Trump SAVES 1000 Carrier Jobs!....

[AuH20]

Amash is wrong.

https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies

Decades ago, economists like Mises and Rothbard were already arguing that tax breaks are not economically or ethically equivalent to receiving subsidies. Simply put, being permitted to keep your income is not the same as taking it from competitors. Exemptions and loopholes do not forcibly redistribute wealth; taxes and subsidies do, thereby benefiting some producers at the expense of others.

 

[nikcers]

Amash is wrong.

https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies

Do you think Socrates would call this type of policy something a sweetshop owner would purpose, or something a Doctor would purpose?

 

[tod evans]

If Indiana is smart they'll make Smith-n-Wesson a better offer than Taxachusettes did and lure them into the Midwest.

.


Massachusetts’ $6m deal
In 2010, Massachusetts approved $6 million in tax breaks to Smith & Wesson, which announced it would move its Thompson/Center hunting rifle division from New Hampshire to Springfield. The move meant an expansion of the firm’s Springfield headquarters and the addition of 225 jobs there.

James Debney, president of Smith & Wesson, said the company chose the Bay State over several other states because local and state officials, including Gov. Deval Patrick, “collaborated … to make our choice clear.”

Locally, the company got a $600,000 tax break from Springfield on top of the state’s $6 million.

“It’s a big win for the city - 225 jobs and $14 million (in investments) this year alone,” John D. Judge, the city’s chief development officer, told the Springfield Republican.

New York: public good?
Remington Arms received $5.5 million in New York subsidies and grants since 2007. The company was founded in Ilion, NY in the early 1800s and its purchase by Cerberus Capital Management, which owns the Freedom Group, was announced in April 2007. Almost $4.5 million of the subsidies were targeted at luring 200 jobs to Ilion from Remington and Cerberus-affiliated manufacturing plants in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The subsidies became an issue in 2012 when Remington and another subsidized New York gun manufacturer, Kimber Manufacturing, fought against proposed state legislation that mandated microstamping for bullet casings, which gun control advocates and police said would help solve gun crimes.

The gun-control advocacy group New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV), said that the gun companies’ opposition to the legislation meant they weren’t serving the public interest.

Jackie Hilly, executive director of NYAGV, said, "I do have a problem with people who are taking money from the state … and then flatly refusing to serve some sort of public good. That’s public money that’s being used, and I think there should be some kind of public good that comes out of it."

Kentucky: 100 new jobs
Kentucky granted Smith & Wesson $6.1 million in subsidies since 1998, including, $4.5 million to subsidize the expansion of the company’s Graves County facility, where it planned to add 100 jobs.

Gov. Steve Beshear’s office did not return phone calls asking for comment on the subsidies. But at the time the grant was made, Beshear said, “The creation of 100 new jobs and a $5 million investment in the Commonwealth will have a tremendous impact and is a testament to our ongoing commitment to support our existing industries.”

 

[presence]

If Indiana is smart they'll make Smith-n-Wesson a better offer than Taxachusettes did and lure them into the Midwest.

Really?

Is this what we're all about not at RPF.

Hoping our pet brand gets the most favoritism from the state?

I am disappoint.

 

[presence]

Here is a quote in Justin Amash's Twitter profile

"Laws must be general, equal, and certain.' —F.A. Hayek"

Is a company specific tax break general, equal and certain? No, it isn't.

cheers Amash; glad to see you're reading Hayek

 

[EBounding]

Amash is wrong.

https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies

The tax breaks described in that article are available to any business provided they meet the conditions under the law. The Carrier deal is only available to Carrier.

Carrier is getting money from the state government based on the condition they stay in Indiana and their financial performance. There is no difference between the tax credit or if they received a check in the same amount with the same conditions. No other business can receive these incentives under the law.

Trump made it sound like he was going to get Carrier to roll over simply with his "tuff talk" as president. He had to get Pence to bribe them with money from Indiana taxpayers. This probably wouldn't have happened at all if Pence wasn't governor. Great political move for Trump. But bad for the Indiana economy their taxpayers.

 

[Dr.No.]

Training programs in what? What does that even mean? What are these new fields of the future? Plastics? Is the future plastics?
And in what field do you have in mind would someone who was an hourly union worker be able to transition through a government training program that currently can't be found even internationally?

Alternative energy, marijuana, nanotechnology, etc. For example, the tech industry is in dire need of programmers. You can get certified in a few programming languages fairly easily, as long as you'd be willing to commit full time.

For example, you have programming boot camps, which have a fairly high rate of job placement, who will train you in a six-month boot camp for $5,000.

Let's say that instead of business incentives, tax cuts, etc, the government paid the tuition rate (let us even say they paid 10,000), and paid the worker who went through the program (for the 6 months) his previously salary + healthcare. Even at say 30 dollars/hour (likely it is going to be much less than that), that is going to cost the government ~40K/person. For 40 million, you'd save those 1,000 jobs on a more permanent basis. If you want, you can even get that money back in the end by instituting a higher tax on those who successfully took advantage of the program.

And to the extent there is a demand for a high skill job and it can be trained through a government program, why wouldn't the business train those people?

Primarily, because there are easier avenues for the individual businesses: acquire an engineer or a highly-skilled worker from a competitor, or from abroad. Anything you'd have to pay to lure someone over and/or get that person paperwork would still be less than training someone from scratch. Sure, now that other company is short a highly-skilled worker, the industry is still at a deficit, and the domestic worker is out of luck, but why does that business care? Not only would training someone be expensive, and small businesses/industries would struggle with the float, but indentured servitude isn't a thing, and businesses know that they risk training someone and then losing him to a competitor. There are also numerous small businesses that cannot afford the startup costs.

A government's calculus is different, especially for a federal government. Think about the GI bill; its provisions allowed individuals to go to school and get trained on the taxpayer's dime. Those increased skills translated into increased productivity, and we had the greatest economic expansion in our history.

 

[kpitcher]

this deal saved the tax payers of Indiana $3 million in unemployment.

Ummm no, probably not. Carrier would have been paying into an unemployment fund. What a company pays is based entirely off of what they have had drawn before in the past. It's one of the hidden costs of a business. The laid off workers would draw from what Carrier paid.

 

[kahless]

As many have pointed out, this is not a long-term solution. If it isn't automated engineering, its going to be the fact that labor is so cheap in other parts of the world. That is just the fact of different standings of living.

If I were Trump, I'd notice that there are many job openings for highly-skilled workers. The market can't find those workers domestically, and often, not even abroad. Let the government set up some kind of training programs so that we can transition workers to these new fields.

The MSM and the political establishment have been saying since the 80s that it is okay that these jobs are going overseas since the US will become and be trained to be a high tech work force which is laughable. The average folks lack the mental capacity to perform these kind of jobs but do well with instruction of repetitive tasks. With the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs these people have no where else to go other than to work multiple menial low paying jobs these days and lose sight of the American dream-lifestyle or living standard of prior generations.

For the high tech jobs, there is no shortage, just another propaganda scam. There are plenty of out of work STEM graduates that could do or be trained to do these jobs but instead they are importing H-1B's or outsourcing overseas.

 

[nikcers]

If I were Trump, I'd notice that there are many job openings for highly-skilled workers. The market can't find those workers domestically, and often, not even abroad.

For the high tech jobs, there is no shortage, just another propaganda scam. There are plenty of out of work STEM graduates that could do or be trained to do these jobs but instead they are importing H-1B's or outsourcing overseas.

Why do you think they import people in for tech jobs? Who are you guys purposing Train these people? is this like the government training moderates in Syria to fight terrorism? Is this more government Job training, or are you purposing we stop subsidizing the tech industry. The high tech jobs that get subsidized by government programs, like h-1b's are a subsidy for the tech industry. The unemployment isn't as bad as you say it is, its more like underemployment, and stagnated wages.

 

[Dr.No.]

The MSM and the political establishment have been saying since the 80s that it is okay that these jobs are going overseas since the US will become and be trained to be a high tech work force which is laughable.

1) I'd argue that they've been saying that it should happen, but that they've never put the infrastructure in place to make it happen...even though there is a clear generational gap in terms of high-tech-work-force skills

2) Wouldn't the fact that we've had periods of very low unemployment suggest that people were finding jobs here?

The average folks lack the mental capacity to perform these kind of jobs but do well with instruction of repetitive tasks. With the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs these people have no where else to go other than to work multiple menial low paying jobs these days and lose sight of the American dream-lifestyle or living standard of prior generations.

This I am not too sure of. You make it seem as if the average American is Forrest Gump!

While I am sure there are millions of truly low-intelligent Americans, there should be enough construction/service industry jobs for those folks. Maybe the government could fund some infrastructure projects? It wouldn't be charity either; we badly need it.

For the high tech jobs, there is no shortage, just another propaganda scam. There are plenty of out of work STEM graduates that could do or be trained to do these jobs but instead they are importing H-1B's or outsourcing overseas.

Facts on this? I've seen the numbers on the opposite, about the gap in supply. Where are the facts that make what I've seen propaganda?

 

[nikcers]

1) Maybe the government could fund some infrastructure projects? It wouldn't be charity either; we badly need it.



Facts on this? I've seen the numbers on the opposite, about the gap in supply. Where are the facts that make what I've seen propaganda?

The government doesn't fund anything. We pass continuing resolutions and build up debt. Where are your government representatives that want to fund government? It wouldn't be a charity either, we badly need it. I thought that we all at least agreed that if the government spent less money it would help the economy?

 

[LibertyEagle]

While I am sure there are millions of truly low-intelligent Americans, there should be enough construction/service industry jobs for those folks. Maybe the government could fund some infrastructure projects? It wouldn't be charity either; we badly need it.

Oops, sorry, those are filled to the brim with illegal aliens.

 

[Dr.No.]

The government doesn't fund anything. We pass continuing resolutions and build up debt.

Not sure what you mean by this. Obviously, the government funds things...the military, social security, etc.

I thought that we all at least agreed that if the government spent less money it would help the economy?

If the government spends more and taxes less, it helps the economy...ie, if the government spends less and taxes more, it hurts the economy, at least in present circumstance.

Remember that government deficits are private-sector savings. It isn't a coincidence that recessions follow constrained budgets.

Oops, sorry, those are filled to the brim with illegal aliens.

Facts behind this? I know that there are a lot of illegals doing agricultural work, but construction? And are these "filled to the brim"?

 

[nikcers]

Not sure what you mean by this. Obviously, the government funds things...the military, social security, etc. If the government spends more and taxes less, it helps the economy...

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

If the government spends more and taxes less, it helps the economy...ie, if the government spends less and taxes more, it hurts the economy, at least in present circumstance.

Remember that government deficits are private-sector savings. It isn't a coincidence that recessions follow constrained budgets.

I disagree. It might boost GDP *that year* or whatever. But long term what happens is the government removes private sector savings, as you mention, that would typically be invested in productive assets when the opportunities arose. Instead, because the government's 'customers' (taxpayers) are forced to pay the demanded price for the goods or services provided by the state whether they wanted them or not-- a tool not available to the private sector -- they spend the money Willy nilly without as much regard (if any) to what the returns for spending that money will be. And so there is no solid growth from government spending, only bubbles. And then, after having removed the private monies that would have been invested in productive assets leading already to less than optimal economic conditions, they tax the peasants from there gains in other productive endeavors because the state blew the money and has nothing to show for it.

 

[tod evans]

Really?

Is this what we're all about not at RPF.

Hoping our pet brand gets the most favoritism from the state?

I am disappoint.

What a goofy way to view paying less taxes.

Brands be damned, I can't see any company wanting to manufacture in Taxachusettes or Ca. for that matter.

Between taxes and regulations both are inhospitable, or is it you who are advocating loyalty to "the state"?

 

[gaazn]

Another shell game by establishment to fool the people.
Keep Carrier in the USA but give billions to their parent company.
Cut some taxes for the people but dilute their dollars.

 

[presence]

What a goofy way to view paying less taxes.

Brands be damned, I can't see any company wanting to manufacture in Taxachusettes or Ca. for that matter.

Between taxes and regulations both are inhospitable, or is it you who are advocating loyalty to "the state"?

Either the rules are the same for everyone or they cannot be legitimate.
Government should not be picking the winner.
Taxing Coke while giving Pepsi no tax is inherently wrong.
This is not equal justice.
I absolutely cannot support individual line item favoritism in tax code.

60,000 pages of tax code is absurd

60,000 pages of tax code plus Carrier gets a special deal is beyond absurd

 

[tod evans]

Either the rules are the same for everyone or they cannot be legitimate.
Government should not be picking the winner.
Taxing Coke while giving Pepsi no tax is inherently wrong.
This is not equal justice.
I absolutely cannot support individual line item favoritism in tax code.

60,000 pages of tax code is absurd

You'll not get an argument from me on any of this.

60,000 pages of tax code plus Carrier gets a special deal is beyond absurd

This however you'll need to show me where the Carrier 'deal' is any different than the S&W 'deal' or any of the other 'deals' various states have used to lure business...

I think it was Toyota that just opened a plant and was bragging about how one state offered better incentives than another so they went with them...

The idea of 50 different sets of state regulations and taxes is what the country was founded on (well 13 anyway) would you have states subject to legislation from DC on what incentives they can offer businesses?

Or would you have DC strong-arm Indiana into giving all businesses the same consideration as Carrier?

Was Carrier offered federal incentives? I haven't read that anywhere yet, only incentives from Indiana.



I would like to see more businesses demand tax breaks using any threats necessary.

This is why I posted the blurb about S&W, if Indiana is willing to forego some tax-lucre for Carrier maybe they'll do the same for S&W, or Ford, or Maytag or or....