By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 01 December 2016
Edit Thread
irstupid said:
Soundwave said:

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".

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. 

Well as I mentioned above, I have nothing against tax breaks.

Well I don' like them called tax breaks. I just feel taxes on companies should be lower. It woudl keep companies in the U.S., and may bring some back. As I said, the employees income will get taxed. The employed americans spend their money. And also they are not on unimployment.

Take those 1,000 employees. How much do you think taxpayers would be paying to support them on unemployment? I woudl bet more than $700,000.  They could hardly survive on 700 a year. Then think of local businesses, such a restuarants. People with a job are more likely to go out and eat than those looking and worrying about their finances. So 1,000 people losing a job may mean a restuarant or two also goes under. But lets ignore all those situations and just look at the flat income tax. Those 1,000 employees lets say make a modest $35,000 a year. At 35,000 a year with Indiana's tax rate of 3.3 That equates to each of those employees paying 1,155 in taxes. So $455 more dollars paid in that the tax break.

No matter how you try and spin it, I can't see how this is not financially a win all around. If anything the company is the one losing out still, cause they probably could save more money using cheap labor in mexico and cheaper taxes, ect. Obviously a big start up cost moving, but in time it would be better from profits still.

Is it a financial win for the 1000+ people who are still losing their jobs? 

This is a net job loss, I think people need to understand that, you're still losing jobs here. This is like thinking you're winning a basketball game because you only got outscored by 15 points that last quarter instead of 25 the quarter before. 

This is a company that the US gov't also had considerable leverage over as I've mentioned, companies that don't have $5 billion in defence contracts with the US gov't (which like 99% of them) can just tell Trump to go blow himself. This is the best deal he could get in a situation where a lot of things were going his way, it's a poor deal on that basis. 

$5 billion in defence contracts should at least get you 2000 jobs saved, that's a drop in the bucket, if you can't even get that many that's a problem because it shows he's likely impotent against companies that aren't really tied heavily to US gov't spending. Carrier's parent company is heavily tied to the gov't and this is the best they could do? To me it's a shitty deal, it should've been all 2000 stay or no dice, you're making billions off taxpayer funded government contracts the least you can do is keep this small number of jobs here. 

If this is how he plans to negotiate, it's not going to stop a net job loss. Carrier made out very nicely here. Got to move 1000+ jobs to Mexico, got a nice tax break (no tarrifs), and a nice PR photo op for them.