Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rewarding companies who threaten to leave is bad policy.
During the campaign Trump said he would use the stick to make them stay, but now he is using a tax-payer funded carrot.
Providing incentives for companies to stay in the country such as tax cuts along with providing disincentives through tariffs for companies that move to another country is an EXCELLENT STRATEGY.
A company that moves elsewhere means NO GOVERNMENT REVENUE.
There looks to be a HUGE OPPORTUNITY to provide incentives for the MANUFACTURING SECTOR to operate in this country.
I don't support tax cuts for every corporation across the board.
The bottom line is the manufacturing sector in this nation has largely been decimated. So obviously there needs to be a rebalancing and correction to help alleviate this.
It only makes sense.
Again NO REVENUE is much worse than DECREASED REVENUE.
Add to that the number of employees that would be picked up by the taxpayer through our welfare system that could be productive members of society and taxpayers themselves.
No not everyone has to go to college to be successful, and because we have a manufacturing sector in this country does not mean people will still not be trained in Engineering, STEM, Medicine, etc.
It wasn't state tax incentives from Indiana that made this happen. Indiana had already tried this route, and gave tax breaks to Carrier, only to be told by Carrier, "here's your money back, we're moving to Mexico". It was most likely threats against the parent company, which is a major defense contractor that caused the change of heart.
I don't get it , the so called failed president creates 180,000 jobs this month, the Carrier company did move jobs to Mexico, and the crowd goes crazy. We can tell already that Trump voters are clinging to the thinnest veil of hope that the Donald is not all talk.
"There's the kick off!, he makes the catch! he takes a knee! THE CROWD GOES CRAZY!!!
What you don't understand is where those 180,000 jobs are that our President "creates" or how he 'created' those jobs!
In January I will start my eighth year as a 'temporary' employee! I am not really complaining since I do make good money and I am retired from trucking. But I see so many younger Americans, that need the higher pay of permanent positions and the benefits that follow; that get discouraged and leave for other jobs (of course some of those are also 'temp' jobs.
I started working in the 1960's and I could leave one job, with benefits, and immediately go to another permanent position with another employer the same week. I was a good worker and had glowing recommendations and I played by the rules of giving two weeks notice. Today that is not an option. You can go to our (CD's) Work and Employment thread and look at the state of employment in the US.
Even the figures many of us do not trust. We have seen how Presidents have manipulated those figures for political gain. Here is a link from the left pointing out the manipulation back in Reagan's days: The Index of Missing Economic Indicators; The Unemployment Myth - The New York Times. I have to wonder how many of your new jobs went to H-1Bs or other immigrants?
It wasn't state tax incentives from Indiana that made this happen. Indiana had already tried this route, and gave tax breaks to Carrier, only to be told by Carrier, "here's your money back, we're moving to Mexico". It was most likely threats against the parent company, which is a major defense contractor that caused the change of heart.
That's even worse. It's not sustainable and it is certainly unfair unless applied to all. We will probably see Carrier close its doors in a few years.
You make a good point. There are jobs, but not in the same areas where the jobs are being lost and not enough that pay well. Even then, we are looking a future where AI is going to decimate employment. I really have no idea how in the hell we are going to deal with it. Trump seems to want to roll the clock back on globalism to combat wage disparity around the world. Can we simply outlaw progress in robotics and AI? Can we bring back the milkman and the small shop owner, force ourselves into a more labor intensive economy? I will be pushing up daisies before this happens, but it is a tremendous challenge and a true moral issue that my children and grandchildren and young people around the globe are going to have to face.
Even if you an increase in automation, you need maintenance workers, engineers, managers, etc.
Obviously right now we're talking about actual PEOPLE losing their CURRENT JOBS.
Indeed. Here is Obama giving excuse for why he failed as President. He says Trump will never save those Carrier Jobs. Wrong again.
It's also why Hillary lost the election.
So Obama is a reasonable adult, and says that some jobs are just not coming back. He is absolutely right. Whether it be automation, or some jobs shifting overseas - it is true, some are not coming back.
Once again, Obama is the adult in the room. It is nice that Trump and Pence negotiated this tax break to keep Carrier in Indiana - it is good. but Obama is right - some jobs will go away, and they will not come back. And we need to deal with that accordingly, and not just stomp our feet and whine.
Providing incentives for companies to stay in the country such as tax cuts along with providing disincentives through tariffs for companies that move to another country is an EXCELLENT STRATEGY.
A company that moves elsewhere means NO GOVERNMENT REVENUE.
If it was a nationwide policy to discourage companies in general from leaving it would be good. Even Obama tried to cut corporate taxes in order to make US more attractive to business, but it was rejected by Congress (three times). Maybe they will approve it now that a Republican is asking for it. We shall see. It would be hypocritical if they did, but what else is new?
My point was that offering rewards to companies who threaten to leave is very bad policy. It will only encourage more companies to threaten to leave.
Quote:
I don't support tax cuts for every corporation across the board.
I do, and always have. Level playing field for everyone is a must.
The Proggies are terrified that Trump may actually be an good President. They are terrified Trump will get things done to improve the economy for all Americans.
Where were you when Obama gave away hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on Solyndra and other failed endeavors?
How about the debacle called the Auto Bailout?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
