You pay tax in the state it was earned, not in the state you live in.

True. But I imagine part of the reasoning of giving these income tax breaks is not just the job or getting some form of reduced income tax from the person, but also having them spend their daily money in this state and generate sales taxes. If they live out of state we dont get that, or any ad valorem taxes from them. Simply put, its not that great of deal to subsidize jobs if they dont live in this state full time.

The last few months of last year OK was paying more in subsidies than it was collecting in corporate taxes. What do you propose we cut, or whose taxes do we raise to keep this going?

It's really very simple in my mind... the first problem was that ridiculous 0.25% income tax cut that was passed a few years ago... the average family saved what, $125 - $200 a year from their tax bill? The cost of that was about $317 million less tax revenues for the state of Oklahoma. That is the most asinine tradeoff I have ever heard of in my life. Step one should be to revert back to the prior tax rate - and bingo, you're already 1/3 of the way there. The second thing that needs to be addressed is the huge bargain Oil and Gas gets on their drilling activities... taking oil out of the ground used to be subject to a 7% tax. Horizontal drilling, because it was experimental at the time, got a break of a just 1% tax starting back in the 90s. Everything is horizontally drilled now. I forget what the new law a year or two ago set the rate at, but if it isn't 1% it is very low. In comparison North Dakota charges 11.5%. So now isn't a great time to be raising taxes on that industry an order of magnitude, but as others have pointed out everyone is getting impacted by what is going on and so I think a modest tax increase needs to be looked at. It could raise as much as $150 million a year. Now look at that, you're already half-way there.

These are clearly low-hanging fruit that could dramatically change the situation overnight; the only reason it doesn't happen is because of politics. In just two examples I have gotten us half way there... almost half a billion dollars richer. And yet politicians are really going to set and argue over one million, two million, three million dollars in incentive packages instead. That will never, ever get you there.

Usually 10-Qs aren't going to be that specific but we can probably find the number of okc employees divide that by 15,000 and have a reasonable idea of OKC's output. It will still be large, Boeing is just a massive company.

That would probably get a decent rough order of magnitude. But remember that spare parts, maintenance overhauls mods and large mod kits all come out of other facilities and are high revenue generators.

I am not trying to downplay the money Boeing is adding to the economy here, but it is likely in the 9 digits, not the 10 digits, and definitely not in the 11 digits.

Saw the Devon announcement today. At the rate things are going here, Boeing may be a top 5 OKC employer by the end of the year, lol.

I did want to say that I think we need to think long-term about this... if a bunch of engineers and a company get a tax break for 2-3 years, but then go on to pay huge taxes we would not have otherwise had for at least the next 10-20 years, that is a very positive ROI for us.

Q if they did that and say increased the gasoline tax by 10 cents since gas is cheap right now and say have a 5 year sunset clause, that would bring in a lot more money also. Add $5 to each drivers licence renewal (maybe except people over 62 on a pension) and add $5 to each vehicle tag renewal. Use the money to fund roads/bridges and public safety short falls. Add a $10 charge to all residential property tax for underfunded volunteer fire dept grant programs and say $50 to comericial zoned property for similar underfunded programs. As far as education, there could be some kind of other fee added to something for say 5 years and the state could look at some other school consolidation or finding other sources of long term funding.

I did want to say that I think we need to think long-term about this... if a bunch of engineers and a company get a tax break for 2-3 years, but then go on to pay huge taxes we would not have otherwise had for at least the next 10-20 years, that is a very positive ROI for us.

Are we going to eventually charge them huge taxes - or just the same taxes that everyone else is paying now? Keep in mind that the state is losing money at the current tax rates.

It is completely naive or worse to think that we don't have to compete for jobs with incentives. Some people have no clue as to the value of investment either for personal or public good. Thank goodness we have Boeing here today to help diversify our economy and stabilize our job market to help us avoid the deep, deep crashes we have had in the past when oil tanks. You can theorize with narrow perspectives and personal bias and get bent out of shape about theoretical tax collections which weren't going to materialize, or you can appreciate what a little planning and competitive activity can do to grow an economy.

A couple of thoughts come to mind. First, Boeing is offering more than a couple dozen jobs to the metro area. Last year they had over 2,000 employees and all accounts are that they are headed to 3,000 this year. The A Better Life website lists them at 2,300, just behind Chesapeake, which has recently laid off a lot of their workforce, so they are probably bigger than CHK right now. Read that again. They are bigger than CHK now. If they do make it to 3,000, they will be somewhere around #10 - 13 largest employer in OKC.

Next, consider the salaries. According to the very first article posted to NewsOK.com back in 2012, the average salary at the site is $90k. That means they will be contributing between $180 million and $270 million in OKC salaries this year. If the average person is taxed 5%, then that's up to $13.5 million in state tax revenues from employees alone.

Next, think of the amount of business/sales the company must be generating at its OKC site. Overall the entire company should have a revenue of around $100 billion this year. OKC being one of its major subdivisions is going to be contributing a significant amount of that. We really have no insight into the numbers, but I imagine the corporate taxes being paid could be significant.

Most of those new folks I mentioned a few paragraphs back are coming here from out of state. There is actually a state Aerospace/Engineering Employee's Tax Credit that is helping to make that possible. If I understand what this senate committee has proposed, it would also eliminate that tax credit. So this proposal would also impact people, not just corporations.

I don't remember what exactly Boeing got out of the deal, but I want to say it was in the couple million dollar range according to NewsOK. I agree with Spartan, that was a huge bargain for us.

To be blunt, our state is being extremely short-sighted. As oil revenues have gone up over the years, the state has consistently reduced the taxes they have paid. Now that oil is tanking it is a double whammy to our state. And how does the state decide to address it... by thinking about increasing taxes on all the other industries... the industries that they have so desperately tried to attract in order to diversify our economy away from oil. Does no one see how horrifically bad this line of thought is or where it leads to???

We have total morons running our state. I fear for our future.

Are we going to eventually charge them huge taxes - or just the same taxes that everyone else is paying now? Keep in mind that the state is losing money at the current tax rates.

We need jobs, Kerry. Jobs. Jobs that put real money into the hands of real people. I'm not sure that ever factors into the equation for you.

It is completely naive or worse to think that we don't have to compete for jobs with incentives. Some people have no clue as to the value of investment either for personal or public good. Thank goodness we have Boeing here today to help diversify our economy and stabilize our job market to help us avoid the deep, deep crashes we have had in the past when oil tanks. You can theorize with narrow perspectives and personal bias and get bent out of shape about theoretical tax collections which weren't going to materialize, or you can appreciate what a little planning and competitive activity can do to grow an economy.

I know! We have no clue because the state wont do any analyzing or studies to see if tax payer's money going to business subsidies are actually worth it. No economists, no legislative committees or anything to determine if these are good investments.

Heres a very recent study saying they arent worth it. Basically says its better to invest in our citizens, quality of life, educational things.
How States Can Stop Wasting Their Taxpayers' Money (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/how-states-can-stop-wasti_b_9189620.html)

If we had a great capital base, more population, and already existing array of diversified businesses which would grow and spawn more businesses, MAYBE we wouldn't have to offer incentives. OK legislature and governor does not support R&D, doesn't support infrastructure, doesn't support culture, doesn't support education. We have no harbors, few direct flights, limited train service, etc., etc. What exactly is the catalyst to get the economy growing?

If we had a great capital base, more population, and already existing array of diversified businesses which would grow and spawn more businesses, MAYBE we wouldn't have to offer incentives. OK legislature and governor does not support R&D, doesn't support infrastructure, doesn't support culture, doesn't support education. We have no harbors, few direct flights, limited train service, etc., etc. What exactly is the catalyst to get the economy growing?

Income tax cuts! Hell yeah!

:rock_guitThis is the type of legislation that should be included when Oklahoma provides incentives to industries to relocate. Other incentives that have no basis as to relocation decisions, looking at you OKC Basketball club should not be granted. Amending the Quality Jobs Act to give the Thunder a tax break after all the other incentives provided by the local government reeks of cronyism.
New bill targets Boeing bank account rather than tax breaks | HeraldNet.com - The Petri Dish (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20160218/BLOG13/160219126/)
New-bill-targets-Boeings-bank-account-rather-than-its-tax-break

An Everett lawmaker in Olympia wants to make the Boeing Co. pay $2,500 per year for each job lost in Washington since the company secured an extension of tax incentives from the state in 2013.

Rep. June Robinson, D-Everett, said Thursday she will introduce legislation requiring the company to make annual payments to a state fund used to pay for education programs.

If we had a great capital base, more population, and already existing array of diversified businesses which would grow and spawn more businesses, MAYBE we wouldn't have to offer incentives. OK legislature and governor does not support R&D, doesn't support infrastructure, doesn't support culture, doesn't support education. We have no harbors, few direct flights, limited train service, etc., etc. What exactly is the catalyst to get the economy growing?
Throw the bums out.

Throw the bums out.

How? Every election I vote for the candidates that will try to do the best for the people and every election my candidates lose (some of my family and friends do the same). Guess I'll have to start going door to door asking people to not be stupid when they vote. Until the Derplahomans get a clue, ain't gonna happen, and the getting a clue part probably ain't ever gonna happen either.

We need jobs, Kerry. Jobs. Jobs that put real money into the hands of real people. I'm not sure that ever factors into the equation for you.

I get that but you are ignoring the fact we have a state government to fund. All the jobs in the world are worthless if they don't pay enough taxes to pay for the services the people say they want.

I get that but you are ignoring the fact we have a state government to fund. All the jobs in the world are worthless if they don't pay enough taxes to pay for the services the people say they want.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but Oklahoma is going to need to invest in itself if it ever is going to grow economically beyond fossil fuel production. Unfortunately, the Gov and Leg also have been cutting income taxes (so marginally to average people they don't even notice the cut, but evidently more noticeable to the people who donate to their campaigns) and giving huge sops to oil and gas, magnifying our state's revenue crisis. Rover is right, and so are you, and that's why we need actual adults with critical thinking skills to analyze the information, ensure that tax incentives are actually delivering as promised, and ALSO ensure that the state raises adequate revenue to function. Similarly, we need to invest enough in education that we have an educated workforce (this is as critical as infrastructure to most major employers).

But, the clowns in the Governor's office and in the Legislature would rather spend their time focusing on Ten Commandments monuments and who is allowed to pee-pee in public restrooms.

Like I said above, this state is being run by complete morons.

We aren't going to get to a better tax base by targeting one company or one group of employees, and we certainly aren't going to get there by doing things that prevent diversification of our base. We need to get real and stop doing what Washington always does... arguing over pennies that will never get us there and have the political will to do what it takes to balance the budget.

Someone up above expressed skepticism about the high quality jobs act. It's important to note that every tax incentive is based on performance - no one gets a credit until they can prove that a job has moved here. The next credit comes when the next job moves here. It's a great program.

Does it set a good precedent to promise a company x to relocate here, and to promise people thinking of moving here that they are going to get a tax break for x number of years to entice them here, only to have our government go back on that promise only a year or two into the deal, after it looks like the other party has fully committed to moving here? After they have built two multistory buildings and are building a third massive building? If you were a company considering moving here based on incentives, would you really trust anyone in Oklahoma at this point?

Here is one big problem I have with Quality Jobs - there is no provisions the jobs stay after the incentives run out. If the whole idea is to expand the tax bases by initially depriving the tax base then what is wrong with requiring companies to commit to a period of time post-incentives? For example, if Boeing receives $90 million in State incentives over a 10-year period they should pay an exit penalty if any of those jobs leave for 10 years AFTER the incentives end. If a company can't commit to that they shouldn't qualify for something called "Quality Jobs" and maybe we should create another program called "Fly by Night" jobs for them.

I would personally like to the see one of the State's leading newspapers do an investigative report on the history of the Quality Jobs program; how many companies received payouts, how much did they get, how many jobs did they really creates, how many of those jobs are still here, and for jobs that left how soon after the incentives ended did they leave, and how finally - how much are those companies paying in State taxes today (are we actually getting any benefit because hells bells, there are so many State tax credit programs they might not ever pay State taxes).

If anyone had a crystal ball to help peer into the future to see if those jobs are needed 5 or 10 years in the future, you might have a point. The reality is you dont have the ball. The problem with your thoughts, Kerry, isn't that they wouldn't be nice to have, the problem is that they aren't based on reality. There is no possible way a state like Oklahoma can compete without incentives. Incentives didn't cause the budget crisis, it was irrational budgeting. Like some of your thoughts, they are nice to imagine but not based on reality. OKs current budget crisis should have been planned for but that involves having a huge rainy-day fund instead of lowering tax rates. I've said all along, the tax rates in OK are reasonable. If there is a surplus after rainy-day funds are funded, send rebate checks.

Being able to predict future jobs isn't a State problem - it is a Company problem. From the State perspective, companies are being given these incentives to expand the tax base - NOT to reduce the tax liability of the company. If Company X has to downsize then let them downsize in another state. If we are going to compete for job gains, let's also compete in job retention by making it as hard as possible to close Oklahoma based operations.

If Oklahoma can't compete without incentives, then why don't we spend the money fixing THAT problem for everyone (including people who already live here) instead of subsidizing it away on a company by company cases? BTW - I don't believe Oklahoma can't compete for most of the jobs that come here as part of Quality Jobs.

http://okpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/Quality-Jobs-Primer.pdf?b0f37e


That same report showed Oklahoma provides over $2 billion each year to businesses for economic development.

...

Oil and gas companies were made eligible to receive Quality Jobs payments in 2005, and in fiscal year 2013 they received over 53% of incentive payments

We can tell companies to imagine that we have a more educated and trained work force...maybe they would buy that. Who needs any stinkin incentives when you have it all to attract jobs here. Not only should we not offer incentives, we should tell half of these corporate blood suckers to just stay out. Who needs more business here...surely not us. Everyone wants to be us.

Good grief. Let's just not compete and see how that works. Oh wait...we tried that.

Why is it that some think that incentives are the ONLY thing we are doing? Incentives are just one tool to use.

We aren't going to get to a better tax base by targeting one company or one group of employees, and we certainly aren't going to get there by doing things that prevent diversification of our base. We need to get real and stop doing what Washington always does... arguing over pennies that will never get us there and have the political will to do what it takes to balance the budget.

Someone up above expressed skepticism about the high quality jobs act. It's important to note that every tax incentive is based on performance - no one gets a credit until they can prove that a job has moved here. The next credit comes when the next job moves here. It's a great program.

Does it set a good precedent to promise a company x to relocate here, and to promise people thinking of moving here that they are going to get a tax break for x number of years to entice them here, only to have our government go back on that promise only a year or two into the deal, after it looks like the other party has fully committed to moving here? After they have built two multistory buildings and are building a third massive building? If you were a company considering moving here based on incentives, would you really trust anyone in Oklahoma at this point?

Idk, does it set a good precedent for the state to give out Quality Jobs Act money, thinking we will get long term jobs, only to have a company lay people off or move the jobs and we are left with nothing in return? We have got burned, so it probably shouldnt be that surprising that businesses could get burned.

And yes, business should trust Oklahoma. No company has got burned or had the state renege on a deal yet. Oklahoma has time and again shown we bend way over for corporate interests. Just some chatter about eliminating credits isnt the same as going back on a job subsidy promise.

We can tell companies to imagine that we have a more educated and trained work force...maybe they would buy that. Who needs any stinkin incentives when you have it all to attract jobs here. Not only should we not offer incentives, we should tell half of these corporate blood suckers to just stay out. Who needs more business here...surely not us. Everyone wants to be us.

Good grief. Let's just not compete and see how that works. Oh wait...we tried that.

Why is it that some think that incentives are the ONLY thing we are doing? Incentives are just one tool to use.

So what is wrong then with reviewing the effectiveness of that one tool? The rest of your comment was totally unnecessary.

Idk, does it set a good precedent for the state to give out Quality Jobs Act money, thinking we will get long term jobs, only to have a company lay people off or move the jobs and we are left with nothing in return? We have got burned, so it probably shouldnt be that surprising that businesses could get burned.

And yes, business should trust Oklahoma. No company has got burned or had the state renege on a deal yet. Oklahoma has time and again shown we bend way over for corporate interests. Just some chatter about eliminating credits isnt the same as going back on a job subsidy promise.

Ask GM that question ....not sure if it swayed them any, but they are no longer here... not necessarily the state, but it sure wasn't pretty.

I get that but you are ignoring the fact we have a state government to fund. All the jobs in the world are worthless if they don't pay enough taxes to pay for the services the people say they want.

That presumes putting spendable dollars in the hands of consumers is worthless.

On that we will forever disagree. Government is not an end unto itself.

So what is wrong then with reviewing the effectiveness of that one tool? The rest of your comment was totally unnecessary. Because if you don't review it in context then it is just babbling. Text without context is just pretext. Analyzing incentives by themselves isn't in any way meaningful. And this mile wide one inch deep dogmatic philosophizing is great chat stuff but is not meaningful.

That presumes putting spendable dollars in the hands of consumers is worthless.

On that we will forever disagree. Government is not an end unto itself.

It's not worthless, it just doesn't fund the State government. If we could just get everyone paying the same rates (corporations included) we might could get some of the programs and spending under control. As it is, the tax burden isn't falling on enough entities.

Ask GM that question ....not sure if it swayed them any, but they are no longer here... not necessarily the state, but it sure wasn't pretty.

Im not familiar with what you are speaking of. Did the state back out of a subsidy/corporate welfare/tax credit deal with GM?

Im not familiar with what you are speaking of. Did the state back out of a subsidy/corporate welfare/tax credit deal with GM?

Happened so long ago, not sure if I can get it straight. An entity was created called 'Oklahoma Industrial Authority', or something like that. Promises were made to lure GM, they built and they came and produced for a few years. Then someone filed suit to challenge the OIA (or whatever they were called) and the courts ruled they really didn't the authority to issue incentives. Not sure if this is why they left but they are no longer here.

Remember that when GM shuttered the plant, GM was going through it's decline and woes - not to mention that by that point, the plant was only producing vehicles based on GM's SUV platform (GMT360). SUV sales were also taking a nosedive thanks to gasoline prices and relatively poor fuel economy. GM's Oklahoma City Assembly was the first of 9 GM plants to shut down in North America during this period. The cost to retool the plant back to return to production of regular passenger vehicles was just too large to bear for a company that was already really hurting financially. That's not to say there weren't any lost incentives (I'm honestly not sure if there were) but it certainly was far from the only reason for them to shut down.

Happened so long ago, not sure if I can get it straight. An entity was created called 'Oklahoma Industrial Authority', or something like that. Promises were made to lure GM, they built and they came and produced for a few years. Then someone filed suit to challenge the OIA (or whatever they were called) and the courts ruled they really didn't the authority to issue incentives. Not sure if this is why they left but they are no longer here.

You would think that GM based on size and years of operation would have had a little bit of foresight to have run those incentives by the legal department as to their validity. Be it as it may, the incentives were worthless. There could have been many reasons why they left, but producing vehicles here that were duds did not help.

Happened so long ago, not sure if I can get it straight. An entity was created called 'Oklahoma Industrial Authority', or something like that. Promises were made to lure GM, they built and they came and produced for a few years. Then someone filed suit to challenge the OIA (or whatever they were called) and the courts ruled they really didn't the authority to issue incentives. Not sure if this is why they left but they are no longer here.

From Newsok at the time...

"The Mid-Del School District went back to court Tuesday, seeking to overturn a decision by the Oklahoma County Board of Equalization that General Motors Corp. is not subject to 1979 property taxes on its Oklahoma City auto assembly plant.

Named as defendants in the Oklahoma County district court lawsuit are GM and the Oklahoma Industries Authority, the public trust that granted the automaker a 20-year tax exemption in return for situating its plant in Oklahoma City."

Mid-Del School District Appeals GM Decision | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/2067504)

The property tax 'waiver' was worth about 11 million dollars. Just before the lawsuit was filed, OKC was in negotiations for the three corners adjacent to the GM plant. The day the suit was filed those contracts were never seen again.
GM said at that time, the first quarter that plant was in the red they would shutter it. Even with unpopular models the quality was so good here the cars sold. THAT frustrated GM. why do you think OKC was assigned that XUV anyway?

We have total morons running our state. I fear for our future.

State cities surely need more power to determine their destinies. It's needed so cities can bypass badly run, unresponsive, moronic state government. What's stopping Oklahoma City schools from raising teacher pay by $5000? If it has to do with state laws, they need abolished. Better support for education at all levels is needed, because many good ideas for industry and entrepreneurship originate within the state. It can require well educated people to execute them.

If we had a great capital base, more population, and already existing array of diversified businesses which would grow and spawn more businesses, MAYBE we wouldn't have to offer incentives. OK legislature and governor does not support R&D, doesn't support infrastructure, doesn't support culture, doesn't support education. We have no harbors, few direct flights, limited train service, etc., etc. What exactly is the catalyst to get the economy growing?

Oklahoma has a couple of ports (Catoosa and Muskogee to name 2). I agree about the direct flights and I have been harping on WRWA for several years now. Train service? TxDOT has done more for rail service in Oklahoma than ODOT has. So how about this...we take the $2 billion in annual subsidies that the State doles out (50% of which goes to oil companies), and we invest it in all the items you just mentioned. If we make a place nice to live and work people won't need to be incentivized to live here- they will just choose to do it all on their own.

And here is crazy idea - if we have to much industry X and not enough industry Y and Z by comparison, there are two ways to diversify. A) Get more Y and Z (which what we have been trying with little sustainable success), or B) Get rid of some X.

You ignore the fact that OKC has substantially diversified in the last 2 decades. Perhaps some of the incentives are really working. Wouldn't that blow your mind and ruin your narrative.

Anybody have access to a list of largest employers in OKC 20 years ago and now? I imagine Tinker and OK State employees would still be in the top 5.

You ignore the fact that OKC has substantially diversified in the last 2 decades. Perhaps some of the incentives are really working. Wouldn't that blow your mind and ruin your narrative.Where are the numbers for that? I agree with Jersey Boss that I'd like to see comparisons with how much we've diversified from the past.

It'd be nice to see comparisons from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and even 30 years ago would be cool. But in all fairness, even just having one for 20 years ago compared to today would be nice.

For every Boeing there is an ATT/Lucent.

I would like a Ford-Ram-Chev. PU plants in OKC. Now how do I go about getting them here? I know I have to spend money to make money but I am not sure if I have enough money to outspend BigTex for those plants. So how do I get them? I really want to know.

OKC is annexed by Mexico.
More car manufacturing jobs move south -- to Mexico (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/06/15/auto-jobs-mexico/71224972/)

From JTF's own link he posted, one of the requirements for remaining on the Quality Jobs Program is: "Add a minimum of $2.5 million in annual new taxable payroll in Oklahoma within the first three years of their participation in the program. If this condition is not met, the company is removed from the program and cannot participate again for at least one year. There are exceptions to this payroll threshold that are detailed in the Quality Jobs Program Guidelines."

And...

"A 'clawback provision' was imposed if a participant does not maintain operations in the state for a full three years from the start date of joining the program. If they do not maintain operations, they must repay 100 percent of the benefit received (2013)."

And...

"To ensure this requirement is met, the Commerce Department performs an economic analysis showing the net bene t of this program. For scal years 2011-2013, they showed costs of incentive payments of $210.8 million and increased revenue to the state of $231.8 million, which re ects a net bene t of $21.0 million."

The negative portion of the article is based on flawed logic or aggregate logic that claims that most QJA jobs were going to be created here due to growth anyway. It does not look at specific companies. If it had, it would be hard to argue that a company such as Boeing, which has now shuttered its Wichita site and moved large programs here from Long Beach and Seattle, has done anything but create brand new opportunities for Oklahoma.

So let me respond to those points.


Add a minimum of $2.5 million in annual new taxable payroll in Oklahoma within the first three years of their participation in the program.

The taxes from that $2.5 million payroll are rebated to the company so the State doesn't benefit at all.


A 'clawback provision' was imposed if a participant does not maintain operations in the state for a full three years from the start date of joining the program. If they do not maintain operations, they must repay 100 percent of the benefit received (2013).

That is a start but the company receives the payment for 10 years - not 3 years. The claw-back requirement needs to exceed the payments time period. They need to stick around for some period of time AFTER the payments end or pay it back. The whole concept is based on expanding the tax base, not letting companies setup short-term "no tax" zones.


To ensure this requirement is met, the Commerce Department performs an economic analysis showing the net bene t of this program. For scal years 2011-2013, they showed costs of incentive payments of $210.8 million and increased revenue to the state of $231.8 million, which re ects a net benefit of $21.0 million.


So the agency running the program does an audit showing the program is working. Try doing that in the private sector. I wonder if this is the same people who said the AICCM would result in $2 billion in revenue over 20 years.

Finally, Boeing might be a successful recipient - but we have to wait about 10 more years to find out. The Oklahoman has stories every year on companies closing Oklahoma operation as soon as the payments stop.

So the agency running the program does an audit showing the program is working. Try doing that in the private sector. I wonder if this is the same people who said the AICCM would result in $2 billion in revenue over 20 years.

The private sector has to run their own audit and send it to the agency to confirm what they should be paid. It's all up front. Trust me on this one.

Because if you don't review it in context then it is just babbling. Text without context is just pretext. Analyzing incentives by themselves isn't in any way meaningful. And this mile wide one inch deep dogmatic philosophizing is great chat stuff but is not meaningful.

I'm sorry, but what the hell? Were you serious? I want to believe you were just babbling to continue picking at JTF...

So the agency running the program does an audit showing the program is working. Try doing that in the private sector. I wonder if this is the same people who said the AICCM would result in $2 billion in revenue over 20 years.

The private sector has to run their own audit and send it to the agency to confirm what they should be paid. It's all up front. Trust me on this one.

I don't doubt the companies confirm how much they have been paid - I am questioning how the agency determines how much return the State has received. My guess is they use a bunch of suspect multipliers to arrive at the net benefit. We see it all the time with government agencies over-estimating the return on State spending. Heck, if we got just half the money all the State programs were supposed to generate we could totally eliminate the State income tax (although that would render Quality Jobs useless since it refunds State income tax).

Lets look at Boeing as an example. Since all of the income tax paid by their employees in the program gets refunded to Boeing, where does the State see any benefit? Well, they start by estimating how much income tax the employee pays and how many "jobs" are created down the line (as if Crest hires a new stock person just because Boeing has 1000 employees here). They never factor in the cost associated with the new jobs (road wear and tear, fire protection, new police officers, etc...). It is all cherry-picked hocus pocus.

The negative portion of the article is based on flawed logic or aggregate logic that claims that most QJA jobs were going to be created here due to growth anyway. It does not look at specific companies. If it had, it would be hard to argue that a company such as Boeing, which has now shuttered its Wichita site and moved large programs here from Long Beach and Seattle, has done anything but create brand new opportunities for Oklahoma.

Yes, for every Boeing, a company that relocated jobs here (which is good), there are many more chesapeakes who every one and their dog knew werent going anywhere yet still got free money from the state to subsidize the natural job growth. There is no flawed logic in that. There are countless other Oklahoma based companies who werent going anywhere yet got free money from the state, just because.

Flash forward to now and chesapeake lays off hundreds but still got that free money from us tax payers.

Side note, does the state require drug testing of these companies execs and employees or do we just drug test the poor welfare recipients?

Yes, for every Boeing, a company that relocated jobs here (which is good), there are many more chesapeakes who every one and their dog knew werent going anywhere yet still got free money from the state to subsidize the natural job growth. There is no flawed logic in that. There are countless other Oklahoma based companies who werent going anywhere yet got free money from the state, just because.

Flash forward to now and chesapeake lays off hundreds but still got that free money from us tax payers.

Side note, does the state require drug testing of these companies execs and employees or do we just drug test the poor welfare recipients?

Are you under the impression that the state gives them money in advance of the hiring and that they can just spend it or not however they see fit?

It is all cherry-picked hocus pocus.

Of course it is hocus pocus to you...just like GPS is just hocus pocus to my father who is near 100. He thinks it is magic and prefers printed maps that were outdated a decade ago with none of the new expressways on them.

Are you under the impression that the state gives them money in advance of the hiring and that they can just spend it or not however they see fit?

I know that they dont get money until employees are paid. But what benefit do we get by paying for Chesapeakes natural expansion during a boom only to have those jobs last a couple years and chk lays them off? What does the state get out of that? Chk wasnt moving out of state, they werent a company moving to our state, they were going to hire people regardless, the money itself didnt attract a new, long term tax paying Okie.

As I said up thread, Boeing incentives make some kind of sense (I have no real data so who knows) but the increasing amount of QJA money going to Oklahoma based companies who are expanding is wasteful IMO. We are paying them to do what they were going to do anyways. If we are going to do that, why doesnt every small business that hires an employee get to be in on this action too? Why only the bigger payroll companies? Why not subsidize every new job? Obviously Im being facetious but with the state continually expanding the limits of QJA, its become more of a drain that benefit.

I know that they dont get money until employees are paid. But what benefit do we get by paying for Chesapeakes natural expansion during a boom only to have those jobs last a couple years and chk lays them off? What does the state get out of that? Chk wasnt moving out of state, they werent a company moving to our state, they were going to hire people regardless, the money itself didnt attract a new, long term tax paying Okie.

As I said up thread, Boeing incentives make some kind of sense (I have no real data so who knows) but the increasing amount of QJA money going to Oklahoma based companies who are expanding is wasteful IMO. We are paying them to do what they were going to do anyways. If we are going to do that, why doesnt every small business that hires an employee get to be in on this action too? Why only the bigger payroll companies? Why not subsidize every new job? Obviously Im being facetious but with the state continually expanding the limits of QJA, its become more of a drain that benefit.
QJA should be for jobs coming from out of state into the state and have time limits on how long they can be enacted for. If a company wants some help expanding into Oklahoma that's one thing, subsidizing companies employees because they are so amazing is silly and a waste of money.

So, we should encourage out of state companies to come in, but lose our current ones to states offering incentives? It always amazes me that companies work so hard to get new customers and ignore their good current ones til they lose them. Guess we want the state to act the same way. Encouraging our already existing companies to grow and develop substantial levels of good new jobs should be a strategy.

By the way, the threshold for getting the incentive can be as low as hiring a few well paid employees, so you don't have to be a giant corp. to get it. Find a way to expand your small business with say 15 engineers and you are right there.

Quality Jobs Program Act is an' incentives' investment in Oklahoma. We want to attract new jobs to Oklahoma; also, reward those existing companies that have been steadfast; those that continue to grow and expand its footprint in our state.

Oklahoma is making a sacrifice that will pay huge dividends for our future.

New Boeing Building on 59th and Air Depot progressing...
12429

QJA should be for jobs coming from out of state into the state and have time limits on how long they can be enacted for. If a company wants some help expanding into Oklahoma that's one thing, subsidizing companies employees because they are so amazing is silly and a waste of money.

I believe time limits are in effect. Max of ten years.

I know that there are 3 different groups of Quality Jobs, encasing small business, rural business and the big boys.

Thanks!

Wow, that went up fast.

Thanks!

Wow, that went up fast.

It is supposed to have occupancy by mid to late May. They have started painting the building as well, with rollers :eek:

Finally put in windows last week as well.

Wow, that went up fast.

khm...khm... that's what she said (Leanne Caret that is).

Boeing plans to cut up to 8,000 airplane jobs: sources | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-redundancies-idUSKCN0WW0AF)

does this affect OKC?