(12-06-2016 12:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

This changes the rules for everyone?

So any company who threatens to leave the United States will be given 7 million dollars incentives?

Where do they sign up?

Pretty sure most state/localities will do a cost/benefit analysis. If given up 7 million dollar in incentives equates to greater than 7 million in benefits, then it's the right move. If not, it's just bad financial management to proceed with the incentives.

I agree. I have no problem with government offering incentives to companies I'm just not getting how this jives with the conservative point of view where they don't want government involved in private industry.

(12-06-2016 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

This changes the rules for everyone?

So any company who threatens to leave the United States will be given 7 million dollars incentives?

Where do they sign up?

Pretty sure most state/localities will do a cost/benefit analysis. If given up 7 million dollar in incentives equates to greater than 7 million in benefits, then it's the right move. If not, it's just bad financial management to proceed with the incentives.

I agree. I have no problem with government offering incentives to companies I'm just not getting how this jives with the conservative point of view where they don't want government involved in private industry.

Not all conservatives are lockstep on this. Some think that incentives overstep the governments role while some think they are necessary to create a climate for the free market to succeed.

Giving a baseball team millions of dollars to build a stadium is a tough sell when your schools are falling apart.

Giving a company some tax breaks in order to keep jobs is much easier

(12-06-2016 01:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

This changes the rules for everyone?

So any company who threatens to leave the United States will be given 7 million dollars incentives?

Where do they sign up?

Pretty sure most state/localities will do a cost/benefit analysis. If given up 7 million dollar in incentives equates to greater than 7 million in benefits, then it's the right move. If not, it's just bad financial management to proceed with the incentives.

I agree. I have no problem with government offering incentives to companies I'm just not getting how this jives with the conservative point of view where they don't want government involved in private industry.

Not all conservatives are lockstep on this. Some think that incentives overstep the governments role while some think they are necessary to create a climate for the free market to succeed.

Giving a baseball team millions of dollars to build a stadium is a tough sell when your schools are falling apart.

Giving a company some tax breaks in order to keep jobs is much easier

I hear what you are saying. Here locally, we tore down City Hall so that a private business owner could have a stadium built at tax payer expense.

I was totally against that.

Now they want to use eminent domain to build an indoor stadium.

Fit, even me with my third grade education knows that tax incentives keep the trains rolling. Here, in El Paso that new business golf venture and the 22 story hotel/apartment that will be built in the West Side were enticed by tax incentives. What did we gain? Heck, we won regardless because we'll have new jobs, new taxation from those jobs, something entertaining for our citizens, etc. What you lose in the business getting a break in taxes you gain in other things. It's that simple. Even I know that and I'm not "an" history teacher.

(12-06-2016 01:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, even me with my third grade education knows that tax incentives keep the trains rolling. Here, in El Paso that new business golf venture and the 22 story hotel/apartment that will be built in the West Side were enticed by tax incentives. What did we gain? Heck, we won regardless because we'll have new jobs, new taxation from those jobs, something entertaining for our citizens, etc. What you lose in the business getting a break in taxes you gain in other things. It's that simple. Even I know that and I'm not "an" history teacher.

It's good to see that some republicans see the benefit of governments and business working together for the benefit of the company and it's citizens.

When it is a win, win for both, I can support that. However, it isn't always that cut and dry.

For example, I do not like how the city promotes tax increases to improve tourism and such and then use the lion's share of that money on only one side of town.

(12-06-2016 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, even me with my third grade education knows that tax incentives keep the trains rolling. Here, in El Paso that new business golf venture and the 22 story hotel/apartment that will be built in the West Side were enticed by tax incentives. What did we gain? Heck, we won regardless because we'll have new jobs, new taxation from those jobs, something entertaining for our citizens, etc. What you lose in the business getting a break in taxes you gain in other things. It's that simple. Even I know that and I'm not "an" history teacher.

It's good to see that some republicans see the benefit of governments and business working together for the benefit of the company and it's citizens.

When it is a win, win for both, I can support that. However, it isn't always that cut and dry.

For example, I do not like how the city promotes tax increases to improve tourism and such and then use the lion's share of that money on only one side of town.

That is what you call muh sustainable growth, or muh transit oriented development, or muh urban planning, or muh LGBT outreach, or muh social engineering. Take your pick.

(12-06-2016 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, even me with my third grade education knows that tax incentives keep the trains rolling. Here, in El Paso that new business golf venture and the 22 story hotel/apartment that will be built in the West Side were enticed by tax incentives. What did we gain? Heck, we won regardless because we'll have new jobs, new taxation from those jobs, something entertaining for our citizens, etc. What you lose in the business getting a break in taxes you gain in other things. It's that simple. Even I know that and I'm not "an" history teacher.

It's good to see that some republicans see the benefit of governments and business working together for the benefit of the company and it's citizens.

When it is a win, win for both, I can support that. However, it isn't always that cut and dry.

For example, I do not like how the city promotes tax increases to improve tourism and such and then use the lion's share of that money on only one side of town.

No one does. But, we in El Paso keep electing this people (Democrats) and keep complaining about it. I'm at fault too as there aren't any Republicans and I have to vote for the best one I think will be fair.

You have to admit though, if it wasn't for those moneyed people we would continue lagging cities like the Liberal meccas of Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. At least the city as a whole is getting something as we can always travel to those spots and not have to go 600 miles for entertainment/luxury accommodations. We can always move too. It's not like we have cement shoes and have to be stuck somewhere we aren't happy about.

(12-06-2016 01:25 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, even me with my third grade education knows that tax incentives keep the trains rolling. Here, in El Paso that new business golf venture and the 22 story hotel/apartment that will be built in the West Side were enticed by tax incentives. What did we gain? Heck, we won regardless because we'll have new jobs, new taxation from those jobs, something entertaining for our citizens, etc. What you lose in the business getting a break in taxes you gain in other things. It's that simple. Even I know that and I'm not "an" history teacher.

It's good to see that some republicans see the benefit of governments and business working together for the benefit of the company and it's citizens.

When it is a win, win for both, I can support that. However, it isn't always that cut and dry.

For example, I do not like how the city promotes tax increases to improve tourism and such and then use the lion's share of that money on only one side of town.

No one does. But, we in El Paso keep electing this people (Democrats) and keep complaining about it. I'm at fault too as there aren't any Republicans and I have to vote for the best one I think will be fair.

You have to admit though, if it wasn't for those moneyed people we would continue lagging cities like the Liberal meccas of Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. At least the city as a whole is getting something as we can always travel to those spots and not have to go 600 miles for entertainment/luxury accommodations. We can always move too. It's not like we have cement shoes and have to be stuck somewhere we aren't happy about.

I hear what you are saying. I find it hard to support things like a stadium or light rail when I know it's only going to benefit the rich side of town.

(12-06-2016 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

This changes the rules for everyone?

So any company who threatens to leave the United States will be given 7 million dollars incentives?

Where do they sign up?

I was making two points... Perhaps I forgot you have trouble counting that high.

1 - regarding the tariff being proposed - That's a rule change for everyone
2 - regarding carrier - a tax break is not the same as giving cash

Is that simple enough for you?

(12-06-2016 01:35 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It should come as no surprise that not everyone is in lock step with Trump... but 'the people' apparently like the idea of making companies that leave pay some sort of price. Even Democrats. Tariffs is one way, consumption taxes are another; I'm sure there are more.

MAYBE the goal is to get Democrats and moderate Republicans to side against 'the far right'... since both Obama and Hillary (and Bernie iirc) spoke of somehow penalizing companies who shipped jobs overseas.

I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

This changes the rules for everyone?

So any company who threatens to leave the United States will be given 7 million dollars incentives?

Where do they sign up?

I was making two points... Perhaps I forgot you have trouble counting that high.

1 - regarding the tariff being proposed - That's a rule change for everyone
2 - regarding carrier - a tax break is not the same as giving cash

Is that simple enough for you?

You might not see it as the same but I do.

It's still the tax payer's money whether you give it to them up front or defer it with tax breaks.

They use "quality of life" to entice us to vote for stuff that sometimes (not all the time) prove to be white elephants. Yes, like the tram being built going from downtown to UTEP. It was built as a tourist attraction but "really?" how many tourists are likely to use it? Perhaps the ones that are staying at that motel close to UTEP and Mexican students attending the school. Otherwise I don't see people flocking to jump on the Tram Wagon. One aspect of that "tranvia" is that it will be going up and down very steep areas and I'm wondering if that won't cause a problem like sliding and not being able to reach the top or rushing down without being able to slow. Most trains that maneuver through steep grades often use "cog wheels" and I don't think ours will have those. Another boondoggle.

(12-05-2016 02:24 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  IMO McCarthy is right. A trade war would almost certainly cause a recession.

Then this is the perfect plan for Mr ***** grabber.

What's with this, and another 'why do conservatives believe....' something most conservatives don't believe thread??

NEVER have i seen meaningful portions of 'the right' say that taxes don't influence corporate behavior, and that what you tax you get less of and what you subsidize you get more of.

That statement is ONCE AGAIN false on its face (that this is inconsistent with what Republicans believe).

The reason it's flawed is that even the most 'anti-government' among us would agree that NOT taking corporate taxes is the goal, and not merely 'not taking them from THIS corporation'.

IOW, it's not a subsidy if you don't tax someone. It's only a subsidy if you give them money that you've taxed someone else to collect. If a state (or the feds) feels that it is smarter to take less or even zero from a company in order to not lose jobs and thus take less or even zero from all the people who work for that company as well, and in fact have to SUPPORT many of them, then that's a smart business decision and not in any way a violation of 'conservative' principles.


These threads are stupid.... and WE are stupid if we keep buying into them.

(12-06-2016 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:35 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I was making two points... Perhaps I forgot you have trouble counting that high.

1 - regarding the tariff being proposed - That's a rule change for everyone
2 - regarding carrier - a tax break is not the same as giving cash

Is that simple enough for you?

You might not see it as the same but I do.

It's still the tax payer's money whether you give it to them up front or defer it with tax breaks.

See that's because you believe all money belongs to the governemnt and they just let you keep some. I believe all money belongs to you until the government takes it.

So a tax break is not "taking the tax payers money" but the Solyndra loans where.

Im not in favor of Tariffs unless it becomes a situation where we KNOW a trading partner is delving in trying to destroy our economy with unfair practices. China has shown some signs of this. I think the threat alone might calm them down. I think the last thing the Chinese want is for us to slap a tariff on their goods.

Id much rather see us improve the business climate in the US and make our companies more competitive than engage in trade war tactics. I can see however there could be perfectly legitimate reason to do so as a last resort. Regardless...35% seem excessive.

(12-07-2016 06:39 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Im not in favor of Tariffs unless it becomes a situation where we KNOW a trading partner is delving in trying to destroy our economy with unfair practices. China has shown some signs of this. I think the threat alone might calm them down. I think the last thing the Chinese want is for us to slap a tariff on their goods.

Id much rather see us improve the business climate in the US and make our companies more competitive than engage in trade war tactics. I can see however there could be perfectly legitimate reason to do so as a last resort. Regardless...35% seem excessive.

China doesn't want to destroy our economy, they need us buying their junk. Their tactics all boil down to being able to build the junk and sell it to us. They need us much more than we need them. Junk can be built anywhere. US consumers exist here.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(12-06-2016 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:35 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 11:14 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:30 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I agree that something should be done to get companies to stay in the United States. What I don't get however is that people were outraged when Obama seemingly picked political winners and losers with his stimulus plan. Yet Trump in a sense did exactly the same thing with Carrier and everyone praises him for it.

Because this is not "picking winning and losers" this is changing the rules for everyone. That's a huge difference.

When the NFL moved the extra point back to make it more challenging they did not let the bad teams keep kicking from the two. That would have been picking winners and losers.

The other part is the tax breaks which are, by nature, very different than giving companies money.

This changes the rules for everyone?

So any company who threatens to leave the United States will be given 7 million dollars incentives?

Where do they sign up?

I was making two points... Perhaps I forgot you have trouble counting that high.

1 - regarding the tariff being proposed - That's a rule change for everyone
2 - regarding carrier - a tax break is not the same as giving cash

Is that simple enough for you?

You might not see it as the same but I do.

It's still the tax payer's money whether you give it to them up front or defer it with tax breaks.

This post is why we laugh at you when you say you aren't a leftist.


It's not the taxpayer's money until it's taken from them by armed robbery writ large.

(12-06-2016 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's still the tax payer's money whether you give it to them up front or defer it with tax breaks.

No, it's not.

And the biggest threat to our well-being is not ISIS or global warming, it's people who think like you do.

(12-06-2016 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's still the tax payer's money whether you give it to them up front or defer it with tax breaks.

How is it 'the tax payer's money' if the company leaves and you don't get it anyway?

You understand the choices right?
Tax a company that leaves... thus you get 20% (or whatever) of zero... and you have MORE people out of work and MORE empty buildings which drives down property values and you lose the businesses supported by those workers and that company.

OR, waive the tax for some period... thus you get 0% of 2mm (or whatever)... and you have FEWER people out of work and FEWER empty buildings which DOESN'T drive down property values and you KEEP the businesses supported by those workers and that company.

Either way, you're losing the corporate revenue. The question is whether you lose everything else as well.

One further aside... Surely you also understand the difference between 'not taxing you' and 'giving you cash, right? In MOST cases, you have to actually earn money to owe taxes... Thus a company could stay, report a loss and STILL pay no taxes.