Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 30, 2016 16:41:41 GMT -5
I'm Thankful that Trump is our President and not Clinton I'm exceedingly thankful that our President-elect is not Clinton. I can't say that I'm thankful it's Trump though. I would have much preferred Rubio or Kasich. But I'm grateful it's not Clinton.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Nov 30, 2016 17:00:29 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.
Carrier parent compant is United Technologies..Connecticut...a lot of pressure could be brought on them..Pratt and Whitny..jet engines plus big in space program Carrier said the move to Mexico would save the company $65 million..not sure of the time period ..
|
|
countrygirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Jul 29, 2016 18:53:08 GMT -5
Posts: 699
|
Post by countrygirl on Nov 30, 2016 17:33:30 GMT -5
That's peanuts compared to their earnings.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 30, 2016 19:31:53 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 cuts for businesses are so significant that our revenues have gone down significantly. By a third (before the tax cuts we were taking in 2.9 billion, after the business tax cuts we are taking in 2.2 billion - that includes increase of sales tax). Despite increasing the sales tax, to the point where in many areas it's 10% (a food is taxed at that rate a well unlike other states), and huge cuts to programs, including all our public schools, the state is still reporting a short fall of probably 350 million this year. The state is being sued because of the school funding issue. And the jobs that are "created" are typically businesses that have been poached from across the state line. There aren't new jobs created, employees now just have to commute from across the state line. Many people in Kansas City live in one state and work in the other. Kansas is a complete mess. We are one of the few states that is losing jobs. And we have the least popular governor in the nation. Our governor is a tea party conservative and he has enacted many of the ideas that the conservatives want to institute at the national level.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 19:49:53 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? The tax cuts for businesses are so significant that our revenues have gone down significantly. By a third (before the tax cuts we were taking in 2.9 billion, after the business tax cuts we are taking in 2.2 billion - that includes increase of sales tax). Despite increasing the sales tax, to the point where in many areas it's 10% (a food is taxed at that rate a well unlike other states), and huge cuts to programs, including all our public schools, the state is still reporting a short fall of probably 350 million this year. The state is being sued because of the school funding issue. And the jobs that are "created" are typically businesses that have been poached from across the state line. There aren't new jobs created, employees now just have to commute from across the state line. Many people in Kansas City live in one state and work in the other. Kansas is a complete mess. We are one of the few states that is losing jobs. And we have the least popular governor in the nation. Our governor is a tea party conservative and he has enacted many of the ideas that the conservatives want to institute at the national level. Poaching jobs from one state when you are still employing people from the original state and giving tax breaks will obviously not help your economy. You can't compare that to the national level and keeping jobs from moving to Mexico. Because I do not believe that losing corporations to foreign countries is better than tax cuts.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 19:50:29 GMT -5
That's peanuts compared to their earnings.
So what? It is still a substantial savings and obviously large enough for them to consider the move.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,142
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Nov 30, 2016 20:46:47 GMT -5
Trump didn't get them to stay. The governor gave them state tax incentives.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,558
|
Post by NastyWoman on Nov 30, 2016 20:48:37 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. Somebody else probably already commented on this, but in order to be eligible to vote you have to be a citizen. And only naturalized citizens (i.e. foreign born citizens) are at this point required to take a citizenship test (as well they should when they want to become citizens). But you could say that of the people who voted in this election, with few exceptions, only those "despicable" foreigners were actually qualified to vote
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,394
|
Post by Tiny on Nov 30, 2016 21:45:44 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,812
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 30, 2016 21:52:04 GMT -5
The Lone Tranger will come to their rescue.
|
|
countrygirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Jul 29, 2016 18:53:08 GMT -5
Posts: 699
|
Post by countrygirl on Nov 30, 2016 23:12:00 GMT -5
He did his public thing to get accolades and I expect this to be stopgap.
Hubby was figuring up, they gave them tax breaks of $700,000 a year for 1000 employees, cost Indiana $700 a year per employee to keep them. Well its worth it to have them earning a living, still now what does he do, buy each company off? Pence had to do it as Trump had no authority to do it.
What a convoluted web they weave.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,142
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Nov 30, 2016 23:20:56 GMT -5
Pence stayed on as governor to pull that off. They must have planed it awhile ago. I'm glad jobs were saved, but I've seen this before where other companies will now ask for tax incentives to stay. Saving jobs is great but the burden to the tax payers must be taken into account.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,558
|
Post by NastyWoman on Dec 1, 2016 0:57:48 GMT -5
Pence stayed on as governor to pull that off. They must have planed it awhile ago. I'm glad jobs were saved, but I've seen this before where other companies will now ask for tax incentives to stay. Saving jobs is great but the burden to the tax payers must be taken into account. So this is my conflicted liberal/YMer showing. On the one hand I am happy that (in the grand scale of things) a, relatively small, number of people will be able to keep their job. But I have yet to see a cost analysis. One that compares the cost of keeping these jobs (and future jobs that will undoubtedly be affected by this) in Indiana vs the cost of letting these jobs go and developing a new, sustainable labor market. Even if that means that there will be a period of hardship in the near future. We already provide corporate welfare in the form of aid for workers who, even with two workers, don't earn enough to make it without help. what can I say, I 'fessed up to being liberal! And here we go again:lowering corporate taxes by a whopping 20%, pay incentives to stay in one place, and increase the wealth inequality in one of the richest countries of the world. And if you don't believe that last statement look up the Gini index published by that liberal hotbed the CIA. There are developing countries that put us to shame. So before I celebrate this "win" you need to first prove to me that it actually is one and not just another ploy of shovelling money upwards hidden behind great looking headlines.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 1, 2016 8:59:05 GMT -5
Obama is the sitting president and has been for the past 8 years. What is HE doing (or done) to retain jobs?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,812
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 1, 2016 9:34:48 GMT -5
There'a NIMBY issue I need Obama's help with. What's Obama's office phone number-anyone have it?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,501
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 1, 2016 10:25:53 GMT -5
My question I suppose is what do they do if in a few months to a year Carrier decides again they are going to move out of Indiana and this time they want MORE to be persuaded to stay in Indiana?
Don't get me wrong it's great these people get to keep their jobs. I am skeptical though that this is going to be something sustainable long term. Either they will have massive layoffs to make up for what they lost out on by not moving overseas or a few years from now will go ahead and move.
How far are we willing to go to keep jobs here? What would be the cost to the country as a whole to keep offering goodies to get companies to stay?
This is one company, there are a lot of other companies out there. How do we decide which jobs are worth saving and which companies we let go? How do we decide how much we are willing to spend/give up to get them to stay?
Would fines really work or would companies just cut wages and lay off other people in order to make up the difference? I know on the illegal worker front all Tyson does is cut COL increases and wages across all their plants for the peons (the ones that all this stuff is supposed to be helping) and they make up the money practically overnight.
Anything we do is going to have unintended consequences, the question is what unintended consequences can we better stomach and live with.
So I am not calling it a presidential victory just yet. I am interested to see how this plays out over the long term.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 1, 2016 11:05:37 GMT -5
Obama is the sitting president and has been for the past 8 years. What is HE doing (or done) to retain jobs?
As I recall, under intense dislike from the conservatives, Obama saved plenty of jobs when he bailed out the auto industry. I'm sure there could have been plenty more except for the conservatives constant obstruction of all things Obama.
Thus the real question should be why didn't the Repo controlled Congress do anything to save American jobs?
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,394
|
Post by Tiny on Dec 1, 2016 11:23:24 GMT -5
He did his public thing to get accolades and I expect this to be stopgap.
Hubby was figuring up, they gave them tax breaks of $700,000 a year for 1000 employees, cost Indiana $700 a year per employee to keep them. Well its worth it to have them earning a living, still now what does he do, buy each company off? Pence had to do it as Trump had no authority to do it.
What a convoluted web they weave. And there's no guarantee that carrier won't lay off people going forward OR that carrier won't just push their plans to relocate a year or two out into the future. For the moment it's a success but it's NOT a long term solution.
It would be better to help companies with FUTURE plans to add jobs or increase their output (whatever they are making).
Bribing a company to stay a little longer (while NOT adding jobs or increasing output) isn't a solution. The plant just gets older and more out of date. It doesn't create NEW jobs or opportunities.
I'm NOT saying it isn't good that carrier is staying. I'm just saying not to get too much of a warm fuzzy from it. It doesn't indicate an improvement OR a step in the right direction. It just represents a "maintain the status quo". And in business that's NOT a good long term plan.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,410
|
Post by phil5185 on Dec 1, 2016 11:24:30 GMT -5
I hear this a lot - but I never hear the reasons for hating wealth inequality (envy? jealousy?). It's almost as if the phrase wealth inequality is self-explanatory? It seems to be Far Left mantra - aka haters of Business, Corporations'
In my Free Market World, 'wealth inequality' is the prime catalyst - entrepreneurs invest their capital into commercial enterprises - ie, build factories, buy production machinery, buy trucks, buy components, buy materials, hire 1000's of workers - and spread commerce thru-out the community to the support/service functions - streets, infrastructure, restaurants, stores, yada.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 1, 2016 11:28:09 GMT -5
And then continue to not pay workers for the increased productivity gains while stagnating wages for the last 40 years and enjoying massive tax cuts.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 1, 2016 11:50:07 GMT -5
He did his public thing to get accolades and I expect this to be stopgap.
Hubby was figuring up, they gave them tax breaks of $700,000 a year for 1000 employees, cost Indiana $700 a year per employee to keep them. Well its worth it to have them earning a living, still now what does he do, buy each company off? Pence had to do it as Trump had no authority to do it.
What a convoluted web they weave. Are you referencing the old incentives that were given, that Pence is now saying the state would claw back, if they moved, or are these new incentives to stay?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 1, 2016 12:39:27 GMT -5
Obama is the sitting president and has been for the past 8 years. What is HE doing (or done) to retain jobs? Well he did rescue the economy from the greatest disaster since the Great Depression. last Quarter GDP growth has just been revised up to over 3%. And I agree that we didn't succumb to the disaster. I'm not sure that I give Obama all of the credit but some.
But if you look at middle income people, their earning power has declined with Obama. Jobs are being lost and replaced with lower paying jobs, health insurance premiums are going through the roof, etc. Those people and their issues are not being addressed by Obama or the left...We need to curtail the flow of jobs out of our country.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:46:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 12:53:05 GMT -5
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.
Great semantics. Do you have a projected or actual percentage of success/failures in all businesses that would receive in an across the board favorable tax climate. Or does cherry picking a couple of situations that didn't work reflect the whole as presented in your post (Think 535 million tax loss Solyndra) This is somewhat a narrow view without considering the long term effects. What happens when the duration of the unemployment assist runs out, and the jobs are still leaving the country due to more favorable tax situations out of the country ? Tax assist for business is just one of the costs of an unregulated free trade global market.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Dec 1, 2016 12:53:55 GMT -5
We need to curtail the flow of jobs out of our country.
Corporate supported repos have had nothing to do with that of course.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:46:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 12:59:03 GMT -5
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. You should note that I said the purpose of this " country" is for the betterment of it's own citizens. (As in a reference against a tariff move against globalism.) Please read my posts.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 1, 2016 13:01:45 GMT -5
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. Another way to look at it. From the government's perspective, they have citizens in need of monetary support. Either you pay them welfare, Medicaid, disability, job retraining ect, or you give tax breaks and incentives to businesses to keep them in your state/country. Either way, you have to pay, and it's a philosophical debate to whether which is better.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:46:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 13:03:04 GMT -5
First make sure they are citizens, then hand out the tests. Somebody else probably already commented on this, but in order to be eligible to vote you have to be a citizen. And only naturalized citizens (i.e. foreign born citizens) are at this point required to take a citizenship test (as well they should when they want to become citizens). But you could say that of the people who voted in this election, with few exceptions, only those "despicable" foreigners were actually qualified to vote It was humor. Hence the smiley.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:46:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 13:08:53 GMT -5
As per a previous post of yours, they will receive their unemployment checks and all will be well for the Holiday. It's preferred over retaining the jobs, as you said. Quote from your post #48 "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"
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 1, 2016 13:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Dec 1, 2016 13:56:42 GMT -5
Eye think we donut nose all the deets of this "deal" yet.,,,maybe we should holed off on praising or putting it down?
|
|