WSJ: Carrier Will Receive $7 Million in Tax Breaks to Keep Jobs in Indiana

[Springfield]

9 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I'm not talking about the Carrier deal (which I haven't taken a position on) The post I quoted and now yours defaults to this way of thinking, which obviously supports the liberal "stereotype."  The left approach any tax cut, incentive, credits etc as taking money away from the government - when in reality it is the Government taking less from who they are taxing (This is no small distinction). This way of thinking implies we are beholden to the government and not the other way around. 

 

My liberal, if that's what you wish to call it, mindset is not that at all.

 

I view anything that is paid for by the government as something that is paid for because of my hard earned dollars that I willfully give to the government to live in this great country.  The military happens thanks to me and all of the other fine citizens of this union.  Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, the entire federal government.  A very small part of each and every one of those things happens becaue of my hard work.

 

So when the government says, "OK, let's remove 7 million dollars of taxes on this company so they can employ more people" then I view that as something that is paid for, in small part, right out of my pocket.  The money has to be accounted for somewhere, right?  It isn't coming from this corporation any longer, so it's coming out of earnest, hard working individuals like you and I.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

The 7K per employee is over 10 years.  The 7K in tax revenue is every year.  And it's higher that 7K in revenue.

 

My question was "if throwing tax money at corporations increases tax revenue, then why not do it for all employers?" 

 

Not "Can somebody make an even more bombastic, completely unsupported, claim about the incredible virtues of trickle down economics?"  

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

And finally, economists love to measure things in 'utility' and their arguments against this sort of things always reference overall utility (they use this same measurement to say how trade has been free trade/globalism has been awesome for us while just ignoring the fact that huge swaths of this country are not 'awesome'.) I think, given what I've posted above, this measurement and way of thinking falls short.

 

There are plenty of economists and others out there have argued for essentially a works program, even if it is just in the context of increased government spending not related to unemployment increases and welfare increases.

 

And welfare comes with work requirements so no welfare is not simply receive a check:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/what-obama-really-did-to-welfare-reform/260931/

 

And I suspect many would sign up for a Depression era WPA program, but there is no way the Republican congress would consider that (under a Democratic President).

[bearrock]

What we really need is a macroscopic, philosophical approach to a macroscopic problem.  The world is changing.  It has never been cheaper to shift the location for production of goods.  Shipping is cheaper and more efficient.  Developing nations are more willing than ever to offer up qualified cheap workforce.  Global economy has made it easier than ever avoid the fallout of domestic tax and economic policy.  And this is all before the full rise of automation.  There is no way that our workforce and economic model in a 100 years will resemble anything close to what it is now.  Politicians (on both sides) can keep kicking the can down the road for another term, but eventually, all the fingers in the world won't keep the dam from bursting.  

[TimmySmith]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

My question was "if throwing tax money at corporations increases tax revenue, then why not do it for all employers?" 

 

Not "Can somebody make an even more bombastic, completely unsupported, claim about the incredible virtues of trickle down economics?"  

You made a completely worthless statement with regard to the subject at hand.  I figured that correcting you might get you back on topic.  The tax incentives are over ten years.  The tax benefit per employee is annually.  

 

I maintain that the reality of $700 spent for $7K gained is worthwhile.  Are you saying it's not?

 

 

[alexey]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

If "spending" $7,000 per employee actually generates more than $7,000 in tax revenue, then why not pass a law mandating $7,000 in tax breaks per employee, for the whole state?  

 

The latter is at least fair. It applies equally to every employer. As opposed to the Carrier approach, where the breaks only get handed out to employers who politicians cherry pick, a recipe guaranteed to lead to corruption and abuse. 

Existing customers cannot always get the new customer deal

 

youre right about the potential for abuse though

28 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I want you to focus on the last two words of your post...more soecifically though the very last one.

Local governments often give tax breaks to businesses looking to move into an area, like Toyota got when thry moved to Indiana and Kentucky. Those tax breaks are first and foremost temporary and are designed to help offset the start up costs. 

Paying companies to stay is bad policy. Why wouldn't I as a business owner just threaten to leave if my taxes weren't cut?

That's a good point.  Paying to come is not the same as paying to stay.  

[NoCalMike]

50 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Penalties for moving jobs out of the United States should equal twice what the company projects to save.

 

Also, if the corporation holds any government contracts, the government should invoke the Termination for Convenience clause that is included in every contract.

 

In addition, a tariff should be applied to each item shipped into the United States.

 

Time to end corporate welfare.

 

^----That sounded a lot more along the lines of what Trump the Campaigner was saying he was going to do. How quickly that changed.

[tshile]

24 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

And welfare comes with work requirements so no welfare is not simply receive a check:

 

 

This sort of thinking seems like it comes form people who read a few articles about welfare and so they think that's how it works everywhere.

 

Have you actually worked in the welfare system? Have you received welfare? Do have family members that have been on it, maybe?

 

There are ways around the system and abuses. There are people that seem to live forever off welfare, enough though the rules apparently make that not possible. There are people that collect money for supporting kids that don't live with them. There are people that skirt the rules in any number of ways.

 

I don't suppose you've ever watched someone open their welfare notice about a home visit then say "Guess I need to go get the kids from moms" ? Or someone who could find work, but didn't have to, because they extended unemployment benefits and they were just as happy staying in mom's basement?

 

The system doesn't work nearly the way it's supposed to and it's not nearly as efficient as we like to pretend it is. Especially when you get outside of the major cities and you get into places where welfare checks are handled by the post office instead of a social services office (because there is no social services office there.)

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

10 hours ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

 

Conservative radio talking head Mark Levin agrees that while this looks good, its a bad precedent. What stops a Democratic President from giving government breaks to specific democratic friendly companies in the future? The bank and auto industry bailouts were industry targets, not specific private companies. 

 

I want to know whether and how much Carrier shareholders or exec made contributions to Trumps campaign. 

 

Also, how is Trump making deals when he is not the president yet and how can a president even make a tax deal without the IRA or some other Fed depts input and approval? 

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Also, how is Trump making deals when he is not the president yet and how can a president even make a tax deal without the IRA or some other Fed depts input and approval? 

It was Pence who is still governor of Indiana.

[No Excuses]

3 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Conservative radio talking head Mark Levin agrees that while this looks good, its a bad precedent. What stops a Democratic President from giving government breaks to specific democratic friendly companies in the future? The bank and auto industry bailouts were industry targets, not specific private companies. 

 

I want to know whether and how much Carrier shareholders or exec made contributions to Trumps campaign. 

 

Also, how is Trump making deals when he is not the president yet and how can a president even make a tax deal without the IRA or some other Fed depts input and approval? 

 

The deal is with Indiana where Pence is still governor and has authority to do this.

 

Its unclear if he will have the same support in other states for heavy handed government interventions in business.

[Rskins06]

I don't understand how this is even close to being a bad thing.  There are 800 families who are not having to now worry about looking for a job to support their families.  I know to some of you, doesn't matter because you can't see past the fact it was President Elect Trump who played a huge role in this and will not give him credit for anything.  What do we hear from the left?  "what about when President Obama did this, or did that", he doesn't get credit for the auto industry bail out (should have let them fail), blah, blah, blah.  President Obama could have gotten involved last year when it was announced, but he didn't.  He had no issues getting involved in Solyndra, the auto industry etc.  It took a President Elect to do what the actual President should have done.

He isn't event the President yet and was able to get involved, why?  Because he promised too during the campaign, he kept his promise and now 800 families are having a better holiday for it.  Great for them, great for him keeping his promise.

Every one crying about the $7 million worth of incentives over the next 10 yrs, like its coming out of your pockets.  Haven't heard anyone mention the $16 million in investments Carrier has to make in order to receive those incentives.  Guess that gets overlooked.

Not to mention, on 20 January 2017 WHEN PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP  becomes PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, there will be a huge restructure of the corporate tax rate which will benefit ALL corporations and encourage ALL corporations to keep their business' here in the US and re invest in Americans rather than foreign countries.  Great time to be an American again!! 

[tshile]

Paging: Cleanup, Thread WSJ: Carrier Will Receive $7 Million in Tax Breaks to Keep Jobs in Indiana

Cleanup, you're needed.

 

(this is to clean up the many ES poster's heads that just exploded everywhere for various reasons)

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

This dude drank ALL the kool-aid!  ^^^

[PeterMP]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

The system doesn't work nearly the way it's supposed to and it's not nearly as efficient as we like to pretend it is. Especially when you get outside of the major cities and you get into places where welfare checks are handled by the post office instead of a social services office (because there is no social services office there.)

 

There is fraud in every system, and it is always going to happen.  However, simply giving people a check is not the objective of welfare.  Not even the objectives by Democrats under a Democratic President.

 

Democrats are not simply looking to hand people checks.

[FanboyOf91]

 

[twa]

16 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

It was Pence who is still governor of Indiana.

 

and must be approved by the state legislature unless using a already approved program.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

There is fraud in every system, and it is always going to happen.  However, simply giving people a check is not the objective of welfare.  Not even the objectives by Democrats under a Democratic President.

 

Democrats are not simply looking to hand people checks.

 

I understand that.

 

But, for various reasons, many of the people the democrats are trying to reach do not view it that way. Why is probably pages and pages worth of discussion, and I doubt we'd disagree much on it, but recognizing they don't see it that way matters if you care about reaching them; certainly if you want their votes for your policies.

 

I had a very good friend who was a blue collar worker who fell on rough times when the economy collapsed recently. I did all the research and put together a plan of action for him that involved using various forms of 'welfare' available to him. It included the timelines and a plan for the next 2 years to get back on their feet.

 

They (him and his girlfriend, with whom he had an infant at the time) refused to do it. They didn't want "handouts." I tried my hardest, I could not convince them to do any of it. It would have helped them immensely, and they were the type of person I personally think government assistance is for. They wouldn't do it.

 

These people exist and simply telling them they are wrong and trying to explain it doesn't work.

 

They wanted a job. Not a 'handout.' *shrug*

[PF Chang]

1. Trump does something stupid/something that seems like the opposite of what conservatives claim as their philosophy

 

2. Most liberals and principled conservatives denounce it

 

3. Trump cultists celebrate

 

Rinse and repeat for the next 4-8 years. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, PF Chang said:

1. Trump does something stupid/something that seems like the opposite of what conservatives claim as their philosophy

 

2. Most liberals and principled conservatives denounce it

 

3. Trump cultists celebrate

 

Rinse and repeat for the next 4-8 years. 

 

Old school Conservatives are not what won the nomination for him....the real ones are rather used to not getting their wishes by now.

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

1. Trump does something stupid/something that seems like the opposite of what conservatives claim as their philosophy

 

2. Most liberals and principled conservatives denounce it

 

3. Trump cultists celebrate

 

Rinse and repeat for the next 4-8 years. 

And the GOP lapdogs will do whatever they can to save face and muddy the waters in order to somewhat legitimize the actions taken.

I just wish for ONCE that we would start working and talking instead of every time trying to win the damn argument. I watched the Daily Show with the blonde Millenial, the whole back and forth was just deflect and non-answers. I just wish that for once we could get answers that weren't just trash.

[sportjunkie07]

This is one of those scenarios where your political backing will probably determine whether you approve or dissaprove of the deal. You'll find statistics to justify it one way or the other. I don't like this move because it doesn't solve any problems and sets an unfavorable precedent.

 

The bottom line is that it is generally cheaper for many companies to operate in a foreign country. 

 

How can we solve this problem?

 

1.) We can find ways to make the USA a more favorable corporate environment such as reducing safety and environmental regulations, taxes, and minumum wage.

 

I think it is generally obvious that doing so is a bad idea. We might save a good portion of jobs, yet we will be lowering the standard of living for many and hurting the country overall. 

 

2.) It looks like trump kinda went the way of the above.. by offering a tax break. Providing similar tax breaks to companies is unsustainable. It will just hemorrhage the American people financially and oftentimes companies will still go overseas. It's a losing battle fighting with a globalized economy. There are just too many countries out there that we will not be able to compete with from a manufacturing standpoint due to the high standards the US sets with its various regualtions. 

 

So we need to change the game.. stop competing with a globalized economy and look for a smarter route. That route is education. 

 

3.) The US government needs to predict specialized skills and occupations that will be in demand in the future. Unlike in many other nations, specifically those where corporations are moving the jobs to, we do have an infrastructure that will make specialized jobs viable. 

 

Just a guess, but engineering of all sorts, robotics, automation and things of the like are areas where the US can succeed. 

 

The education required for such jobs needs to be HEAVILY subsidized by the US government. That way we are essentially investing into the American population and giving a sustainable way for the US to promote itself. 

 

At the end of the day, we will still lose manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, but we will gain jobs in the US that are technical enough in nature, that companies can't go elsewhere because the specialized work force does not exist elsewhere. 

 

That's the way we win this game, by educational investment, not by caving to the demands of cooperate entities. 

 

I feel this solution is one which many Americans would agree with, both left and right. I'm also pretty sure I just won this thread. I'd love to hear your thoughts if otherwise. 

 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

33 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

I don't understand how this is even close to being a bad thing.  There are 800 families who are not having to now worry about looking for a job to support their families. 

I think it is a great thing, looking at it in the vacuum of saving 800 jobs. In my post I was passing along what mark Levin thought .. but I did then ramble about my own misunderstandings about how PE can make agreements. 

 

Re the tax bracket - Trumps version takes away the "head of household" which will hurt single parents like me (and I think married couples filing jointly w more than 4 kids). I looked into it and it appears it will cut my child related deductibles/credits. Im in a wait and see mode. 

 

re slashing corporate taxes ... rich get richer imo. 20% of copanies pay no Fed tax already. I can only imagine the 80% that do pay, pay a fraction. Hell, Trump hasnt paid taxes in almost 20 years? Bc he declared bankruptcy? 

 

There are 27 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500, including telecom firm Level 3 Communications (LVLT), airline United Continental (UAL) and automaker General Motors (GM), that reported paying no income tax expense in 2015 despite reporting pre-tax profits, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from S&P Global Market Intelligence.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/

 

Prior to 2012, the GAO estimated that 24% of profitable large corporations owed no income tax in 2011, 22% owed nothing in 2010 and 21% owed nothing in 2009.

How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO.

Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do.

"There is something profoundly wrong in America when one out of five profitable corporations pay nothing in federal income taxes," Sanders said. "We need real tax reform to ensure that the most profitable corporations in America pay their fair share in taxes. That means closing corporate tax loopholes to raise the revenue necessary to rebuild America and create millions of jobs."

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/pf/taxes/gao-corporate-taxes/

 

 

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Penalties for moving jobs out of the United States should equal twice what the company projects to save.

 

Also, if the corporation holds any government contracts, the government should invoke the Termination for Convenience clause that is included in every contract.

 

In addition, a tariff should be applied to each item shipped into the United States.

 

Time to end corporate welfare.

I thought when Trump proposed a massive tariff on any imported goods from a company that moved jobs out of the U.S. it was lambasted?  Now you are behind it? And Pence is talking about how the free market has failed.  

 

We are in an alternate universe...

[LadySkinsFan]

13 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

I thought when Trump proposed a massive tariff on any imported goods from a company that moved jobs out of the U.S. it was lambasted?  Now you are behind it? And Pence is talking about how the free market has failed.  

 

We are in an alternate universe...

I have thought this for years, it makes sense.

 

Trump promoting it was campaign rhetoric. Look at who he's appointing, corporatists every one almost. And not one focused on policies that help the targeted voters, the white working class. They just haven't gotten the memo that says, you're screwed, yet.