Trump SAVES 1000 Carrier Jobs!....

[TheCount]

Trump is a master deal maker and negotiator. Nobody has any real idea how he encouraged Carrier to stay.

Of course. Maybe he offered them some Trump steaks and ties.

 

[UWDude]

You're still doing it.

You still have no idea what the offer was.

 

[presence]

What incentives? what carrot and what sticks?

I pretty sure they're getting a $700k annual tax break.

Thats certainly prefferential treatment.

I think I read something about a $10B defence contract for the parent company UTX

 

[TheCount]

You still have no idea what the offer was.

I don't care if the offer was some Chicken McNuggets and a high five. The President should not be calling a particular company to offer them anything of any kind in exchange for some desired decision or activity on their part.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Wait. Are you talking about "paying for" a tax cut?

If so, you're 100% wrong, and ridiculously so. You don't pay for not getting money that was never yours. You pay for things you buy.

Government spends say $10 billion. They pay for that with taxes. If they give a company a reduction in the taxes they are paying by $100 million they now are short $100 million and need to get $100 million from someplace if they want to keep their books balanced (many states are required to balance their budgets). Unless they cut $100 million in spending, they have to get $100 million from somebody else. If one taxpayer is now paying less, somebody else gets to pay more. Federal government doesn't have to worry about that. They just borrow more money. That leaves future generations to pay for it. Unless of course you default on your debt like Russia did.

 

[oyarde]

Not the president(-elect)'s job.
We live in a constitutional republic, not an autocracy.
Business-specific meddling shouldn't be normalized.
https://t.co/usHTsZaw46

— Justin Amash (@justinamash)
November 25, 2016

I agree not his job , I have no problem with Pence doing it though as long as he did not give away more than it was worth.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It may encourage more companies to ask for financial aid. Companies play that game all the time- "give me breaks or I will leave!"

 

[Danke]

Do the people in those 1000+ jobs that are saved pay taxes?

do corporations pay taxes?

 

[silverhandorder]

The point is to stop bleeding of jobs. It starts somewhere. They won't stop the bleeding if they do as chicken littles here are claiming they doing. So we need to wait and see. Of course he is not going to approach this like an Austrian or a libertarian . Of course chicken littles will hate it. They hated him before he was elected.

I think if in his non libertarian way he boosts manufacturing sectors at the expense of services it will be a win for us. This is what I am looking for. If zippy and count are gnashing their teeth now wait until their preferred sectors going to feel the cuts. They going to be shrieking here.

 

[TheCount]

I think if in his non libertarian way he boosts manufacturing sectors at the expense of services it will be a win for us. This is what I am looking for.

That really says it all.

 

[oyarde]

It may encourage more companies to ask for financial aid. Companies play that game all the time- "give me breaks or I will leave!"

In my home state it is common practice up front done by Mayors and City Councils to waive property tax to draw new business already . I live in a state where 20 percent of the people still work in Mnfg.

 

[Origanalist]

 

[tod evans]

It may encourage more companies to ask for financial aid. Companies play that game all the time- "give me breaks or I will leave!"

Tax breaks ARE NOT financial aid.

Furthermore companies are not evil, government is.

It's obvious which of the two you would rather see enriched by the working man.

 

[ghengis86]

It may encourage more companies to ask for financial aid. Companies play that game all the time- "give me breaks or I will leave!"

That's a good thing; all companies should ask for and be give the same tax breaks. If every company got the same incentives, there's no picking winners and losers, right?

 

[EBounding]

That's a good thing; all companies should ask for and be give the same tax breaks. If every company got the same incentives, there's no picking winners and losers, right?

But that's the complete opposite of what's going on here.

 

[presence]

I don't care if the offer was some Chicken McNuggets and a high five.

The President should not be calling a particular company to offer them anything of any kind in exchange for some desired decision or activity on their part.

^^^this

 

[presence]

Tax breaks ARE NOT financial aid.

Furthermore companies are not evil, government is.

It's obvious which of the two you would rather see enriched by the working man.

taxing the competition while giving tax breaks to your personal preferred cronies IS crony capitalism

that's the issue here, not "tax breaks" to an industry; an economic zone; etc. but "tax breaks to specific preferred parties"

the government should not be picking winners and losers

 

[presence]

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which

success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.

It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits,

government grants, special tax breaks,

or other forms of state interventionism.

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia

The agreement reportedly includes $700,000 in state tax breaks offered by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, a quasi-public entity that doesn't require legislative approval for its deals.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/indiana-carrier-deal-federal-contracts-trump-232021

“For market-based economists or analysts, this is really a version of crony capitalism, and it’s the kind of thing you really don’t want to get into or have government get into,” Barfield said. “This gets back to who … actually has the ear of the government. So you get the situation where decisions are not made in terms of their economic sense, but in terms of gaming the political system.”

He said he thinks the choice is driven by concerns from Carrier’s parent company, United Technologies, that it could lose a portion of its roughly

$6.7 billion in federal contracts.

 

[tod evans]

taxing the competition while giving tax breaks to your personal preferred cronies IS crony capitalism

that's the issue here, not "tax breaks" to an industry; an economic zone; etc. but "tax breaks to specific preferred parties"

the government should not be picking winners and losers

^^^^^^^^^ This is true and honest, statements I can agree with. ^^^^^^

Aid or welfare, gifts or bailouts are all disingenuous language and are verbiage that is dishonest at its core.

So are statements that try to compare tax cuts to free shit..

The goal of any person or business should be to keep their money out of governments hands.

 

[youngbuck]

From Zero Hedge:

As Fortune reports, citing a source close to the company, Trump called Greg Hayes, CEO of Carrier’s parent company United Technologies, two weeks ago and asked him to rethink the decision to close the Carrier plant in Indiana. Hayes explained that the jobs were lower-wage and had high turnover, and the move was necessary to keep the plant competitive, according to the source. He said the plan would save the company $65 million a year.

Trump then replied that those savings would be dwarfed by the savings UTC would enjoy from corporate tax-rate reductions he planned to put in place. During the recent campaign, Trump threatened to slap tariffs on Carrier imports from Mexico.

So what were the "incentives"? In the end, UTC agreed to retain approximately 800 manufacturing jobs at the Indiana plant that had been slated to move to Mexico, as well as another 300 engineering and headquarters jobs. In return, the company will get roughly $700,000 a year for a period of years in state tax incentives. Still, some 1,300 jobs will still go to Mexico, which includes 600 Carrier employees, plus 700 workers from UTEC Controls in Huntington, Ind.

In summary, the "math" works out to $636 per year per job saved in tax savings: hardly an egregious sum, and one which could likely be extended to other companies (unless, of course, those other companies decide to hold Trump hostage and demand escalating pay schedules) if and when Trump's fiscal stimulus package is implemented. It remains to be seen if the popular response, outside of conservative groups, will interpret this trade off as taxpayer funded "moral hazard."