• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Should Honda be allowed to ---

pointrider

Well-known member
Should Honda (a Japanese company) be allowed to build a manufacturing plant in Indiana? Toyota and Honda are increasing market share in the U.S. while GM and Ford are losing market share.

Indiana wants this plant. Indiana has lost 98,000 industrial jobs since 2000. Indiana wants this plant so bad that it outbid four other states to get it. That's right. Outbid them. What was Indiana's bid? $141.5 million dollars in incentives to Honda, including training assistance and tax credits and abatements. The plant is expected to employ 2,000 people, and Honda will spend $550 million to build it.

This plant is part of a global expansion by Honda that calls for a total expenditure of $1.18 billion, and this plant is expected to eventually produce 200,000 vehicles annually.

The other four states that wanted the plant are Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois. Is it wrong for us to allow this plant? What if there have been others already built in this country? Were 5 of the 50 states in the U.S. wrong to try and attract this plant? Should they have gone to Congress and demanded that the plant be a Ford plant or a GM plant?

What does all of this mean, if anything, in the matter of Ford getting ready to build a new plant in Mexico? That's right. Ford is going to Mexico, and Honda is going to build here. Are they competing with each other? What do you think all of this means?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Not far from me, Hyundai has built a plant that cost $1.18 BILLION. All paid for by the State, County, and City. All Hyundai had to do was set the equipment in the building and reap the incentives to come........

This is the same thing as subsidizing the foreign auto makers and punishing the domestic ones. How is GM and Ford supposed to compete when we are doing this?

Was reading the other day that each UAW worker on average is paid $68.00 per hour in payroll and other benefits.

The unions have killed the autot business in the U.S. This is why Honda, Mercedes, and Hyundai have built plants in Alabama recently. No Unions to deal with.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
These local governments are buying tax base.

And to do it, they are giving away incentives to corporations and investors and laying the tax burden on the individuals. If capital makes money in the U.S. why should it have to pay less in taxes than individuals selling their labor?
 

pointrider

Well-known member
How would you have handled it, Sandhusker? If you were the one setting all the policies, how would you have handled Honda's request to build a plant, and how would you have handled the states wanting to bid on it?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
pointrider said:
How would you have handled it, Sandhusker? If you were the one setting all the policies, how would you have handled Honda's request to build a plant, and how would you have handled the states wanting to bid on it?

I really think the Feds need to step in and get a handle on this. I hate more rules and regulations, but this plant shopping has gotten rediculous. Millions of dollars of tax payers money that is needed elsewhere is getting pledged to plants that are going to be built someplace anyway. I'd like to see limitations put on the packages that states and munincipalities can offer.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Let's see now......we whine and b***h when industry ships factory jobs to other nations.........and do the same when industry wants to come here and create jobs. What a country!

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Let's see now......we whine and b***h when industry ships factory jobs to other nations.........and do the same when industry wants to come here and create jobs. What a country!

MRJ

Are you telling us they wouldn't build a plant here without a handout?
 

Jason

Well-known member
Some of these plants are huge. The money spent in building them alone can pay for the "tax breaks" the company might get.

I put the tax breaks in " " because sometimes it appears a tax break but it is not starting to assess tax until the plant is up and running.

Case in point... Cargill wanted to build a $50 million grain terminal on a vacant lot in Fort Macleod a few years back. They asked for a 3 year no property tax "break". There were no jobs in the town to speak of and this would offer 50 emporary jobs and 6 full time positions. Town council went berzerk and said how much they would lose on this no tax for 3 years deal... guess what? 20 years later the piece of ground is still vacant and dollar 1 has not been earned.

Huge structures are not likely to up and move. Small and medium sized business that can refurbish buildings are more likely to be mobile if economic conitions change. The tax breaks for each need to be geared toward the lasting econimic potential.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Jason said:
Some of these plants are huge. The money spent in building them alone can pay for the "tax breaks" the company might get.

I put the tax breaks in " " because sometimes it appears a tax break but it is not starting to assess tax until the plant is up and running.

Case in point... Cargill wanted to build a $50 million grain terminal on a vacant lot in Fort Macleod a few years back. They asked for a 3 year no property tax "break". There were no jobs in the town to speak of and this would offer 50 emporary jobs and 6 full time positions. Town council went berzerk and said how much they would lose on this no tax for 3 years deal... guess what? 20 years later the piece of ground is still vacant and dollar 1 has not been earned.

Huge structures are not likely to up and move. Small and medium sized business that can refurbish buildings are more likely to be mobile if economic conitions change. The tax breaks for each need to be geared toward the lasting econimic potential.

Ask the folks in Norfolk, Nebraska and the entire Madison County how well this worked for them.
 

pointrider

Well-known member
What would you do next, Sandhusker, if your limitations were the law, and all 5 states bid the maximum allowed? Would you say, "Whoever bid it first?"

If you did that, then the game would turn into an eBay deal with a bunch of people sitting by their computers fighting to get the first bid as soon as the specs and limits were published. Would that be right? The state with the best techie wins? The lucky one who had an automatic bid placer program going wins because he just happened to hit it right?

??????????
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Jason said:
Some of these plants are huge. The money spent in building them alone can pay for the "tax breaks" the company might get.

I put the tax breaks in " " because sometimes it appears a tax break but it is not starting to assess tax until the plant is up and running.

Case in point... Cargill wanted to build a $50 million grain terminal on a vacant lot in Fort Macleod a few years back. They asked for a 3 year no property tax "break". There were no jobs in the town to speak of and this would offer 50 emporary jobs and 6 full time positions. Town council went berzerk and said how much they would lose on this no tax for 3 years deal... guess what? 20 years later the piece of ground is still vacant and dollar 1 has not been earned.

Huge structures are not likely to up and move. Small and medium sized business that can refurbish buildings are more likely to be mobile if economic conitions change. The tax breaks for each need to be geared toward the lasting econimic potential.

Ask the folks in Norfolk, Nebraska and the entire Madison County how well this worked for them.

Well, why don't you tell us?

I am interested in what has transpired because we may have the same type of thing happen near here.

I am always suspicious when a community, province or state has to BID for the business.

Perhaps I am simply paranoid?

B.C.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
pointrider said:
What would you do next, Sandhusker, if your limitations were the law, and all 5 states bid the maximum allowed? Would you say, "Whoever bid it first?"

If you did that, then the game would turn into an eBay deal with a bunch of people sitting by their computers fighting to get the first bid as soon as the specs and limits were published. Would that be right? The state with the best techie wins? The lucky one who had an automatic bid placer program going wins because he just happened to hit it right?

??????????

You're getting carried away, pointrider. Of course, it would be up to the company where they would locate.

Here's my view; The companies are going to build somewhere, whether it be Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee, whatever. They're going to do it anyway, so why allow them to extort from the governments? That's all they're doing. I've been told by an individual who was in involved in a large deal for the Omaha area that they were sure the company was only using them for a bargaining chip for where they planned on going all along. These states/counties/cities are generally scrapping for funds to begin with - why not clean up the whole process so the tax payers don't get played and funds can be used where they're needed? In the end, the plants will still get built and the local governments haven't been shaken down.
 

pointrider

Well-known member
So, Sandhusker, if your proposed law was passed do you think that some of those companies would CHOOSE to build in other countries and then export back to us, permanently displacing more jobs out of the U.S.? Or would you also put a law into effect that would eliminate imports from foreign auto companies who chose not to build in the U.S.?

Personally, I believe some of them would go to other countries, because they would have no choice. It's all about competition. That's why GM is now talking merger with Renault and Nissan. "The synergy. The buying power." The same ole stuff. They have no choice. They have to do something, and their largest investors understand that. That's why they are pushing for it.

Let me put that another way. R-calf won't save anyone. Staying out of the Bottom Third is what will save cow-calf producers in the long run, and that means competing and doing a better job.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
pointrider said:
So, Sandhusker, if your proposed law was passed do you think that some of those companies would CHOOSE to build in other countries and then export back to us, permanently displacing more jobs out of the U.S.? Or would you also put a law into effect that would eliminate imports from foreign auto companies who chose not to build in the U.S.?

Personally, I believe some of them would go to other countries, because they would have no choice. It's all about competition. That's why GM is now talking merger with Renault and Nissan. "The synergy. The buying power." The same ole stuff. They have no choice. They have to do something, and their largest investors understand that. That's why they are pushing for it.

Let me put that another way. R-calf won't save anyone. Staying out of the Bottom Third is what will save cow-calf producers in the long run, and that means competing and doing a better job.

No I don't think they would choose to build in another country. They want here for a reason. I don't think you realize that most of these deals involve domestic companies. Just yesterday in the Omaha World Herald is a story about LaVista NE having to pony up 8 million to build a parking lot for a new Cabelas store. Don't tell me Cabelas would of went overseas without a package from LaVista. What about Tyson and Norfolk, NE. Madison County completely changed the way the county operated for Tyson - do you think Tyson would of went overseas? Come on, Pointrider. You're thinking like a Texas Tech grad......

What does R-CALF have to do with any of this? You been eating tainted totillas?
 

M Gravlee

Well-known member
Alabama has hit a home run with the auto plants. And it sure goes a long way in replacing the tens of thousands of low paying textile jobs that have been exported. I doubt that any of them would have chosen Alabama if financial incentives were not involved.

http://www.edpa.org/pdfs/Automotive%20Industry%20Profile.pdf
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
pointrider said:
Staying out of the Bottom Third is what will save cow-calf producers in the long run, and that means competing and doing a better job.

Please explain...bottom third of USA...or North America...or world?

Competing...with other beef producers...pork ...chicken?

Look at the "record weights" thread and give your comments.

And doing a better job...for yourself...the packer...or the consumer?

Macon, my brother-in-law sells lumber in Tuscaloosa...that economy is booming. I think the final reason for deciding location for these major plants boils down to their biggest long term expense...labor cost and quality. That is also the long term benefit to local governments...the multiplied tax return from a high paid labor force through out the community.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
M Gravlee said:
Alabama has hit a home run with the auto plants. And it sure goes a long way in replacing the tens of thousands of low paying textile jobs that have been exported. I doubt that any of them would have chosen Alabama if financial incentives were not involved.

http://www.edpa.org/pdfs/Automotive%20Industry%20Profile.pdf

The benefits of these plants isn't in question. My opinion is that these plants would of been built someplace in the US anyway without any shakedown of the local governments. Do you think they would of built outside the US without any financial package, Macon?
 

Latest posts

Top