Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay..
By basically giving them what ever they want ?
You keep phrasing it as if government is the giver. Government does not give. It takes. It restricts. It limits freedom.
If you believe that government governs best when it governs least, then you probably have an understanding of why and how this country was founded. And if so, you probably favor the freest market possible which is cherished and protected by government. And you probably view that market as the free association and exchange among the citizens. And you probably believe that government does not give us freedom, rather it protects our freedom.
If you believe that government governs best when what is most important is its needs, and those needs are decided by it, and it ultimately decides what the market is--that it decides what association and exchange is allowed among the citizens, then you probably reject the principles upon which this country was founded, even if you think you don't. And, if so, then any belief you have that the Constitution is being followed by a government which decides what the market is and how the citizens must associate and exchange, and that you actually defend and protect that document when you support such a government, then your belief is based on ignorance. And you probably believe that government gives us freedom.
maximizing their profits by diminishing their Tax responsibilities
"Responsibility" cuts both ways. In a global market, it is the responsibility of our government to protect our market against the competitive burden placed on it by other governments which can entice our competitors to produce goods more cheaply than we, and can thus damage our companies' ability to not only compete in the global market, but to do so at home against products produced by foreign companies who take advantage of cheaper production costs elsewhere. Tariffs might be the worst way. It would actually be best to not tax companies at all. Taxing their employees and executives, if anything is to be taxed, should be the extent of it. Otherwise, make the taxes and regulations competitive rather than deterrent.
reducing their regulation .
That phrasing evinces the notion that being regulated is a responsibility of those who are regulated. And it reinforces the progressive ideal that government has unlimited power to regulate.
pass the risk to the tax payer .
The tax payers are more at risk when the production of the goods they buy is taxed more rather than less. The more the goods are taxed, the less possible pool of money there is for the companies to distribute to its tax paying employees. Or the more it will cost in higher prices to those tax payers who buy the goods. Most of the tax will be paid by the tax paying customers twice--sales taxes and the transfer of company or corporate taxes to the price of the goods.
Of course, at least I guess, by "risk to the tax payer" you mean that the less taxes the government collects, the more that "tax payers" will have to foot the bill for government's notion of what it's responsibilities are (re this go back to what government is best, that which governs least or most). Well . . . see . . . it's government expansion of its "responsibilities" which is the greatest risk to the tax payers. Corporations aren't going to pay those taxes. If those taxes are not evaded, they will be passed on to the consumer. Ergo, the government will have effectively raised the taxes of "tax payers" while persuading them that it didn't, that it socked it to the corporations.
The least "risk" to the tax payers would be to shrink government "responsibility" and, if taxing is necessary and right, to tax the actual people who work for or own the companies not the company as a separate entity. Even less risk to the tax payers would be smaller government--placing the "tax payers" responsibilities for their well being more on themselves rather than giving that responsibility to government. Making the people responsible for themselves, to greater self-governance rather than being responsible for supporting an over-reaching nanny state.
to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset ..
They shouldn't sunset. To be effective, they should be permanent policy for all companies.
not my idea of the Big picture ..
Your idea of the big picture is too narrow.
I get it greed is good ...
Are you referring to government "greed"? Or is that a good "greed"? That's a very judgmental word.
but these are muti billion dollar profit companies .. not the man on the street plumber company or guy who runs 4 trucks ... no ones giving them a thing Because they cant leave nobody cares about them.. they are sold the same BS about de regulation and taxes but the reality it never trickles down to them
So dont even try to compare local business with Carrier
|
Is the man on the street plumber paying corporate taxes as well as income tax? The "little" guy doesn't have to incorporate. Who do the small business guys want to care about them? Maybe their customers, friends and family? Do they want government to "care" about them? Or would they prefer to get it off their back, as the phrase goes? Do they want less government regulation? Do they find ways to minimize their tax "responsibilities"? Do they want government to take care of them? Or are they what stands in the way of government control of our society.
In our high tech time, some (many) things are more efficiently and cheaply mass produced by large corporations rather than by small businesses. Does that necessitate big, all-powerful government to combat the expansion and consolidation of such corporations? Or is that combat merely a cover for those who prefer all-powerful centralized government? Can a model of self-government exist in a world dominated by giant corporations?
I think so. I think those giants can only dominate in concert or collusion with giant government. I do not think they can dominate a free, self-governing people. That is obviously debatable. But I think that we can only be dominated if we allow ourselves to be, either by corporations or government . . . or their fascistic combination.
Does less regulation and taxation of business, whether that business is small or huge, create more of a bond with it? Or does greater taxation and regulation create more of a bond between government and business.
With lesser control, the bond is amicable, and protective of each for the other. With greater control, the bond is resentful, coercive, corruptive, and prone to consolidation, either by force of government, or necessity of business survival. The ultimate consolidation being business and government in a fascistic consolidation.
The "big picture" is far bigger than talking points about "greedy" corporations and the little guys. It involves system of government, liberty, and the "road to serfdom."