What does corporate and personal income taxes mean? "In addition, a new Wisconsin law forgives corporate and personal income taxes of companies that relocate to Wisconsin for two years."

Sorry this from The Northwest Herald. The AP reports are taken directly from Walkers press release: "The state offered Catalyst $500,000 to offset moving costs, and the Kenosha Area Business Alliance approved a $1.25 million low-interest loan to entice the firm. Although Walker said the move would bring 105 jobs to Wisconsin, a Kenosha News report said Catalyst planned to bring 85 jobs to the new plant, with the promise of adding at least 24 positions by 2014, all with a minimum annual salary of $55,000."
http://www.nwherald.com/2011/03/17/cryst...

The company is bringing 80 employees with them which bring that number of jobs that may go to wisconsin taxpayers to 25.

The company I work for also handles trade show products. It is definitely a "seasonal" type of product. We go gangbusters from the first of Feb through April. But the product is quite lucrative. I see this new company bringing some great opportunities to Wisconsin... as long as there are NO union tag-a-longs attached!

I'll have to eat my words about Catalyst Exhibits, Inc probably paying $8.00 with no benefits, JSOL Milwaukee, reports they have an average hourly wage above $34.00. They set up exhibits for trade shows. Now if employees can actually work 40 hours a week, that isn't too shabby at all.

Clarity: When you're ready to wave your white flag just let me know. Admitting that you're wrong isn't the worst thing in the world.

Clarity: After re-reading the link, I don't think that it even supports your claims, despite the fact that it is biased. The article states...

"Even on an hour-for-hour basis, one would expect private sector workers to be more productive due to the lack of competitive forces in government"

They are making an assumption that, again, is not based on facts and does't actually address the number of underperformers in either sector.

Clarity: Take a look at the Board of Trustees for the Reason Foundation. Although I appreciate the effort you are putting in to prove that you weren't making up your "facts", I'm gonna go ahead and say that this article is biased and therefore does not state the truth.

Clarity: At the very beginning of our conversation I was the one that pointed out that underperformers are protected by collective bargaining, so you proved nothing. I also was not the one to make the claim that there are not standards in the public sector, therefore I have nothing to prove to you. Tell you what, if you agree that you were wrong to make claims that you obviously have no proof of, and take back those statements, I'll call it even.

Clarity: I see that you're struggling to find any sources to back your claims, as none of the ones you have provided do anything to support your statement that there are no standards in the public sector and that there are more underperformers in the public sector than the private sector. Keep trying, I'll check back later.

Clarity: That link did nothing to support your claims.

Clarity: I know very well that the system protects underperforming teachers; in case you forgot I mentioned only a few short posts ago. Feel free to go back an read if you'd like. I also stated that underperforming is not a flaw in collective bargaining, it is a human flaw, which is supported by the fact that there are also underperformers in the private sector. I would like some facts showing that there are more underperformers in the public sector than the private sector. I would also like some data showing that there are no standards in the public sector. These are both claims that you made; in case you forgot, you mentioned them just a few short posts ago. Feel free to go back and read if you'd like.

clarity, do low test scores in a residential area that is mostly made up of high income families (where many resources are readily available) indicate that the teacher is underperforming, and therefore, at fault?

What about low test scores in a poverty-stricken area, where the majority of the students come from families that barely keep food on the table and have no extra resources for tutors, books, computers and the like?

Are we punishing the teachers for the inability of parents to parent their children?

I agree...there are underperformers in every work environment, but the ones who are punished the most by removing collective bargaining are the OVERPERFORMERS...the ones who take portions of their paychecks to buy the supplies the school district does not have money for in order to do projects that will help the students better learn the material. The teachers who now will have reduced income, reduced benefits and reduced morale will either leave the field of education, will stop supplying children with additional tools, or will put in their hours and retire as unhappy people who were too discouraged to offer children the education that is necessary to make it in today's world.

In turn, we are further harming the students...and in today's world, the last thing we want, in my opinion, is to make graduating high school (and having basic reading comprehension and math skills) even harder to attain.

Clarity: When you back up your statements with facts I'll gladly debate with you. If you're just going to make generalizations that you provide no proof of I don't see any reason to continue this discourse.

Clarity: Could you provide me with some facts to support your statement that there are fewer underperformers in the private sector? That sounds like an opinion, not a fact. I would guess that the numbers of underperformers in the private and public sector are actually very comparable. This would imply that underperforming is a human flaw, not a collective bargaining flaw, meaning that by eliminating collective bargaining the problem of underperformers is not actually being addressed. This is just one of the many problems with the budget repair bill; he claims that it is providing all of these "tools" to help school boards and local governments, but what he is really providing is an empty tool box.

To touch on your statement that the private sector has "objectives and goals", you're right we do have goals and standards in the private sector. There are also goals and objectives in the public sector, to deny this is very naive.

Underperformers in the private sector DO NOT always get fired. If underperformers don't get fired it is a MANAGEMENT issue. Poor managers exist in both private and public sectors. In the public sector, in my area poor performers have been fired, and in the private sector jobs I had some poor performers (including ones engaging in outright theft) were not fired. By the way, the republicans rejected that argument about spending helping the local economy when they sucked a billion dollars in purchasing power out of the public employees.

Clarity: If underperformers in the private sector get fired how is it that there are still underperformers in the private sector?

Clarity: Yes, it was fair to lay her off. It may not be a popular decision to do so, but given the circumstances it was fair. I don't understand why anyone would believe having job security written into a contract is wrong. I know that it also protects underperforming teachers, but guess what, there are underperforming employees everywhere and unfortunately that will probably never change.

If you don't know the difference between a decent job with decent benefits and one that offers minimum wage there's nothing I can do to help you.

Aside from the arguments I see here on how many employees will actually live in Wisconsin, there are other benefits besides taxes that come to the state and community by having the business operate in Wisconsin. Two that I can identify easily are power and water consumption that will benefit the local utilities and help control the costs of those services for the local area. When GM left Janesville our power rates and especially water rates had to be adjusted up and this brought further harm to the community. They will also begin switching to other more local vendors for items like office supplies, vending and maybe even outsourcing part of their operations to smaller local companies.

werpknarly
Mar 17, 2011 at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal W W Grainger started closing down centers all over the country last summmer, Under Doyle, and moving jobs to janesville.

That's because Grainger,Hofcor,SSI were given 1 million$$ in tax breaks to create 210 jobs.All have had lay offs since tax breaks expired and are now rehiring new workers.Can you see what is happening when the $$ runs out ??

I posted the figures last week on how low the new hires pay would take to meet requirements on the $200,000 tax break....Time will tell how long these companies keep workers after their $$ is done also.

Clarity: There was no complaining in my post, only concern. The kind of jobs that Wisconsin needs to get going again are ones with a decent salary and that provide decent benefits at a cost that is reasonable for both the employer and employee. If these jobs fit into that category and actually go to Wisconsin residents and not commuters from Illinois, then that's great. By the way, I'm still waiting for you (and Walker) to rescind your comments on the teacher from Milwaukee that was let go after being named "outstanding English teacher of the year" or whatever it was.

Anyone know the number of full time jobs Walker's budget repair bill is going to eliminate in Wisconsin? Let's look at that figure, because so far Janesville is looking at close to 100!

Macdaddy do you know how to investigate facts and reason? I have a law degree. I read very well. Let's make this simple. The company is presently located one hour from thier proposed new site. It already employs almost one hundred employees. Those employees are within commuting distance. The company says they will have 105 jobs after moving. The company has revenue sales of 20+ million. In order to getthe tax break they need to have payroll of $200,000 or more. That payroll does not exclude them from paying thier current employees for keeping thier current jobs. The company can recieve the tax break by doing nothing but moving and keeping all of the current employees. They can collect the Half million gift and the 1.5 million loan, and not pay income taxes for two years without creating any jobs and since they I tend to lease the new building, they can move again when the two years are over.

Guess that sales tax bill in IL benefits WI. You are going to see alot of marketing companies exit that area.

Do you people saying 6 people and $200,000 read? Maybe you need to pay someone to help you read. Or let me help you.

To qualify a company has to not have been in the state within the past 2 years and relocate here with at least $200,000 in payroll. This is to prevent an individual who owns his own company to move here and not pay taxes personally or for the business. It is to prevent a loophole that others would use and blame Walker for.

READ people, please and stay away from math unless you have education to back it up.

To all those right wingers that say all the liberals want to do is complain: If this company does move to Wisconsin and actually employ Wisconsin residents then I am all for them relocating here. Obviously any job is better than no job at all. I am however still concerned about the fact that companies that relocate here will get tax breaks and there are obviously quite a few loopholes in the new laws. As mentioned by a previous poster, and in the article, only 51% of the workforce or $200,000 in wages must be moved to Wisconsin in order to qualify for the tax breaks. This creates the possibility that all 100 jobs will be part time and/or minimum wage. If this is the case, I do not believe that these are the types of jobs that Wisconsin needs to get going again. Additionally, some rather large operations will have to move here, be started here, or gain steam here in order to meet the goal of 225-250,000 new jobs in the state. If each company were as small as Catalyst we're talking 2,250-2,500 new companies before the goal is met. Another great point is that these companies that are moving from Illinois to Wisconsin are not necessarily doing it because of Walker's legislation; they could very well be moving to avoid the corporate tax increases in Illinois. Walker could have not done a thing and the corporate tax rate in Wisconsin would have been lower than Illinois', so it would be interesting to know the motivation of this company or any future company that moves from Illinois to Wisconsin. For Scott to claim a victory whenever a company relocates here would be to do so under false pretenses, it would be very difficult for anyone to know the true reasoning behind the move.

Yeah this is great for Wisconsin. These guys get a tax break for 2 years for coming into the State. Wisconsin gives up the tax revenue for 2 years and just as the state is set to start making money off of the company, they will move to another state that is offering the same type of deal, taking the jobs and the revenue with it. This type of thing has the states playing against each other and the only true losers are the little guys trying to make a living. They get their taxes raised because of lost revenue and then become unemployed when they leave. Yeah big win there for the state. Keep it up.

Is there a provision of this deal where they have to stay "x" amount of time after the initial 2 years? Like satellite TV, phone service providers, etc......."rates subject to increase after promotional period"......

Some of you are never happy. A few days ago you were gripping, "Where are the jobs you promised us Walker?" Now a company moves here with some jobs and you gripe too. If the surrounding states offer companies incentives to move to their state and we don't where do you think the companies are going to go? This is a start and I have a feeling every time a company moves here or expands some of you will be complaining about what's wrong with that. Get a life!

This company will lease the building, they already have almost 100 employees so the job creation is minimal and they are getting two million dollars upfront and no taxes for two years. This isn't a good deal for the taxpayers, it isn't creating jobs for Wisconsin. Nationwide companies should not be getting tax dollars period, and they should have to pay thier fair share. If it is sensible for a company to locate in Wisconsin they should do it, without bribery. If the company is responsive to this kind of bribery, it will just move again when the tax break is done. It's a nationwide drain to have state's spending tax dollars on businesses. Tax dollars that are wasted, not when school kids can't get an education, seniors have to get kicked off of health care, but the gov did include more funds to bury the indigent. So perhaps they will oblige and just die quickly like he wants. Before you get into they will contribute to the economy by buying things, remember you republicans rejected that arguement soundly by slashing a billion dollars in local revenue by cutting public employees takehome pay by 14%. Of course, now that public employees aren't spending that money everyone is crying 'ohh, they are hurting our businesses'.

This article contains more details: http://www.channel3000.com/money/2722711... . "Gov. Scott Walker said the company will invest $2.5 million in the state. The company will employ 105 people. Walker said the company will receive a $500,000 state grant for relocating, and the Kenosha Area Business Alliance will provide a $1.25 million low interest loan for building renovations."
*
To me, this additional information is very pertinent. While the loan will need to be repaid, the half-million grant is given with no strings attached. When we're cutting nearly a billion from education in this state, I find it disheartening that a company is receiving such an incentive.

So your plan of action is while other states and their communities offer these businesses incentives and tax breaks, rather than be proactive we should just sit idly by and watch as what's left of Wisconsin's manufacturing base pack up and leave the state? Too funny.......I guess at least that way the private sector unionized labor will also have plenty of free time to rally up in Madison as their jobs are moved across the border.....Solidarity forever...right?

I think that it is amazing how people think this is a bad idea. Jobs for whatever reason are a good thing. And to blame Republicans for supporting a canidate then boycot them--ARE YOU DUMB? A lot of comapny owners are Republicans (no suprise), but to put the workers at risk (because of the slower work load) of their jobs just for working there WOW. Some of those companies that are on the boycott list are Union shops, and stores offer several products made by Union empoyees and has that product transported to them by Union Truckers, well like I said before--ARE YOU DUMB or just hypocritical?

Great story - money in the community as well. Hope there is a kwik trip there!

Here is a better story about this

http://www.biz-journal.com/articles/2011...

You're making a lot of assumptions. The fact is this "development" is nearly jobs creation neutral and won't pay any corp or personal taxes the first two years. Do you know whether the company picked up TIF surplus funds from the locals? Are there any other tax breaks and state aid that wasn't mentioned here? This is the Janesville Gazette afterall. This is an outrage whether proposed by a democrat or a republican. But more so an outrage from those small "get out the way" government types who claim government doesn't create jobs. --------"This is in exchange for 2 years of taxes that Wisconsin wouldn't have collected regardless..." Why should any new home or business pay any taxes? When it wasn't there previously anyways... too funny.

It's $8.00 an hour jobs, no benefits. It's called a "republicans dream" Scott Walker will totally ruin Wisconsin, while business makes big $.

Youkillme.....It's a good deal for us because there is a good chance that the majority of the workforce will transfer to Wisconsin. Aside from the commute which is well over an hour, the real estate prices/taxes are higher in the northwest suburbs than they are in south central Wisconsin. A once vacant building is also leased, local vendors and contractors are brought in to maintain the building and service the company. Although corporate taxes are off limits the state and city will collect income, property, and sales taxes from the company's workforce. This is in exchange for 2 years of taxes that Wisconsin wouldn't have collected regardless.....
It's hard to see why even an "anti-Walker" person would be so against a company like this making Wisconsin it's home, but you guys are pretty bitter........

That $200,000 figure is key. Cost of benefits are usually included in compensation so this could be 5 or less additional employees. This conpany will have the advantage of no corporate or personal taxes for the first two years while an existing Wisconsin competitor continues to loyally pay those taxes, along with the rest of us. We're looking for companies that would ease the tax burden on the average Wisconsin tax payer - not make it greater.

More corporate welfare for the un-needy.

Wow... nice math people! Let's talk about this company. Would you agree that of the 100+ jobs coming to Wisconsin that an employee would earn an average of at least $25,000 yearly? That's an annual payroll of over 2.5 million dollars. But considering their clients, I suspect this company pays much more than an average of $25,000. Anyway, while this may not alone fix the state's budget issues, it's a great start! And even a company that is bringing in $200,000 in payroll (as some of you are unbelieveably complaining about!) is better than a company leaving, as they had done en masse under Mr. Doyle.

EMMO46 "And, don't workers who live in Illinois and work in Wis. have to pay Wis. income tax?" No they do not. They pay the taxes in the state where they reside as Wisconsin & Illinois have a reciprocal agreement.

Paul Stahlberg sounds like he's only one more government hand-out away from running for the U.S. Senate - like that other self-made man, Ron Johnson.

Well of course he's Republican. Since when do Democrats actually *create* jobs outside of government work??

This is just great. Paul Stahlberg, the owner of this company has been a big $$ republican contributor for the past few years. He wasn't getting any handouts in IL so he decides to come to WI where his good buddy hands him 2.5 million for a handful of jobs. Take from the poor - give to the rich.

Neocon, the story from you neocons is that people would rather collect unemployment than work. This company is nearly jobs creation neutral for Wisconsin while enoying a tax free environment. They can pack up and move for a better deal in two years. Explain why this is a good deal for us taxpayers.

yeah, I'm sure those 105 people that need a job will turn it down too...never mind that it might be 105 people off unemployment as well.

Boo, explain your logic why this is such a good deal for Wisconsin taxpayers. This company holds no loyalty to anything but the buck. After two years, they can get up an fly away. That $2.5 "investment" is probably borrowed money also. No emotions now remember.

Sounds like some people are just going to be miserable no matter what. I find that sad. I wish some of you could separate your emotions from your logic. That goes for both sides of the collective bargaining issue.

The article says that..."To qualify for the tax break,...companies must have at least $200,000 in wages in Wisconsin".
I read that as the MINIMUM in wages to qualify for a tax break for ANY company, not what Catalyst Exhibits may actually be paying 105 workers.
And, don't workers who live in Illinois and work in Wis. have to pay Wis. income tax?
So, even if some of the workers do not relocate, they still pay income tax here.

Zero job creation for Wisconsin while it's tax payers get stuck underwriting the business's taxes. Great news!

You can't close budget gaps and not raise taxes. We'll know if the new law is working when WI has a surplus or balanced budget. 105 jobs does not a recovery make.

W W Grainger started closing down centers all over the country last summmer, Under Doyle, and moving jobs to janesville.

This article says $200,000 in wages, NOT company profits. Do you realize how little $200,000 in employee wages a year actually is? 10 people at $20,000 a year or 5 people @ 40M each! Wow! Yep, that's BIG business reaping multi-million dollar "breaks". Come on people, the bennies to new companies willing to come to Wisconsin are NOT getting some monster package. AND, its only two years worth... then they pay into the state. Kinda like the rush by Unions to be able to close a 2 year package before March 25th... to lock in contracts till 2013.
So... if we are "apples to apples", give up the union, keep your job, and give your neighbor a job. Sounds mighty simple to me...

he's sure helping Wisconsin, alright...meh. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Hey, just enough jobs for all the teachers that will get pinkslipped here in Janesville!

justmy414...very close to what I was thinking...if they actually DO "relocate". good grief, Walker, stop trying to pat yourself on the back. You're gonna hurt yourself...and then blame us.

So a company with 20 million in sales, and 99 employees moves one hour from thier present place of business, gets a half million upfront payment by Wis. taxpayers and no contribution to Wisconsin taxes for two whole years and after they move they will have 105 employees. Pretty sure those present employees are just going to commute. But hey, it's only going to cost Wisconsin a few million to get those extra six jobs.

They get a tax break for two years. I suppose that's where the 5.8% pension addition will go.

yeah, if Walker said it, then I'll believe it. ha. give me a break.