Mercury Marine named 2013 Wisconsin Manufacturer of the Year

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Mercury Marine named 2013 Wisconsin Manufacturer of the Year

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Mercury Marine named 2013 Wisconsin Manufacturer of the Year

OMCrobert posted 03-02-2014 06:21 PM ET (US)
[Turns out this article was a cut-and-paste of a press release. See Mercury's website for the press release. I will just give the link to the source--jimh] http://www.mercurymarine.com/news-and-events/news/2014/2/28/mercury-marine-named-2013-wisconsin-manufacturer-y/
Dave Sutton posted 03-03-2014 12:42 PM ET (US)
Interesting.
They seem to be the company of the decade in avoiding Wisconsin taxes though..
http://fox6now.com/2014/03/02/how-large-corporations-avoid-paying-income-taxes-in-wisconsin/

Dave

.
jimh posted 03-03-2014 02:17 PM ET (US)
Dave--The presentation you have linked is really an eye-opener. Imagine not paying any state income tax for more than 10-years, while getting tens of millions in subsidies, grants, or other cash benefits, and then claiming that "high taxes" could force your business to leave the state.
It was worth the 11-minutes I spent watching that story.
OMCrobert posted 03-03-2014 03:40 PM ET (US)
Globalization and offshoring have made the world a different place and the USA is no different. Manufacturering has left the rust belt as fast as possible for economic advantages, if I was a stock holder of one of these companies I would be upset that they stayed in the rust belt without reasons such as tax breaks or incentives. Detroit is the perfect example of what happens when you bleed a company to death and they have options, they simply leave.
Lowing taxes sounds like the right thing for the state and the 3500 employees that are gainfully employed because of it.
Here is a great quote from Dave's article.
- Five years after the Mercrury Marine situation, the company is still in Fond du Lac, and has used the incentives to expand and add more than 1,500 jobs. In a statement, the company told us the incentives “have certainly helped fuel our growth.”
I recommend Jimh use some of his fancy editing on this thread so we stay on topic and eliminate..[Actually, I did edit this to remove the change in topic in which OMCrobert began to talk about a different company and about the website itself. Let's stay on topic: Mercury Marine and Wisconsin business. Thanks--jimh]
jimh posted 03-03-2014 05:19 PM ET (US)
OMCrobert: I think you are using "Detroit" as metonymy for something else. Please explain your metaphor. Exactly what to you mean to refer by it?
jimh posted 03-03-2014 05:24 PM ET (US)
OMCrobert: thanks for starting the thread. I had not heard that Wisconsin or some group in Wisconsin had named Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year in Wisconsin.
This is the second time Mercury was recognized like this. I think they were similarly recognized in 2006. There is a prior discussion about it when that was a current news story.
TransAm posted 03-03-2014 07:43 PM ET (US)

quote:
Imagine not paying any state income tax for more than 10-years, while getting tens of millions in subsidies, grants, or other cash benefits, and then claiming that "high taxes" could force your business to leave the state.
I do not see what is so offensive about a company trying to limit their income tax liability, anyway they can. American companies are subject to the most highest corporate income taxes in the world, before factoring the most onerous and absurd government regulations imaginable.
I am a small business owner; in fact, I own and operate 2 small businesses. Corporations don't pay income taxes in the sense as ordinary Americans. Corporate taxes are but another expense line item on the income statement. As a business owner, I look at minimizing all of my expenses, including my tax liability. If I am able to negotiate reductions in my tax income liability with municipalities through various means, I will certainly do so and should not be condemned for doing so. The government will get their pound of flesh...of that you can be sure.
How about all the payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes...and on and on...that Mercury contributes. Does this account for anything? Most people would be astonished at the expense involved with government compliance for businesses and corporations. I'd bet if folks got to peer into the onerous governmental compliance costs Mercury incurs, or better yet, open their own business and have to get the checkbook out themselves, a different view on corporate taxes might emerge. So yes, I see very clearly the importance of negotiating the best possible deal with state and local municipalities regarding tax obligations.
K Albus posted 03-04-2014 09:34 AM ET (US)
Mercury sold the Fond du Lac jobs to the highest bidder. Wisconsin was a willing participant in the bidding, and eventually won the bidding war. If the people of Wisconsin don't like the result, they can vote out the politicians that made it happen. Although the whole affair seems a little unsavory, I don't think Mercury's role in it was motivated by any evil intentions. Mercury, like any other rational business, was looking to maximize its profits. If the people of a given state don't want to play such games, they should be careful not to elect politicians who will let such games be played.
jimh posted 03-04-2014 10:43 AM ET (US)
TransAm--In response to your comments: I don't like the idea that tax obligations and regulatory compliance are subject to negotiations. As an individual, I have to pay all the same taxes listed:
--income tax
--sales tax
--property tax
and I have to comply with all the regulations imposed on me by government.
For example, I have to pay for RF sensors in the wheels of my new car because the government decided that there are people who are too stupid to check the inflation of their tires. So I had to pay about $100 more for my car to have mandatory RF sensors in the tires.
In all of the taxes and regulations, I was in no position to engage in any sort of negotiation with the taxing or regulating authority on the basis that if I was not given some advantage or relief, I would move out of the state and live and work somewhere else. As an individual--or a small business--I had no leverage and could not even imagine negotiations of my tax rates or compliance.
In addition, allowing individual businesses to enter into negotiations about their rate of taxation or compliance is unfair to other businesses. As seen in the case of Brunswick and its Mercury Marine operation in Fond du Lac, a large employer in the local area was able to use the threat of leaving town as leverage in negotiations with the state and local governments. When the government announced it was going to throw about $70-million to Brunswick to stay, that in turn leveraged all the workers represented in collective bargaining agreements to give up wages and other benefits, too.
It seems rather crazy to me that people around Fond du Lac are paying a higher sales tax than other citizens of Wisconsin in order to give Brunswick relief from their tax obligations, especially when Mercury Marine didn't pay any taxes and has not for over a decade. That is troubling.
K Albus posted 03-04-2014 10:56 AM ET (US)
The articles above indicate that Wisconsin paid about $70 million to keep Mercury in Fond du Lac. They also indicate that Mercury has 3,500 employees in Wisconsin. Let's assume that 3,000 of those employees would have been put out of work by Mercury leaving Fond du Lac. That $70 million incentive package equals about $450 per worker per week for one year. How much would the state of Wisconsin have had to pay those workers in unemployment benefits if they had lost their jobs?
jimh posted 03-04-2014 11:31 AM ET (US)
Kevin's analysis shows the basis for the leverage used by Brunswick. I don't think there is dispute that by being such a large employer in such a small town they have leverage. At issue is whether or not there is ethical behavior in using the leverage, and particularly so when making the threat to leave might be just a position taken in negotiations to make use of the leverage. There are some, including me, who think there was never any actual risk of Mercury Marine leaving Fond du Lac and moving its entire operation to Stillwater, Oklahoma. They made the threat of doing that in order to exert leverage.
As for government selecting certain types of business or certain individual businesses for advantage, it happens all the time in so many ways it is hard to keep track.
Regarding the recognition of Mercury Marine, it occurs to me that once government entities invest $70-million into a particular venture, a really good way to demonstrate that the investment was a good investment and produced a great payoff is for the same government entities to declare that the venture selected to receive the $70-million investment is recognized for some honorary achievement. It makes political sense. The politicos can say, "Hey, look, that big investment we made has really paid off!"
TransAm posted 03-04-2014 02:24 PM ET (US)
jimh, I do not believe Mercury negotiated a lower corporate tax rate to something different than any other corporation... they simply discovered a way to reduce their taxable income. Regular folks do this all the time with their accountant. I you have something to offer your state...something perhaps you personally could do, in order to induce a tax tax credit, I do not believe there is any barrier precluding you from presenting such a proposal to the state of Michigan in exchange for tax relief.
Here is but one example:
I'm sure everyone has received property assessment they did not necessarily agree with...and perhaps set out on a mission of appeal with their local taxing authority. Generally, the result is a negotiated, reduced property assessment resulting in a lower property tax bill.
Regarding the government getting their "pound of flesh" here is a quick story.
Some time ago, my company was in negotiations to develop a piece of ground located 1/2 mile from a 4-way intersection. The county thought it would be a good idea, at some point in the distant future, to upgrade the intersection as the population of the area rose. As part of the development process, I was required to produce a traffic study of the intersection to determine if there would be any negative impact on the intersections traffic patterns. The traffic study was completed and concluded no measurable impact for the intersection.
Despite these findings, I was required to pay $48,000, which was placed in escrow in favor of the county, to help pay for future upgrades to the intersection (should they be needed), even though I had a certified report from a licensed traffic engineer stating my development would generate no additional trips through the intersection. No pay...no site plan approval. So I am not particularly swayed by an argument of "fairness" when it comes to negotiable taxation for businesses. My suggestion to you jimh would be to open a business, become influential, and negotiate with your local governments regarding your corporate tax obligations. It is done all the time.

jcdawg83 posted 03-04-2014 03:08 PM ET (US)
Unless one has been in business and had to deal with the corrupt govt on all levels, from local to federal, they should never comment on whether or not it is "fair" for a company or individual to receive any kind of incentive. All levels of govt are populated by bureaucrats who have never and will never create anything but regulations and hurdles for honest business people to deal with in order to insure the bureaucrats' future employment enforcing those rules and regulations. If a private company or individual operated the way govts do, they would be indicted, convicted and sentenced.
I am convinced that all govt employees go into work every day with a total commitment to preventing anyone else from making a profit on anything. If an individual or business manages to actually make some money, in spite of govt's efforts, it is testimony to the patience and hard work of the business or individual. I find it amazing that more businesses do not pack up and move from areas where they are treated as the "enemy" and move to areas where they are actually welcomed. The state of Wisconsin should send a thank you note to Mercury every year for remaining in the state.

jimh posted 03-04-2014 04:27 PM ET (US)
TransAm--I enjoyed reading your narrative of your personal example, as it illustrated my point perfectly. Your business was too small and lacked any sort of leverage in the negotiation process with the regulatory or taxing authority, and it could not obtain relief from the cost of compliance with existing rules. I think if your business employed 3,000 people and paid them all excellent wages, you probably could have gotten your own exit ramp from the interstate highway system built at no cost to you. Then you'd have leverage.
jcdawg83--I agree with your main assertion: there are plenty of regulations imposed on businesses by regulatory authorities. We hold completely congruent opinions. I, too, am amazed by the many obstacles that are placed in the way of businesses.
TransAm posted 03-04-2014 05:23 PM ET (US)
jimh, I'm sorry, but the story did not end well for anyone...including perhaps one of the most influential businesses in the country, Walmart. You see Walmart opened up a short distance from my site and had a bill more than 3 times as much as what I paid. And with more than 2,000,000 employees, even their influence could not negotiate away this "contribution".
It is easy to sit back and protest the supposed benefits some companies are able to negotiate for themselves, tax strategy or otherwise...until you walk a mile in their shoes. For some, there is reward for the risks...and sometimes its in the form of tax benefits.
You are right in one respect...my company is small, and will likely not enjoy the influence of, say Mercury. But I do not find fault in their ability to stick it to "the man"....I actually applaud them.
Searenity posted 03-05-2014 04:16 PM ET (US)
[Off-topic remarks deleted. Please stay on the topic: The honoring of Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year. Please do not try to change the topic to begin discussing other people in the discussion. Thanks--jimh]
jimh posted 03-05-2014 06:01 PM ET (US)
TransAm--Thanks for the follow up information. I think your local government must be run with more principles than most. If WALMART could not leverage them, it's a good sign. Government policy influence should not be for sale to the highest bidder or the people with the most influence.
Kevin--Yes, the people in Wisconsin ultimately get to decide if they like the policies implemented by their elected officials. The more informed the electorate becomes, the better their judgement--or at least that's what you'd expect. [The 11-minute long news story on their local television station probably helped voters learn about government policy. It was an unusually thorough and lengthy story for a local news television station to carry--jimh]
I don't know if anyone else is curious about the organization that bestowed this honor on Mercury Marine. The recognition was given by an organization called Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. They are a business trade association and perhaps might be called a business lobby group. They seem very active in legislative matters. You can find more information about them at
http://www.wmc.org/about/
The Manufacturer of the Year award is actually run by two associated firms. See the details at
http://www.wmc.org/programs/awardsprogramsbestpractices/ manufacturer-of-the-year/
The criteria and process of judging are described below:

quote:
This award program recognizes manufacturers for outstanding achievements in many different areas including effective research and development, export activity, profitable growth, commitment to employees, commitment to total quality, investment in training and retraining, and commitment to community.
I bet Mercury Marine must have won under "commitment to community."
Searenity posted 03-05-2014 06:09 PM ET (US)
[Off-topic remarks deleted. Please stay on the topic: The honoring of Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year. Please do not try to change the topic to begin discussing other people in the discussion. Thanks--jimh]
Searenity posted 03-05-2014 06:27 PM ET (US)
[Off-topic remarks deleted. Please stay on the topic: The honoring of Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year. Please do not try to change the topic to begin discussing other people in the discussion. Thanks--jimh]
Searenity posted 03-05-2014 06:32 PM ET (US)
[Off-topic remarks deleted. Please stay on the topic: The honoring of Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year. Please do not try to change the topic to begin discussing other people in the discussion. Please contact the moderator by email. Thanks--jimh]
Mambo Minnow posted 03-09-2014 12:25 PM ET (US)
My hometown has attracted a number of notable corporate headquarters, including Reebok athletic wear and Dunkin Donuts. These companies got tax breaks for locating in the town. However, the reduced taxes they do pay makes a significant reduction in the property taxes of the residential homeowners. A neighboring town, has no business or industrial zoned land and as a result has the highest per capita property taxes in the Commonwealth.
The amount of taxes American corporations pay compared to other parts of the world is still incredibly high and bodes ill for our continued ability to compete in a globally interconnected marketplace. Reducing the effective tax rate through business investments in the long term capabilities of the business are widely accepted.
My uncle lives in Fond Du Lac, WI and I am sure the presence of Mercury will continue to benefit him in reduced property tax rates.
jimh posted 03-10-2014 11:09 AM ET (US)
A Michigan city (Lansing) recently offered to reduce the property taxes of a manufacturing company (General Motors) that has plants in its city to one-half the normal rate of taxation for the next 14-years on a new $162-million building the manufacturing company said it plans to construct which may add 65-jobs. The city also offered to reduce to zero for the next 25-years the property tax on any personal property related to the project. These accommodations were probably offered to induce the manufacturing company to expand its presence in the community, which was already considerable.
ASIDE: The investment of capital needed to create one modern manufacturing job is interesting to note. In this case, $162-million is invested to create 65 new jobs. This suggests a ratio of about $2.5-million invested per new job. This is in an industry that faces intense and global competition in manufacturing. The most profitable manufacturer in this industry (Toyota) is able to produce about $35,000 in profit per employee. If the 65-employees in the new plant are able to provide that same level of profit, it will take 71-years for those employees to generate enough profit to pay for the $162-million cost of the plant, or, as one might conclude, a rather long term of investment in the city.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Mercury Marine named 2013 Wisconsin Manufacturer of the Year
OMCrobert	posted 03-02-2014 06:21 PM ET (US) [Turns out this article was a cut-and-paste of a press release. See Mercury's website for the press release. I will just give the link to the source--jimh] http://www.mercurymarine.com/news-and-events/news/2014/2/28/mercury-marine-named-2013-wisconsin-manufacturer-y/
Dave Sutton	posted 03-03-2014 12:42 PM ET (US) Interesting. They seem to be the company of the decade in avoiding Wisconsin taxes though.. http://fox6now.com/2014/03/02/how-large-corporations-avoid-paying-income-taxes-in-wisconsin/ Dave .
jimh	posted 03-03-2014 02:17 PM ET (US) Dave--The presentation you have linked is really an eye-opener. Imagine not paying any state income tax for more than 10-years, while getting tens of millions in subsidies, grants, or other cash benefits, and then claiming that "high taxes" could force your business to leave the state. It was worth the 11-minutes I spent watching that story.
OMCrobert	posted 03-03-2014 03:40 PM ET (US) Globalization and offshoring have made the world a different place and the USA is no different. Manufacturering has left the rust belt as fast as possible for economic advantages, if I was a stock holder of one of these companies I would be upset that they stayed in the rust belt without reasons such as tax breaks or incentives. Detroit is the perfect example of what happens when you bleed a company to death and they have options, they simply leave. Lowing taxes sounds like the right thing for the state and the 3500 employees that are gainfully employed because of it. Here is a great quote from Dave's article. - Five years after the Mercrury Marine situation, the company is still in Fond du Lac, and has used the incentives to expand and add more than 1,500 jobs. In a statement, the company told us the incentives “have certainly helped fuel our growth.” I recommend Jimh use some of his fancy editing on this thread so we stay on topic and eliminate..[Actually, I did edit this to remove the change in topic in which OMCrobert began to talk about a different company and about the website itself. Let's stay on topic: Mercury Marine and Wisconsin business. Thanks--jimh]
jimh	posted 03-03-2014 05:19 PM ET (US) OMCrobert: I think you are using "Detroit" as metonymy for something else. Please explain your metaphor. Exactly what to you mean to refer by it?
jimh	posted 03-03-2014 05:24 PM ET (US) OMCrobert: thanks for starting the thread. I had not heard that Wisconsin or some group in Wisconsin had named Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year in Wisconsin. This is the second time Mercury was recognized like this. I think they were similarly recognized in 2006. There is a prior discussion about it when that was a current news story.
TransAm	posted 03-03-2014 07:43 PM ET (US) quote: Imagine not paying any state income tax for more than 10-years, while getting tens of millions in subsidies, grants, or other cash benefits, and then claiming that "high taxes" could force your business to leave the state. I do not see what is so offensive about a company trying to limit their income tax liability, anyway they can. American companies are subject to the most highest corporate income taxes in the world, before factoring the most onerous and absurd government regulations imaginable. I am a small business owner; in fact, I own and operate 2 small businesses. Corporations don't pay income taxes in the sense as ordinary Americans. Corporate taxes are but another expense line item on the income statement. As a business owner, I look at minimizing all of my expenses, including my tax liability. If I am able to negotiate reductions in my tax income liability with municipalities through various means, I will certainly do so and should not be condemned for doing so. The government will get their pound of flesh...of that you can be sure. How about all the payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes...and on and on...that Mercury contributes. Does this account for anything? Most people would be astonished at the expense involved with government compliance for businesses and corporations. I'd bet if folks got to peer into the onerous governmental compliance costs Mercury incurs, or better yet, open their own business and have to get the checkbook out themselves, a different view on corporate taxes might emerge. So yes, I see very clearly the importance of negotiating the best possible deal with state and local municipalities regarding tax obligations.
K Albus	posted 03-04-2014 09:34 AM ET (US) Mercury sold the Fond du Lac jobs to the highest bidder. Wisconsin was a willing participant in the bidding, and eventually won the bidding war. If the people of Wisconsin don't like the result, they can vote out the politicians that made it happen. Although the whole affair seems a little unsavory, I don't think Mercury's role in it was motivated by any evil intentions. Mercury, like any other rational business, was looking to maximize its profits. If the people of a given state don't want to play such games, they should be careful not to elect politicians who will let such games be played.
jimh	posted 03-04-2014 10:43 AM ET (US) TransAm--In response to your comments: I don't like the idea that tax obligations and regulatory compliance are subject to negotiations. As an individual, I have to pay all the same taxes listed: --income tax --sales tax --property tax and I have to comply with all the regulations imposed on me by government. For example, I have to pay for RF sensors in the wheels of my new car because the government decided that there are people who are too stupid to check the inflation of their tires. So I had to pay about $100 more for my car to have mandatory RF sensors in the tires. In all of the taxes and regulations, I was in no position to engage in any sort of negotiation with the taxing or regulating authority on the basis that if I was not given some advantage or relief, I would move out of the state and live and work somewhere else. As an individual--or a small business--I had no leverage and could not even imagine negotiations of my tax rates or compliance. In addition, allowing individual businesses to enter into negotiations about their rate of taxation or compliance is unfair to other businesses. As seen in the case of Brunswick and its Mercury Marine operation in Fond du Lac, a large employer in the local area was able to use the threat of leaving town as leverage in negotiations with the state and local governments. When the government announced it was going to throw about $70-million to Brunswick to stay, that in turn leveraged all the workers represented in collective bargaining agreements to give up wages and other benefits, too. It seems rather crazy to me that people around Fond du Lac are paying a higher sales tax than other citizens of Wisconsin in order to give Brunswick relief from their tax obligations, especially when Mercury Marine didn't pay any taxes and has not for over a decade. That is troubling.
K Albus	posted 03-04-2014 10:56 AM ET (US) The articles above indicate that Wisconsin paid about $70 million to keep Mercury in Fond du Lac. They also indicate that Mercury has 3,500 employees in Wisconsin. Let's assume that 3,000 of those employees would have been put out of work by Mercury leaving Fond du Lac. That $70 million incentive package equals about $450 per worker per week for one year. How much would the state of Wisconsin have had to pay those workers in unemployment benefits if they had lost their jobs?
jimh	posted 03-04-2014 11:31 AM ET (US) Kevin's analysis shows the basis for the leverage used by Brunswick. I don't think there is dispute that by being such a large employer in such a small town they have leverage. At issue is whether or not there is ethical behavior in using the leverage, and particularly so when making the threat to leave might be just a position taken in negotiations to make use of the leverage. There are some, including me, who think there was never any actual risk of Mercury Marine leaving Fond du Lac and moving its entire operation to Stillwater, Oklahoma. They made the threat of doing that in order to exert leverage. As for government selecting certain types of business or certain individual businesses for advantage, it happens all the time in so many ways it is hard to keep track. Regarding the recognition of Mercury Marine, it occurs to me that once government entities invest $70-million into a particular venture, a really good way to demonstrate that the investment was a good investment and produced a great payoff is for the same government entities to declare that the venture selected to receive the $70-million investment is recognized for some honorary achievement. It makes political sense. The politicos can say, "Hey, look, that big investment we made has really paid off!"
TransAm	posted 03-04-2014 02:24 PM ET (US) jimh, I do not believe Mercury negotiated a lower corporate tax rate to something different than any other corporation... they simply discovered a way to reduce their taxable income. Regular folks do this all the time with their accountant. I you have something to offer your state...something perhaps you personally could do, in order to induce a tax tax credit, I do not believe there is any barrier precluding you from presenting such a proposal to the state of Michigan in exchange for tax relief. Here is but one example: I'm sure everyone has received property assessment they did not necessarily agree with...and perhaps set out on a mission of appeal with their local taxing authority. Generally, the result is a negotiated, reduced property assessment resulting in a lower property tax bill. Regarding the government getting their "pound of flesh" here is a quick story. Some time ago, my company was in negotiations to develop a piece of ground located 1/2 mile from a 4-way intersection. The county thought it would be a good idea, at some point in the distant future, to upgrade the intersection as the population of the area rose. As part of the development process, I was required to produce a traffic study of the intersection to determine if there would be any negative impact on the intersections traffic patterns. The traffic study was completed and concluded no measurable impact for the intersection. Despite these findings, I was required to pay $48,000, which was placed in escrow in favor of the county, to help pay for future upgrades to the intersection (should they be needed), even though I had a certified report from a licensed traffic engineer stating my development would generate no additional trips through the intersection. No pay...no site plan approval. So I am not particularly swayed by an argument of "fairness" when it comes to negotiable taxation for businesses. My suggestion to you jimh would be to open a business, become influential, and negotiate with your local governments regarding your corporate tax obligations. It is done all the time.
jcdawg83	posted 03-04-2014 03:08 PM ET (US) Unless one has been in business and had to deal with the corrupt govt on all levels, from local to federal, they should never comment on whether or not it is "fair" for a company or individual to receive any kind of incentive. All levels of govt are populated by bureaucrats who have never and will never create anything but regulations and hurdles for honest business people to deal with in order to insure the bureaucrats' future employment enforcing those rules and regulations. If a private company or individual operated the way govts do, they would be indicted, convicted and sentenced. I am convinced that all govt employees go into work every day with a total commitment to preventing anyone else from making a profit on anything. If an individual or business manages to actually make some money, in spite of govt's efforts, it is testimony to the patience and hard work of the business or individual. I find it amazing that more businesses do not pack up and move from areas where they are treated as the "enemy" and move to areas where they are actually welcomed. The state of Wisconsin should send a thank you note to Mercury every year for remaining in the state.
jimh	posted 03-04-2014 04:27 PM ET (US) TransAm--I enjoyed reading your narrative of your personal example, as it illustrated my point perfectly. Your business was too small and lacked any sort of leverage in the negotiation process with the regulatory or taxing authority, and it could not obtain relief from the cost of compliance with existing rules. I think if your business employed 3,000 people and paid them all excellent wages, you probably could have gotten your own exit ramp from the interstate highway system built at no cost to you. Then you'd have leverage. jcdawg83--I agree with your main assertion: there are plenty of regulations imposed on businesses by regulatory authorities. We hold completely congruent opinions. I, too, am amazed by the many obstacles that are placed in the way of businesses.
TransAm	posted 03-04-2014 05:23 PM ET (US) jimh, I'm sorry, but the story did not end well for anyone...including perhaps one of the most influential businesses in the country, Walmart. You see Walmart opened up a short distance from my site and had a bill more than 3 times as much as what I paid. And with more than 2,000,000 employees, even their influence could not negotiate away this "contribution". It is easy to sit back and protest the supposed benefits some companies are able to negotiate for themselves, tax strategy or otherwise...until you walk a mile in their shoes. For some, there is reward for the risks...and sometimes its in the form of tax benefits. You are right in one respect...my company is small, and will likely not enjoy the influence of, say Mercury. But I do not find fault in their ability to stick it to "the man"....I actually applaud them.
Searenity	posted 03-05-2014 04:16 PM ET (US) [Off-topic remarks deleted. Please stay on the topic: The honoring of Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year. Please do not try to change the topic to begin discussing other people in the discussion. Thanks--jimh]
jimh	posted 03-05-2014 06:01 PM ET (US) TransAm--Thanks for the follow up information. I think your local government must be run with more principles than most. If WALMART could not leverage them, it's a good sign. Government policy influence should not be for sale to the highest bidder or the people with the most influence. Kevin--Yes, the people in Wisconsin ultimately get to decide if they like the policies implemented by their elected officials. The more informed the electorate becomes, the better their judgement--or at least that's what you'd expect. [The 11-minute long news story on their local television station probably helped voters learn about government policy. It was an unusually thorough and lengthy story for a local news television station to carry--jimh] I don't know if anyone else is curious about the organization that bestowed this honor on Mercury Marine. The recognition was given by an organization called Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. They are a business trade association and perhaps might be called a business lobby group. They seem very active in legislative matters. You can find more information about them at http://www.wmc.org/about/ The Manufacturer of the Year award is actually run by two associated firms. See the details at http://www.wmc.org/programs/awardsprogramsbestpractices/ manufacturer-of-the-year/ The criteria and process of judging are described below: quote: This award program recognizes manufacturers for outstanding achievements in many different areas including effective research and development, export activity, profitable growth, commitment to employees, commitment to total quality, investment in training and retraining, and commitment to community. I bet Mercury Marine must have won under "commitment to community."
Searenity	posted 03-05-2014 06:09 PM ET (US) [Off-topic remarks deleted. Please stay on the topic: The honoring of Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year. Please do not try to change the topic to begin discussing other people in the discussion. Thanks--jimh]
Searenity	posted 03-05-2014 06:27 PM ET (US) [Off-topic remarks deleted. Please stay on the topic: The honoring of Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year. Please do not try to change the topic to begin discussing other people in the discussion. Thanks--jimh]
Searenity	posted 03-05-2014 06:32 PM ET (US) [Off-topic remarks deleted. Please stay on the topic: The honoring of Mercury Marine as manufacturer of the year. Please do not try to change the topic to begin discussing other people in the discussion. Please contact the moderator by email. Thanks--jimh]
Mambo Minnow	posted 03-09-2014 12:25 PM ET (US) My hometown has attracted a number of notable corporate headquarters, including Reebok athletic wear and Dunkin Donuts. These companies got tax breaks for locating in the town. However, the reduced taxes they do pay makes a significant reduction in the property taxes of the residential homeowners. A neighboring town, has no business or industrial zoned land and as a result has the highest per capita property taxes in the Commonwealth. The amount of taxes American corporations pay compared to other parts of the world is still incredibly high and bodes ill for our continued ability to compete in a globally interconnected marketplace. Reducing the effective tax rate through business investments in the long term capabilities of the business are widely accepted. My uncle lives in Fond Du Lac, WI and I am sure the presence of Mercury will continue to benefit him in reduced property tax rates.
jimh	posted 03-10-2014 11:09 AM ET (US) A Michigan city (Lansing) recently offered to reduce the property taxes of a manufacturing company (General Motors) that has plants in its city to one-half the normal rate of taxation for the next 14-years on a new $162-million building the manufacturing company said it plans to construct which may add 65-jobs. The city also offered to reduce to zero for the next 25-years the property tax on any personal property related to the project. These accommodations were probably offered to induce the manufacturing company to expand its presence in the community, which was already considerable. ASIDE: The investment of capital needed to create one modern manufacturing job is interesting to note. In this case, $162-million is invested to create 65 new jobs. This suggests a ratio of about $2.5-million invested per new job. This is in an industry that faces intense and global competition in manufacturing. The most profitable manufacturer in this industry (Toyota) is able to produce about $35,000 in profit per employee. If the 65-employees in the new plant are able to provide that same level of profit, it will take 71-years for those employees to generate enough profit to pay for the $162-million cost of the plant, or, as one might conclude, a rather long term of investment in the city.