Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Nov 30, 2016 10:40:27 GMT -5
While I am happy for the individuals who are employed by this plant who will keep their jobs (and it sounds like about half will keep their jobs...between the two plants there are about 2100 jobs at stake), I am very concerned that this sets up a new precedent that is simply not sustainable. Basically, what did the government and the state have to give away to keep those 1000 jobs in Indiana? And if I were a CEO of another plant you better bet I'd be threatening something Just a week before the November 8th election, attackers set a church in Greenville, Mississippi, on fire. The historically black church was targeted in what authorities believe was an act of voter intimidation, its walls spray-painted with the phrase “Vote Trump.” to get similar concessions regardless of whether I was going to move or not. And why should taxpayers help subsidize private corporations this way? Assuming of course, that Carrier isn't keeping those jobs out of the goodness of their heart (which I'm sure they are not). It's not unusual for state gov'ts to offer incentives to companies in the form of tax breaks. Pence is still gov of Indiana. So the tax payers of Indiana will likely pick up the cost. Noted that the unions were excluded from the talks. So the jobs remaining are likely to be lower paying with fewer benefits. But a good PR move.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:22:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 12:21:29 GMT -5
While I am happy for the individuals who are employed by this plant who will keep their jobs (and it sounds like about half will keep their jobs...between the two plants there are about 2100 jobs at stake), I am very concerned that this sets up a new precedent that is simply not sustainable. Basically, what did the government and the state have to give away to keep those 1000 jobs in Indiana? And if I were a CEO of another plant you better bet I'd be threatening something Just a week before the November 8th election, attackers set a church in Greenville, Mississippi, on fire. The historically black church was targeted in what authorities believe was an act of voter intimidation, its walls spray-painted with the phrase “Vote Trump.” to get similar concessions regardless of whether I was going to move or not. And why should taxpayers help subsidize private corporations this way? Assuming of course, that Carrier isn't keeping those jobs out of the goodness of their heart (which I'm sure they are not). It's not unusual for state gov'ts to offer incentives to companies in the form of tax breaks. Pence is still gov of Indiana. So the tax payers of Indiana will likely pick up the cost. Noted that the unions were excluded from the talks. So the jobs remaining are likely to be lower paying with fewer benefits. But a good PR move. So tax incentives to retain jobs in this country are a negative ? How does that compare to tax money used for unemployment checks ? ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) No need to be afraid to answer this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:22:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 12:27:34 GMT -5
Obama made the changes only at the insistence of the Congress that was in turn pressured by their donors etc. The president can refuse/veto a bill unless certain things are included in and ofcourse if only the Senate cannot override his veto. Rules, Laws= legislative branch of Government= Congress I begin to believe that people should take a basic citizenship test before being allowed to vote.First make sure they are citizens, then hand out the tests.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:22:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 12:29:14 GMT -5
To read whole story scroll down to where presented ------------------------------------------------------------ to stay in Indiana plant instead of planned move to Mexico in 2019..It would save over 1000 jobs..possible another 1000 of those subcotractors who supply parts for main plant..not sure on that part, may have mis read. These would be good paying jobs I believe as nost factory production jobs usually are and I commend him for his efforts. I really don't expect a sitting POTUS to be able to run around the country putting out the employment fires but possible he could consider adding specialists , possible throgh commerce department, who would just concentrate on this... As in this case, Carrier was/is moving because of economics, competition AND regulations...possible the regulation part a POTUS and such aids might be able to help out in ...not only a carrot could be used but also the stick..explaining that there may be high tariffs on goods coming into country from moved plants...but also relaxing penalties of bringing back to the States those profits made over seas and now parked in off shore accounts, penalties and taxes forgoes if those $ were invested in a way that new plants were built..production and subsequent increased employment would follow, not $ just distributed as bonuses and options for management and stock holders. The article also mentions a flawed doing of the Donald, where he claimed credit for Ford not moving a Lincoln car plant to Mexico, but Ford wouldn't be able to move the plant as it was prohibited by a Union contract staying where it was..They were considering moving a particuler Lincoln model production line to Mexico only..now staying in States. Possible just a mistake of the Donalds but then again as he has in the past , exaggeration..untruths..what wever. Possible he learned his lesson..As POTUS u are underthe microscope..every bit of passing of gas is examined and remarked on..better to say nothing if u want to hold back things and if u want to be let known..then just "the truth and nothing but the truth" would be the way to go... For the Donald supporters..hope u noticed..though really don't believe registered with u all..a non supporter of the Donald, big time..when he does good..so be noted...In your case, he doesn't say shine so brightly..notive it , say so..call him on it. Then your posts mean so much more in credability and even in persuasion matters...Just a thought -------------------------------------------------------- To read complete article click on link below.. www.courant.com/politics/hc-trump-utc-carrier-plant-1125-20161124-story.htmlI believe Trump is supposed to make an announcement on Dec. 1st, on this subject.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 30, 2016 12:32:03 GMT -5
While I am happy for the individuals who are employed by this plant who will keep their jobs (and it sounds like about half will keep their jobs...between the two plants there are about 2100 jobs at stake), I am very concerned that this sets up a new precedent that is simply not sustainable. Basically, what did the government and the state have to give away to keep those 1000 jobs in Indiana? And if I were a CEO of another plant you better bet I'd be threatening something Just a week before the November 8th election, attackers set a church in Greenville, Mississippi, on fire. The historically black church was targeted in what authorities believe was an act of voter intimidation, its walls spray-painted with the phrase “Vote Trump.” to get similar concessions regardless of whether I was going to move or not. And why should taxpayers help subsidize private corporations this way? Assuming of course, that Carrier isn't keeping those jobs out of the goodness of their heart (which I'm sure they are not). It's not unusual for state gov'ts to offer incentives to companies in the form of tax breaks. Pence is still gov of Indiana. So the tax payers of Indiana will likely pick up the cost. Noted that the unions were excluded from the talks. So the jobs remaining are likely to be lower paying with fewer benefits. But a good PR move. We will need to wait for more details to be revealed, but if this is a set of incentive or tax breaks that that Pence could use with any employer why wait until now to use them to get Carrier to stay? And personally, I object to a lot of those tax breaks and incentives as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:22:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 12:52:40 GMT -5
It's not unusual for state gov'ts to offer incentives to companies in the form of tax breaks. Pence is still gov of Indiana. So the tax payers of Indiana will likely pick up the cost. Noted that the unions were excluded from the talks. So the jobs remaining are likely to be lower paying with fewer benefits. But a good PR move. We will need to wait for more details to be revealed, but if this is a set of incentive or tax breaks that that Pence could use with any employer why wait until now to use them to get Carrier to stay? And personally, I object to a lot of those tax breaks and incentives as well.How do you compare it to tax dollars used for unemployment checks ?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,501
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 30, 2016 12:55:08 GMT -5
While I am happy for the individuals who are employed by this plant who will keep their jobs (and it sounds like about half will keep their jobs...between the two plants there are about 2100 jobs at stake), I am very concerned that this sets up a new precedent that is simply not sustainable. Basically, what did the government and the state have to give away to keep those 1000 jobs in Indiana? And if I were a CEO of another plant you better bet I'd be threatening something similar to get similar concessions regardless of whether I was going to move or not. And why should taxpayers help subsidize private corporations this way? Assuming of course, that Carrier isn't keeping those jobs out of the goodness of their heart (which I'm sure they are not). the competition between states does have it's risks. but, the other theory is that he threatened them too and let them know they could be enjoying a mouthwatering 35% tariff on their imported units if they made this move. I have to ask because I may not be understanding but the boards often scream about how capitalism means that companies should be able to do whatever they want/need to improve their bottom line and by extension profit for the shareholders. Isn't saying "you can't move or we're going to fine you out the nose" going against capitalism? You are forcing a company to stay in the country and lose profits for the betterment of the people. Isn't that "communism" then? Or am I completely misunderstanding the point? I am really trying to reconcile how the boards tend to approach capitalism and how what Trump/Pence did here is a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:22:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 13:07:53 GMT -5
the competition between states does have it's risks. but, the other theory is that he threatened them too and let them know they could be enjoying a mouthwatering 35% tariff on their imported units if they made this move. I have to ask because I may not be understanding but the boards often scream about how capitalism means that companies should be able to do whatever they want/need to improve their bottom line and by extension profit for the shareholders. Isn't saying "you can't move or we're going to fine you out the nose" going against capitalism? You are forcing a company to stay in the country and lose profits for the betterment of the people. Isn't that "communism" then? Or am I completely misunderstanding the point? I am really trying to reconcile how the boards tend to approach capitalism and how what Trump/Pence did here is a good thing. It's all capitalism. It's a move against Globalism. I view the purpose of this country, is for the betterment of it's own citizens, as a first priority.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,501
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 30, 2016 14:12:17 GMT -5
I have to ask because I may not be understanding but the boards often scream about how capitalism means that companies should be able to do whatever they want/need to improve their bottom line and by extension profit for the shareholders. Isn't saying "you can't move or we're going to fine you out the nose" going against capitalism? You are forcing a company to stay in the country and lose profits for the betterment of the people. Isn't that "communism" then? Or am I completely misunderstanding the point? I am really trying to reconcile how the boards tend to approach capitalism and how what Trump/Pence did here is a good thing. My take: the business's responsibility is to maximize their long term profit. so for them, looking at offshoring as a way to do that can make sense. the gov't has a job (IMO) to help better it's citizens, which it can do through a variety of measures. Some would say that unfettered free trade will help citizens because it will keep the price of good low and companies profitable. Others, including myself, think that there should be some effort to create the environment for good jobs in the US, balancing out "unfettered" free trade for something that can be anywhere on the spectrum from wide open, no tarrif borders, to closed borders with no import/export. The other nuance is that you can have "free trade" but negotiate it so that your goods have a good chance in the other country. This is something our govt has done an extremely poor job on generally (IMO) and is central to DT's stated approach to "negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals" that don't disadvantage US production. Ah. Makes sense. Usually what I read on the boards tends to lean towards the extreme side of "free capitalism" hence my confusion.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 30, 2016 14:14:24 GMT -5
rob base, here is another great example of knee jerk reactions where waiting for details of the deal would be wise.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 30, 2016 14:49:35 GMT -5
While I am happy for the individuals who are employed by this plant who will keep their jobs (and it sounds like about half will keep their jobs...between the two plants there are about 2100 jobs at stake), I am very concerned that this sets up a new precedent that is simply not sustainable. Basically, what did the government and the state have to give away to keep those 1000 jobs in Indiana? And if I were a CEO of another plant you better bet I'd be threatening something similar to get similar concessions regardless of whether I was going to move or not. And why should taxpayers help subsidize private corporations this way? Assuming of course, that Carrier isn't keeping those jobs out of the goodness of their heart (which I'm sure they are not). the competition between states does have it's risks. but, the other theory is that he threatened them too and let them know they could be enjoying a mouthwatering 35% tariff on their imported units if they made this move. It does. And the border war where I live is ridiculous and does no one any good. Our governor provides massive tax incentives for businesses to move across the state line. That doesn't create jobs it just moves them, and guts our budget. Which is why I for see individual taxes going up (via sales tax, which is already almost 10%, or other consumption taxes), and services being cut for the fourth year in a row to plug the hole in the state budget. Kansas is a preview for the rest of the nation about what happens when provide ridiculous incentives to businesses and cut the corporate tax rate.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 15:04:35 GMT -5
While I am happy for the individuals who are employed by this plant who will keep their jobs (and it sounds like about half will keep their jobs...between the two plants there are about 2100 jobs at stake), I am very concerned that this sets up a new precedent that is simply not sustainable. Basically, what did the government and the state have to give away to keep those 1000 jobs in Indiana? And if I were a CEO of another plant you better bet I'd be threatening something Just a week before the November 8th election, attackers set a church in Greenville, Mississippi, on fire. The historically black church was targeted in what authorities believe was an act of voter intimidation, its walls spray-painted with the phrase “Vote Trump.” to get similar concessions regardless of whether I was going to move or not. And why should taxpayers help subsidize private corporations this way? Assuming of course, that Carrier isn't keeping those jobs out of the goodness of their heart (which I'm sure they are not). It's not unusual for state gov'ts to offer incentives to companies in the form of tax breaks. Pence is still gov of Indiana. So the tax payers of Indiana will likely pick up the cost. Noted that the unions were excluded from the talks. So the jobs remaining are likely to be lower paying with fewer benefits. But a good PR move. So we only want to keep union jobs? The rest of the jobs can move to another country?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 15:06:07 GMT -5
While I am happy for the individuals who are employed by this plant who will keep their jobs (and it sounds like about half will keep their jobs...between the two plants there are about 2100 jobs at stake), I am very concerned that this sets up a new precedent that is simply not sustainable. Basically, what did the government and the state have to give away to keep those 1000 jobs in Indiana? And if I were a CEO of another plant you better bet I'd be threatening something similar to get similar concessions regardless of whether I was going to move or not. And why should taxpayers help subsidize private corporations this way? Assuming of course, that Carrier isn't keeping those jobs out of the goodness of their heart (which I'm sure they are not). I don't know the answer to that...but I'm assuming they were given tax breaks. If that's the case, isn't it better to give tax breaks to a company to keep 1000 jobs then to lose the jobs completely?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 15:07:18 GMT -5
the competition between states does have it's risks. but, the other theory is that he threatened them too and let them know they could be enjoying a mouthwatering 35% tariff on their imported units if they made this move. It does. And the border war where I live is ridiculous and does no one any good. Our governor provides massive tax incentives for businesses to move across the state line. That doesn't create jobs it just moves them, and guts our budget. Which is why I for see individual taxes going up (via sales tax, which is already almost 10%, or other consumption taxes), and services being cut for the fourth year in a row to plug the hole in the state budget. Kansas is a preview for the rest of the nation about what happens when provide ridiculous incentives to businesses and cut the corporate tax rate. I'm not sure I am following. It might not create jobs in the US but it does create jobs in your state, right? How does that gut your budget?
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,394
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 30, 2016 15:17:38 GMT -5
We will need to wait for more details to be revealed, but if this is a set of incentive or tax breaks that that Pence could use with any employer why wait until now to use them to get Carrier to stay? And personally, I object to a lot of those tax breaks and incentives as well.How do you compare it to tax dollars used for unemployment checks ? oooo I can answer this! I live in the land of "tax breaks for businesses!". My local politicians are always giving away tax breaks or re-zoning property or whatever!
When a politician gives a company a tax break - it usually benefits the OWNERS of the business. It doesn't gaurentee that the business will stay in place or even in business. My city gave a local car dealership 3 million in tax incentives over 18 months - to "keep the dealership from moving to another suburb"... My city also ponied up a low interest low 500,000 loan so the dealership could 'improve' the property (they basically cut down weeds and repaired a fence the main building which was falling into decay stayed the same). 18 months into the not paying taxes AND having used up the 500K loan (it's apparently expensive to have a service come out and whack the weeds) the dealership went out of business and closed their doors - all the jobs were lost and the property was abandoned. I realize the 3 million in tax incentives was kind of "smoke like" but the 500K loan was gone.
Then there's the ever popular tactic of helping some dreamer entrepreneur open up their dream "Ice cream shop" - the city gives them a tax incentive AND a new business loan to fix up a property. It's pretty cool how the entrepreneur is a relative of one of the politicians and how all the "fix up" of the property is done thru "fix up" businesses owned by other relatives of said politicians. There may be some staged photos of the 'grand opening' of said shop - but the shop never opens - or if it does - it's usually closed down with in a year. Rinse and Repeat - in another "empty" store front. The politician gets the "I helped bring business to our city!" AND the pols family gets much of the $$ given by the City to get the small business on it's feet.
And, last but not least, there's when the local politicians manage to do some fancy financial wizardry with vacant lots that get sold for progressively higher prices - until the final buyer/company declares bankruptcy - there's tax incentives and loans involved with that too.
There's LOTS of ways for politicians (and the associated nepotism) to benefit/profit from giving businesses tax incentives and such... all at the tax payers expense.
At least with unemployment taxes - it's actually helpful to everyday people. I'm not sure how giving tax incentives to businesses that go out of business (or cut employees) is helpful... other than to the owners of the business.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,394
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 30, 2016 15:23:31 GMT -5
While I am happy for the individuals who are employed by this plant who will keep their jobs (and it sounds like about half will keep their jobs...between the two plants there are about 2100 jobs at stake), I am very concerned that this sets up a new precedent that is simply not sustainable. Basically, what did the government and the state have to give away to keep those 1000 jobs in Indiana? And if I were a CEO of another plant you better bet I'd be threatening something similar to get similar concessions regardless of whether I was going to move or not. And why should taxpayers help subsidize private corporations this way? Assuming of course, that Carrier isn't keeping those jobs out of the goodness of their heart (which I'm sure they are not). I don't know the answer to that...but I'm assuming they were given tax breaks. If that's the case, isn't it better to give tax breaks to a company to keep 1000 jobs then to lose the jobs completely? the tax break doesn't guarantee that the jobs will remain. That's the problem. The company may go out of business or may re-align it's staff to lower paid jobs or it might cut benefits to it's employees or do whatever it wants. The OWNERS of the business aren't obligated to pass down any 'profit' to their employees.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 30, 2016 15:27:40 GMT -5
I'll just leave this here (one of my favorite scenes, though!)
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 15:30:31 GMT -5
I don't know the answer to that...but I'm assuming they were given tax breaks. If that's the case, isn't it better to give tax breaks to a company to keep 1000 jobs then to lose the jobs completely? the tax break doesn't guarantee that the jobs will remain. That's the problem. The company may go out of business or may re-align it's staff to lower paid jobs or it might cut benefits to it's employees or do whatever it wants. The OWNERS of the business aren't obligated to pass down any 'profit' to their employees.
So it is better for all of the employees to lose their jobs and go on unemployment versus giving tax breaks to a corporation to stay?
A company can always cut its benefits to employees but if the wages/benefits are too low they won't get or retain employees.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,394
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 30, 2016 15:30:44 GMT -5
I have to ask because I may not be understanding but the boards often scream about how capitalism means that companies should be able to do whatever they want/need to improve their bottom line and by extension profit for the shareholders. Isn't saying "you can't move or we're going to fine you out the nose" going against capitalism? You are forcing a company to stay in the country and lose profits for the betterment of the people. Isn't that "communism" then? Or am I completely misunderstanding the point? I am really trying to reconcile how the boards tend to approach capitalism and how what Trump/Pence did here is a good thing. It's all capitalism. It's a move against Globalism. I view the purpose of this country, is for the betterment of it's own citizens, as a first priority. Capitalism isn't about the betterment of ALL citizens... just some of them. Which is generally OK, because usually capitalism inadvertently makes life better for ALL Citizens - it's just not equally dispersed betterment.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 30, 2016 15:34:08 GMT -5
It does. And the border war where I live is ridiculous and does no one any good. Our governor provides massive tax incentives for businesses to move across the state line. That doesn't create jobs it just moves them, and guts our budget. Which is why I for see individual taxes going up (via sales tax, which is already almost 10%, or other consumption taxes), and services being cut for the fourth year in a row to plug the hole in the state budget. Kansas is a preview for the rest of the nation about what happens when provide ridiculous incentives to businesses and cut the corporate tax rate. I'm not sure I am following. It might not create jobs in the US but it does create jobs in your state, right? How does that gut your budget? The tax breaks ate often massive, sometimes to the point where the company is making money to move to the state. So the state has to get that money from somewhere - either cutting services or increasing taxes. On top of that, unless it's a completely new add on to the company, a lot of the employees are likely transfers from the old location. So a lot of those new jobs are filled by those out of state before the new place even opens.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,372
|
Post by movingforward on Nov 30, 2016 15:35:26 GMT -5
It does. And the border war where I live is ridiculous and does no one any good. Our governor provides massive tax incentives for businesses to move across the state line. That doesn't create jobs it just moves them, and guts our budget. Which is why I for see individual taxes going up (via sales tax, which is already almost 10%, or other consumption taxes), and services being cut for the fourth year in a row to plug the hole in the state budget. Kansas is a preview for the rest of the nation about what happens when provide ridiculous incentives to businesses and cut the corporate tax rate. I'm not sure I am following. It might not create jobs in the US but it does create jobs in your state, right? How does that gut your budget? I don't really have a solid opinion on this topic one way or another...I see the good and the bad here. I live in a state with a lot of business tax incentives. It has kept our job market very strong, which is a good thing. The bad part is that it has driven property taxes sky high because the money has to come from somewhere. A city and/or state needs a certain amount of money just to function. That money has to come from somewhere. It will either come from taxing businesses or it will come from taxing citizens but it WILL come from somewhere.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 15:38:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure I am following. It might not create jobs in the US but it does create jobs in your state, right? How does that gut your budget? I don't really have a solid opinion on this topic one way or another...I see the good and the bad here. I live in a state with a lot of business tax incentives. It has kept our job market very strong, which is a good thing. The bad part is that it has driven property taxes sky high because the money has to come from somewhere. A city and/or state needs a certain amount of money just to function. That money has to come from somewhere. It will either come from taxing businesses or it will come from taxing citizens but it WILL come from somewhere. but if they tax the companies out of the state then the citizens have no income to tax.
I would prefer to keep jobs in this country even if that means corporations pay less in taxes. It does us no good to let jobs go to Mexico and have our citizens go without jobs.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,394
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 30, 2016 15:42:08 GMT -5
the tax break doesn't guarantee that the jobs will remain. That's the problem. The company may go out of business or may re-align it's staff to lower paid jobs or it might cut benefits to it's employees or do whatever it wants. The OWNERS of the business aren't obligated to pass down any 'profit' to their employees.
So it is better for all of the employees to lose their jobs and go on unemployment versus giving tax breaks to a corporation to stay?
A company can always cut its benefits to employees but if the wages/benefits are too low they won't get or retain employees.
Well, the last I heard unemployment eventually ends. Tax incentives keep on giving year after year after year after year... cause really - if you give a business x dollars for 5 years - when the 5 years is up they are just going to re-negotiate their deal (unless they've gone out of business). The business can also just cut jobs - if they were employing 1000 - they could take the tax incentive AND cut 250 jobs (probably not the bottom of the pay scale jobs). Businesses are in business to make their owners wealthy - they aren't in business to make their workers wealthy. If an area gives enough in tax incentives WHO picks up the slack? Local governments count on taxes to fund local government (which may include schools and other "help their citizens" benefits not to mention paying for police and firemen and infrastructure upkeep maybe even sanitation (trash removal). Tax incentives eat away at the Income the local government NEEDS to keep running. I'm pretty sure government officials like to be paid and to have health insurance and all the perks of being in office.... Who's paying for that?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,372
|
Post by movingforward on Nov 30, 2016 15:46:09 GMT -5
I don't really have a solid opinion on this topic one way or another...I see the good and the bad here. I live in a state with a lot of business tax incentives. It has kept our job market very strong, which is a good thing. The bad part is that it has driven property taxes sky high because the money has to come from somewhere. A city and/or state needs a certain amount of money just to function. That money has to come from somewhere. It will either come from taxing businesses or it will come from taxing citizens but it WILL come from somewhere. but if they tax the companies out of the state then the citizens have no income to tax.
I would prefer to keep jobs in this country even if that means corporations pay less in taxes. It does us no good to let jobs go to Mexico and have our citizens go without jobs.
I actually tend to agree with you, just saying there is always some bad that comes with the good. Also, my city has an average of 110 people a DAY moving here because of the strong job market. I guess it is a good problem to have but traffic has become a nightmare. Stop moving here people, we are full now
|
|
countrygirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Jul 29, 2016 18:53:08 GMT -5
Posts: 699
|
Post by countrygirl on Nov 30, 2016 15:47:25 GMT -5
Indiana had already given them massive tax breaks, I had heard talk of asking them to pay them back. And how is this good, unions are the only buffer left between employers paying starvation wages and decent wages.
Also the parent company of this one gets massive amounts of money for government contracts, I would gut them to any company that moves to another country.
Carrier made billions last year, CEO got something like $140 million bonus so they are making a LOT of money. I had read that they were also allowing them to bring billions of offshore dollars at a 10% rate instead of 35%, which none of them pay anyway.
I want to hear the details as they say the devil is in the details. Sounds like they are letting union jobs go and keeping the lower paid ones. Gutting peoples income again. Indiana slid badly under Pences tenure. Our average wage has went down drastically here. Schools are hurting, insurance, infrastructure, everything under his policies.
But I am happy to see anyone keeping their job, so I hope it was a good deal.
|
|
spartyparty
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,605
|
Post by spartyparty on Nov 30, 2016 15:49:07 GMT -5
Tax incentives are a temporary solution...those fat juicy wages will be on the chopping block again at some point.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 15:51:46 GMT -5
but if they tax the companies out of the state then the citizens have no income to tax.
I would prefer to keep jobs in this country even if that means corporations pay less in taxes. It does us no good to let jobs go to Mexico and have our citizens go without jobs.
I actually tend to agree with you, just saying there is always some bad that comes with the good. Also, my city has an average of 110 people a DAY moving here because of the strong job market. I guess it is a good problem to have but traffic has become a nightmare. Stop moving here people, we are full now lol!
|
|
countrygirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Jul 29, 2016 18:53:08 GMT -5
Posts: 699
|
Post by countrygirl on Nov 30, 2016 15:55:28 GMT -5
I imagine this is a temporary move till they actually see what Trump is able to do, I can't see this changing anything, greed will overcome it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 16:16:08 GMT -5
Indiana had already given them massive tax breaks, I had heard talk of asking them to pay them back. And how is this good, unions are the only buffer left between employers paying starvation wages and decent wages.
Also the parent company of this one gets massive amounts of money for government contracts, I would gut them to any company that moves to another country.
Carrier made billions last year, CEO got something like $140 million bonus so they are making a LOT of money. I had read that they were also allowing them to bring billions of offshore dollars at a 10% rate instead of 35%, which none of them pay anyway.
I want to hear the details as they say the devil is in the details. Sounds like they are letting union jobs go and keeping the lower paid ones. Gutting peoples income again. Indiana slid badly under Pences tenure. Our average wage has went down drastically here. Schools are hurting, insurance, infrastructure, everything under his policies.
But I am happy to see anyone keeping their job, so I hope it was a good deal.
But honestly, that is the way of the world now. my own company had been looking into shutting our plant down and moving operations to one of our sister companies in a non-union state (in the end, the cost of moving the equipment to the new plant gave too high of a payback period). We are competing against international companies with significantly lower cost to produce than we have.
|
|
spartyparty
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,605
|
Post by spartyparty on Nov 30, 2016 16:21:58 GMT -5
I'm more concerned about the long term and how we will treat people as technology continues to strip jobs away...autonomous trucks/cars will be a big hit to the labor force.
|
|