From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:24:36 GMT
	<BZS.92Sep10181505@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Sep12.194354.1198@miki.pictel.com>
Organization: The World


From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
>Barry Shein writes:
>>Let's say Lotus pays $1M in taxes and receives $1.5M in city
>>services...
>
>Then Lotus deserves no tax cut.  But I doubt this is the case, since
>commercial real estate is taxed at a higher rate than residential.

Maybe commercial real estate receives more services than residential?

Your "since" is a non-sequitar without further elaboration.

>Also, the original posting accused Lotus of blackmailing Cambridge to
>get a subsidy.  I asked "What subsidy?"  If Cambridge has evidence that
>Lotus is getting more than their money's worth, let them present that
>evidence.  Otherwise, don't make accusations.

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.

>>Besides, what do you count as "city services"? Just direct services
>>like sewage removal? Or some fair share of, for example, education?
>
>I count direct benefits only.  Secondary benefits are, as you point out,
>impossible to calculate.

Well, the secondary benefits have bills to be paid also. Just because
we cannot exactly nail down how many of Lotus' tax dollars go to, eg,
primary education or how exactly (a dollar figure) that is of value to
them is no argument to close down all the public schools.

>And Lotus' presence provides secondary benefits
>to Cambridge (e.g. it attracts highly paid professionals to live, or at
>least shop, in Cambridge.)

Unlike every other commercial entity in Cambridge? You mean that Lotus
does this, but Thinking Machines doesn't? Etc.

Besides, not everyone considers "highly paid professionals" the
end-all/be-all, by definition most people in the US cannot be "highly
paid professionals". So clearly there are broader concerns, even if
they are not shared by the local Gucci outlet.

These "highly paid professionals" probably don't, on average, make
even twice what your average bus driver makes (around $30K/yr), and
consider the relative numbers, hundreds vs hundreds of thousands of
average working stiffs.

Are you sure you are not confusing your own social values with
economic realities?

>I don't know how to figure Lotus' "fair share" of education.  Lotus
>has no children in school and gets very little benefit from
>Cambridge's education system (since public education ends at high
>school.)

Oh, so none of their employees ever benefitted from public education
at any time in their lives? It doesn't have to be Cambridge public
education, of course. Unless you propose Lotus pay back every
community every employee attended school in. Not normally how it
works.

And further Lotus does not benefit from those people having gone thru
that education?

Of course they do.

In fact, of all industries, a high-tech company is impossible without
a ready-made educated workforce.

And Lotus sells its products primarily to people that have attained a
higher-than-average education, no?

So Lotus' very existence, both in employee and customer, depends
entirely on the continued existence of people with above-average
education. Including public colleges as well as K12.

Much more than say the local supermarkets, Lotus is dependent on
rather high-cost public facilities in education being available, for
their livelihood. You don't need a high-school diploma to either work
or need the products of your local supermarket. Can the same be said
for Lotus? I don't think so.

So tell me again why Lotus should pay a lesser share of its
community's educational expenses, even from a purely selfish
viewpoint? Do they expect, in the future, that demoralized high-school
dropouts will have a need for a spreadsheet in their future careers?
Or will help develop Lotus' next product generation?

>>At the very least it would be interesting to see something from Lotus
>>claiming that they believe they are being treated unfairly in some
>>way, rather than what it seems to be, which is just playing their
>>strong card.
>
>I don't think Lotus is claiming unfairness.  It is the original poster
>who made that claim.

Then why are you debating that point? Surely the only reason to claim
that Lotus doesn't get the same benefit from their taxes as everyone
else is to prove some sort of unfairness, no?

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD