irstupid said:
Well to plays devil's advocate to your point. 1. Pretty sure I heard reports that he saved 1,000 not 900. Also it was 1000 out of 1700 or something. LIke 400 of them were moving regardless for some reason. I feel ike there were two locations or something. It was really only 1700 that had a chance of being saved at all. 2. I don't see tax breaks as a bad thing. Reports say it's something like 700,000 in tax breaks for the company Okay. Well that is what. 700 per job saved? I feel like those 1000 people will each be paying at least 700 in taxes from their wages for that year. You know income tax, that they can't pay if they don't have an income. Also how much would it cost to have those 1000 people on unimployment? So from just those employees alone Indiana shoudl get its money back, not to mention the business's that won't see a major hit by having a ton of people jobless. You know all the other local busineses that get business from those 1000 workers who still have jobs. But I'm guessing that is too close to the dreaded philosophy of "trickle down economics" for most people to accept. Also lastly we don't know if he might not end up putting tarifs on all companies anyway. I mean, where do all teh businesses go anyway. They go to countries with tax benefits. It's obvious that to bring them back or keep them, we need to do the same. Say all you want about some evil organization, but they do what's best for their shareholders. You will have a hard time convincing me that if you (you is not directed at you, but everyone) owned a business and that moving it outside the coutnry would double or triple your profits, you woudl not do it. And if you say that you wouldn't, then I sure as heck don't want to see a single piece of electronics you use that is a huge thing in this, such as APPLE. You know the company that pays no taxes and has billions sitting over in Europe. That uses Foxconn, the most horrendous company in the world to make all their products. |
This isn't what he said on the campaign trail though, lol. "Being moved for some reason" isn't really a comfort to people who losing those jobs.
They are moving more than half of 2100 jobs to Mexico and are getting tax breaks/incentives to keep under 50% of those positions.
Let me ask you then, if this is the precident, what stops every other company from saying "we're moving to Mexico, now give us tax breaks". That's one problem, I bet many companies are today looking at that deal and saying "hey how can we get in on that, why does Carrier get tax incentives and we don't?". Understand this is how companies think.
This is not what he promised, he said any of these companies that moved to Mexico would face 35% tariff for doing so. Instead they are getting a tax break, a PR photo op, and still being allowed to move more than 50% of these jobs.
Quite frankly too if he can't even save 50%+ of jobs with having $5 billion in defence contracts in leverage ... how good of a deal is he going to score with companies (the majority of which) don't have such lucrative deals with the government? He had all the leverage in the world here, to me it's not really a great deal.
