what will you do if trump becomes president?

Well, a lot of other companies DO follow what you outlined there. Even the very large ones that are part of the Dow Indez or the S&P. It is just that many are NOT recognized for it. However, I dare say that if your company did not turn in a profit, it would cease to exist.

 

Non-profit does not mean we don't turn a profit. It just means the corporate owners can't receive a profit. The profit is all distributed towards operation, employees, and charities. Come on Barry, don't be a moron.

I don't agree with you that there are a lot operating in this way. There are a few, but you will have a difficult time finding many of the largest companies on this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundations
BTW, we are the only company in the automotive industry that is part of the list.

 

socialism=failure=ruin

 

Margaret Thatcher's words are never more true: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

 

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

 

Is your company US based? Non-Profit is a different story....no need to move to another country if operating as non profit. And for many manufacturers, labor cost is very important I agree with that but taxes, for "For Profit" entities in the US versus abroad is an issue no?

 

She certainly had a way with words that are accurate.

 

Oh the irony of a socialist going non profit so he can keep all of his profits for his employees, community....

 

First you quote Maggie Thatcher, and here you paraphrase Alex De Toqueville.
You may be more like me than you want to admit...lol.

 

post 80 times in 5 years = thrown your **** in da wata

 

Not really. Our charities cover all races, creeds, and regions. At the time the company was started, global business was not really a thing. When democratic socialism was born, it was on a state level. Obviously, that has morphed into a larger scale concept. I don't see the irony in wanting your profit distributed amongst the people.

 

My company is operates as a non-profit in both countries, but our headquarters is in EU. But the American for profit manufacturers are following our same trend. Thus the amount of US companies currently manufacturing in Mexico. It's all about the labor. Operating cost is the biggest deciding factor in my industry.

 

We don't have that problem in the US. We were a democratic republic that has moved towards oligarchy.

 

No problem Brew....I like the model. Let the people decide how to spend the money...not a centralized government. Conceptually, I think it's great.

 

Regardless of where you are domiciled, you would still prioritize operating cost to "make a profit". This convo is going full circle. If domiciled in US, in addition to addressing labor cost you would be contending with taxes (for for profit companies). Hence, the exodus to be domiciled in other countries. Anyone can operate from any country (probably any) and get cheap labor in Mexico.

 

You have to pay tax on profit in all EU countries as well. It doesn't determine where we sow our roots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe

The european mindset has never been to move the corporation based on taxes. I am not sure if you could call it nationalism, but it is to a point. If you are an Italian or a German company, you will not be uprooting to save 5-10% on taxes. You will never see a return, versus the investment required to move. That is my point. In the manufacturing world, labor rate is the biggest deciding factor. America has the same principles, which is why you will never see GM/Ford move to another low tax company. They will expand manufacturing to save on labor costs. The parent company will stay in the same place. Cheap "third world" labor is the biggest threat to American workers. This is why I don't believe lowering corporate taxes will do much good. It still won't reduce the gap between US labor rates and the rates in China/India.
As I said before, investment and holding companies are the only ones that purposely move to avoid taxes. It is simple for them, and beneficial. I can see this being affected by a reduce in taxes. However, these companies aren't employing hundreds of thousands of Americans, as we see in the manufacturing sector.

 

all i know is every country in europe and also canada pays roughly the same, maybe a bit more, taxes as us (they pay about 40-60 percent, and we pay like 20-30% and I paid over 40% of my income to the gov who pays my salary go figure) and they get free GOOD healthcare, and free GOOD education up to the graduate school level and have a better standard of living, and better social support network.

All we get is crappy obama care that doesnt work AT ALL, cops shooting the youths in the street, wars for no reason, and student loans upon student loans for subpar education

How the **** does that make sense? Either lower our taxes and give us less, or give us more and keep our taxes the same. WE got a liberal taxing scheme with conservative social saftey net, it just dont make sense

 

Quote # 1 WRONG!!! It is NOT FREE; as you mentioned, you pay for it in HIGHER TAXES....forever!!
Quote #2 Agree---one or the other. But with the present moron in the prez, wanting to pay for THE WHOLE WORLD (invite them here!!), he wants you to pay MUCH higher taxes, but you, as THE working man, get NOTHING in return, other than turning him into such a nice philanthropist with YOUR money, not his. He is such a nice man, isn't he??

btw...bar non, our grad schools are MUCH better than theirs. Our undergrad schools, on the other hand, not as good as "theirs". (we accept morons that cannot read or write; they don't.)

 

Our undergrad science programs are pretty damn good, but the rest of the programs are a joke. Even then, if you aren't in an accredited university, you might as well wipe your ass with that science degree. The main difference, is that students are better prepped for college in the EU. In the US, K-12 programs just don't don't build the right basis. I was a straight A student in HS. I could basically sleep through classes and still get excellent grades. The first year in college was a rude awakening for me.

 

Barry, you are right, nothing is free. But if you have had the opportunity and privilege to be well compensated for your hard work, and after that, you have more than you need- what is so wrong with sharing it with others who are more in need?

I know you all hate the big 'T' word, but the fact of the matter is, you need taxation to pay for infrastructure, otherwise our 'free' market cannot function. You can't ship products without a road. And don't gimme any of that anti-federal-tax bullsh*t- the interstate highway system facilitated massive market access in the U.S., it has been nothing but a massive boon for our economy, and is a major reason we got ahead of Europe in the last century (economically).

Point being, Capitalistic economic success is impossible without a certain degree of taxation. You need to facilitate certain structural elements in order to have a competitive economy. Now- this goes beyond mere roads. Obviously it is economically beneficial that we have a skilled, educated, and healthy citizenry- otherwise we will be out-competed by nations who surpass us in these metrics. There is no denying that.

That being said, without taxation, how do you propose that we catch up to other countries, who have more efficient education and health systems?

People get so caught up in their ideological boundaries that they forget that this is an attainable goal. They just go back and forth with the same he said/she said socialist/capitalist bull****.

I don't care if you do it by tax, by closing corporate loopholes, or even by making more money off of public lands/goods and using it to give citizens a basic income, so that they can all access quality education and healthcare, in an otherwise prohibitively expensive and inefficient system. I don't care if we fast-track certain kids into carpentry and others into engineering. I don't care how it's done, but it needs to be done. And I don't care who becomes president, as long as they have a good, new approach to this.

So how would you do it? If you're against taxation, how do you do it, and how do you make your plan work within our political infrastructure? If you don't have an answer for this, then SHUT THE F*CK UP