Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Who said that?

Which bit don't you agree with?

Quote:$7M in tax cuts for 1000 jobs. The devil's in the details. This is not the huge win it's made out to be.

Have u been to Detroit?

Quote:I'm happy the jobs are staying here but it's the how and why that concerns me. As a libertarian/conservative it's fundamental that government should not interfere with the free market and create winners and losers. It's one thing to say across the board were reducing taxes by x amount for companies or people that meet x qualifications.


It's a completely different thing to say we are creating an exemption for this specific company in this situation, that's not free market economics.


Someone said states already do this which is fine, that's a state issue local commerce, were talking about the federal arm creating an advantage for one company over its competition as a way to keep them domestic. That's a terrible precedent to set and why conservatives don't see that baffles me?

 

In a True Free Market economy we would base taxes on consumption and not capital investment to begin with.  The reason carrier was leaving in the first place was because of onerous taxes and regulations.  They already had the ability to make a product that people want like or need at a price they were willing to pay.  This isn't creating a business model, this is removing a barrier, created by government, allowing the workers in the state of Indiana to compete with the potential labor force abroad. 

 

True, in a perfect world we would see a broad based reduction in the size and scope of the government as the main driver of reducing the overhead of all businesses.  At the federal level that was part of the promise, to cut taxes, allow repatriation of funds, sunset stupid federal regs etc. 

 

 

Quote:This is good for the 1000 who retain their jobs but the other 1200 or so are wondering why they are canned. Additionally, the taxpayers in Indiana are on the hook, and to say not taking money from a company is not a subsidy is wrong. It takes "x" amount of money run a state, and if the state determines this particular company can skirt their share of that, that is a subsidy. That money has to come from somewhere.

 

Then you have Company A and Company B saying they'll be moving too unless they get the same treatment. How can Trump, or Pence, say no to Company A and Company B? You've already created the standard.

 

If you agree with this government interaction in private business then you couldn't be against the bailout of GM, Citicorp, Shearson Lehman, Chrysler et. al. That would make you a hypocrite.

 

Regards.....................the Chiefjag

 

In the case of GM Citicorp and the companies that you cited, you had companies who of their own bad decision making and bad deal making became grossly unprofitable.  In the case of Citicorp and Leahman, they were so reckless with the financial instruments they created they mortally threatened the global financial system.  That was intervening to prop up failed business models and failed cost structures.  That's wholly different from creating an incentive for a company to stay when the main driver of them leaving is burdensome taxes and regulations to begin with!

Quote:$7M in tax cuts for 1000 jobs. The devil's in the details. This is not the huge win it's made out to be.

 

the number i saw was 700k

Brass Tax, it doesn't make sense to have a company continue to generate inordinate revenue from government contracts and then outsource whole divisions of the company.  Tha't just not smart.

Quote:In a True Free Market economy we would base taxes on consumption and not capital investment to begin with. The reason carrier was leaving in the first place was because of onerous taxes and regulations. They already had the ability to make a product that people want like or need at a price they were willing to pay. This isn't creating a business model, this is removing a barrier, created by government, allowing the workers in the state of Indiana to compete with the potential labor force abroad.


True, in a perfect world we would see a broad based reduction in the size and scope of the government as the main driver of reducing the overhead of all businesses. At the federal level that was part of the promise, to cut taxes, allow repatriation of funds, sunset stupid federal regs etc.




In the case of GM Citicorp and the companies that you cited, you had companies who of their own bad decision making and bad deal making became grossly unprofitable. In the case of Citicorp and Leahman, they were so reckless with the financial instruments they created they mortally threatened the global financial system. That was intervening to prop up failed business models and failed cost structures. That's wholly different from creating an incentive for a company to stay when the main driver of them leaving is burdensome taxes and regulations to begin with!

So what about carriers competition, what right does the state have to make exclusive tax brackets? Where is the authority to tax one company at one rate and another company in the same industry at another rate?


This is dangerous territory if we're now setting a precedent that the federal government should negotiate taxes one in one.r remember Donald won't always be president at some point it'll be a Democrat would you still be comfortable with a Democrat deciding which companies get tax breaks and which don't?


You want carrier to stay ok make unilateral movea to roll back regulations and taxes across the board but we shouldn't bargin special deals for special people, that's not a free market.

Quote:So what about carriers competition, what right does the state have to make exclusive tax brackets? Where is the authority to tax one company at one rate and another company in the same industry at another rate?


This is dangerous territory if we're now setting a precedent that the federal government should negotiate taxes one in one.r remember Donald won't always be president at some point it'll be a Democrat would you still be comfortable with a Democrat deciding which companies get tax breaks and which don't?


You want carrier to stay ok make unilateral movea to roll back regulations and taxes across the board but we shouldn't bargin special deals for special people, that's not a free market.

 

Technically, it was Mike Pence.  The deal has three components. 

 

1.) State Tax abatement. That's what Mike Pence negotiated as the sitting governor and Just about every state in the Union offers them to certain companies. 

 

2.) Federal regulatory and Tax reform.  This is broad based across the board.

 

3.) Hey United Technologies, about those federal contracts that make up 10% of your annual revenue. 

 

I am not disagreeing with you in the least.  I think that taxes should be consumption based period.  I also think that when you make this kind of inducement it should be across a sector not for a specific company, I get all that. 

 

At the same time a.) the 700k a year tax abatement is nothing close to the promise of growth, regulatory reform tax reform, and oh yeh 10% of their annual revenue and isn't going to make that big a difference in Carriers sector. 

 

My point is simply, let's not make Perfect, the enemy of great.  The Journey to a fully consumption based tax system starts with a  single step!

Quote:I'm happy the jobs are staying here but it's the how and why that concerns me. As a libertarian/conservative it's fundamental that government should not interfere with the free market and create winners and losers. It's one thing to say across the board were reducing taxes by x amount for companies or people that meet x qualifications.


It's a completely different thing to say we are creating an exemption for this specific company in this situation, that's not free market economics.


Someone said states already do this which is fine, that's a state issue local commerce, were talking about the federal arm creating an advantage for one company over its competition as a way to keep them domestic. That's a terrible precedent to set and why conservatives don't see that baffles me?

 

You are oversimplifying this. One shoe does not fit all businesses. They need to use different tax codes and follow rules that do not apply to other types of businesses in any industry. It would not be fair to make a different set of tax rules for Walmart and Target, but what about all the smaller businesses with very few stores that are just branching out?

Quote:Technically, it was Mike Pence. The deal has three components.


1.) State Tax abatement. That's what Mike Pence negotiated as the sitting governor and Just about every state in the Union offers them to certain companies.


2.) Federal regulatory and Tax reform. This is broad based across the board.


3.) Hey United Technologies, about those federal contracts that make up 10% of your annual revenue.


I am not disagreeing with you in the least. I think that taxes should be consumption based period. I also think that when you make this kind of inducement it should be across a sector not for a specific company, I get all that.


At the same time a.) the 700k a year tax abatement is nothing close to the promise of growth, regulatory reform tax reform, and oh yeh 10% of their annual revenue and isn't going to make that big a difference in Carriers sector.


My point is simply, let's not make Perfect, the enemy of great. The Journey to a fully consumption based tax system starts with a single step!

Carrier is still shifting jobs to Mexico. To make things even worse Huntington which is a very small town in Indiana is losing 700 employees.


Also the 10% government contracts held by UTC is consumed mostly by the F-135 Engine. Good luck killing that contract. That threat is hollow as capital hill wouldn't support Trump on that.

Quote:Carrier is still shifting jobs to Mexico. To make things even worse Huntington which is a very small town in Indiana is losing 700 employees.


Also the 10% government contracts held by UTC is consumed mostly by the F-135 Engine. Good luck killing that contract. That threat is hollow as capital hill wouldn't support Trump on that.

 

if that's a problem for you then I have no [BLEEP] clue why you voted for Hillary

Quote:Carrier is still shifting jobs to Mexico. To make things even worse Huntington which is a very small town in Indiana is losing 700 employees.


Also the 10% government contracts held by UTC is consumed mostly by the F-135 Engine. Good luck killing that contract. That threat is hollow as capital hill wouldn't support Trump on that.

Perfect vs. Excellent

Quote:Who said that?

 

No one.

 

Imaginationland.

Quote:Which bit don't you agree with?

 

I haven't seen anyone say or even imply that they don't want to pay taxes. From what I saw, people want lower taxers or a different sort of taxation.

 

As for reducing debt, the idea is (obviously) that they would reduce spending.

 

Quote:Carrier is still shifting jobs to Mexico. To make things even worse Huntington which is a very small town in Indiana is losing 700 employees.


Also the 10% government contracts held by UTC is consumed mostly by the F-135 Engine. Good luck killing that contract. That threat is hollow as capital hill wouldn't support Trump on that.

 

Uhhh... OK? 

 

Would you rather they not save any jobs?? I just don't understand this thought process. 

Quote:I haven't seen anyone say or even imply that they don't want to pay taxes. From what I saw, people want lower taxers or a different sort of taxation.

 

As for reducing debt, the idea is (obviously) that they would reduce spending.

 


 

Uhhh... OK? 

 
Would you rather they not save any jobs?? I just don't understand this thought process.

Yeah...I don't get it either. They seem like they'd be happier if everyone lost their jobs.

Quote:I haven't seen anyone say or even imply that they don't want to pay taxes. From what I saw, people want lower taxers or a different sort of taxation.

 

As for reducing debt, the idea is (obviously) that they would reduce spending.

 

 

Uhhh... OK? 

 

Would you rather they not save any jobs?? I just don't understand this thought process. 

 

thought process is:  TRUMP BAD MMMKAY?

Quote:I haven't seen anyone say or even imply that they don't want to pay taxes. From what I saw, people want lower taxers or a different sort of taxation.


As for reducing debt, the idea is (obviously) that they would reduce spending.



Uhhh... OK?


Would you rather they not save any jobs?? I just don't understand this thought process.

Thought taxes were theft to a few round here! Must have misread.


Where's the reduction in spending? Seems revenue has just been reduced?

Quote:If a business leaves the state, the state gets diddly squat in tax revenues from them. Doesn't take that much of an imagination to see it.

 

It takes quite a bit of imagination to balance the numbers if this becomes the federal economic policy.

 

Luckily, it likely won't, because this was Pence's deal, with Trump, well...trumpeting it as his accomplishment.

Quote:I haven't seen anyone say or even imply that they don't want to pay taxes. From what I saw, people want lower taxers or a different sort of taxation.

 

When someone depicts taxes as legalized theft, it's not a stretch to assume they don't want to pay taxes.

 

Oh...hyperbole...got it.

Quote:Thought taxes were theft to a few round here! Must have misread.


Where's the reduction in spending? Seems revenue has just been reduced?

 

Theft is taking something from someone without his or her knowledge. You are choosing to give money to the government, which is the opposite of theft. Everyone knows this.

Quote:I haven't seen anyone say or even imply that they don't want to pay taxes. From what I saw, people want lower taxers or a different sort of taxation.


As for reducing debt, the idea is (obviously) that they would reduce spending.



Uhhh... OK?


Would you rather they not save any jobs?? I just don't understand this thought process.

Didn't save a single job they just shifted WHO lost their jobs. 1400 jobs lost is 1400 jobs lost.