Donald Trump potus 2016

and still move 700 jobs from another Indiana plant to Mexico.

Seems a little sketchy:

save 700 jobs in the Indianapolis plant
get $7 million tax break
Move 700 jobs from the Huntington plan to Mexico in 2018.

OK

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/plant-workers-still-losing-their-jobs-tell-trump-don-t-n690981

 

and if obama did you would be praising the lord on high right?

 

Not sure what you mean but I'm not an Obama supporter. I just get skeptical about these kinds of tax deals, especially when the same company's plant next town over is moving the same number of jobs to Mexico next year as the plant whose jobs were "saved" this year.

Its very well might be all on the up and up, but i guess i'm just a skeptic when it come to tax breaks that are so targeted to one plant owned by a company that owns many. I'm more in favor of the gov just getting out of the way across the board - the track record of the federal government is that when they intervene in business they frequently just make things worse.

 

so the net is 700 (i think the real number is 1100) jobs that stay put. from a strategic point of view i like what im seeing. if you stay we will work with you to overcome obstacles like enviro regs, modernization, training etc, but if you leave we raise your tax rate.

 

It's a negotiation, both sides had to give a little to lessen the impact. By doing this, a minimum of 1,100 jobs are being saved, and he said that number will grow, but gotta start somewhere. Wasn't able to save all the jobs but it's better than being rigid and having an all or nothing mentality that results in nothing gained.

 

Scotty, not sure if you saw this post by Archy or not.

 

I did. if it were that simple, then assessing the effects of these kinds of tax deals would be easy. But it isn't.

I tend to trust that more jobs will be created ultimately by free markets than by government economic intervention:

Here's another view along those lines:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trumps-carrier-deal-isnt-the-way-to-save-u-s-jobs/

 

I don't think the plan is to make the same or similar deal with every company in America personally. I think that this was a move to set the tone. It lets people know how committed he is to keeping jobs here. It's a short term fix but the longer term solution is getting those penalties in place to make it more profitable to stay. Once that happens he shouldn't have to step in and do this with companies, because it'll make business sense to stay here. Business owners are going to do whatever is better for the bottom line, period.

 

But isn't the result of this going to be the rise in price of the cost of goods?

 

Not sure why it would. If it's more profitable to stay here, I would think costs would stay low, no? Plus more local competition could drive prices down.

 

most likely the incentives are designed to keep that down.

 

Yeah that's what the people opposed to the trump plan argue. The tariffs that Trump is threatening on imported goods, and the higher tax rates for companies that move overseas or expand existing overseas operations will raise prices on goods...goods that we all use. Even the companies like Carrier who keep jobs here, buy a lot of their raw materials and parts from overseas suppliers that will now be subject to tariffs. There are def arguments to be made on both side of that argument.

 

I think that's what the lowering of the corporate tax is for. It puts more money back into the companies so that they can afford to stay in the US and pay their employees a decent wage and provide goods / services at an affordable rate to the community. That's the intent I believe.

 

He is not saying he's going to make it cheaper to stay here than it is to go overseas.. He's saying he's going to impose a tax making it more expensive if you do go overseas...

If your making a widget in China (right now) for $100, because it costs $130 to make in the US,then he is saying he is going to tax you so the cost is $135 China... Now you will make it in the US because it is no longer cost effective to make it in China.
That $30 raise in cost is going to be passed on to the consumer, no?

 

My above post about lowering the corp. tax addresses that. I believe it's to balance out with incentive. You can't just have a penalty for doing the wrong thing with no incentive for doing the right thing, so business owners will take a look at the overall bottom line after all the changes are said and done and see that they are better off this way.

 

I just read that Carrier had already planned a 5% increase on their prices effective Jan. 1, but they say it's unrelated to the plant deal.

 

Hey Sig (and anybody else), what do you think about the new Amazon Go stores?

"New York Post calls Amazon's new supermarket experiment 'the end of jobs"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/548bac1a-bc07-3489-a8a5-dd66be0c7aef/new-york-post-calls.html

 

In case you missed it yesterday...

[video=youtube;H6sEao3hx-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6sEao3hx-Y[/video]

 

fk donald and hill and polyticks.

 

Don't tell anybody but only about 730 jobs will be 'saved' in Indiana. I'm getting credit for 'saving' more than 1100. But who's counting?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/unio...ed-730-factory-jobs-not-more-than-a-thousand/