> Hyperion will be exempt from state and local sales and use taxes on its data center equipment for the next 20 years, which includes the GPUs that train and develop AI models. Sherwood News estimated that since the state’s combined state and local sales tax stands at 9.56%, spending the roughly $35 billion for the GPUs of the center will hand the firm about $3.3 billion in tax breaks.
It's tempting to blame any political outcome you don't like on lobbying. It allows you to believe that almost no one supports the outcome that you don't like it, because you can blame it on politicians manage to be bought by a small number of lobbyists. But it might not be the case. Several states (I believe Texas, Georgia, and Indiana) don't charge sales tax to data centers. So from Louisiana's perspective, the alternative to the tax break might not be $3B in tax revenue, but $0 (as Meta would simply build elsewhere). I'm sure they still plan to collect income taxes for the temporary jobs created for the construction of the data center, and of the permanent jobs required to maintain it.
If states all worked together, they could plausibly prevent this race to the bottom by agreeing on a universal sales tax minimum, but there are many obstacles to that as well besides some vague sense of "lobbying". You'd want all states to work cooperate on their minimum tax, but every state has a big incentive to break from the cartel and offer lower taxes in exchange for getting all the datacenters built there. There are lobbyists who are working against this, but it's not just meta and google, it's also local utility companies and construction/trade unions (who all want their state to defect and be the one to get all the new money and jobs)
Well said: why does a tax break bother people so much? That feels pretty populist to me: data centers of this magnitude offer a ton of economic benefits to the area and the state, 3.3B in tax breaks are the price to pay to incentivize them to bring the business to the area, which will then provide a net positive financial benefit. I can see plenty of problems with data center construction that should definitely be addressed, but why do you think states offer such huge incentives?
I think there are plenty of issues with data center construction but there are real economic benefits here. If there weren’t it would be pretty easy for states to thwart them. You would see the leverage switch and companies paying states incentives.
What's the value add for states and cities? data centers don't create a lot of long term jobs, the skills required are highly specialized and will probably hire out of state. the construction itself will likely hire locals but that can't go on forever. these centers are loud, increase power costs and water usage.
feels like short term job creation program at best.
But I don't see what other options are available for states to compete with each other if not through tax breaks.
Edit: I suppose if you ban tax breaks, if a state wants to be competitive, they still can but through modifying the tax code for everyone instead of giving certain people exceptions. That doesn't seem like a terrible alternative..
The other option is to not offer the tax breaks and if the company wants to build a data center, they also need to pay the taxes for it. If a state is dumb enough to offer tax breaks that's on them.
There's also not "competition" here. It isn't as if data centers have almost any positive local effects, beyond their property tax revenue. They have very few employees and if the property tax is cut they ultimately don't generate any income for the locality.
I can tell you that as someone living in Idaho, I see no differences when I work with the datacenters in Oregon, Washington, or Utah. I'm not benefited in the slightest by the few Idaho datacenters that I interact with currently.
It's the same argument that's been used to give sports stadiums sweetheart deals. These things have almost no local benefits and a lot of negative side effects with their presence.
The important consideration is whether states are competing for community benefits truly worth the bids made as tax breaks or whether the competition is just among politicians leveraging their personal control over tax breaks towards private benefit as power brokers.
A datacenter complex provides basically none of those things to a state, beyond capital in the form of taxes. But if the state gives tax breaks, then there is no benefit to the state for having a giant warehouse draining its electricity supply and/or polluting its air.
Why do you see data centers as "energy parasites"? They are basically the best customers of the grid possible - consistent high usage. This is an opportunity for the US to pursue energy abundance and grow the economy. The only issues these cause is when states make it impossible to deploy more energy.
Anti growth environmentalism is so toxic when we could just be pursuing wide spread clean energy and growth.
This is a truly delusional take. A high-consumer that needs constant input provides zero benefits to its neighbors. If datacenter providers want to benefit the grid, they ought to build clean energy production sufficient for their needs and then some as a prerequisite for approval. That would be beneficial to everyone.
> Entergy plans at least three new combined‑cycle gas plants totalling ≈2.26 GW specifically to serve Hyperion, with additional plants in the wider “AI build‑out” pipeline.
I think that this is one of the cases in which the Fed government should use it interstate commerce clause to prevent the states to compete until rock bottom. The EU has some regulations that forbid state help to private enterprises and they do seem to have some teeth. Nothing wrong with different states having different tax rates, but states should not be allowed to have favorite companies and kill competition.
For those who are unaware, construction of this datacenter has so far been an unmitigated disaster for the community and a fantastic example of how few shits companies like Facebook give when it comes to cutting corners vs. spending money to do things more safely. To say they aren’t taking the community into consideration is an understatement.
They averaged 7 crashes a month near the site at the time of this article. The community isn’t even 2000 people. They’d had 1 fatality already by the time this article was written as well.
Now if they can actually do something with AI that is meaningful? I assume Mark is trying to reach for like some crazy goal instead of just getting reasonable products to market. I've known the type of person who chases the stars instead of just taking their time, building up the core and then snowballing into greatness.
It's actually kind of amazing that (apparently, but I'm willing to be wrong) AI has resulted in more people getting banned (rather than less, which you would think. You would think AI makes this easier to filter out, search for problem accounts, whatever)
Like, the problem was always the asymmetry. Can FB police everything? Probably not. Should they be able to operate at scale if they can't? Unclear. Section 230 blah blah platform not responsible for things users post
But YOU sure get banned. At any time for any reason. When you then "report" (that button does... what, exactly?) an actual problem, platform happily tells you no community standards were violated.
At this rate, it's almost an equal public-private cooperation - which would actually make more sense as it would give the public ownership over datacenters instead of creepy tech bros.
Will the earth’s climate get tax breaks too? What about the people living around these and paying for taxes. What about zero sum game we have here.
> Hyperion will be exempt from state and local sales and use taxes on its data center equipment for the next 20 years, which includes the GPUs that train and develop AI models. Sherwood News estimated that since the state’s combined state and local sales tax stands at 9.56%, spending the roughly $35 billion for the GPUs of the center will hand the firm about $3.3 billion in tax breaks.
If they are willing to spend 35B there's no doubt they could spend 30B without asking the government to reach into the people's wallet.
The US needs to do something about lobbying. It seems too late already, but maybe you can get things to improve a bit.
It's tempting to blame any political outcome you don't like on lobbying. It allows you to believe that almost no one supports the outcome that you don't like it, because you can blame it on politicians manage to be bought by a small number of lobbyists. But it might not be the case. Several states (I believe Texas, Georgia, and Indiana) don't charge sales tax to data centers. So from Louisiana's perspective, the alternative to the tax break might not be $3B in tax revenue, but $0 (as Meta would simply build elsewhere). I'm sure they still plan to collect income taxes for the temporary jobs created for the construction of the data center, and of the permanent jobs required to maintain it.
If states all worked together, they could plausibly prevent this race to the bottom by agreeing on a universal sales tax minimum, but there are many obstacles to that as well besides some vague sense of "lobbying". You'd want all states to work cooperate on their minimum tax, but every state has a big incentive to break from the cartel and offer lower taxes in exchange for getting all the datacenters built there. There are lobbyists who are working against this, but it's not just meta and google, it's also local utility companies and construction/trade unions (who all want their state to defect and be the one to get all the new money and jobs)
Well said: why does a tax break bother people so much? That feels pretty populist to me: data centers of this magnitude offer a ton of economic benefits to the area and the state, 3.3B in tax breaks are the price to pay to incentivize them to bring the business to the area, which will then provide a net positive financial benefit. I can see plenty of problems with data center construction that should definitely be addressed, but why do you think states offer such huge incentives?
> Well said: why does a tax break bother people so much?
Because it's their money being handed to a trillion dollar company that has no need for a discount?
So glad to see small companies like this get a leg up.
Seems only fair that we pay our taxes when those are used to subsidize such lofty endeavours.
I think there are plenty of issues with data center construction but there are real economic benefits here. If there weren’t it would be pretty easy for states to thwart them. You would see the leverage switch and companies paying states incentives.
What's the value add for states and cities? data centers don't create a lot of long term jobs, the skills required are highly specialized and will probably hire out of state. the construction itself will likely hire locals but that can't go on forever. these centers are loud, increase power costs and water usage.
feels like short term job creation program at best.
No one likes to see big companies avoid taxes.
But I don't see what other options are available for states to compete with each other if not through tax breaks.
Edit: I suppose if you ban tax breaks, if a state wants to be competitive, they still can but through modifying the tax code for everyone instead of giving certain people exceptions. That doesn't seem like a terrible alternative..
The other option is to not offer the tax breaks and if the company wants to build a data center, they also need to pay the taxes for it. If a state is dumb enough to offer tax breaks that's on them.
There's also not "competition" here. It isn't as if data centers have almost any positive local effects, beyond their property tax revenue. They have very few employees and if the property tax is cut they ultimately don't generate any income for the locality.
I can tell you that as someone living in Idaho, I see no differences when I work with the datacenters in Oregon, Washington, or Utah. I'm not benefited in the slightest by the few Idaho datacenters that I interact with currently.
It's the same argument that's been used to give sports stadiums sweetheart deals. These things have almost no local benefits and a lot of negative side effects with their presence.
The important consideration is whether states are competing for community benefits truly worth the bids made as tax breaks or whether the competition is just among politicians leveraging their personal control over tax breaks towards private benefit as power brokers.
> But I don't see what other options are available for states to compete with each other if not through tax breaks.
Federal ban on tax breaks for companies over a certain market cap?
Why can't they compete on "we have a good regulatory setup" or "we have good schools for your employees"?
Infrastructure is a good one. Universities and high quality labor too.
Compete for what exactly, in this case?
First to touch the bottom!
Capital, assets, jobs.
A datacenter complex provides basically none of those things to a state, beyond capital in the form of taxes. But if the state gives tax breaks, then there is no benefit to the state for having a giant warehouse draining its electricity supply and/or polluting its air.
For the "privilege" (I assume they see some benefit) of their state being chosen as the location for the datacenter.
compete for graft, kickbacks, energy parasites.
Why do you see data centers as "energy parasites"? They are basically the best customers of the grid possible - consistent high usage. This is an opportunity for the US to pursue energy abundance and grow the economy. The only issues these cause is when states make it impossible to deploy more energy.
Anti growth environmentalism is so toxic when we could just be pursuing wide spread clean energy and growth.
> Why do you see data centers as "energy parasites"?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48123090
> They are basically the best customers of the grid possible - consistent high usage.
The grid exists to serve the populace. It's why we tend to call it a "public utility".
This is a truly delusional take. A high-consumer that needs constant input provides zero benefits to its neighbors. If datacenter providers want to benefit the grid, they ought to build clean energy production sufficient for their needs and then some as a prerequisite for approval. That would be beneficial to everyone.
You know I’m sure this is true on some level but if you think this is all or a majority of the motivation I think that sounds pretty conspiratorial.
> Entergy plans at least three new combined‑cycle gas plants totalling ≈2.26 GW specifically to serve Hyperion, with additional plants in the wider “AI build‑out” pipeline.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/5gw-data-center
I think that this is one of the cases in which the Fed government should use it interstate commerce clause to prevent the states to compete until rock bottom. The EU has some regulations that forbid state help to private enterprises and they do seem to have some teeth. Nothing wrong with different states having different tax rates, but states should not be allowed to have favorite companies and kill competition.
For those who are unaware, construction of this datacenter has so far been an unmitigated disaster for the community and a fantastic example of how few shits companies like Facebook give when it comes to cutting corners vs. spending money to do things more safely. To say they aren’t taking the community into consideration is an understatement.
They averaged 7 crashes a month near the site at the time of this article. The community isn’t even 2000 people. They’d had 1 fatality already by the time this article was written as well.
https://lailluminator.com/2025/11/22/meta-data-center-crashe...
Now if they can actually do something with AI that is meaningful? I assume Mark is trying to reach for like some crazy goal instead of just getting reasonable products to market. I've known the type of person who chases the stars instead of just taking their time, building up the core and then snowballing into greatness.
You call chatting with AI-influencer chatbot 'friends' un-meaningful ? Don't make little Marky cry. Not after the VR disaster.
It's actually kind of amazing that (apparently, but I'm willing to be wrong) AI has resulted in more people getting banned (rather than less, which you would think. You would think AI makes this easier to filter out, search for problem accounts, whatever)
Like, the problem was always the asymmetry. Can FB police everything? Probably not. Should they be able to operate at scale if they can't? Unclear. Section 230 blah blah platform not responsible for things users post
But YOU sure get banned. At any time for any reason. When you then "report" (that button does... what, exactly?) an actual problem, platform happily tells you no community standards were violated.
You might even get banned for something you were forced to do https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24776748 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24201306)
See, this is why shit like holding his feet to the fire for Dumb Fucks https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122 matters. I don't care if he was young, he also hacked Crimson reporters. Because what he ('he', assuming he didn't just steal it from the Winklevosses) built early on has evolved into a platform that is many things and fucking broken (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712) on top of that
At this rate, it's almost an equal public-private cooperation - which would actually make more sense as it would give the public ownership over datacenters instead of creepy tech bros.