By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Ford Cancels Plans To Move US Factory To Mexico Due To Trump ... (Hint: China)

konnichiwa on 21 June 2017
WolfpackN64 said:
Aeolus451 said:

Morals huh? You're talking about stealing money from companies because they moved jobs to a difference area to lower their costs. The best way that works for everyone is to incentivize companies into moving their jobs to the states. 

It's not stealing money, it demanding just compensation for leaving many people who created value for the company unemployed. The incentivize system has thouroughly failed. Every state is bidding against each other in lowering business taxes to get big companies to go to their country and it's slowly destroying public funding. You know who usually have to pay for lowered corporate taxes? The regular taxpayers, but usually in thousands of different fees so you don't get the idea you directly pay more taxes. In Belgium, they lowered corporate tax from 33% to 25% (which is still a fair tax), but left myriad of backdoor large companies can exploit, while giving them cuts on social costs (which is very unfair towards smaller business owners). Meanwhile, our VAT is at 21%, 21%!!!! Taxes on electricity and water have gun up substantially.

We need to draw a line. Large companies have to learn to pay their damn taxes and as long as they're profitable, stay put. It's fair towards regular taxpayers and smaller companies who can't use any of the basically state subsidies large companies get.

I am sorry, I am partially responsible because I work in Antwerp (Belgium) - Shanghai and have helped relocating some companies to China.
The problem with socialist countries as Belgium is simply that the Unions are so demanding that they hurt businesses and people's future.






Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 21 June 2017
konnichiwa said:
WolfpackN64 said:

It's not stealing money, it demanding just compensation for leaving many people who created value for the company unemployed. The incentivize system has thouroughly failed. Every state is bidding against each other in lowering business taxes to get big companies to go to their country and it's slowly destroying public funding. You know who usually have to pay for lowered corporate taxes? The regular taxpayers, but usually in thousands of different fees so you don't get the idea you directly pay more taxes. In Belgium, they lowered corporate tax from 33% to 25% (which is still a fair tax), but left myriad of backdoor large companies can exploit, while giving them cuts on social costs (which is very unfair towards smaller business owners). Meanwhile, our VAT is at 21%, 21%!!!! Taxes on electricity and water have gun up substantially.

We need to draw a line. Large companies have to learn to pay their damn taxes and as long as they're profitable, stay put. It's fair towards regular taxpayers and smaller companies who can't use any of the basically state subsidies large companies get.

I am sorry, I am partially responsible because I work in Antwerp (Belgium) - Shanghai and have helped relocating some companies to China.
The problem with socialist countries as Belgium is simply that the Unions are so demanding that they hurt businesses and people's future.

Belgium is not socialist, it's a capitalist mixed economy. The unions are demanding, but they're also usually right. Workers create the value for a company, thus the largest piece of the pie should go to them, that's just fair. Many companies who relocate are still profitable, and relocating then is simply immoral. The one's at fault here are not the unions.



Aeolus451 on 21 June 2017
WolfpackN64 said:
Aeolus451 said:

It's the choice of a government to subsidize and it depends on their agreement with the company. If a company breaks their agreement, pull any further funding. It's that simple.

If a company moves some of their production to another area, it doesn't give you the right to steal any of their money for whatever stupid reason you try to justify it. If you want them to bring their jobs back, incentivize it by reducing their costs of operating there however you can til you tilt the balance. That doesn't mean decrease their taxes but increase the cost of worker benefits  or up minium wage to where it negates the reduced taxes. It's simple math for the most part. How much does it cost to operate a 5000 employee factory in China compared to California or Ohio. If you can't decrease the costs enough to bring back jobs then they are gone til ya can. Again, you have no right to take any money from them that you didn't earn or because they're being a smart business. 

So your solution to bring companies back is to raise costs by increasing minimum wage or workers benifits? That seems very contradictory to your earlier statements. You're seriously defending the companies here and not the workers? If companies get state subsidies and decide to pull out, the state can recompense itself. And it can do so because the state has the monopoly on violence. I'm willing to go that far. Companies should have a bit of morals concerning their workers, if not, it should be enforced.

Did you not read what I wrote or were you unable to understand it? 

"If you want them to bring their jobs back, incentivize it by reducing their costs of operating there however you can til you tilt the balance. That doesn't mean decrease their taxes but increase the cost of worker benefits or up minium wage to where it negates the reduced taxes."

I'm defending what is right. Picking a side based on feelings or who is percieved as more of a victim is idiotic. Companies are owned by people too and they are entitled to what they earn with their company. If workers want jobs then the cost of their job to their employer can't negate the money the company would make with having that person as a employee. A company can't help it if a government keeps increasing it's costs to the point that the company can no longer operate within the borders of that country or area. It has no obligation to provide jobs or anything to anyone. It has no contract with the people because it was not elected by anyone to serve the people.  Companies are not branches of the government. It's up to the government to create and sustain an stable environment so that businesses can operate, provide services and make money in exchange for those services. People are employed in this way.  

In regards to subsidies. It depends entirely on what was agreed upon between the government and company. It's extremely situational and I disagree with the idea that a government should use force to make a company to do anything. You know what happens when a country tries to strongarm or force a company to do anything, it pulls out. Just look at what's happening in Venezuela. 



Aeolus451 on 21 June 2017
konnichiwa said:
WolfpackN64 said:

It's not stealing money, it demanding just compensation for leaving many people who created value for the company unemployed. The incentivize system has thouroughly failed. Every state is bidding against each other in lowering business taxes to get big companies to go to their country and it's slowly destroying public funding. You know who usually have to pay for lowered corporate taxes? The regular taxpayers, but usually in thousands of different fees so you don't get the idea you directly pay more taxes. In Belgium, they lowered corporate tax from 33% to 25% (which is still a fair tax), but left myriad of backdoor large companies can exploit, while giving them cuts on social costs (which is very unfair towards smaller business owners). Meanwhile, our VAT is at 21%, 21%!!!! Taxes on electricity and water have gun up substantially.

We need to draw a line. Large companies have to learn to pay their damn taxes and as long as they're profitable, stay put. It's fair towards regular taxpayers and smaller companies who can't use any of the basically state subsidies large companies get.

I am sorry, I am partially responsible because I work in Antwerp (Belgium) - Shanghai and have helped relocating some companies to China.
The problem with socialist countries as Belgium is simply that the Unions are so demanding that they hurt businesses and people's future.

Exactly. Venezuela is best of example of that. 



d21lewis on 21 June 2017

It's pronounced "gina".



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 21 June 2017
Aeolus451 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

So your solution to bring companies back is to raise costs by increasing minimum wage or workers benifits? That seems very contradictory to your earlier statements. You're seriously defending the companies here and not the workers? If companies get state subsidies and decide to pull out, the state can recompense itself. And it can do so because the state has the monopoly on violence. I'm willing to go that far. Companies should have a bit of morals concerning their workers, if not, it should be enforced.

Did you not read what I wrote or were you unable to understand it? 

"If you want them to bring their jobs back, incentivize it by reducing their costs of operating there however you can til you tilt the balance. That doesn't mean decrease their taxes but increase the cost of worker benefits or up minium wage to where it negates the reduced taxes."

I'm defending what is right. Picking a side based on feelings or who is percieved as more of a victim is idiotic. Companies are owned by people too and they are entitled to what they earn with their company. If workers want jobs then the cost of their job to their employer can't negate the money the company would make with having that person as a employee. A company can't help it if a government keeps increasing it's costs to the point that the company can no longer operate within the borders of that country or area. It has no obligation to provide jobs or anything to anyone. It has no contract with the people because it was not elected by anyone to serve the people.  Companies are not branches of the government. It's up to the government to create and sustain an stable environment so that businesses can operate, provide services and make money in exchange for those services. People are employed in this way.  

In regards to subsidies. It depends entirely on what was agreed upon between the government and company. It's extremely situational and I disagree with the idea that a government should use force to make a company to do anything. You know what happens when a country tries to strongarm or force a company to do anything, it pulls out. Just look at what's happening in Venezuela. 

Oh please, costs for companies have been going down worldwide since the 1980's. Campanies are playing nations against each other to get the best bargain price on their taxes. I've been hammering the point for COMPANIES WHO MAKE PROFIT. Companies that turn losses obviously need to cut somewhere. Indeed the goverment must regulate, but the competition between the countries must stop. This downward spiral is ruining public finances and you have come up with NO solutions except to carry on towards economic ruin. Of course the government shouldn't strongarm companies when it's not necessary, but companies are always in a lower position then the state. If a few companies need to be disowed because they broke their contracts, so be it.

Ford once recieved several million euros in Belgium for them to upgrade their factory. That was a made deal. One year later, Ford packed it's coffers and left abroad. In this case, the state has every right to seize assets since Ford basically stole public money while under contract.

And please, Venezuela is a poor example. Venezuela has a structural economic trade problem, not a problem caused by unionism.

Provide a decent solution, then I'd listen.



RJ_Sizzle on 21 June 2017
Teeqoz said:
Lol, pretty soon, manufacturing jobs won't exist in any country (except for some very few). And I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

Everything will be automated, and one day, the robots will wonder why they are the servants instead of the masters. Westworld is an inevitablity. 



JRPGfan on 21 June 2017
Ganoncrotch said:
Mystro-Sama said:
Whats the difference if its going to China instead of Mexico? Americans still won't get the jobs right?

The difference is now they might not have the money to build the wall :(

^^ this legit made me LOL.



konnichiwa on 21 June 2017
RJ_Sizzle said:
Teeqoz said:
Lol, pretty soon, manufacturing jobs won't exist in any country (except for some very few). And I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

Everything will be automated, and one day, the robots will wonder why they are the servants instead of the masters. Westworld is an inevitablity. 

Don't worry people will vote for a president to deport those robots and promise to Build a firewall.






JRPGfan on 21 June 2017
Teeqoz said:
Lol, pretty soon, manufacturing jobs won't exist in any country (except for some very few). And I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

What do you think is more likely...

A) future where wealth is redistributed, so that these machines that do the work, means everyone on the planet gets all they need.

B) future where a few companys own all the wealth, machines do all work, but they have almost no one to sell their stuff too. Money losses value, and we revert back to trade X for Y ect (where only companys can really trade one another). The humans that arnt part of that elite group, will have to learn to live off of the land/sea.