Quote:
|
Quote:
I didn't say that. He helped facilitate the deal, at least. As he said he would. But he's not in a position yet, to set policy. |
Quote:
Manuf. jobs are leaving and soon when UBER starts w/driverless cars, those jobs are gone. Eventually Coke/Pepsi's trucks will be driverless and those jobs are gone. McDonald's order taker jobs will be gone in a few years also. Amazon's warehouse jobs will eventually be gone. And when Amazon starts delivering packages with drones, Fed Ex jobs will go away also. |
Quote:
Carrier can make it easier in Indiana than it can in Connecticut. And it can make it easier in Mexico than anywhere in the U.S. So Indiana made it a bit easier to make it in Indiana. And if Trump's policies (gosh we are actually now talking about Trump's policies when we were told he had none) are enacted it will be easier for companies to make it here. |
Trump went from saying he would put tariffs on Carrier's products imported from Mexico to helping them get a tax incentive. Sort of like negotiating against yourself.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You are correct, many types of jobs will be going away, and we need to train our kids for the types of jobs that will remain. However, there are people out there who don't do well in school, but who have other skills, trade-type skills, and we need to give them the best possible shot for success as well. I am certain you agree with that. Cut stupid spending (of which there is a lot), pass that savings to corporate America, to stimulate them to grow. It ain't rocket science. |
Quote:
Carrier could make it easier in North Korea than it can in Connecticut. "And if Trump's policies (gosh we are actually now talking about Trump's policies when we were told he had none) are enacted it will be easier for companies to make it here" Trump is promising to make changes that will make it easier for companies to grow here. If he is moderately successful, then that will be a dagger in the heart of liberalism. Liberals have long believed that business is evil and should be used as an ATM to fund everything. He has a very, very friendly Congress to work with (the Carrier deal increases the political capital he has to work with, hell he may get some Democrats behind him), So there's little stopping him. He ought to be able to give his policies a shot, then we can decide whether or not they work. Time to stop speculating and put it to the test. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Integrity wasn't on the ballot this year, not on either side... |
Quote:
"I don't like it when funding for our tech schools gets lowered" Now THAT is a great point, we need to keep those options available to those kids. But in addition to getting good training, they also need the prospect of good jobs when they graduate. |
Over a half million jobs open for machinists and cnc programmers right now, no degree required, maybe tech school and an associates for a progammer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
I guess instead of asking for tax cuts we can now ask for "bailouts" since they mean the same thing.....and bailout carries more urgency and need than "tax cut" |
Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America
BIGGEST LIE EVER |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Here's a brief article in Forbes that talks about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgele.../#750f5471fd33 A couple of key paragraphs from the article: "The tax cuts during the Reagan administration somewhat increased the resources of the taxpayers, while at the same time, repeal of some regulations gave them more freedom to take advantage of opportunities for gain through exchange. The result was a large increase in production and employment. Increasing wealth did not “trickle” to anyone, but the climate of freer markets enabled many Americans to earn more. Some who had previously been poor found jobs that paid well, saved money so they’d have investment capital, and then began their own businesses. Their increased incomes were a gusher, not a trickle, and it was earned." And: "If anything, the epithet “trickle-down” applies to the government method of taxing those who earn money so that officials can then do with that money as they please. A little of the money will be given to the poor through giveaway programs such as Food Stamps and Obamaphones, but most of it will wind up in the pockets of much wealthier, politically-connected people who know how to play the system." "Trickle down economics" was a deceptive epithet not created by Reagan, but used by the Dems to fool the public into thinking Reagan's economic policy was pro-rich and anti-poor. The irony is that what is really "trickle down" is not the freedom that Reagan preached, but government confiscation and control. The real trickle down is from government to the people--the forced economic distribution trickling from the government to the people. So your right. Trickle down doesn't work. But trickle down is not what the left has portrayed it to be. It is actually what leftist government does, not what the free market does. And your also right in thinking trickle up is what works. But for it to work, we must be free enough from governmental over-taxation and over-regulation. Actually, if we must use the world "trickle," the best would be trickle around economics. |
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38194371
Mr Trump's decision to turn his back on four decades of US protocol on Taiwan and speak directly to a president of Taiwan has stunned policymakers in Beijing. and many here in the US ... whats next? His bravado our Blood ?? and he isn't even sworn in yet.. |
Quote:
You can use the biggest, boldest font you want to claim it's a lie. But if you ever took Economics 101, you would know that when the cost of something goes down, the demand for that something, no matter what it is, goes up. Taxes are the "cost" of income. When you reduce corporate income taxes, it makes more sense for companies to invest in growth. Growing a business involves "risk". Allowing companies to keep more of their income, changes the risk/reward math, it necessarily makes growth a more attractive option. Just because you have been told you are supposed to hate that concept, doesn't mean it's not true. Why are companies moving overseas? Because it's CHEAPER. If we lower the cost of doing business here, there's less incentive to move jobs overseas. |
Quote:
|
Companies can not grow without consumers who have more money in their pocket.
You can only squeeze a sponge so hard before you have to give it more water to fill a bucket Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
US unemployment rate falls to nine-year low
Figures from the Labor Department showed the US economy created 178,000 jobs in November, while the jobless rate fell to 4.6% from 4.9% in October. wow Trump kept that number from being 177,000 I guess the economy is bad shape .. and corporations need more tax breaks http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38181041 |
Why are companies moving overseas? Because it's CHEAPER. If we lower the cost of doing business here, there's less incentive to move jobs overseas.
thats wishful thinking and not based on Historical business trends below is the biggest reason why the head leaves and the body stays in the US ... but they need lower taxes its comical http://americansfortaxfairness.org/t...ax-inversions/ Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas. Corporations that invert continue to enjoy the benefits of operating here — they just dodge a lot of taxes. A dozen U.S. firms are currently considering doing a corporate inversion. Walgreens could dodge up to $4 billion in U.S. taxes over five years if it inverts. One-quarter of its sales are from Medicare and Medicaid. Medtronic plans to move its corporate address to Ireland, a tax haven, to avoid paying U.S. taxes on $20.5 billion in offshore profits. U.S. corporations already dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens. U.S. corporations hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here. An inversion can let firms dodge paying taxes on those profits. Big corporations say that the 35% U.S. corporate income tax rate is too high. But many companies pay much less because of loopholes in our tax code — many pay at a rate of less than 20%. 26 corporations paid no U.S. income taxes from 2008 to 2012, including General Electric, Boeing and Verizon. 111 companies paid no income taxes in at least one of those five years. |
INVERSION YEAR COMPANY NAME TYPE COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION REVENUE
1983 McDermott International Engineering Panama $2.7 billion 1994 Helen of Troy Consumer Products Bermuda $1.3 billion (FY 2014) 1996 Triton Energy Oil and Gas Cayman Islands Acq by Hess in '01 1996 Chicago Bridge & Iron (CBI) Engineering Netherlands $11.1 billion 1997 Tyco International Diversified Manufacturer Bermuda $10.6 billion 1997 Santa Fe International Oil and Gas Cayman Islands Acq by Transocean in '07 1998 Fruit of the Loom Apparel Manufacturer Cayman Islands private company 1998 Gold Reserve Mining Bermuda N/A 1998 Playstar Corp. Toys Antigua Acq by Premier Mobile in '06 1999 Transocean Offshore Drilling Cayman Islands $9.4 billion 1999 White Mountain Insurance Insurance Bermuda $2.3 billion 1999 Xoma Corp. Biotech Bermuda $35.5 million 1999 PXRE Group Insurance Bermuda Acq by Argonaut Group in '07 1999 Trenwick Group Insurance Bermuda Acq by LaSalle Re Holdings in '00 2000 Applied Power Engineering Bermuda Now called Actuant $494 million 2000 Everest Reinsurance Insurance Bermuda $5.6 billion 2000 Seagate Technology Data Storage Cayman Islands $14.4 billion 2000 R&B Falcon Drilling Cayman Islands Acq by Transocean in '00 2001 Global Santa Fe Corp. Offshore Drilling Cayman Islands Acq by Transocean in '07 2001 Foster Wheeler Engineering Bermuda $559 million 2001 Accenture Consulting Bermuda $28.6 billion (FY 2013) 2001 Global Marine Engineering Cayman Islands Acq by Bridgehouse Capital in '04 2002 Noble Corp. Offshore Drilling Cayman Islands $4.2 billion 2002 Cooper Industries Electrical Products Bermuda Acq by Eaton in '12 2002 Nabor Industries Oil and Gas Bermuda $1.6 billion 2002 Weatherford International Oil and Gas Bermuda $15.2 billion 2002 Ingersoll-Rand Industrial Manufacturer Bermuda $12.3 billion 2002 PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Consulting Bermuda N/A 2002 Herbalife International Nutrition Cayman Islands $4.8 billion (sales) 2005 Luna Gold Corp Mining Canada $85.3 million 2007 Lincoln Gold Group Mining N/A 2007 Western Goldfields Mining N/A Acq by New Gold in '09 2007 Star Maritime Acquisition Grp Shipping N/A Now Star Bulk $69 million 2007 Argonaut Group Insurance Bermuda $1.4 billion 2007 Fluid Media Networks Music Distribution 2008 Tyco Electronics Industrial Manufacturer Switzerland Now TE Connectivity $3.4 billion (FY '13) 2008 Foster Wheeler Engineering Bermuda $3.3 billion 2008 Covidien Healthcare Ireland $10.2 billion 2008 Patch International Inc Oil and Gas Canada 2008 Arcade Acquisition Group Financial 2008 Energy Infrastructure Acquisition Group Energy 2008 Ascend Acquisition Group Electronics N/A Acq by Kitara Media in '13 2008 ENSCO International Oil and Gas United Kingdom $4.9 billion 2009 Tim Hortons Inc Restaurant Chain Canada $3.2 billion 2009 Hungarian Telephone & Cable Corp. Telecommunications Denmark $219 million 2009 Alpha Security Group Security N/A 2009 Alyst Acquisition Group Financial N/A Acq by China Networks Media in '09 2009 2020 ChinaCap Acquirco Financial N/A Acq by Exceed Co. in '09 2009 Ideation Acquisition Grp Private Equity N/A Acq by SearchMedia in '09 2009 InterAmerican Acquisition Grp Business Management N/A Acq by Sing Kung Ltd in '09 2009 Vantage Energy Services Offshore Drilling Cayman Islands $732 million 2009 Plastinum Polymer Tech Corp. Industrial Manufacturer 2010 Valient Biovail Pharmaceuticals Canada $5.7 billion 2010 Pride International Offshore Drilling United Kindom Acq by Ensco in '11 2010 Global Indemnity Insurance Ireland $319 billion 2011 Alkermes, Inc. Biopharmaceutical Ireland $575 million 2011 TE Connectivity Industrial Manufacturer Switzerland $13.3 billion 2011 Pentair Water Filtration Switzerland $7.5 billion 2012 Rowan Companies Oil Well Drilling United Kindom $1.5 billion 2012 AON Insurance United Kindom $11.8 billion 2012 Tronox Inc Chemical Australia $1.9 billion 2012 Jazz Pharmaceuticals / Azur Pharma Pharmaceuticals Ireland $872 million 2012 D.E. Master Blenders Coffee Netherlands $3.5 billion 2012 Stratasys Printer Manufacturer Israel $486.7 million 2012 Eaton/Cooper Power Management Ireland $22 billion 2012 Endo Health Solutions Pharmaceuticals Ireland $2.6 billion 2013 Liberty Global PLC Cable Company United Kindom $17.3 billion 2013 Actavis / Warner Chilcott Pharmaceuticals Ireland $8.7 billion 2013 Perrigo/Elan Pharmaceuticals Ireland $3.5 billion (FY 2013) 2013 Cadence Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals Ireland $110 million 2014 Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals Ireland $2.2 billion 2014 Chiquita Brands Produce Ireland $3 billion 2014 Medtronic Pharmaceuticals Ireland $16.5 billion Make them bring all their money back and pay owed taxes then lower the tax rate |
Quote:
Inversion, as you have pointed out, is not about physically moving production to another country in order to lower production costs such as employee wage compensation packages, more attractive regulatory structure, and lower infrastructure costs, etc. Instead, inversion ships the "head" elsewhere to save not on production costs pers se, but in order to save on taxes. So, yes, as Jim said, corporations physically move in order to save on production costs. And, yes, corporations invert their "heads" elsewhere to save on taxes. Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers. The U.S. governments lose corporate tax revenue. But the employees keep their jobs. But both types of perfectly legal moves depend on lower costs elsewhere. So competitively lowering the costs of production and taxes here would help in reversing both trends. |
Inversion could also describe the democrats sudden embracing of conservative principles as it relates to all things Trump :rotf2:
Paul, Wayne..if you wander over to the National Review you will find the editors and "Never Trumpers" making the identical arguments against the Carrier episode that you've been making.... news flash....Conservatives don't like the Carrier deal and government intervention picking winners and losers and all of that... that you can't differentiate between a bail out of a failing company, pouring money into new startups who happen to be politically connected and offering tax incentives to keep a thriving company with existing jobs was just an aside... Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this... ironically the left didn't seem to mind Obama doing this sort of "investment" but is outraged that Trump may in some shape or form and is even more OUTRAGED that there is not more outrage from Conservatives toward Trump :uhuh: this has been a pattern throughout the campaign if you've been paying attention..... sorry....just don't share your outrage I guess....:confused: |
Quote:
and....who cares that policymakers in Beijing are stunned? great headline.... December 4, 2016 Liberals outraged by Trump using a phone Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz4RrVZ13C7 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com