Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jdillings, Nov 29, 2016.
Obvious point is obvious.
It will depend. If it's tax breaks, then who cares. If it's blank checks, then it is the same.
A company can produce goods / services much cheaper elsewhere which is why the companies are pulling out of the US.
What would you do ?
1) Give companies some monetary and other incentives to stay in the US.
2) Let the companies leave the US.
I'm waiting for your answer.
Yes! This is exactly what Trump has done, and exactly what he has campaigned on: the free market has failed us in this country, so he's going to move to make all industry state-sponsored. Welcome to the new regime, comrades!
And welcome to the next societal flip flop, because Trump supporters, who are largely conservative and proponents of the free market, will now have no problem with the government coming in and subsidizing industry.
Depending on who you ask, a tax a break and subsidy are pretty much equal and are both gifts from the government and tax payers. If you look at some of the responses in this thread people actually consider letting people/companies keep their own money as a form of subsidization.
The individual states do this all the time to attract and keep companies.
It is a question with a binary soluton. Either the companies leave or we give them incentives to stay. Which would you pick ?
Tax breaks are paid for by you and me. Someone has to pay for them. Welfare for the wealthy.
No, tax breaks diminish the unnecessary burden of government on corporations so they can create jobs instead of put people out of work and on the welfare wagon. Government should respond by tightening its belt, not finding other sources of revenue for its stupidity.
Why are those my only options?
Nothing wrong with doing business overseas. However, companies--Apple included--that offshore American jobs or replace American workers with H1-B foreigners are treasonous, IMO. I'm pretty sure textiles manufacturing had moved overseas long before Trump was branding shirts and ties, so he'll get a pass on that. However, he's on notice.
No, tax breaks without corresponding cuts in spending increases the unnecessary burden of government on all the rest of us. I don't see Trump proclaiming any spending cuts to go with his largesse here...
Government should tighten its belt without lowering taxes. This is the concept of a "balanced budget". Get rid of the deficit, start lowering the debt, and you can move the country into a virtuous cycle that by itself will improve the economy and lessen the need for more government spending...
Spending money to keep jobs that wouldn't be competetive otherwise will work nice in the shortterm.
In the long term it will increase public debt while making US production even less competetiv
Wow, -52 days into President Trump's term and he's already saved more jobs from outsourcing than President Obama.
Reports are saying one of the reasons they agreed to a deal was because their parent company was threatened with fewer federal defence contracts. Why is Barry trying to promote an outsourcing trade deal instead of stepping in to save these jobs?
The federal government should tighten its belt and lower taxes.
If our education system even slightly resembled the German system I'd buy that but it doesn't
And so, just continue to drive up the debt? Let's just cancel all taxes altogether, and leave the tab for our children to pick up.
Sorry - he gets a pass? Pretty sure the electronics industry moved overseas a long time ago too.
Treasonous is hyperbole. My .02. I don't like that these jobs and opportunities have been moved overseas (and more specifically, the $$ via Ireland, etc) but I wouldn't call it treasonous. If taking advantage of laws that exists is treasonous, Trump is "treasonous" for not paying taxes for many many years, right?
Components, yes, but offshoring manufacturing is more recent. Earlier Macs were made in the U.S.
Of course it's hyperbole but hyperbole has it's place to emphasize the importance of certain issues.
Another bodies in the streets argument.
Your argument only has legs if there will always be zero growth in GDP.
No doubt this will be tax breaks (just like the current negotiations with companies in the UK) and possibly environmental 'get-out-of-jail' cards. If so, my prediction is that the managerial class will give themselves fat bonuses and run the plant into the ground with lack of investment. Then they'll 'be forced' to close the plant because it's no longer viable, let the workers go, and open a new plant in Mexico. Meanwhile, as more of these deals with corporations are made, the tax base will decrease, causing more austerity and further erosion of any safety net for workers. I guess we'll have to wait and see - I hope I am wrong. In any case this is good news, at least for now.
Easy. If the net benefit of being able to buy those goods for a lower cost is greater than the value of those jobs, let them leave. If the value of those jobs is greater than the net benefit of lower cost goods, then offer subsidies to the companies not exceeding the difference between the value of the jobs and the net benefit of lower cost goods. It's basic arithmetic here.
- Company makes Widgets that cost $100 if made in the US, or $50 if made in China.
- US companies/consumers buy 1 million widgets per year.
-- Thus net benefit of lower cost is $50 million ($100mil - $50mil)
- If made in the US, Company employs 1,000 workers making $50k each.
- If made in China, those 50% of those workers would be unemployed and the remainder would earn $40k each.
-- Thus value of those jobs is $30 million ($50mil - $20mil).
--- Benefit of lower cost Widgets > value of jobs.
--- Answer: Let Company leave.
For example (differences from above underlined):
- Company makes Widgets that cost $100 if made in the US, or $75 if made in China.
- US companies/consumers buy 1 million widgets per year.
-- Thus net benefit of lower cost is $25 million ($100mil - $75mil)
- If made in the US, Company employs 1,000 workers making $100k each.
- If made in China, those 50% of those workers would be unemployed and the remainder would earn $50k each.
-- Thus value of those jobs is $75 million ($100mil - $25mil).
--- Value of jobs > net benefit of lower cost Widgets.
--- Answer: Give Company up to but not greater than $50 million in incentives to stay.
(Yes this is a simplification, there are many more factors to consider. Nearly all of them can be reduced down to basic arithmetic and added to the equation.)
Yep, exactly. The old saying still applies: You want more of something, tax it less. If you want less of something, tax it more.
Been plenty of growth in the GDP in the last eight years, yet still we have a deficit. Heck, there's been a deficit ever since the days of Clinton. At some point you've gotta admit that, growth or no growth, we've gotta stop spending money we don't have.
I'll never be wild about Trump, but I'll give him credit for keeping a campaign promise. You know if Clinton had been elected those 1,000 people would be out of work.