Ford first and now Carrier

[Elephant Tipper 430]

2 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

From what was written in the WSJ United Technologies will get a $7million tax break over 10 years and they've agreed to spend $17 million on their facilities in Indianapolis. I'll have a hard time criticizing if that's the case

Let's take your approval of using tax monies, in the form of tax breaks, to use for job retention as DJT et al best see fit and apply that to another area of government spending.  I'm curious about how you feel that the federal government spends $500 million on Planned Parenthood funding.  It's the same concept.  Do you approve or not ?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

DJT's "Thank you" tour comment on American companies: "Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences."

This is not free-market trade.  DJT has taken the approach of bullying companies verbally and most likely financially.  The unspoken part of the Carrier equation may/may not also include their federal contracts and whether they were threatened by DJT.  This is not right if he did.  

If DJT's economic concepts are sound, which, for the most part, I believe they are (I'm just not a numbers guy to validate them) then the results will be the self inducement that is needed for our economy to grow.  We don't need a tyrant in chief to begin bludgeoning those who follow their company's best interests which lead them outside this nation's boundaries.  "Build it [sound economic principles] and they will come."

[homersapien 11,393]

6 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Let's take your approval of using tax monies, in the form of tax breaks, to use for job retention as DJT et al best see fit and apply that to another area of government spending.  I'm curious about how you feel that the federal government spends $500 million on Planned Parenthood funding.  It's the same concept.  Do you approve or not ?

Well, let's consider that money goes to provide actual people services they would otherwise not be getting. It's not like PP is keeping the money to pump up their bottom line.  They are a non-profit.  The government supports PP because that's a far more efficient way to serve the population PP is serving.

So, if you want to cut that money to PP, what you are actually cutting is the healthcare services being provided to poor women.  No one else is going to step in to fill that gap. If you support cutting these services that's one thing.  But to equate it to cutting taxes to for-profit companies is not a fair comparison.

Frankly, I don't think companies are sending jobs overseas because of corporate income taxes.  They are doing it for the cheaper labor. After all, they still have to pay income tax on their profits when they bring those profits back into the country.

And for the record, I am for abolishing all corporate income tax.  Corporations are not people (in spite of what our SCOTUS ruled).  I don't think income tax should be paid on corporate earnings until they are distributed to the employees and shareholders - actual citizens.

Of course, eliminating corporate income tax means that everyone else's income taxes will have to go up or that spending must be reduced offset the revenue loss, whichever can be accomplished politically. 

[japantiger 4,051]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, let's consider that money goes to provide actual people services they would otherwise not be getting. It's not like PP is keeping the money to pump up their bottom line.  They are a non-profit.  The government supports PP because that's a far more efficient way to serve the population PP is serving.

So, if you want to cut that money to PP, what you are actually cutting is the healthcare services being provided to poor women.  No one else is going to step in to fill that gap. If you support cutting these services that's one thing.  But to equate it to cutting taxes to for-profit companies is not a fair comparison.

Frankly, I don't think companies are sending jobs overseas because of corporate income taxes.  They are doing it for the cheaper labor. After all, they still have to pay income tax on their profits when they bring those profits back into the country.

And for the record, I am for abolishing all corporate income tax.  Corporations are not people (in spite of what our SCOTUS ruled).  I don't think income tax should be paid on corporate earnings until they are distributed to the employees and shareholders - actual citizens.

Of course, eliminating corporate income tax means that everyone else's income taxes will have to go up or that spending must be reduced offset the revenue loss, whichever can be accomplished politically. 

I agree in principle with your point on Corp Income tax...but I don't think anyone is really advocating fully eliminating it...in general, just cutting it to be in line with avg overseas rates which run in the 22% range vs top US rates @39%...http://taxfoundation.org/article/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2015.    Your other point on tax rate vs labor rates.  My experience is generally, not exclusively, the opposite.  For menial, very, very, low skills jobs; labor rates win.  For anything requiring much in the way of technical skills, training, critical thinking, adaptibility and language skills, the labor savings you get for moving jobs overseas normalizes out pretty quickly due to lower worker productivity and wage inflation in CH, IN, etc.    The majority of decisions I have made to both keep and move jobs has hinged on tax implications....not labor rates (I even went thru one of these on here last year related to movements between BRZ and ARG).  Tax rates differences drive far more of these decisions than labor arbitrage.   See tax rates above...also, the $$ are not coming back into the US; that is why Trump and others are calling for a one time repatriation....there are ~$2.0T in cash setting overseas because no company wants to pay the difference between the much lower foreign rates and the 3rd or 4th highest rate in the world in the US. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-companies-are-stashing-2-1-trillion-overseas-to-avoid-taxes.  A few things like this; along with other carrots and sticks to ensure the $$ are used here can make a meaningful difference.

 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Just now, homersapien said:

Well, let's consider that money goes to provide actual people services they would otherwise not be getting. It's not like PP is keeping the money to pump up their bottom line.  They are a non-profit.  The government supports PP because that's a far more efficient way to serve the population PP is serving.

So, if you want to cut that money to PP, what you are actually cutting is the healthcare services being provided to poor women.  No one else is going to step in to fill that gap. If you support cutting these services that's one thing.  But to equate it to cutting taxes to for-profit companies is not a fair comparison.

Frankly, I don't think companies are sending jobs overseas because of corporate income taxes.  They are doing it for the cheaper labor. After all, they still have to pay income tax on their profits when they bring those profits back into the country.

And for the record, I am for abolishing all corporate income tax.  Corporations are not people (in spite of what our SCOTUS ruled).  I don't think income tax should be paid on corporate earnings until they are distributed to the employees and shareholders - actual citizens.

Of course, eliminating corporate income tax means that everyone else's income taxes will have to go up or that spending must be reduced offset the revenue loss, whichever can be accomplished politically. 

Here's my bottom line homer, I believe that the government shouldn't be involved in any programs, whether for business or social concerns or whatever.  These should be privately funded.  In both instances I'm being taxed to fund what I disapprove.  Just have the government collect taxes to maintain our freedom and let us use those remaining monies as citizens best see fit.  Both parties have their pet projects and these days it makes Americans turn on Americans.  I say, I've had enough of it.  Just have government do the basics and leave the rest to the citizens.

"Frankly, I don't think companies are sending jobs overseas because of corporate income taxes.  They are doing it for the cheaper labor."  I agree but would twist it a bit and instead say that companies are sending money overseas, not jobs.  I make this distinction because the jobs are no longer under American jurisdiction in another country.  And yes, it is for the cheaper labor annnnnd it is also because those monies may be more efficiently utilized if the tax rates are lower in those countries. 

I'm +++ on your idea to eliminate corporate taxation.  It would further streamline our economy.  I wouldn't think our income taxes would have to increase because of the freeing up of cash.  But what do I know ?  I'm not a numbers guy, at least on the tax issue. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Let's take your approval of using tax monies, in the form of tax breaks, to use for job retention as DJT et al best see fit and apply that to another area of government spending.  I'm curious about how you feel that the federal government spends $500 million on Planned Parenthood funding.  It's the same concept.  Do you approve or not ?

Hard to argue that but last time I checked there was no ROI on planned parenthood just more baby killing. By contrast, the hope with these $7 million tax incentives over 10 years and the $17 million United technologies has promised to reinvest in their facilities in Indianapolis may actually create a very significant ROI in the form of job creation longer term.

[AUUSN 823]

Let's hope this energizes Trump to use American made products in his DC Hotel.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

Hard to argue that but last time I checked there was no ROI on planned parenthood just more baby killing. By contrast, the hope with these $7 million tax incentives over 10 years and the $17 million United technologies has promised to reinvest in their facilities in Indianapolis may actually create a very significant ROI in the form of job creation longer term.

Let me put it this way then Blue.  Do you want the government in charge of your financial decisions or do you want to be in charge ?  YOU and others are being taxed in both instances.  My conviction is that if an entity wants to succeed, then it should be done of their own making, not at taxpayers' expense, whether for jobs or social programs.

So, which is it Blue ?  Are you for the government "investing" YOUR money as it sees fit or do you want to be the decider ?

[AUUSN 823]

Pence in 2014; old and busted:

Vice-president-elect Mike Pence turned down a request from Carrier two years ago to veto a bill that rolled back the state's energy efficiency program, a move the furnace maker warned would hurt its business there and lead to job cuts.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/mike-pence-carrier-indiana-232095

Pence in 2016; new hotness.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Hard to argue that but last time I checked there was no ROI on planned parenthood just more baby killing. By contrast, the hope with these $7 million tax incentives over 10 years and the $17 million United technologies has promised to reinvest in their facilities in Indianapolis may actually create a very significant ROI in the form of job creation longer term.

That's insane.

Cut support to PP and see how many more "babies are killed".

[japantiger 4,051]

One of my favorites...this is what happens when you don't know what in the hell you are doing....

 

 

[japantiger 4,051]

2 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Hard to argue that but last time I checked there was no ROI on planned parenthood just more baby killing. By contrast, the hope with these $7 million tax incentives over 10 years and the $17 million United technologies has promised to reinvest in their facilities in Indianapolis may actually create a very significant ROI in the form of job creation longer term.

They're carping about $7m...Obama has been raiding HHS by the millions to fund his illegal immigrant resettlement programs...taking money away from Aids research, Child Health programs, cancer research, etc...

http://cis.org/vaughan/hhs-cutting-167-million-other-programs-pay-services-uacs-one-month

• $14 million from the Health Resources and Services Administration, including $4.5 million from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and $2 million from the Maternal and Child Health program;
• $14 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for contagious disease prevention and treatment and other critical public health programs;
• $72 million from the National Institutes of Health, for research on cancer, diabetes, drug abuse, mental health, infectious diseases and much more;
• $8 million from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, for treatment and prevention programs;
• $8 million from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
• $39 million from the Children and Families Services Program;
• $4 million from the Aging and Disability Services Programs;
• $3 million from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, including more than $1 million from the Pandemic Influenza and BioShield Fund.

[japantiger 4,051]

On 11/29/2016 at 8:54 PM, TexasTiger said:

Got a link to those raw numbers you're citing?

Sorry, typing faster than I was thinking...just meant to refer to the folks out of the workforce....labor participation rate is lowest since Carter...my mistake...

Unemployment rate is only first time claims...participation rate as Blue referenced is lowest since 1979...thus, real unemployment is grossly understated...hence, an economy that struggles to grow more than 2% and delivers stagnant wages...

[japantiger 4,051]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You've already been shown to have zero credibility.

Oh well, I guess that's the last word huh...I've got nothing left to live for...Oh man, that's rich...coming from the guy who still hasn't gotten anything right about Trump....even after the election.  You should get that learning disability checked out....

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Let me put it this way then Blue.  Do you want the government in charge of your financial decisions or do you want to be in charge ?  YOU and others are being taxed in both instances.  My conviction is that if an entity wants to succeed, then it should be done of their own making, not at taxpayers' expense, whether for jobs or social programs.

So, which is it Blue ?  Are you for the government "investing" YOUR money as it sees fit or do you want to be the decider ?

You do realize that tax incentives are nothing new and are not a conservative/liberal thing, right? Did you question Obama when he gave away almost a $trillion dollars in his green energy boondoggle? Indiana is anteing up the $7million over 10 years and if Carrier leaves they dont get all that. United Technologies has committed to spending $17 million in their facilities in Indianapolis and you're cant see the merit of the deal? really? Look, $7million over 10 years is a pittance and hardly anything to get your panties in a twist over. Like I said, this is not an ideological move. Im of the opinion the tax revenue generated from the $68 million dollar payroll is going to more than pay the $7 million is incentives. had they left there wouldn't have been ANY payroll going forward so I dont really understand your heartburn.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

You do realize that tax incentives are nothing new and are not a conservative/liberal thing, right? Did you question Obama when he gave away almost a $trillion dollars in his green energy boondoggle? Indiana is anteing up the $7million over 10 years and if Carrier leaves they dont get all that. United Technologies has committed to spending $17 million in their facilities in Indianapolis and you're cant see the merit of the deal? really? Look, $7million over 10 years is a pittance and hardly anything to get your panties in a twist over. Like I said, this is not an ideological move. Im of the opinion the tax revenue generated from the $68 million dollar payroll is going to more than pay the $7 million is incentives. had they left there wouldn't have been ANY payroll going forward so I dont really understand your heartburn.

Tax incentives are a liberal agenda for a progressive tax code established by progressives.  They are not a part of conservative approach to taxation or economics.

Carrier doesn't need state or federal tax monies if this is such a good deal.  Let them deal with it on their own and leave the taxpayer out of their financial woes.

Did I "question Obama when he gave away almost a $trillion dollars".  No, but I condemned it just as I condemned Bush's TARP program.

Your attitude Blue is, What's $7 million to the taxpayer ?  It's a "pittance".  This explains how we've ended up with $20 trillion in debt.  $7 million here, $7 million there and before you know it, it adds up to $20 trillion of "pittance".  The government is not to be involved in these matters.  Your argument is the same as the $500 million debacle in the Solyndra "investment".  

So answer me this Blue, Who knows how to spend your money most wisely, you or the government ?  

[homersapien 11,393]

15 hours ago, japantiger said:

I agree in principle with your point on Corp Income tax...but I don't think anyone is really advocating fully eliminating it...in general, just cutting it to be in line with avg overseas rates which run in the 22% range vs top US rates @39%...http://taxfoundation.org/article/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2015.    Your other point on tax rate vs labor rates.  My experience is generally, not exclusively, the opposite.  For menial, very, very, low skills jobs; labor rates win.  For anything requiring much in the way of technical skills, training, critical thinking, adaptibility and language skills, the labor savings you get for moving jobs overseas normalizes out pretty quickly due to lower worker productivity and wage inflation in CH, IN, etc.    The majority of decisions I have made to both keep and move jobs has hinged on tax implications....not labor rates (I even went thru one of these on here last year related to movements between BRZ and ARG).  Tax rates differences drive far more of these decisions than labor arbitrage.   See tax rates above...also, the $$ are not coming back into the US; that is why Trump and others are calling for a one time repatriation....there are ~$2.0T in cash setting overseas because no company wants to pay the difference between the much lower foreign rates and the 3rd or 4th highest rate in the world in the US. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-companies-are-stashing-2-1-trillion-overseas-to-avoid-taxes.  A few things like this; along with other carrots and sticks to ensure the $$ are used here can make a meaningful difference.

 

Well, you may know more about the tax implications than I do, but it's hard for me to believe that the variance in labor rate would not be the compelling factor. I heard yesterday - I think on PBS Newshour - that the labor rate in Mexico was something like $24.00 per day.

And is it not true the company has to pay U.S. income tax on profits regardless of where they made the product, assuming they bring those profits back?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

14 hours ago, AUUSN said:

Let's hope this energizes Trump to use American made products in his DC Hotel.

And hats!

[homersapien 11,393]

10 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Tax incentives are a liberal agenda for a progressive tax code established by progressives.  They are not a part of conservative approach to taxation or economics.

Carrier doesn't need state or federal tax monies if this is such a good deal.  Let them deal with it on their own and leave the taxpayer out of their financial woes.

Did I "question Obama when he gave away almost a $trillion dollars".  No, but I condemned it just as I condemned Bush's TARP program.

Your attitude Blue is, What's $7 million to the taxpayer ?  It's a "pittance".  This explains how we've ended up with $20 trillion in debt.  $7 million here, $7 million there and before you know it, it adds up to $20 trillion of "pittance".  The government is not to be involved in these matters.  Your argument is the same as the $500 million debacle in the Solyndra "investment".  

So answer me this Blue, Who knows how to spend your money most wisely, you or the government ?  

Tax incentives are a liberal agenda?  So Alabama and South Carolina are liberal states?

I am sure there were tax incentives - as well as other incentives involving taxpayer monies - involved with the BMW, Volvo, Honda, Mercedes and Hyundai plant locations. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

10 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

10 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Tax incentives are a liberal agenda for a progressive tax code established by progressives.  They are not a part of conservative approach to taxation or economics.

Carrier doesn't need state or federal tax monies if this is such a good deal.  Let them deal with it on their own and leave the taxpayer out of their financial woes.

Tax incentives have had success for years. Of course ideally speaking its preferable to keep the govt out of as much as possible. The problem is the American people have been conditioned to believe govt should fix everything for them. It cant and on that we agree but you're never gpoing to remove the govt completely and if you're not going to be happy until we do, you're in for a long miserable existence.

 

10 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Your attitude Blue is, What's $7 million to the taxpayer ?  It's a "pittance".  This explains how we've ended up with $20 trillion in debt.  $7 million here, $7 million there and before you know it, it adds up to $20 trillion of "pittance".  The government is not to be involved in these matters.  Your argument is the same as the $500 million debacle in the Solyndra "investment".  

So answer me this Blue, Who knows how to spend your money most wisely, you or the government ?

How do you know what my attitude is? I'm strictly addressing the matter within the confines of our present reality not some pie in the sky vision of totally removing govt from big business. That's never going to happen and you can quote me on that, a'ight? And, you really cant see a difference between the Carrier deal and the Solyndra boondoggle.  Well, that explains a lot. Solyendra was not an investment . It was strictly a speculation because it was a start up crap shoot that crapped out quickly. Carrier is an established productive enterprise owned by United Tech and its not going anywhere, for now. BIG difference.

 

[japantiger 4,051]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well, you may know more about the tax implications than I do, but it's hard for me to believe that the variance in labor rate would not be the compelling factor. I heard yesterday - I think on PBS Newshour - that the labor rate in Mexico was something like $24.00 per day.

And is it not true the company has to pay U.S. income tax on profits regardless of where they made the product, assuming they bring those profits back?

For menial repetitive roles labor rate is a factor...for anything that requires adaptability, critical thinking, language, etc., it is not...there are a ton of business cases out on this.  What I have found, is you generally need ~3.5:1 labor investment to get close to the same productivity.  Wage inflation in the developing world then eats up a typical 4:1 - 5:1 wage differential (wage inflation in India has averaged ~10% per year for the last 30 years; 16% just 2 years ago).

Tax rates, or frankly logistics costs, have much more to do with what is going on today than labor costs.   Assuming they bring profits back...that is the issue...they are not bringing them back due to the large tax cost...that is the $2T that is offshore that many in both parties want brought back...my company included in that bucket.  The links above are relatively clear on this.  

[japantiger 4,051]

59 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Tax incentives are a liberal agenda?  So Alabama and South Carolina are liberal states?

I am sure there were tax incentives - as well as other incentives involving taxpayer monies - involved with the BMW, Volvo, Honda, Mercedes and Hyundai plant locations. 

Tax incentives are a bi-partisan weakness...I personally, think they are a good idea.  It has worked very well for TX and as you point out AL.  Relative to other forms of "welfare", they are a bargain because they actually provide a return, build the tax base, create jobs, etc. 

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/15385/1/31020371.pdf ...a Mercedes impact analysis

[icanthearyou 4,463]

This isn't at all about taxation.  Well, in part it is yet, it shouldn't be.  Businesses should compete on a level playing field and, in a manner that promotes  broad economic growth.  Governments should not be competing for business.  Introducing politics and ideology is obscuring a more fundamental argument.

Both political parties need to stop thinking about manipulation on a micro level and, think about fundamental economics on a macro level.  This is neither an, all good, all bad scenario.  It is a bandaid which is good.  It does not address the bigger issues.  That's not so good.

IMHO, we need political leaders who will view their role as long-term, macro based leadership.  We created a model of capitalism that works very well.  We should get back to employing that model.  

[TexasTiger 12,961]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

This isn't at all about taxation.  Well, in part it is yet, it shouldn't be.  Businesses should compete on a level playing field and, in a manner that promotes  broad economic growth.  Governments should not be competing for business.  Introducing politics and ideology is obscuring a more fundamental argument.

Both political parties need to stop thinking about manipulation on a micro level and, think about fundamental economics on a macro level.  This is neither an, all good, all bad scenario.  It is a bandaid which is good.  It does not address the bigger issues.  That's not so good.

IMHO, we need political leaders who will view their role as long-term, macro based leadership.  We created a model of capitalism that works very well.  We should get back to employing that model.  

This was all about short-term optics and headlines. Don't expect decisions made on long-term principles any time soon.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

This was all about short-term optics and headlines. Don't expect decisions made on long-term principles any time soon.

I understand.  However, it does, at the very least, show a willingness to recognize and address problems.  We can not trade jobs for cheap consumer goods indefinitely.  We can not run huge trade deficits forever.  We can not continue to narrow our economy.  We can not promote capitalism that is exploits labor.  Functional capitalism creates a strong consumer base.

Again, this is not some heroic measure.  Neither is it some horrible failure.  It's a micro level bandaid.