
GE will move headquarters to Boston - lsllc
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2016/01/13/report-will-move-headquarters-boston/YiBSWeE9IdfI2kFe6ilQQO/story.html
======
ecopoesis
This is a terrible deal for Boston and the commonwealth. $145 million for 800
employees, or $181,250 per employee, in a state that can't even keep its
public transportation system running.

Thanks Governor Baker. Did this deal cost us just the Mattapan line? Or are we
losing GLX too?

~~~
Alupis
> $145 million for 800 employees, or $181,250 per employee

It seems like a lot, but this is the corporate HQ. The staffers will be re-
located and/or hired from the surrounding area - and surely will make nice
salaries.

Since these executives and other staffers will be living in the area (in large
part), they'll put their salary right back into the local economy (buying
groceries, cars, houses, paying bills, etc...).

Most of those employees will put far more than the $181,250 back into the
local/state economy over their tenure at GE.

~~~
s73v3r
So? Couldn't one say that about any large company? Should states be constantly
cutting taxes for these large companies, and shoving them onto the people who
live there now?

~~~
cableshaft
It's not too uncommon that cities or states have tax incentives to encourage
certain industries to set up shop in the area. Like Atlanta offers a
significant tax credit for film, television, and digital entertainment (video
games) companies, for example: [http://www.georgia.org/competitive-
advantages/tax-credits/fi...](http://www.georgia.org/competitive-
advantages/tax-credits/film-television-and-digital-entertainment/)

------
gwright
I've always felt that these targeted tax incentives are in conflict with our
notion of equality under the law, due process, and equal protection
principles, and so on.

Here is an interesting white paper in this regard, Corporate Tax Incentives
and the Equal Protection Clause
([http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/1FCB7D8...](http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/1FCB7D8DD2F4417485257A32006A2EE7?OpenDocument))

------
thenipper
The development of the Seaport/Fort Point area in Boston in the last 5-10
years is pretty crazy. My wife worked for John Hancock down there when we
first started dating about a decade ago and there was nothing down there. Now
I got to visit her at her job down there and I get lost half the time with all
the new construction that is going up.

Regarding GE the only people this will really impact is the smaller tech
companies as I'm sure it'll jack up the office rents even more.

------
languagehacker
On the bright side, Boston has multiple industries there, so when they decide
to move again, they won't fucking blight the place like they did to
Schenectady

------
beambot
What about $180k/employee tax breaks for new startups? These wouldn't irk me
so much... if they were applied similarly across the board rather than through
backroom deals for megacorps.

I'll leave the accounting ("Is this actually worthwhile for the city?") to
others: How about equal treatment? I'd consider headquartering a startup in
the major tech hubs if they made accommodations similar to what they give the
big guys (as if they need it!).

~~~
ma2rten
I thought most startups don't make a profit so they don't pay tax.

~~~
beambot
Oh no... They charge you annual minimums anyway. Plus lots of taxes for social
security, unemployment, etc

------
parfe
Welfare is awesome when it's gifted to multi billion dollar corporations, I
guess.

~~~
mc32
That's one way to see it. Another way to see it is MA competing with CT for an
employer who would bring employment opportunities to the local economies.

It's like NV competing with CA for the gigafactory in the hopes it would
jumpstart a more technology oriented economy in the area.

CT nor CA should have a monopoly on a company.

I'm not advocating that states should race to the bottom, but they should be
able to attract employers, else they are not keeping their citizens interests'
in mind.

~~~
x0x0
$25m in free property tax from Boston and $120m in subsidies from the state
for... (wait for it) 800 employees. I'm sure Boston/MA will be in the black on
this well within our {great}^{999} grandkids' lifetimes...

~~~
mc32
It's not the 800 but the other things that those 800 bring and represent.

What do you propose to do? Forbid them from moving to MA, forbid MA from
attracting employers? Maybe just allow them to move to Geneva or Dublin.

~~~
gherkin0
There's a third option: forbid states and municipalities from offering
incentives to individual organizations like this.

If the company wants to move to a location (or stay at one) to be there, fine;
but it shouldn't move (or stay) because that location gave it the best bribe.

~~~
mc32
It's an incentive, not a bribe. No one is secretly getting money illegally.

I think governments should be able to make a calculus as to whether something
like this will benefit their constituency.

This is not PR or high profile loss leader or trophy white elephant or other
gimmick like the olympics or new stadiums. This is a bet on the company
improving the local economy attracting other employers, competitors,
increasing competition for employees, etc.

If I lived in MA I'd be all for this, just like SF bet on twitter reviving
mid-Markt street --which it has.

------
gwright
If we construct a political environment where is is perfectly acceptable for
the government to throw around favors valued at $100M and more, effectively
tilting the economic playing field in favor of certain organizations, is it
any surprise that these same organizations spend a lot of time and money
trying to get the field to tilt in their favor?

------
tmaly
CT loves to pass their budgets in special sessions at midnight when the public
cannot see what is in the budget. It is the total opposite of transparency.
And Malloy is hoping for a new job at the federal level.

------
tmaly
Connecticut has been very anti-business since governor Malloy came into
office. GE moving will be a huge loss to the local economy.

~~~
Someone1234
I'm sure this had nothing to do with it:

> Massachusetts and Boston officials said Wednesday they had offered
> incentives valued at as much as $145 million to lure the company to the
> city. The package included as much as $25 million in property-tax relief.

Essentially Boston just drove a wheelbarrow full of money up to GE's front
door and said "Want this?" and Connecticut couldn't match it.

So by being "anti-business" what you mean to say is: "Didn't give away tons of
tax payer's money to a private corporation." I'd prefer Connecticut to use
money that would have gone to GE to generate other jobs, for example pay
people to upgrade the state's infrastructure.

GE gets enough tax breaks and government subsidies as is.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
> So by being "anti-business" what you mean to say is: "Didn't give away tons
> of tax payer's money to a private corporation."

Actually, Connecticut only succeeds at maintaining huge corporations relying
on government subsidies. Hartford, CT is the country's insurance capitol. The
reason the state is so "anti-business" is precisely because they give a bunch
of taxpayer's money to publicly-traded mega corporations. The income and
property tax cost this saddles on normal taxpayers and small businesses is
enormous, and they get very little benefit from it.

~~~
gwright
That and the fact that the CT government payroll/benefits expenditures are out
of control. Lots of reasons for this but public sector unions and their
relationship with politicians (in both parties) plays a big part.

~~~
tmaly
They gave us the income tax, and it was supposed to be a temporary thing. We
still have it many years later. Spending in CT is out of control. They keep
revising the deficit as they use too many rosy assumptions in their budget
projections.

------
jrlocke
As a software engineer in Boston this only confirms my feelings that we are a
world leader in innovation. I'm looking forwards the the smart people that
this will bring to my great city.

~~~
joezydeco
Chicago checking in. We've had a number of corporations move their HQ to
downtown and it's done nothing for the job market.

Boeing has been here 15 years now.

~~~
progressive_dad
Well have I got some sweet news for you then:
[http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160111/BLOGS02/1601...](http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160111/BLOGS02/160119985/chicago-
snares-another-corporate-hq)

~~~
joezydeco
I wonder if they'll close and sell off the Barrington property. That alone
will probably pay for the buildout of the downtown offices.

