Saving a Company

Berning Trumpeters vs The Establishment

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
northern_goddess
Queen Bee
Posts: 52002
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:48 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by northern_goddess » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:48 pm

Anyone on the planet could already make a longer list of Trump lies than that and he's not even been sworn in yet.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

http://www.fat-pie.com/salad.htm

User avatar
northern_goddess
Queen Bee
Posts: 52002
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:48 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by northern_goddess » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:10 pm

muthafunky wrote:
northern_goddess wrote:One approach actually costs money and the other would bring in additional revenue. No big difference there at all.


Punishing businesses who move jobs is a terrible idea. I'm still hoping that it was just stupid campaign rhetoric. Reducing and simplifying taxes is a much better idea, incentivizing in general is the way to go.


Oh look! It's a new day...

Trump renews threat of tariffs on companies that move jobs overseas

Days after praising a deal providing tax breaks to a company for keeping jobs in the United States, President-elect Donald Trump is renewing his threat to slap tariffs on the products of companies that move jobs overseas in the future.

"There will be a tax ... soon" of 35% for companies that move overseas and try to sell goods "back across the border," Trump said during a Sunday tweet storm.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/04/donald-trump-tariffs-carrier-rexnord/94953500/
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

http://www.fat-pie.com/salad.htm

User avatar
shunter
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 17014
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:56 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by shunter » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:36 pm

So are the righties of the board fine with this selective interference in individual companies management? It seems like an horrendous interference in the free market, no?

Lost soul? Annie? Joe?

I see Sarah Palin has had the sense to blast this policy.
1988: "We have a climate in Britain in which business wants to succeed and can succeed." Margaret Thatcher, speech to launch the European Single Market

2018: "Fuck business." Boris Johnson

Andrea1
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3092
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Andrea1 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:06 pm

northern_goddess wrote:Anyone on the planet could already make a longer list of Trump lies than that and he's not even been sworn in yet.


Yeh, but they're not lies. Well, only to those who take them literally. T'others (Trump Whisperers) know what he's really saying, really means. And he's doing it.

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:21 am

shunter wrote:So are the righties of the board fine with this selective interference in individual companies management? It seems like an horrendous interference in the free market, no?

Lost soul? Annie? Joe?

I see Sarah Palin has had the sense to blast this policy.


Tax breaks for a company that's going to leave is probably better than a company just leaving.

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 65711
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Godjira » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:28 am

There's a difference in that tax breaks are generally temporary and penalties for companies overseas are permanent.
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:48 pm

Is anyone arguing in favor of tax penalties? Trump rhetoric aside of course.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53787
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by eric84 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:52 pm

muthafunky wrote:
shunter wrote:So are the righties of the board fine with this selective interference in individual companies management? It seems like an horrendous interference in the free market, no?

Lost soul? Annie? Joe?

I see Sarah Palin has had the sense to blast this policy.


Tax breaks for a company that's going to leave is probably better than a company just leaving.


How much are you prepared to bribe a company to stay in your town?
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:00 pm

eric84 wrote:
muthafunky wrote:
shunter wrote:So are the righties of the board fine with this selective interference in individual companies management? It seems like an horrendous interference in the free market, no?

Lost soul? Annie? Joe?

I see Sarah Palin has had the sense to blast this policy.


Tax breaks for a company that's going to leave is probably better than a company just leaving.


How much are you prepared to bribe a company to stay in your town?


Tax breaks aren't a "bribe". America has the highest corporate taxes on the planet. Tax breaks help the company AND the consumer.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53787
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by eric84 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:02 pm

I don't think producing a good with higher costs really helps the consumer.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:11 pm

eric84 wrote:I don't think producing a good with higher costs really helps the consumer.


Lower cost. The company pays less tax. Therefore, the savings is passed on to the consumer.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53787
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by eric84 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:22 pm

The consumer is also a taxpayer and will find his taxes go up to subsidize that product he/she bought. No free lunches, as I've learned from conservatives.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:26 pm

eric84 wrote:The consumer is also a taxpayer and will find his taxes go up to subsidize that product he/she bought. No free lunches, as I've learned from conservatives.


That doesn't make sense. The company pays for all the materials to make the product.

User avatar
5waldos
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 15398
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:58 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by 5waldos » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:31 pm

The simple fact is that it does not matter how Trump does anything as long as he then struts around claiming he has won for the people better than anyone ever has before. Can you see the chest covered in medals? His people cheer the strut. Nothing else matters.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:38 pm

5waldos wrote:The simple fact is that it does not matter how Trump does anything as long as he then struts around claiming he has won for the people better than anyone ever has before. Can you see the chest covered in medals? His people cheer the strut. Nothing else matters.


Bottom line is Trump saved the jobs Obama gave up on. I understand the Obama supporters being butthurt over that fact. Here's Obama mocking Trump back in June when Trump said he would keep Carrier jobs here.
https://youtu.be/m5iY3GyWAsE
Last edited by Maxwell on Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
shunter
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 17014
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:56 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by shunter » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:44 pm

muthafunky wrote:
shunter wrote:So are the righties of the board fine with this selective interference in individual companies management? It seems like an horrendous interference in the free market, no?

Lost soul? Annie? Joe?

I see Sarah Palin has had the sense to blast this policy.


Tax breaks for a company that's going to leave is probably better than a company just leaving.

It's not. It's terrible economics.

Pence said trump would do this on a daily basis. The mind boggles at the idiocy if it.
1988: "We have a climate in Britain in which business wants to succeed and can succeed." Margaret Thatcher, speech to launch the European Single Market

2018: "Fuck business." Boris Johnson

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:45 pm

shunter wrote:
muthafunky wrote:
shunter wrote:So are the righties of the board fine with this selective interference in individual companies management? It seems like an horrendous interference in the free market, no?

Lost soul? Annie? Joe?

I see Sarah Palin has had the sense to blast this policy.


Tax breaks for a company that's going to leave is probably better than a company just leaving.

It's not. It's terrible economics.

Pence said trump would do this on a daily basis. The mind boggles at the idiocy if it.


What's idiotic about keeping jobs here?

User avatar
birdlite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 10626
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:00 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by birdlite » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:45 pm

Maxwell wrote:
5waldos wrote:The simple fact is that it does not matter how Trump does anything as long as he then struts around claiming he has won for the people better than anyone ever has before. Can you see the chest covered in medals? His people cheer the strut. Nothing else matters.


Bottom line is Trump saved the jobs Obama gave up on. I understand rhe Obama supporters being butthurt over that fact.


Obama? What about Pmece? Those jobs were in his state. Was Pence too busy campaigning to save jobs in his state?
Isn't it interesting that Trump/Pence are now aligning with Labor?
Who wrote the following:
Carrier’s decision shows how so-called free trade agreements are destroying American jobs.
...
This is another example of how our so-called free trade agreements, like NAFTA and the upcoming TPP, are only there to benefit the corporations. These agreements encourage corporations like Carrier to relocate their entire operations to Mexico. Trade agreements should be designed to boost American manufacturing not destroy it.


Maxwell wrote: America has the highest corporate taxes on the planet.


Nope. 3rd highest

coffeeguy
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 9215
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:26 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by coffeeguy » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:46 pm

Maxwell wrote:
5waldos wrote:The simple fact is that it does not matter how Trump does anything as long as he then struts around claiming he has won for the people better than anyone ever has before. Can you see the chest covered in medals? His people cheer the strut. Nothing else matters.


Bottom line is Trump saved the jobs Obama gave up on. I understand the Obama supporters being butthurt over that fact. Here's Obama mocking Trump back in June when Trump said he would keep Carrier jobs here.
https://youtu.be/m5iY3GyWAsE


No bottom line is Trump used your tax dollars to subsidize a private business and interfere with the free market, which is supposed to be the holy grail for the righties.

User avatar
birdlite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 10626
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:00 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by birdlite » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:49 pm

Maxwell wrote:What's idiotic about keeping jobs here?


Nothing idiotic about keeping jobs in country, but tariffs used to keep out competition

Who Benefits?
The benefits of tariffs are uneven. Because a tariff is a tax, the government will see increased revenue as imports enter the domestic market. Domestic industries also benefit from a reduction in competition, since import prices are artificially inflated. Unfortunately for consumers - both individual consumers and businesses - higher import prices mean higher prices for goods. If the price of steel is inflated due to tariffs, individual consumers pay more for products using steel, and businesses pay more for steel that they use to make goods. In short, tariffs and trade barriers tend to be pro-producer and anti-consumer.

The effect of tariffs and trade barriers on businesses, consumers and the government shifts over time. In the short run, higher prices for goods can reduce consumption by individual consumers and by businesses. During this time period, businesses will profit and the government will see an increase in revenue from duties. In the long term, businesses may see a decline in efficiency due to a lack of competition, and may also see a reduction in profits due to the emergence of substitutes for their products. For the government, the long-term effect of subsidies is an increase in the demand for public services, since increased prices, especially in foodstuffs, leave less disposable income. (For related reading, check out In Praise Of Trade Deficits.)

How Do Tariffs Affect Prices?
Tariffs increase the prices of imported goods. Because of this, domestic producers are not forced to reduce their prices from increased competition, and domestic consumers are left paying higher prices as a result. Tariffs also reduce efficiencies by allowing companies that would not exist in a more competitive market to remain open.




Read more: The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/ec ... z4RzV2jNUE

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:52 pm

birdlite wrote:
Maxwell wrote:
5waldos wrote:The simple fact is that it does not matter how Trump does anything as long as he then struts around claiming he has won for the people better than anyone ever has before. Can you see the chest covered in medals? His people cheer the strut. Nothing else matters.


Bottom line is Trump saved the jobs Obama gave up on. I understand rhe Obama supporters being butthurt over that fact.


Obama? What about Pmece? Those jobs were in his state. Was Pence too busy campaigning to save jobs in his state?
Isn't it interesting that Trump/Pence are now aligning with Labor?
Who wrote the following:
Carrier’s decision shows how so-called free trade agreements are destroying American jobs.
...
This is another example of how our so-called free trade agreements, like NAFTA and the upcoming TPP, are only there to benefit the corporations. These agreements encourage corporations like Carrier to relocate their entire operations to Mexico. Trade agreements should be designed to boost American manufacturing not destroy it.


Maxwell wrote: America has the highest corporate taxes on the planet.


Nope. 3rd highest


Thank you. Still too high.

User avatar
5waldos
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 15398
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:58 pm

Saving a Company

Post by 5waldos » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:53 pm

Bottom line is I am sick of this holier than though answer. Obama's stimulus bill saved millions of jobs. The difference is that Trump pretends that it was these jobs were most amazing success in history. Which if he did daily for the entire course of his time in Washington would a) cost taxpayers a hell of a lot (about $7,000 per job) and b) come no where near saving as many jobs.

But Trump's chest is puffed and his mincey strut is all over the stage while his trumpians cheer as if he were the second coming.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:54 pm

coffeeguy wrote:
Maxwell wrote:
5waldos wrote:The simple fact is that it does not matter how Trump does anything as long as he then struts around claiming he has won for the people better than anyone ever has before. Can you see the chest covered in medals? His people cheer the strut. Nothing else matters.


Bottom line is Trump saved the jobs Obama gave up on. I understand the Obama supporters being butthurt over that fact. Here's Obama mocking Trump back in June when Trump said he would keep Carrier jobs here.
https://youtu.be/m5iY3GyWAsE


No bottom line is Trump used your tax dollars to subsidize a private business and interfere with the free market, which is supposed to be the holy grail for the righties.


Lol. Explain how Trump used my tax dollars to subsidize Carrier. This should be good.

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:27 pm

How much are you prepared to bribe a company to stay in your town?


Quite a lot if there's a genuine risk they're going to leave and you want them to stay. Even if they paid zero tax, it would be better they do so and stay rather than just leave.

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:28 pm

It's not. It's terrible economics.


For who?

I still don't understand why a company leaving is better than giving a company tax incentives to stay in an area.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53787
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by eric84 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:31 pm

muthafunky wrote:
How much are you prepared to bribe a company to stay in your town?


Quite a lot if there's a genuine risk they're going to leave and you want them to stay. Even if they paid zero tax, it would be better they do so and stay rather than just leave.


I'm sure all the businesses in your jurisdiction would glad to know you're prepared to pay 'quite a lot' to keep them in town. Some businesses clearly are difficult to move and their threats are a bit empty (sports teams being an example) but lots of them are not worth the effort to bribe them.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
shunter
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 17014
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:56 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by shunter » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:35 pm

coffeeguy wrote:
Maxwell wrote:
5waldos wrote:The simple fact is that it does not matter how Trump does anything as long as he then struts around claiming he has won for the people better than anyone ever has before. Can you see the chest covered in medals? His people cheer the strut. Nothing else matters.


Bottom line is Trump saved the jobs Obama gave up on. I understand the Obama supporters being butthurt over that fact. Here's Obama mocking Trump back in June when Trump said he would keep Carrier jobs here.
https://youtu.be/m5iY3GyWAsE


No bottom line is Trump used your tax dollars to subsidize a private business and interfere with the free market, which is supposed to be the holy grail for the righties.


Exactly. Bail out to bank to prevent the collapse of capitalism is one thing but for the state to bail out individual companies because of their lack of competitiveness is to destroy capitalism.
1988: "We have a climate in Britain in which business wants to succeed and can succeed." Margaret Thatcher, speech to launch the European Single Market

2018: "Fuck business." Boris Johnson

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:46 pm

eric84 wrote:
muthafunky wrote:
How much are you prepared to bribe a company to stay in your town?


Quite a lot if there's a genuine risk they're going to leave and you want them to stay. Even if they paid zero tax, it would be better they do so and stay rather than just leave.


I'm sure all the businesses in your jurisdiction would glad to know you're prepared to pay 'quite a lot' to keep them in town. Some businesses clearly are difficult to move and their threats are a bit empty (sports teams being an example) but lots of them are not worth the effort to bribe them.


It isn't a bribe. It's an incentive. Nobody on your team was whining about "bribes" when Obama was giving millions of taxpayer's money to alternative energy startup companies that failed. Perhaps you're confused. Carrier is receiving NOTHING from taxpayers.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53787
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by eric84 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:49 pm

Oh, so Trump provides incentives, Obama wastes taxpayer's money. Thanks for clarifying a complex topic.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:50 pm

I'm sure all the businesses in your jurisdiction would glad to know you're prepared to pay 'quite a lot' to keep them in town. Some businesses clearly are difficult to move and their threats are a bit empty (sports teams being an example) but lots of them are not worth the effort to bribe them.


Of course. It would only be certain businesses.

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:52 pm

Exactly. Bail out to bank to prevent the collapse of capitalism is one thing but for the state to bail out individual companies because of their lack of competitiveness is to destroy capitalism.


Lack of competitiveness is not the only reason companies move jobs to cheaper places. Companies tend to optimize around making the most money. If you can reduce their taxes that's another factor in where they are located. Low taxes seems to have worked for places like Dublin which would otherwise be backwaters.

In reading this thread I'm starting to see why Trump won.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:53 pm

eric84 wrote:Oh, so Trump provides incentives, Obama wastes taxpayer's money. Thanks for clarifying a complex topic.


You're welcome. Please feel free to continue with your argument, if you can. I think you're done here and we both know it.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... -failures/
Last edited by Maxwell on Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53787
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by eric84 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:55 pm

muthafunky wrote:
Exactly. Bail out to bank to prevent the collapse of capitalism is one thing but for the state to bail out individual companies because of their lack of competitiveness is to destroy capitalism.


Lack of competitiveness is not the only reason companies move jobs to cheaper places. Companies tend to optimize around making the most money. If you can reduce their taxes that's another factor in where they are located. Low taxes seems to have worked for places like Dublin which would otherwise be backwaters.

In reading this thread I'm starting to see why Trump won.


What makes you come to that conclusion?
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:59 pm

I assumed tax breaks to keep jobs around wouldn't be very controversial and would enjoy somewhat bipartisan support. If no one thinks that's a good idea and it's any kind of reflection of society at large I can understand some people clinging to a guy like Trump who is actually saying he wants to keep those jobs around, even bring them back. Doesn't really matter if his ideas are shit, at least he's saying he'll help.

User avatar
DCComic
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 14519
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 1:42 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by DCComic » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:06 pm

I'm only seeing objection to government giving breaks to companies when they announce plans to leave. That's different from giving all businesses an incentive rather than rewarding a particular behaviour.
פולאר הוא שקרן - I want my fucking money back - The only reason you continue to participate is because you hate me personally.

https://maxkimberstudio.co.uk

User avatar
eric84
Moderator
Posts: 53787
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by eric84 » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:08 pm

muthafunky wrote:I assumed tax breaks to keep jobs around wouldn't be very controversial and would enjoy somewhat bipartisan support. If no one thinks that's a good idea and it's any kind of reflection of society at large I can understand some people clinging to a guy like Trump who is actually saying he wants to keep those jobs around, even bring them back. Doesn't really matter if his ideas are shit, at least he's saying he'll help.


It depends clearly, right? We don't know all the details that went into this deal so it's hard to judge whether it was a good one or not. Shit ideas generally lead to shit outcomes which makes them shit ideas in the first place. I assume all elected leaders act on their best intentions. That's not really at issue.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:08 pm

muthafunky wrote:I assumed tax breaks to keep jobs around wouldn't be very controversial and would enjoy somewhat bipartisan support. If no one thinks that's a good idea and it's any kind of reflection of society at large I can understand some people clinging to a guy like Trump who is actually saying he wants to keep those jobs around, even bring them back. Doesn't really matter if his ideas are shit, at least he's saying he'll help.


Obama can throw away millions of taxpayer's money on failed alternative energy companies and the left doesn't bat an eye. Why? Because Obama means well. Obama is pure. Obama cares. Obama is trying and even his failures are proof he is trying. On the other hand, Trump is a greedy racist ogre businessman that doesn't care. He's up to no good. He's trying to squash the little guy. Once you understand how leftists think, it all makes sense.

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:16 pm

DCComic wrote:I'm only seeing objection to government giving breaks to companies when they announce plans to leave. That's different from giving all businesses an incentive rather than rewarding a particular behaviour.


It also greatly reduces tax revenue and potentially for no good reason since it wouldn't be an issue for many companies. In general though I'd agree that lower taxes overall for businesses, and simplified tax codes are a good thing.

I can see making exceptions for certain companies or industries. I can absolutely understand why workers directly affected don't want to hear that "it's for the greater good of all".

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:25 pm

muthafunky wrote:
DCComic wrote:I'm only seeing objection to government giving breaks to companies when they announce plans to leave. That's different from giving all businesses an incentive rather than rewarding a particular behaviour.


It also greatly reduces tax revenue and potentially for no good reason since it wouldn't be an issue for many companies. In general though I'd agree that lower taxes overall for businesses, and simplified tax codes are a good thing.

I can see making exceptions for certain companies or industries. I can absolutely understand why workers directly affected don't want to hear that "it's for the greater good of all".


Logical thinking tells me it's better to have people working and paying taxes than forcing corporations to leave and having unemployed people living off others that are working and paying taxes.

User avatar
shunter
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 17014
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:56 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by shunter » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:41 pm

muthafunky wrote:
Exactly. Bail out to bank to prevent the collapse of capitalism is one thing but for the state to bail out individual companies because of their lack of competitiveness is to destroy capitalism.


Lack of competitiveness is not the only reason companies move jobs to cheaper places. Companies tend to optimize around making the most money. If you can reduce their taxes that's another factor in where they are located. Low taxes seems to have worked for places like Dublin which would otherwise be backwaters.

In reading this thread I'm starting to see why Trump won.


Dublin is backwards.

Are educated Americans really thinking bunging companies a bit of cash to make them do what the state wants is normal or sane? Maybe trump and corbyn have more in common than I thought.
1988: "We have a climate in Britain in which business wants to succeed and can succeed." Margaret Thatcher, speech to launch the European Single Market

2018: "Fuck business." Boris Johnson

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:50 pm

shunter wrote:
muthafunky wrote:
Exactly. Bail out to bank to prevent the collapse of capitalism is one thing but for the state to bail out individual companies because of their lack of competitiveness is to destroy capitalism.


Lack of competitiveness is not the only reason companies move jobs to cheaper places. Companies tend to optimize around making the most money. If you can reduce their taxes that's another factor in where they are located. Low taxes seems to have worked for places like Dublin which would otherwise be backwaters.

In reading this thread I'm starting to see why Trump won.


Dublin is backwards.

Are educated Americans really thinking bunging companies a bit of cash to make them do what the state wants is normal or sane? Maybe trump and corbyn have more in common than I thought.


Why in your opinion is Dublin backwards?

User avatar
cowtown
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 25311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 6:53 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by cowtown » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:08 pm

Really depends upon the details of the bailout, if it’s over 65 million in tax incentives and relaxing regulations from the Fed and $700K per year and counting from the state (as some reports suggest) to only save these jobs, it’s a fucking waste

So companies can shake down the government to boost revenues? WTF?

There is myth here that put us in this situation, if it’s good for business, it’s good for the people. Clearly not always the case many things are good for business that screw Americans
Jim-2012 wrote:I *heart* Hitler



Image

User avatar
birdlite
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 10626
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:00 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by birdlite » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:09 pm

Maxwell wrote:
muthafunky wrote:
DCComic wrote:I'm only seeing objection to government giving breaks to companies when they announce plans to leave. That's different from giving all businesses an incentive rather than rewarding a particular behaviour.


It also greatly reduces tax revenue and potentially for no good reason since it wouldn't be an issue for many companies. In general though I'd agree that lower taxes overall for businesses, and simplified tax codes are a good thing.

I can see making exceptions for certain companies or industries. I can absolutely understand why workers directly affected don't want to hear that "it's for the greater good of all".


Logical thinking tells me it's better to have people working and paying taxes than forcing corporations to leave and having unemployed people living off others that are working and paying taxes.


I agree, I would rather see this than the mess that tariffs would create. But we are already in a place where companies expect tax incentives to stay (Carrier is not a new scenario); where Trump can win is making better deals with the companies. Carrier was not a good example of his deal-making abilities.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 61548
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by VinnyD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:38 pm

America has the highest corporate taxes on the planet.

United Technologies owns Carrier.

[UTC]paid an effective federal tax rate averaging just 10.3 percent over the 15-year period between 2000 and 2014. And UTC’s most recent annual report shows more of the same: the company paid a federal tax rate of just 9.4 percent on $2.8 billion in U.S. profits last year.


Taxjusticeblog.

User avatar
shunter
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 17014
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:56 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by shunter » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Whys that? B/f losses? Capital allowances?
1988: "We have a climate in Britain in which business wants to succeed and can succeed." Margaret Thatcher, speech to launch the European Single Market

2018: "Fuck business." Boris Johnson

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 61548
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by VinnyD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:07 pm

Their annual reports should be available online. I can't be arsed.

Republicans keep saying that the US rate, 35%, is almost the highest in the world, and never mention the fact that no major US corporation has paid anything close to that rate in at least a generation.

User avatar
VinnyD
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 61548
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by VinnyD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:08 pm

Bechtel has never paid a dime in US federal income tax.

User avatar
muthafunky
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 22396
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:50 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by muthafunky » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:16 pm

Part of why US companies pay a lower rate is they move operations to other countries to book revenue and waste a lot of time trying to work the tax code to their benefit. Lower rates in general seem good, I'd be fine with no business taxes really, most companies are creating wealth and jobs anyway.

Maxwell
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 am

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Maxwell » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:18 pm

VinnyD wrote:Their annual reports should be available online. I can't be arsed.

Republicans keep saying that the US rate, 35%, is almost the highest in the world, and never mention the fact that no major US corporation has paid anything close to that rate in at least a generation.


You have a choice. Allow corporations to move away or provide incentives to stay so people have jobs and pay taxes.

User avatar
Godjira
Stew Ingredient
Posts: 65711
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:52 pm

Re: Saving a Company

Post by Godjira » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:19 pm

You can't just give the tax breaks one year. You have to give them year after year. Imposing tariffs would be a permanent disincentive, but then other countries would impose their own.

So, tax breaks, unless you give them year after year after year, are a temporary solution. The government is going to need to offer permanent cost savings, whether it be improving infrastructure improvements, improving the supply chain somehow, subsidizing employee costs, etc.
That's the kind of bold flavor they enjoy in Albuquerque!

Post Reply