From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:56:48 GMT
	<BZS.92Sep10181505@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Sep12.194354.1198@miki.pictel.com>
	<BZS.92Sep12222436@ussr.std.com> <ART.92Sep12225102@world.std.com>
	<BZS.92Sep13004331@ussr.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <BZS.92Sep13004331@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

   From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
   >   Since Lotus is merely being required by Cambridge to pay at the same
   >   tax rate (i.e. same application of tax laws, even if the specific rate
   >   comes out differently) as every other commercial entity in Cambridge
   >   it would seem that the burden is on Lotus to show that a tax cut
   >   especially for them is justified.
   >
   >No.  Lotus is perfectly free to attempt to negotiate any deal it can.
   >Lotus has absolutely no obligation to remain in Cambridge or any place
   >else if it doesn't suit them.  How're ya gonna keep 'em if they wanna
   >split?

   I didn't say otherwise, did I?

Yeah, sorta.

   The original poster said the burden was on Cambridge to justify its
   tax rate to Lotus.

   I said, in the piece you quoted, no, no more than to any other citizen
   or entity who pays taxes in Cambridge. The burden is on Lotus to make
   their argument to be treated uniquely under the tax laws.

But they make their argument:  Cut our taxes or we're outa here.  Quite
simple.  They are free to go as they please.

   Cambridge certainly doesn't have to especially defend their tax rates
   for Lotus (any more than to anyone else), Lotus has to argue for an
   exemption from the law as it stands. Otherwise they are subject to the
   tax laws.

   The underlying fallacy is the assumption that Lotus is doing this
   because they believe they are being treated unfairly.

   I don't believe that. I believe they are doing it only because they
   believe they (Lotus) can get away with it, that they have leverage
   (the threat of leaving.)

Right.  So?  If they can make that leverage work, more power to them.

   I think some here are projecting some notion of justice or fairness
   onto the situation when, more likely, it's purely a $$$ ploy one of
   their shark attorneys figured out.

   Unless I'm sorely mistaken, Kendall Sq property (where Lotus is) is
   pretty hot these days (the rates are certainly high around there,
   nearly twice what I'm paying in Brookline and even this isn't cheap.)

   If that's the case then it may well be in Cambridge's interest to tell
   Lotus not to let the door hit them in the butt on the way out.

Exactly.

   Mostly because it would seem this could become chronic with every
   sizeable business in Cambridge. I'd certainly be concerned with that
   if I were Cambridge.

So would I.

   Unless this sort of dealing for lower taxes is more common than I
   suspect there is something odious about it, or at least the way Lotus
   seems to be going about it. I wouldn't be shocked if Cambridge would
   be better off in the long run telling Lotus to take a hike now, before
   this becomes a disaster as a precedent.

I don't see anything odious about it.  Cambridge might well be better off
who knows?

A couple years ago one of the big Japanese companies (NEC????) wanted to
put a research lab in one of the western burbs.  They were anticipating a
$770Mbuck payroll.  They asked for tax concessions and were told to stick
it.  Result?  No lab, no $700Mbuck payroll.  So who won that one?
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2272 alt.politics.clinton:4187 alt.politics.bush:4203 talk.politics.misc:43962