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!

---