Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

alexey

By alexey
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

You didn't, maybe I should have just posted instead of replying with a quote.  What prompted my response was when you said "The tax system is set up for the rich as are these giant corporations".  What people should know(If they don't) is that every small, medium, and large business owner can take advantage of tax loopholes in some shape or form and these write-offs can help businesses make it through tough times or grow the business.


Is there really any doubt that large corporations lobby for and get loopholes written into the tax law that primarily benefit them?

 

Obviously, there are general tax write offs and things like that benefit many companies, including small businesses, but if you think GE is spending millions of dollars lobbying on the tax code for benefits that aren't primarily benefiting them (as a large corp), I got a bridge to sell you.

 

Now, again, that doesn't mean that all corporations are universally bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

People tend to forget that if you are trading with other nations, you typically aren't fighting them.

 

A big part of the post WW2 major powers being at peace (in this case not directly going to war with each other) has been the increase in trade.

 

It was easy for Germany and Japan to start invading everyone in the late 30s because of the protectionist regimes that had taken over the world. There weren't enough negative economic consequences for going to war.

 

I don't think this is true.  I know that Germany's biggest trade partner prior to WWII was France, I'm pretty sure Japan's biggest trade partner was us.

 

WWII happened because Hitler truly believed that Germans were a superior race and had moral right (and even imperative) to rule at least a large chunk of the world (at least Eastern Europe).

 

Similarily, the Japanese leadership believed they were a superior race and should rule over at least most other Asian nationalities.

 

Neither was a rational believe, and the total costs (including economic costs) were huge, but given the non-economic costs (e.g. human costs) suggesting that a larger economic costs would have made a different isn't practical.

 

What happened post-WWII was the development of nuclear weapons that made the belief that a country could take over a large chunk of the world successfully became an even more irrational belief than prior to WWII and somebody that irrational has failed to gain control over a large enough country that has or can develop a nuclear weapon.

6 hours ago, tshile said:

 

And when called on it, they just say "well your political leaders/policy writers are stupid/corrupt/partisan/etc"

 

To which I say: DUH

 

We do no live in a textbook world, but all we get are textbook arguments for economists.

 

I do not think they are wrong or stupid, I just think their arguments lack a dose of reality that is needed. I appreciate all the work they do, I love reading their blogs, but telling me that the current gripe with global trade is fueled by uneducated dopes that don't understand how the trade deficit has actually improved and overall utility has improved and the condition is <random foreign country> have improved tells me that they're not paying attention to what is going on "on the ground" per se.

 

 

What aren't they paying attention to?

 

Unemployment is down based on most metrics compared to historical levels (i.e the U-3 and U-6 are below their historic average).

Inflation has been low (prices are staying low).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

Why not revamp the tax code so there is a limit built in, that  tax advantage that is beneficial for small and medium sized businesses is capped at a certain amount.

For example, a business that grosses over $25 million can only take advantage up to the limit, then no more. Hypothetical amounts for illustrative purposes.

That way, the big businesses get to pay their share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JSSkinz

JSSkinz

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, PeterMP said:


Is there really any doubt that large corporations lobby for and get loopholes written into the tax law that primarily benefit them?

 

 
1

No, and I don't disagree that some loopholes are being taken advantage of.  All I'm saying is don't kill the small business woman or man who are using the same loopholes that the big companies are using such as benefits for investing in R&D or having the ability to write off certain bad debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

New Yorker (Borowitz Report): TRUMP WARNS THAT COMPANIES SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS WILL BE SLAPPED WITH ENORMOUS BRIBES

 

Quote

 

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—President-elect Donald J. Trump drew a line in the sand on Friday as he warned that U.S. companies planning to ship jobs overseas will be slapped with enormous bribes.  

 

“If you think you’re going to get away with sending jobs out of the U.S., think again,” Trump said. “You are about to be bribed, big league.”  

 

He raised the cautionary example of Carrier Corporation, which this week decided to keep a few hundred jobs in the U.S. in exchange for a seven-million-dollar government incentive. “I warned those boys at Carrier: we can do this the easy way, or the hard way, where you get seven million dollars,” he said. “They backed down so fast—it was terrific.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't think this is true.  I know that Germany's biggest trade partner prior to WWII was France, I'm pretty sure Japan's biggest trade partner was us.

 

WWII happened because Hitler truly believed that Germans were a superior race and had moral right (and even imperative) to rule at least a large chunk of the world (at least Eastern Europe).

 

 

 

But where did Hitler draw his power from?

 

Who elected him and what were they pissed about?  Hitlers views dont really matter for this exercise

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Sisko

The Sisko

Posted
Posted

The interesting thing about this tactic is what happens when the GOP takes things to their natural conclusion which one sometimes hears, i.e. zero taxation for corporations. If you can make the case for this on Fed taxes, can state taxes be far behind? However, zero or not, there is an inflection point where taxes get low enough that offers of tax breaks have little or no value. At that point, all you're left with is threats and bribes, 'er subsidies aaaand *POOF* we're China/Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

 

3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:
20 hours ago, visionary said:
Ford open to dealing w/ Cheeto

Translated: "Pay us too and we'll stay."

 

I read it more as "Ford willing to claim to be thinking about moving, and then "change their minds", in exchange for billions."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

I don't see the value in approaching the problem by figuring out how much much businesses should pay trying to serve some vague notion of fairness.  Instead of asking "how much should businesses pay" and making corporate tax policy a sort of bizarre moral issue we should see it for what it is, a market.  Tax policy on business should be set where the competition within that market demands it be set for the US to gain greater investment and quality jobs.  Individual and payroll taxes make up the vast majority of tax revenue, thus more people making more money here is a win win situation for both jobs and tax revenue. 

 

Corporate tax rates don't really mean much anyway being that businesses can hide their money or relocate.  Right now vast sums of cash sit in tax heavens all over the world.  How does that help Americans at all?  It doesn't end up in the hands of government nor invested back into the businesses.  The only rational reaction to policies that serve no one at all is to do away with them.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Pointing out that you're not saying "corporate taxes should be set at the level that maximizes corporate tax revenue".  You're saying "Corporate taxs should be set at the level that's best for the corporation".  

 

The problem with the latter is, we all know which level of taxation is best for the entity being taxed.  

 

I'm also not sure that "We should just get rid of laws which people manage to avoid" is all that valid a reasoning.  (Although I confess, I've probably used that reasoning myself, when it comes to the topic of drug legalization.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Larry said:

Pointing out that you're not saying "corporate taxes should be set at the level that maximizes corporate tax revenue".  You're saying "Corporate taxs should be set at the level that's best for the corporation".  

 

The problem with the latter is, we all know which level of taxation is best for the entity being taxed.  

 

I'm also not sure that "We should just get rid of laws which people manage to avoid" is all that valid a reasoning.  (Although I confess, I've probably used that reasoning myself, when it comes to the topic of drug legalization.)  

 

I read it as setting it where it maximizes benefit to the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are bought by corporations to get the best tax benefits, with humans picking up the bill.

Saying they are bought off by corporations doesn't really capture everything.  Its more accurate IMO to say that corporate executives are behind the influencing of government.  Executives who no doubt define what's best for the company mostly (or entirely) as what best serves their own interests (their ever increasing pay) and those of their investors. 

 

Is it any wonder that current situation is low capital gains rates and trade deals that make it easier to make product where it's cheaper and sell them in the same markets as before without penalty?  Who wins?  The ever widening wealth gap might be a clue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...