- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: corporate welfare vs socialism
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:10 pm to Mars duMorgue
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:10 pm to Mars duMorgue
It's being widely reported that 1300 jobs are still going to Mexico.
0
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:14 pm to CelticDog
More money in the pockets of shareholders, CEOs, and high level execs does nothing at all to better and move America forward. Companies are profiting hand over fist and yet somehow that only translates to CEOs getting larger bonuses and lower ppl losing their jobs due to "cost cutting" measures that only looks good on paper (inorganic growth).
Tax breaks (corporate welfare) = less money for infrastructure, schools, parks, and other public goods.
Apple has more money then they know what to do with. A tax break for Apple does not persuade them to hire more ppl and stop using Chinese slave labor--it only enables them.
Globalism is a by product of capitalism and is inevitable.
Tax breaks (corporate welfare) = less money for infrastructure, schools, parks, and other public goods.
Apple has more money then they know what to do with. A tax break for Apple does not persuade them to hire more ppl and stop using Chinese slave labor--it only enables them.
Globalism is a by product of capitalism and is inevitable.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:14 pm to CelticDog
quote:
corporate welfare vs socialism
Carrier gets tax breaks.
keeps half the jobs in Indiana. sends half the jobs to Mexico.
Indiana loses tax income.
is this a corporate welfare plan?
Carrier was set to move all 2000 jobs to Mexico but instead were negotiated down to sending out about only half. So while Indiana loses tax income it's only losing half of what it would have had no one done anything.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:16 pm to CelticDog
Reducing the government burden on a business is not corporate welfare per se.
any time businesses are taxed and regulated less that is a good thing. corporate welfare in its most extreme form comes through "public" services like polic forces, Armies, fire departments, and virtually any regulation on industry.
any time businesses are taxed and regulated less that is a good thing. corporate welfare in its most extreme form comes through "public" services like polic forces, Armies, fire departments, and virtually any regulation on industry.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:17 pm to CelticDog
Conversations like these are dumb unless you can define "corporate welfare."
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:20 pm to CelticDog
Welfare- money given that is first taken from someone else.
Subsidies- money given that is first taken from someone else.
Tax credit- you keep money that belongs to you.
I dislike special credits allowed to some but not to all but I understand why that is done.
Subsidies- money given that is first taken from someone else.
Tax credit- you keep money that belongs to you.
I dislike special credits allowed to some but not to all but I understand why that is done.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:21 pm to The_Duke
What do shareholders, CEOs, and other executives do with their money?
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:21 pm to CelticDog
Only blacks get welfare
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:28 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
What do shareholders, CEOs, and other executives do with their money?
You're going with the old Trickle down approach, huh?
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:28 pm to CelticDog
Melt day number....
I lost count from too much winning!
I lost count from too much winning!
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:30 pm to The_Duke
quote:
You're going with the old Trickle down approach, huh?
I'm going with the what actually happens approach. If shareholders earn more money, they invest their earning in new projects, creating new jobs and opportunities
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:30 pm to The_Duke
quote:
More money in the pockets of shareholders, CEOs, and high level execs does nothing at all to better and move America forward. Companies are profiting hand over fist and yet somehow that only translates to CEOs getting larger bonuses and lower ppl losing their jobs due to "cost cutting" measures that only looks good on paper (inorganic growth).
Tax breaks (corporate welfare) = less money for infrastructure, schools, parks, and other public goods.
You need a lesson in basic economics.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:32 pm to The_Duke
THE EMPLOYEES WILL BE PAYING MORE IN STATE INCOME TAXES THAN THE TAX CREDIT CARRIER IS GETTING. IF THE JOBS WENT TO MEXICO THE STATE WOULD BE OUT EVEN MORE IN TAX REVENUE
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:33 pm to CelticDog
Most this board doesn't understand or care about corporate welfare. Now those poors that spend $20 of EBT on steak really gets this board fuming.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:34 pm to TJGator1215
quote:
Most this board doesn't understand or care about corporate welfare. Now those poors that spend $20 of EBT on steak really gets this board fuming.
Winning narrative.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:35 pm to The_Duke
quote:
You're going with the old Trickle down approach, huh?
What approach do you think Obama and the fed have had for 8 years???
what do you think QE and bailouts are? if not trickle down econ? the WORST kind too, as the initial beneficiaries get to spend their money for less and with a higher buying power than us PEONS. I suspect that after so. many years of easy money that very little of it was invested in meaningful industry and most of it was pumped into high risk garbage.
si why don't we let the people circulate thier own earnings for a few years and see what happens. We'll call that "prosperity economics"
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:36 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
. If shareholders earn more money, they invest their earning in new projects, creating new jobs and opportunities
So Carrier wasn't a profitable company for shareholders and needed a move to Mexico because of this?
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:37 pm to CelticDog
I don't think you know what "welfare" means.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:38 pm to The_Duke
I would say a 35% corporate tax hampers profitability a bit
Posted on 12/1/16 at 3:38 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
I'm going with the what actually happens approach. If shareholders earn more money, they invest their earning in new projects, creating new jobs and opportunities
So, what you're saying is, Trump should have let those jobs go to Mexico to allow Carrier to earn more money, so that the money could then be invested in new projects that create new jobs.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News