Obama the village idiot

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, it's fact. Claiming that giving tax incentives to Carrier is giving money to them is semantics. "Bailing out" the jobs is not bailing out the company. The company was going to move. It didn't ask for a bail out. It was not in the position of going out of business, bail out or not.

right...they were not going bankrupt due to a failed business model, bad business decisions or indebtedness...they were moving parts of their operation to a more favorable business climate where there was apparently plenty of incentive to do so

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So Trump had no part in this? He didn't pick (by advocating for) Carrier to get tax incentives over Bloomington tool and die?

He has been claiming he helped keep 800 (he claims 1,000 which is incorrect) jobs in Ind. If he didn't have any part in this why was he there claiming he did?

Ind. in fact is the party who put up the $. Funny, manuf. can't stay in the crappy, liberal Conn. but for some reason can't make it in the conservative utopia of Ind. either.

"So Trump had no part in this?"

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nope. Carrier wasn't faced with bankruptcy. They were faced with a reality that they could generate higher profits for their owners, by producing in Mexico.

The auto companies were circling the drain (thanks to liberal policies and unions). That's why not all auto companies needed bailouts.

Apples and oranges.

"You can't be for one and not the other"

Creating a pro-business environment that applies equally to everyone, is not giving bailouts to anyone. We aren't there yet. But that would be different.

But you have a point, I can't disagree. But the incentives given to Carrier were not for the purposes of keeping them solvent. It was done to keep jobs here.

It was done to keep that business unit solvent. W/o that incentive (or whatever you want to call it) that business unit would not have been able to survive in Ind. Lending $ to an auto manuf. so they can retool and bc more efficient is basically the same as lowering someone's taxes so their cost structure is lower. W/o the incentive the financials would have made no sense to stay in Ind and thus the jobs would have eventually gone away (according to Carrier).

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So Trump had no part in this? He didn't pick (by advocating for) Carrier to get tax incentives over Bloomington tool and die?

Presidents are free to advocate for. But they are not free (well . . . Progressives think they are) to step outside their constitutional power and act in place of a state's power. And if Bloomington tool and die discovers that it can more profitably move to Mexico if it doesn't get the same incentives as carrier gets, then Indiana will have to give them the incentives to stay if it wants them to stay.

He has been claiming he helped keep 800 (he claims 1,000 which is incorrect) jobs in Ind. If he didn't have any part in this why was he there claiming he did?

Everyone IS saying he had a part in it. But the only part that he can financially implement is the incentives he is promising for all businesses. He can advocate that the State do its legally financial share and added to that will be the Federal financial share. Why is that so hard to understand?

Ind. in fact is the party who put up the $. Funny, manuf. can't stay in the crappy, liberal Conn. but for some reason can't make it in the conservative utopia of Ind. either.

Indiana did not give any money to Carrier. It didn't loan it any money. It did not bail it out. It is not semantics to say that reducing taxes and regulations is not giving money. It is semantics to say that it is giving (putting up) money.

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Indiana did not give any money to Carrier. It didn't loan it any money. It did not bail it out. It is not semantics to say that reducing taxes and regulations is not giving money. It is semantics to say that it is giving (putting up) money.

I tried. This the point where I would say nice meeting you but I have to go talk to some other guests.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It was done to keep that business unit solvent.

No. It was done to keep it in place. Otherwise it was going to be solvent in Mexico. Solvency was not an issue. Keeping it in Indiana was the issue.

W/o that incentive (or whatever you want to call it) that business unit would not have been able to survive in Ind.

It would have been able to survive there but at a less attractive tax structure.

Lending $ to an auto manuf. so they can retool and bc more efficient is basically the same as lowering someone's taxes so their cost structure is lower.

No it is not the same. And it shouldn't be done by the same agent. Businesses should be borrowing from the private sector financial agents, not from government. Making the government a loan agency puts the private agencies in danger of being "insolvent."

But even if government is the loan agent, it is not the same as lowering taxes. Taxes are more permanent and compulsory, while loans are more temporary and voluntary as well as negotiable.

And tax incentives attract businesses to states who give them, and government is the sole agent of taxation. Loans are not a useful, actually a precarious, tool to attract business. They can, and should, be transacted with the various private agents who have less power over business than government has with its ability to permanently regulate and levy taxes.

W/o the incentive the financials would have made no sense to stay in Ind and thus the jobs would have eventually gone away (according to Carrier).

Exactly why it made sense to offer Carrier incentives to stay. Both at the state and federal levels.

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.

Well, those jobs can't be shipped to Mexico. So they don't need any incentives to stay here.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I tried. This the point where I would say nice meeting you but I have to go talk to some other guests.

Nice talking to ya. Have fun with your guests.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It was done to keep that business unit solvent. W/o that incentive (or whatever you want to call it) that business unit would not have been able to survive in Ind. Lending $ to an auto manuf. so they can retool and bc more efficient is basically the same as lowering someone's taxes so their cost structure is lower. W/o the incentive the financials would have made no sense to stay in Ind and thus the jobs would have eventually gone away (according to Carrier).

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.

I don't see Carrier's situation as even remotely comparable with that of the auto companies, or AIG, which were on the brink of ruin.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Indiana did not give any money to Carrier. It didn't loan it any money. It did not bail it out. It is not semantics to say that reducing taxes and regulations is not giving money. It is semantics to say that it is giving (putting up) money.

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.

"Carrier can make it easier in Indiana than it can in Connecticut. "

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's an either/or, not that one negates the other.

Correct, both are designed to make it more expensive to move the jobs, and less expensive to stay in Indiana.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Carrier can make it easier in Indiana than it can in Connecticut. "

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.

Yeah, but he's an evil, crass, liar who preys on people's fear and ignorance. That's what really counts.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't see Carrier's situation as even remotely comparable with that of the auto companies, or AIG, which were on the brink of ruin.AIG was partly about the # of jobs but more about the cascading effect it would have on our economy bc of the credit default swaps. I believe it is comparable so we would end up going round and around all day. As an aside, I used to work w/a company who occasionally did business with entities where AIG was also involved. The ees where always very arrogant and condesending. There would be people from 10 companies there and no one liked the AIG folks.

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.Totally agree and if anyone isn't flexible enough to adapt is going to be in trouble.

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.Totally agree and I don't like it when funding for our tech schools gets lowered.

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.

Agree that any stupid spending should be cut.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, but he's an evil, crass, liar who preys on people's fear and ignorance. That's what really counts.

Of course, it would be nice to have a conservative in there who was also a nice person. We tried that in 08 and 12, and it didn't work.

Integrity wasn't on the ballot this year, not on either side...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Agree that any stupid spending should be cut.

"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.

[Fishpart]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

QUOTE=Jim in CT;1113101]

[COLOR="Blue"]I am still baffled by the idea that not taking earned money from business is giving money to it. I am comfortable with labeling as corporate welfare the government "investment" which actually gives or loans money to business when that business does not have or has not earned that money.

Do we say that when government lowers the tax rate for the employees of business, the "workers," that it is putting them on welfare?

great isn't it...reducing taxes...which allow one to keep some more of the THEIR OWN EARNED money = giving them welfare...

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"

[wdmso]

Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America

BIGGEST LIE EVER

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America

BIGGEST LIE EVER

It's just another way of expanding on trickle down economics, which I think we all know does not work as well as trickle up economics
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It's just another way of expanding on trickle down economics, which I think we all know does not work as well as trickle up economics
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Trickle down economics" is a term meant to debunk what is not actually trickle down. Mostly the phrase is meant to make Reagan's economic policies sound elitist, a disparaging of the poor or middle classes who must depend on the rich to "trickle down" portions of their wealth in order for the underclasses to survive. But, in reality, Reagan's lowering of taxes and loosening of regulations was not only about wealth distribution, if at all, but was meant to allow more freedom for all classes to thrive by their own initiative. It was, basically, about more personal freedom and less government. And it did work.

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.

[wdmso]

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..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America

BIGGEST LIE EVER

Bill Clinton signed major capital gains tax cuts into law. The economy took off like a rocket.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Cutting corporate tax rate reducing regulation will Equal increase Jobs in America

BIGGEST LIE EVER

Remember that post. Because Trump is very likely to slash corporate income taxes, very early on. If it does nothing, I will admit I was wrong. If companies start growing, will you admit you were wrong? Or will you claim it was because of something Obama did, which took awhile to take effect?

[Nebe]

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

[wdmso]

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

[wdmso]

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.

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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 does not contradict Jim's reason companies physically move elsewhere. The reason they do so, as Jim stated, IS to lower the cost of production.

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.

[scottw]

Inversion could also describe the democrats sudden embracing of conservative principles as it relates to all things Trump

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

this has been a pattern throughout the campaign if you've been paying attention.....

sorry....just don't share your outrage I guess....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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..

if Obama did this he'd be "brilliant", "courageous", "forward thinking"......

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