I can't wait to hear Greed's response.
- Thread starter Walter Brennaneer
- Start date
That's the smell of leadership and getting shit done. You just aren't used to it after the last 8 years.
I love the smell of victory in the morning.
Probably but 1000 people won't be losing their jobs as was previously reported
I'll believe it when I see it. My guess is Pence further drained the state coffers to keep the jobs here; ain't corporate welfare grand?
So is being unemployed if you work for Carrier and they send your job to Mexico.
God bless the free market. Which isn't all that free since tax incentives choose winners and losers. We could just cut out all the corporate taxes, but then you and I would pay more, and you would bitch.
I like what Sanders has proposed: companies that offshore jobs get no federal contracts. Turns out Carrier's parent company gets $6 billion a year in federal contracts.
it would take a hell of a lot of "corporate welfare" to outweigh the economic impact of 1,000 lost jobs on a community...
Corporate welfare? Pfft. This evil corporation was simply promised they could intentionally poison the air, water, and Indiana soil; initiate slave wages; beat the children of their employees; eliminate lunch breaks and provide zero employee benefits...... (sounds like a Extragreed workshop) 
I thought conservatives were against the government picking the winners and losers? Seriously, I don't recognize you Republicans anymore. Chalk this up as another reason I left the party.
i'm more of a libertarian...
and the reason the Republicans control everything right now is because they are no longer the "old republicans" everyone recognized...
So you're implying that carrier was lying when they said they were moving 2000 jobs to Mexico
Perhaps they were embellishing in hopes Pence would cut them a break, which he ended up doing. Relocating operations is a huge undertaking and not a decision that is made quickly, nor the decision to reverse course.
Who won and who lost in this specific situation? As in most corporate tax incentives, its actually about the state's ability to maintain/grow some level of employment (tax) base. It's about the county's ability to maintain/grow some level of stability in their property tax base. The "winner" in this case are the 1000 workers, their families, and the surrounding businesses/industries that supply that mini "economy" tied to Carrier's existence in that area. Trane, Lennox, et al didn't "lose" in this deal. They were not a part of it.
I get it. Not all of these deals are created equal and some have such huge loopholes for the companies that the economic benefit is hard to measure. This one however, appears to be a no brainer home run for those who work in that community.
What is generally the larger (welfare) cost on the state when an industry closes or large employer leaves your community/state vs. state incentivizing it to stay?
Delaying the inevitable though. These kind of jobs are going away forever, eventually to all robots. I can't help but think these workers are the same ones we lamented for unionizing and wanting exorbitant pay for tightening a bolt.
I understand however that throwing this bone was the key in defeating the old hag, so it was worth it for that. In the long run though, these people will be back in dire straits with this.
I understand however that throwing this bone was the key in defeating the old hag, so it was worth it for that. In the long run though, these people will be back in dire straits with this.
Reports are saying the incentive is $700,000 per year, number of years unknown at this point. The facility actually employs 1,400 people, so that's $500 per employee per year.
So what's the alternative? You let them walk. What's that cost? Well, the average pay for those 1,400 employees is over $60,000 a year, or $84,000,000 in total payroll. Even at a 15% effective tax rate, that's $12,600,000 a year in federal income tax. State taxes, at Indiana's 3.3% rate, are about $2.5MM. This doesn't take into account the multiplier effect that any large manufacturer has, which is generally 3-7 times the base company.
If the $700,000 a year number ends up being correct, it is about the best return on investment I have ever seen on a tax incentive deal.
So what's the alternative? You let them walk. What's that cost? Well, the average pay for those 1,400 employees is over $60,000 a year, or $84,000,000 in total payroll. Even at a 15% effective tax rate, that's $12,600,000 a year in federal income tax. State taxes, at Indiana's 3.3% rate, are about $2.5MM. This doesn't take into account the multiplier effect that any large manufacturer has, which is generally 3-7 times the base company.
If the $700,000 a year number ends up being correct, it is about the best return on investment I have ever seen on a tax incentive deal.
Plus it sends a strong message that Trump is serious about keeping and bringing back Manufacturing jobs. There comes a point where if no one makes any thing nobody will be able to by anything and our nation is in big trouble
$700K a year convinced them to forgo saving north of $30M a year (total reported was $65M for the full relocation)?
Trump was in charge of the State's negotiations over the past year (probably even longer)?
Well, they were going to have to build a facility, train a workforce, etc. Also, when Trump tells them he is absolutely serious about passing a tariff of imported goods manufactured by U.S. Companies that take jobs out of the country, yeah, it's enough.
Carrier is owned by United Technologies. $$Billions of revenue from the govt would have been at risk of being lost.
DT understands negotiating with leverage.
This is what is really getting the libs underwear bunched up their ass. Trump is already accomplishing what Obummer claimed couldn't be done.
Greed researching his reply.
Greed won't reply. His usual hypocrisy would continue to be exposed.
He mocks "corporate welfare" as being a frivolous waste.....only to later admit in another thread he wouldn't hire a black man to train unless the govt paid him to do it.
Yet Bernie Sanders is the one proposing that bill.
At least that shows I was right: both were barking up the same tree.
I think Bernie also went a step further with his proposal. He was demanding "clawback" clauses which would have demanded companies payback $$ on services/products already delivered.
(The real socialist component of his platform)
That's better than my platform: hang the bastards from a lamp post. And I am pretty sure that would prove popular.
Well...someone has to pay for everyone's college!
