Obama the village idiot

[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.

[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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Semantics. looks to me like those 800 jobs are being bailed out. The auto manuf. paid back what they were lent.

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.

The auto companies were not in the process of relocating to another country. And many "conservatives" were against the TARP bailout. Even Mitt Romney argued that the auto companies should go through the private bankruptcy process instead of the government giving them corporate "welfare."

The government incentives given to Carrier did not cost the government money, it saved the government some money that it would have lost if all the jobs were deported.

If the auto companies had gone through bankruptcy (which they basically did except with government financing) there would not have been government picking winners and losers. If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business, the other car manufacturers would have provided the cars that the public needed. They would probably have had to expand and hire more workers.

As it was, the old GM and Chrysler did essentially go out of business under government restructuring and became the new and different GM and Chrysler.

And, as a minor point, it is debatable whether the companies actually paid back all the money. But whether they did or not, is beside the point. The point is should our government be in the business of bailing out business. And if it should, should it choose which businesses to bail out while leaving others to fail. Many, many businesses fail in this country every year. Only a very select few have the government bail them out as it did with the auto companies. The real threat of government control of private industry when it "saves" business, especially selected business, is a facilitator of the cronyism between big business and big government that we see growing today.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

You deny that companies move overseas because it's cheaper?

Please, tell me why companies move manufacturing out of the country? Because it's more expensive?

"Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas"

So what happened to all the manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the last 30 years? Are all the workers still in the US, hiding somewhere?

What was going to happen if Carrier moved all those jobs to Mexico?

God Almighty, anything to avoid admitting I am correct about anything.

Put down the Kool Aid and think for two seconds...

[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....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by 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....

A bail out that is paid back and a Tax deal that requires no re payment

How are they the Same ?? and if Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

their awful silent in there opposition

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

A bail out that is paid back and a Tax deal that requires no re payment

How are they the Same ?? and if Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

their awful silent in there opposition

Paul insisted there was no difference...ask him

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

"Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers."

Exactly. 5 years ago, my insurance company moved its "headquarters" to Bermuda. We rent a tiny, tiny office, and they have a Board Of Directors meeting there once a year, to prove that it is really the HQ. Even though the office is vacant 51 weeks out of the year.

That saves us a few million each year in taxes. Much of which was used to grow the company, meaning more people have good, white collar jobs, with which they pay mortgages and put their kids through college.

[wdmso]

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulation and Inversions all combined to see these companys leave

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

You focused on one thing, inversions, and disregarded production. I guess it's ok when you do it. Actually, I focused on both being methods of evading costs. And both can be addressed by changing our government regulations and tax structure, as well as wage contracts--all which, as they are now, make it significantly cheaper to move either production or tax liability elsewere.

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulations and inversions all combined to see these companys leave.

That's basically what I said, but not in as a demeaning manner as you.

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

In the global economy, they made profits worldwide. Why should they only satisfy the greed of the U.S.government and of American workers (to use the same demeaning rhetoric you use)?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulation and Inversions all combined to see these companys leave

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

The CT budget is tanking because of stupid spending. We have high tax rates applied to very high incomes. Add to that, hundreds of millions a year from the casinos. That's more than enough.

Yes, you are right about why companies leave. Companies exist to make money. Do you not make decisions based on your financial self-interest?

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay, and less attractive for them to leave. Do that, and more will stay.

I presume you have never worked for a business that ever had to balance revenue with expenses.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The CT budget is tanking because of stupid spending. We have high tax rates applied to very high incomes. Add to that, hundreds of millions a year from the casinos. That's more than enough.

Yes, you are right about why companies leave. Companies exist to make money. Do you not make decisions based on your financial self-interest?

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay, and less attractive for them to leave. Do that, and more will stay.

I presume you have never worked for a business that ever had to balance revenue with expenses.

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay..

By basically giving them what ever they want ? maximizing their profits by diminishing their Tax responsibilities reducing their regulation . pass the risk to the tax payer . to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset .. not my idea of the Big picture .. I get it greed is good ... 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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers."

Exactly. 5 years ago, my insurance company moved its "headquarters" to Bermuda. We rent a tiny, tiny office, and they have a Board Of Directors meeting there once a year, to prove that it is really the HQ. Even though the office is vacant 51 weeks out of the year.

That saves us a few million each year in taxes. Much of which was used to grow the company, meaning more people have good, white collar jobs, with which they pay mortgages and put their kids through college.

ok keep drinking that Kool aid. and you just answered why Conn budget it off ... your company bailed to not pay its taxes Sweet

[detbuch]

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."