 |
Re: Virgin Trains' Vegas can't get these tax breaks granted to other public private benefit pronects why?
Author: les
Date: 06-11-2019 - 23:59
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Follow the story back to the original article in
> the LV paper, which was conveniently linked early
> in the engineering article. The engineering
> article kind of muddled a few things. That's still
> no excuse for ranting without reading, as most of
> the other commenters apparently did.
>
> 1) this has to do with NEVADA state and local tax
> decisions. What's requested is essentially an
> exemption from state and local sales and property
> taxes, much like is granted to new industrial
> projects like the Faraday factory near LV, or
> Walmart or Amazon warehouses.
> 2) they *are* discretionary. The state and local
> governments have to agree to give up some tax
> payments.
> 3) they *are* subsidies, since the companies
> receiving these exemptions don't have to pay some
> state and local taxes that the general population
> of businesses do. Sometimes it's for a limited
> amount of time; rarely, it's forever.
>
> Nothing in the article (either the original LV
> paper nor the rewrite in the engineers site)
> mentions anything about a similar deal in
> California.
>
> This has nothing to do with the actual federal
> loans that Brightline collected (and that were
> approved for the original DesertXpress line until
> Republic congresscritters ordered FRA not to do
> it). Other information is needed to determine
> whether or not the LV line will get any such
> loans. Cutting the price to $4B suggests that
> fully private financing is possible this time.
Poof! No Nevada governor who is a Brightline investor to push it through like in Florida. No more support from the California side now that Chao and republicans are blocking their rail grants. Kiss it all good-bye Rick Scott. Poof!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Follow the story back to the original article in
> the LV paper, which was conveniently linked early
> in the engineering article. The engineering
> article kind of muddled a few things. That's still
> no excuse for ranting without reading, as most of
> the other commenters apparently did.
>
> 1) this has to do with NEVADA state and local tax
> decisions. What's requested is essentially an
> exemption from state and local sales and property
> taxes, much like is granted to new industrial
> projects like the Faraday factory near LV, or
> Walmart or Amazon warehouses.
> 2) they *are* discretionary. The state and local
> governments have to agree to give up some tax
> payments.
> 3) they *are* subsidies, since the companies
> receiving these exemptions don't have to pay some
> state and local taxes that the general population
> of businesses do. Sometimes it's for a limited
> amount of time; rarely, it's forever.
>
> Nothing in the article (either the original LV
> paper nor the rewrite in the engineers site)
> mentions anything about a similar deal in
> California.
>
> This has nothing to do with the actual federal
> loans that Brightline collected (and that were
> approved for the original DesertXpress line until
> Republic congresscritters ordered FRA not to do
> it). Other information is needed to determine
> whether or not the LV line will get any such
> loans. Cutting the price to $4B suggests that
> fully private financing is possible this time.
Poof! No Nevada governor who is a Brightline investor to push it through like in Florida. No more support from the California side now that Chao and republicans are blocking their rail grants. Kiss it all good-bye Rick Scott. Poof!
