The Trump Effect? After Carrier pledge to keep jobs in US, more companies may follow

cawacko said:
It's not the companies money, it's taxpayers of indianas money. They are subsidizing these jobs
Click to expand...

They are but the criticism is a little short-sided because the tax payers would also be forced to subsidize a thousand unemployed residents of the state, had the deal not gone through; also, that's a thousand more tax payers than 'tax consumers' for Indiana.

It's also a thousand more paychecks that get spent in the local economy and etc. My guess is it's tax money well spent.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
They are but the criticism is a little short-sided because the tax payers would also be forced to subsidize a thousand unemployed residents of the state, had the deal not gone through; also, that's a thousand more tax payers than 'tax consumers' for Indiana.

It's also a thousand more paychecks that get spent in the local economy and etc. My guess is it's tax money well spent.
Click to expand...

Nice Spin. :hand:
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
They are but the criticism is a little short-sided because the tax payers would also be forced to subsidize a thousand unemployed residents of the state, had the deal not gone through; also, that's a thousand more tax payers than 'tax consumers' for Indiana.

It's also a thousand more paychecks that get spent in the local economy and etc. My guess is it's tax money well spent.
Click to expand...


No, you have turned them into tax consumers. The effect of their spending will necessarily be offset by a reduction in other government spending, spending by beneficiaries of government aid or by less spending from other Indiana taxpayers if they are expected to make up the deficit. All they did is rob Peter to pay Paul.
 
Threedee said:
You just gave a perfect argument for socialism. We have to pay for citizen's well-being anyway, so let's just have the government intervene, and do X.
Click to expand...

I won't argue that unemployment benefits ranks as a sort of socialism but the current system is what it is: you have to work within it whether you like it or not. If I was an Indiana tax payer I'd be ok with the deal if it meant my tax money was being spent to keep people working and contributing to the state economy.

As opposed to not working and consuming my tax dollars.

And if by 'subsidies' they mean allowing Carrier to keep more of *their money* via tax breaks---don't get me started on that lol.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I won't argue that unemployment benefits ranks as a sort of socialism but the current system is what it is. You have to work within it whether you like it or not. If I was an Indiana tax payer I'd be ok with the deal if it meant my tax money was being spent to keep people working and contributing to the state economy.

As opposed to not working and consuming my tax dollars.

And if by 'subsidies' they mean allowing Carrier to keep more of *their money* via tax breaks---don't get me started on that lol.
Click to expand...

And this is going to be your fallback every time Douchebag Donald engages in some leftist economic initiative. You will make this sort of argument, even though it's not one that actual conservatives and Republicans would have ever made prior to now. Such begins the Trumptard defense of everything Douchebag Donald.
 
Threedee said:
And this is going to be your fallback every time Douchebag Donald engages in some leftist economic initiative. You will make this sort of argument, even though it's not one that actual conservatives and Republicans would have ever made prior to now. Such begins the Trumptard defense of everything Douchebag Donald.
Click to expand...

You keep posturing instead of debating the point lol.

So, you would prefer your tax money being spent on unemployment benefits or to keep people working?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
You keep posturing instead of debating the point lol.

So, you would prefer your tax money being spent on unemployment benefits or to keep people working?
Click to expand...

If the buggy whip makers went on unemployment for a short time while transitioning to a more productive field then that would cost far less than perpetually subsidizing their factory or stopping progress to create a market for their products.
 
Threedee said:
And this is going to be your fallback every time Douchebag Donald engages in some leftist economic initiative. You will make this sort of argument, even though it's not one that actual conservatives and Republicans would have ever made prior to now. Such begins the Trumptard defense of everything Douchebag Donald.
Click to expand...

I dunno if you noticed this the republican base are ok with "leftist economic initiative" Trump pretty much ran on it. Only the politicians and very few other people embrace free market all the time.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
They are but the criticism is a little short-sided because the tax payers would also be forced to subsidize a thousand unemployed residents of the state, had the deal not gone through; also, that's a thousand more tax payers than 'tax consumers' for Indiana.

It's also a thousand more paychecks that get spent in the local economy and etc. My guess is it's tax money well spent.
Click to expand...

There are millions of jobs created and lost each month. Would you like to see the gov't step in and act like this every time a job is lost?

It's disconcerting to see right leaning people all of a sudden act like they don't understand how markets work
 
cawacko said:
There are millions of jobs created and lost each month. Would you like to see the gov't step in and act like this every time a job is lost?

It's disconcerting to see right leaning people all of a sudden act like they don't understand how markets work
Click to expand...

i think the answer should be yes, depending on location.

I mean if all the jobs are created on the coast and everything lost is in the middle and thats consistent that presents a problem. Yes we all want permanent solutions but until we get them we need band aids first.

Theres a lot of inertia with these things. Its hard to get a factory to come back once it leaves. We have to prevent them from leaving first
 
tsuke said:
i think the answer should be yes, depending on location.

I mean if all the jobs are created on the coast and everything lost is in the middle and thats consistent that presents a problem. Yes we all want permanent solutions but until we get them we need band aids first.

Theres a lot of inertia with these things. Its hard to get a factory to come back once it leaves. We have to prevent them from leaving first
Click to expand...

I see Castro's ghost has consumed your body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top