually try. We run things democratically, and we, the people, own the means of production. No masters, no owners, no landlords, no rich.
Just because it's your kink to submit to Big Daddy War Bucks, doesn't mean the rest of us share your perversion.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare 
Anonymous Coward 5 hours ago
No masters, no owners, no landlords, no rich.
LOL, you don't want anybody to be rich? SMH.
And the trees are all kept equal

By hatchet,

Axe,

And saw
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
cygnusvis 5 hours ago
well said
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
spun 4 hours ago
Better than a small group of trees elevating themselves on the corpses of their brothers. But I don't want everyone equal. Welthy is okay. Not rich, and not even wealthy as long as any are suffering from a lack of the basic necessities.
Get everyone into a house, fled, clothed, with adequate medical care and we can revisit whether or not we need to allow people to become rich.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare 
Anonymous Coward 4 hours ago
Now you want to play semantic games with "rich" vs "wealthy"? LOL, we all know what you meant when you said "we, the people, own the means of production", Mr. Marx.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+2)
spun 3 hours ago
Yup. I'm a proud democratic socialist. No, that's not Marxist. I'd be ashamed to be a "LOL no free market for you" capitalist.
To be clear, I believe in private ownership of the means of producing luxuries. We should all co-own and democratically control he means of producing basic necessities. Otherwise, you have a society where the rich can legally point a gun at the head of the poor and say "Pay me or die."
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
zabbey 2 hours ago
What if I want to own more than democratically allowed? What's the penalty for violating the ownership rules? And what happens if I don't want to pay that penalty? If the answer to the last 2 questions is anything other than "nothing", it changes from "pay me or die" to "share with me or die". I bet we can solve most of the world's economical problems by abolishing patent, trademark, and copyrights.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
spun 43 minutes ago
Here's the way I want things to work. Pipe dream, I know.
Own as much personal property as you like. Also, as much real property that is not used for production, or is only used for luxury production, as you can hoard. As soon as you start using your property for production of basic necessities, your property enters into "use rights." The people who use the property to produce the goods, and the people who consume the goods, have controlling rights over it, but not sales rights. Use of the means of production would be governed democratically.
I'm not saying people's wealth should be limited, but treating all forms of property the same is ludicrous. Real and personal property (chattels) are different, and take a much different commitment from the rest of society to protect.
As long as there are people starving, or dying of preventable disease, or exposure to the elements, it is neither moral nor ethical to hoard wealth. If everyone's basic needs are met, then the hoarders could be allowed to go hog wild.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
klubar 4 hours ago
Isn't this about picking winner and losers? I'm ok with corporate welfare as long as the companies are willing to accept the limits that go along with it.
Some suggestions:
- Top executive pay limited to 20x lowest paid employee
- No stock buybacks/no golden parachutes
- Limited use of contractors/outsourcing
- Commitment to environmental law
Others?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+2)
cusco 5 hours ago
Once taxpayers get gouged their $50 billion then they'll ask to be exempted from all pollution and water/air quality rules as well. Grant that and workplace safety rules will be next, and the list will be never-ending.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Foxconn's taxes are paid where Foxconn is, silly (+1)
raymorris 5 hours ago
The taxes for chip makers are paid where the chip makers are, silly. Foxconn pays it's taxes - in Taiwan and China, where Foxconn is, making chips.
Hardly anybody makes chips in the US, and therefore the US gets hardly any taxes from chip makers, because the US has made it far too expensive to produce anything here. "Raise the taxes people will have to if they produce in the US" is exactly how you ensure the problem gets worse, how you make sure *nobody* makes a single chip in the US anymore (and the US then gets exactly $0 in taxes).
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Foxconn's taxes are paid where Foxconn is, sill (+1)
Anonymous Coward 4 hours ago
Foxconn doesn't make chips. Foxconn (Hon Hai Precision) operates the factories that complete final assembly on iPhones, etc. Pre-assembled modules (assembled in Vietnam, Malaysia, and elsewhere) arrive on site and factories of teenagers screw them into the housing.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Silly me. Not Foxconn, the chip company (+1)
raymorris 2 hours ago
Good observation, I shouldn't have said Foxconn.
The chip factories in South Korea, China and Taiwan pay taxes in South Korea, China and Taiwan.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+3, Interesting)
Anubis IV 5 hours ago
Framing this as a "how about you do your part first?" question is cutting off your nose (misbehaving companies) to spite your face (national interests).
The fact is, if having these production and manufacturing capabilities kept in-country is truly a matter of national security (and the rest of my post will operate on that assumption), the fact that we need them isn't affected by their behavior. If you crack down on them via regulation, they hold all the cards, so they can simply call your bluff and find someplace more accommodating, thus shooting ourselves in the foot. Meanwhile, I'm all for the free market deciding things in general, but the free market fails in cases like these because it doesn't include national interests when valuing companies, just private interests. Until the government puts its finger on the scale to tip how we value those companies in some way, the free market will continue to not recognize the true worth to the country of keeping those capabilities in-country.
Is it distasteful? Absolutely. But this is reality.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
JBMcB 4 hours ago
Meanwhile, I'm all for the free market deciding things in general, but the free market fails in cases like these because it doesn't include national interests when valuing companies, just private interests.
This has little to do with a free market. China and Taiwan have huge subsidies and tax breaks to lure high-tech manufacturing. China did this about 20 years ago with contract furniture manufacturing. They built-out entire factories and supply chains, then offered to produce furniture at cost with zero tariffs and practically free shipping (via Mersk, their own shipping company.) And within a decade there are hardly any furniture factories left in the US. Pretty much Herman Miller, Steelcase, Knoll, and a few boutique brands like Stickley and Thomas Moser.
This is short-term smart on their part, as they can siphon off a big chunk of economic production out of other countries. However, it depends on funding it with further growth. They *must* keep massive growth going, or it collapses like a multi-level marketing scheme. This is, more or less, what happened to Japan in the 90's.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
cygnusvis 5 hours ago
Why do you think its bad for corporate welfare int he USA, but not have issues with China literally financing businesses (and having full control over them because of it)? Frankly, taking jobs out of asia invites war, because right now the USA must make peace (and Trump is doing a great job at making peace, like it or not) or lose access to things made in china.
Reply  Share
 Flag
You said it. (+1)
Comboman 2 hours ago
Why do you think its bad for corporate welfare int he USA, but not have issues with China literally financing businesses (and having full control over them because of it)?

You just answered your own question; "full control". Corporate welfare is just throwing taxpayers money away. You have no real control over the recepiants and if some other country offers a better deal, they're gone again. You need to invest the money into those companies and own them (or at least a significant share of the stocks). Then you have real control as a shareholder and the dividends can go into paying back the taxpayers who funded it. Win-win.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
djp2204 5 hours ago
Companies don't pay any taxes. Their customers pay the taxes. Taxing companies only raises costs for consumers.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
toadlife 3 hours ago
Companies don't pay any taxes. Their customers pay the taxes. Taxing companies only raises costs for consumers.
Consumers don't pay any taxes. The companies that produce the goods that consumers buy do. Taxing consumers only reduces the pool of revenue available to companies.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Circular logic (+1)
Comboman 2 hours ago
Consumers don't pay any taxes. Consumers are employees of companies. Taxing consumers only raises costs for companies.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+3, Interesting)
ObliviousGnat 5 hours ago
Tax breaks aren't the only form of corporate welfare. Do you remember the story the other day about how oil companies abandon their wells, go bankrupt and then leave the mess for the states to clean up? We need to make companies pay ALL of the societal costs that they create, and don't let bankruptcy get them out of paying.
Also--and this is important--tax/tariff anything from foreign countries that don't make their companies pay for their societal costs. One reason why chip manufacturing went overseas is because companies there are allowed to pollute with impunity, and that makes manufacturing in those countries artificially cheap. How can our companies expect to compete with that?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
gweihir 5 hours ago
Oh, they will pay their taxes. But not in the US. That ship has sailed. The remaining semiconductor manufacturing in the US will vanish pretty soon.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
WindBourne 4 hours ago
Here is a better Idea. Make the taxes fair. As it is, both China, Ireland, and a number of other nations are basically tax-avoidance havens. So, the best way is simply to change the American (if not western) tax model.

1) get rid of ALL tax breaks, write-offs, exemptions, etc on corporate and personal taxes.
2) create a pre-sales tax of say 5-10% on consumed goods/services which move from wholesale to retail. It is also applied to all goods that are shipped directly to customers over borders.
3) change corporate tax for companies HQed here, to be either 5% on ALL GROSS SALES or 0% depending on where work is done.
A) for resale, if 40% of goods is M.i.America, then 0%, else 5%.
B) for service industry, if 40% of labor costs/hrs is Americans, then 0%, else 5%.
C) for manufacturing, if 40% of parts/labor is American, then 0%, else 5%.
D) the 40% is raise yearly by 5% until it hits 75-80%.
E) all dividends are paid through America first(i.e. not offshore), then 0%, else 5%

4) For personal taxes, simply add all of the money/bonus that anybody has obtained for the year and tax on simple progressive tax rate.
A) for $ obtained, that includes wages, salaries, bonus, dividends, interest (including banks), lottery, inheritance, gifts, etc.
B) start at 1% on everything above livable wage (say 25-30K), and then stop raising it at say 33% on everything above $5M. Remember there are no write-offs, breaks, exemptions. So, better for us all to pay, but fairly. 

Note that somebody;s stock raising/falling does not impact this. Only upon a sale does it impact calculations.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
Alwina31 3 hours ago
You want to know me better Then do not wait and copy the link and call me. Just be =>> bit.do/fJtR7
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
rho 3 hours ago
Gotta love these welfare queens leaching off the American tax payers.
Here is an idea - pay your fucking taxes and then we can talk about bailouts or 'incentives' or whatever you hypocrites call your corporate welfare.
Gotta love these welfare queens leaching off the American tax payers
I'm no fan of corporate welfare, but $50B is cheap.
Half of the federal budget is actual welfare, about $2T, which doesn't exactly go into the pockets of Americans either. It's a big trough where lots of other corporations feed, and millions of middlemen wet their beak.
Returning the silicon to Silicon Valley (or, more likely, Texas) is a good thing all around for America and Americans. If we can keep our chips from even having a whiff of NSA fingers, that's a competitive advantage to the rest of the world. And it makes a home for the technically inclined so they have a career path that doesn't end in yak shaving in the bowels of some high-frequency trading company to gain an extra nanosecond. Offshoring our manufacturing is 100% the worst thing our leaders, both corporate and government, has done to the country.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Corporate Welfare (+1)
larryjoe 3 hours ago
Gotta love these welfare queens leaching off the American tax payers.
Here is an idea - pay your fucking taxes and then we can talk about bailouts or 'incentives' or whatever you hypocrites call your corporate welfare.
When it's other people, they're "welfare queens". When it's us, it's just the normal system of tax deductions, subsidides, and funding that are part of our "rights."
Reply  Share
 Flag
All this has happened before (+4, Insightful)
cellocgw 6 hours ago
Just ask Wisconsin about FoxConn.
Or ask any number of cities how long $SPORTS_TEAM stayed after getting a stadium built for free.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Even a slumlord cannot square the circle (+1)
shanen 5 hours ago
Hmm... I think the AC FP was more relevant to the topic, but at least you [cellocgw] put your name on this one, shallow though it be. It's even likely that you are aware of the deeper issues and you felt this was the first step in the right direction, but took the short step because of the race condition on FP visibility.
So let me try to clarity that your issue seems to be the proper relationship between governments and corporations. The level of the story is about national governments and corporations in crucial industries, though your first example is about a state government and a non-crucial manufacturing corporation and your second examples are city governments and non-crucial recreational corporations. As you have properly implied, corporations only care about short-term profits, not the long-term social objectives that governments are supposed to be thinking about.
The obvious conclusion is that this is a great solution only until some other government offers $51 billion to move the semiconductor corporations to that country. But the stock market loves it! The stock market is not insane! It merely reflects the priorities of the bureaucrats who are printing money per the instructions of our duly elected political leaders.
In related political news, the real profit of being a slumlord does not come from collecting rents from "good" tenants and evicting the "bad" tenants. The YUGE profit is when you evict all of the tenants, good and bad, and upgrade the property for a "highest and best" use. The quick and YUGE profit is when you flip the property before paying the new property taxes on the higher assessed value. For example, as the site of a new semiconductor factory in a former slum.
So have a nice day. We are so phucked.
Hmm... Should I have explained the Subject more explicitly? Or do I need sarcasm tags on that paragraph?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Even a slumlord cannot square the circle (+1)
cusco 5 hours ago
Don't tell a Packers Backer that their team is "non-crucial", they'll come after you with pitchforks and torches.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Even a slumlord cannot square the circle (+1)
SWPadnos 5 hours ago
Don't tell a Packers Backer that their team is "non-crucial", they'll come after you with pitchforks and torches.
I think they use guns now.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Even a slumlord cannot square the circle (+2)
Archtech 4 hours ago
I think they use guns now.
Yes - the dreaded Camembert cannon.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Even a slumlord cannot square the circle (+1)
cmdr_klarg 3 hours ago
The Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned team, unlike any other pro sports team in the US.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Even a slumlord cannot square the circle 
Anonymous Coward 5 hours ago
your first example is about a state government and a non-crucial manufacturing corporation
If you don't think the manufacture of semiconductors is crucial to national security, then you are living in some sort of fantasy world.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Dodger Stadium - 100yr (+1)
raymorris 5 hours ago
> ask any number of cities how long $SPORTS_TEAM stayed
Okay. Let's see - Fenway Park, Wrigley Field and Dodger Stadium are least 100 years old. Looks like about half the MLB teams have been in the same *stadium*, not just the same city, for at least 25 years. I'm not a sports guy, so I don't have a bunch of stats memorized, but the one I know of that moved is the Chargers - after 56 years in San Diego. So I guess there's your answer to how long they stay - somewhere between 56-100 years.
> built for free
Let's see, the Chargers rent of $2.5 million / year for 56 years = $140 million. Plus the taxes on concessions, hotel rooms, etc. You have a strange definition of free.
By the way, are you a good artist, or a musician? I ask because you suck at logic, but I'm sure you're good at something.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Dodger Stadium - 10 (+1)
SpankiMonki 4 hours ago
Okay. Let's see - Fenway Park, Wrigley Field and Dodger Stadium are least 100 years old.
LOL, Dodger Stadium isn't even close to 100 years old.
By the way, are you a good artist, or a musician? I ask because you suck at logic, but I'm sure you're good at something.
Uh huh. Insulting someone after making an error like that is not a good look. For anyone.
Reply  Share
 Flag
You're right, 58 years (+1)
raymorris an hour ago
I stand corrected. Quoting Wikipedia:
--
Opened 58 years ago on April 10, 1962, it was constructed in less than three years at a cost of US$23 million.
--
Hopefully over those 58 years, the city got their $23 million back. Oh wait, the city didn't pay a dime of that. It was it privately funded.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Dodger Stadium - 10 (+1)
Anon42Answer 3 hours ago
Don't forget San Diego City's Ticket Guarantee that if a certain number of tickets were not sold, then the City would simply PAY the Chargers for the tickets not sold. Once the public was informed how bad this was for the taxpayers, the City politicians tried to 'buy' the tickets instead of just giving the money. But then showed their corruption by giving away what they claimed were free tickets to themselves, doners, family, special interest paid for by the tax payers.
Now San Diego City has given away the stadium and all land surrounding it to a tax exempt organization for a one time paltry amount - no more tax revenue from that source. This instead of selling the land to a taxable entity that would generate future tax revenue worth much much more.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Not a sports guy (+2)
Comboman 2 hours ago
One thing you said is correct, you're definitely not a sports guy (I'm not either but at least I can do research and math). The Dodgers played in Brooklyn until 1958, so LA must have had a lot of foresight to build them a stadium 40 years in advance. There are only 2 ballparks over 100 but lots under 20. The average age of an MLB ballpark is 27 years. The average age of an NFL arena is 31 years. The average age of a NBA stadium is 16 years. The average age of an NHL rink is 21 years.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not a sports guy (+1)
raymorris an hour ago
> The Dodgers played in Brooklyn until 1958, so LA must have had a lot of foresight to build them a stadium 40 years in advance.
You're right, it's only 58 years old. Of course the city didn't build it either, it was 100% privately funded.
Reply  Share
 Flag
It's worse if $SPORTS_TEAM stays (+1)
rsilvergun 31 minutes ago
multiple studies have shown that sports is just a money sink for the cities. All the profits go to the associations. They get away with it because people _love_ sports. As someone completely indifferent to them it's just extra taxes I have to pay.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Okay, sure (+5, Informative)
Dutch Gun 6 hours ago
Great. Then let's impose $20 to $50 billion in taxes and tarrifs on companies that refuse to build any manufacturing capabilities in the US. Problem solved.
Oh, that wasn't what you meant? You get all the benefits and security of being a US company, but don't want to invest a little back in the US manufacturing economy? You instead want US taxpayers to foot that bill? Fuck that.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Okay, sure (+1)
thegarbz 5 hours ago
The tax payers always foot the bill. Whether it be for a tax bailout, whether it be loss of economic competitiveness due to the rise of China, or whether it would be the subsequent bail out of a company the government unintentionally sunk.
Typically the government isn't going to fuck over an employer of 110 thousand people, just because #MAGA. The world is a big place, and there's no reason for a company to stay in a country hostile towards them anymore.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Okay, sure (+1)
Dutch Gun 5 hours ago
Of course taxpayers always foot the bill in the end. I'm hoping a bit of sarcasm came through in this post, although that's sometimes tricky in writing,
Taxing corporations too heavily simply causes prices to rise (which consumers ultimately pay for) and makes them noncompetitive in a global marketplace. That being said, it's a far cry from simply giving them taxpayer money. Many of these companies are already hugely profitable. We can surely work out some reasonable compromises that encourage them to bring at least some proportion of manufacturing here without doing it in too punitive a manner, such that they'd feel the need to incorporate elsewhere.
Long-term, it's far better for market stability to avoid relying on too few vendors. We rely FAR too much on manufacturers in potentially hostile countries, and since corporations only look at the immediate bottom line (in fairness, they have to compete economically), they're not going to impose more costs on themselves voluntarily. Probably the best we could do is impose a system that's at least tax revenue neutral - impose additional tariffs or taxes on companies that rely too heavily on manufacturing in potentially hostile countries (friendly / allied countries should be penalized much less), and direct it as incentives towards companies that are at least willing to build some percentage of manufacturing here in the US.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Okay, sure (+1)
OpinOnion 5 hours ago
Tax them all, then give incentives to mission critical industries and call it National Security. Sooo many problems solved!
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Okay, sure (+2)
ShanghaiBill 5 hours ago
You get all the benefits and security of being a US company
There are no benefits to being a US company.
America imposes extraterritorial taxes on companies headquartered in America, putting American companies at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors.
Many companies have re-incorporated overseas to avoid these taxes.
America has passed multiple laws to prevent American companies from fleeing American jurisdiction, with limited success.
Perhaps we should make America attractive to investors rather than punishing those who try to build their businesses here.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Okay, sure (+1)
Rockoon 4 hours ago
Does it really need to be said that there should be a rewards for 'good behaviors' and a punishments for 'bad behaviors' ...

But then a lot of the crowd here these days is from a generation that got rewards just for participating.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Okay, sure (+1)
ShanghaiBill 4 hours ago
Does it really need to be said that there should be a rewards for 'good behaviors' and a punishments for 'bad behaviors' ...
Since we currently do the opposite, yes, it does need to be said.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Or how about this: (+1)
Shadow of Eternity 6 hours ago
You do business with the modern day version of Nazi Germany and we hang your board of executives for treason. Want to move manufacturing to an allied country like South Korea that isn't running genocidal concentration camps? Fine, you're welcome to do that, but you lose the sum total of every single tax and trade benefit we've ever given you.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Or how about this: (+1)
thegarbz 5 hours ago
and we hang your board of executives for treason.
Sure. Point to exactly which laws they broke and you can hang away. Unfortunately for you we live in a world where the rule of law and not mob justice or angry internet rants prevail.
Want to move manufacturing to an allied country like South Korea that isn't running genocidal concentration camps? Fine, you're welcome to do that
Except there's no law manufacturing anywhere, including the former Nazi Germany (which had a lot of deals with private USA based companies). Shareholders, an angry manchild president, and an internet poster not being happy with the way you run your company is not "treason".
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Or how about this: 
Archtech 4 hours ago
You do business with the modern day version of Nazi Germany and we hang your board of executives for treason.
Are you referring to the USA?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Most corps go where the labor is CHEAP (+1)
p51d007 5 hours ago
After WW2, they started going to Japan to make everything (electronic). I remember as a kid in the 60's if it said made in Japan, it was JUNK. Then, Japan got really good (think Sony stuff etc), but, their labor rates went up as their people started demanding better wages. Then, the corporations moved into China for the cheap labor. Difference between manufacturing things in Japan, U.S. Europe and most of the world and China, is the Chinese "citizens" can't demand anything like higher wages or they will be "disappeared". I hope more corporations move OUT of China, but I think China has a death grip on the (slave)labor market and will still be attractive to corporations, not to mention the under the table money, that will keep them in China
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Most corps go where the labor is CHEAP (+1)
cusco 5 hours ago
Actually wages in China are going up faster than in the US, working conditions are improving as well as environmental considerations. They're probably about where we were a couple of generations ago, but catching up **MUCH** quicker.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Most corps go where the labor is CHEAP 
Anonymous Coward 5 hours ago
With added genocide!
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Most corps go where the labor is CHEAP (+1)
cusco 4 hours ago
[citation needed]
And no, Falung Gong propaganda is not actual documentation.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Most corps go where the labor is CHEAP (+1)
Type44Q 4 hours ago
After WW2, they started going to Japan to make everything (electronic).
 Japanese companies began to conquer cameras in the 50's, stereos/electronics in the 60's and cars in the 70's but little to none of that was outsourced by American firms, at least not until years later.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Most corps go where the labor is CHEAP (+1)
cb88 4 hours ago
FABs are one of the worst examples for this... the people that do work in fabs are few and highly skilled so the wage gap there is much less as they can move elsewhere and get a job because they are skilled and mobile.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Is this cash or incentives? (+1)
GregMmm 5 hours ago
Honest question:
Is this giving money to companies, or just tax brakes?
I'm not into giving money, like writing a check, but the tax brakes make sense. Keeping the manufacturing here is really important. As far as I know Intel is the only company with their own fabs. There are other fabs in the US, but are foreign owned.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Is this cash or incentives? (+1)
lessSockMorePuppet 5 hours ago
This sounds like collusion and acting as a cartel.
Arrest the boards of the colluding manufacturers.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Is this cash or incentives? (+1)
Archtech 4 hours ago
This sounds like collusion and acting as a cartel.
Arrest the boards of the colluding manufacturers.
That ship sailed in the 1880s.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Load More
by TaboolaSponsored LinksYou May Like
Excavator Busts Open Rock, Has No Idea What He's Done
World Life Style
How Amal Clooney Looks Without Makeup Is Tough To Handle
Pay Day Ville
Nicole Kidman's Incredible Evolution in Photos
POPSUGAR
Deciphering What Dreams Truly Mean
HealthyGem
Submit Terms Privacy Feedback Non-mobile
follow us
 Copyright © 2020 SlashdotMedia.All Rights Reserved.

The RIPE NCC Has Run Out of IPv4 Addresses
19 Most Gorgeous Small Towns on Earth
Thrillist
|
Sponsored
Scientists Make Discovery In Ants At Nuclear Plant
Post Fun
|
Sponsored