President Trump

[Spindrift]

It's $7 million over 10 years, so the net present value is less than $7 million. Furthermore, they're tax breaks, not all of which will necessarily be used or be extra (such is the nature of tax breaks). So the expected net present value of $7 million in tax breaks over 10 years might be only $3 million. It will be interesting to see how Carrier's parent company reports the benefit in its financial statements.

As to the benefit for Indiana, consider the difference between 1,000 making a good salary (and paying income taxes on that salary and sales taxes on the consumption that follows) and 1,000 people unemployed and on the dole, collecting unemployment benefits, and possibly welfare and Medicaid. I can't imagine that giving $7 million in tax breaks in this case isn't a great deal for Indiana.

Guess what, those people are all going to be unemployed after a year, so for $7 million Indiana gets a Trump publicity stunt with zero long term benefit. How about finding a company that isn't going to move anyway?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

1000 people who know their job is only safe for a year. Not going to purchase much beyond essentials. And that $7 million has to be made up somewhere. 1000 working class people are not going to incur an additional $7 million in taxes in one year. So a net loss to the state of Indiana. If Trump continues making deals like this, the US is bound to be as successful as his Atlantic City casinos.

But it's a "deal!"

Trump said he was going to negotiate "deals," and the "deal" must be good because it is a Trump-negotiated "deal."

"Deal," "deal," "deal!" It's what he does: "deal!"

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Wouldn't something good have to happen in order to give credit?

I suppose it depends on one's place in the general scheme of things.

I'd guess the 1,000 workers, or whatever the number is, that kept their jobs for now would count Trump's actions as "something good". Whether it ends up being a net positive is open to question, of course. All of which has to be contrasted with doing nothing - which I admit may have proven to be the best long term course of action in a global economy.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

He bribed them with money from OTHER taxpayers. It was the very definition of weak.

How does that align with "stimulus spending"?

 

[acbytesla]

It's $7 million over 10 years, so the net present value is less than $7 million. Furthermore, they're tax breaks, not all of which will necessarily be used or be extra (such is the nature of tax breaks). So the expected net present value of $7 million in tax breaks over 10 years might be only $3 million. It will be interesting to see how Carrier's parent company reports the benefit in its financial statements.

As to the benefit for Indiana, consider the difference between 1,000 making a good salary (and paying income taxes on that salary and sales taxes on the consumption that follows) and 1,000 people unemployed and on the dole, collecting unemployment benefits, and possibly welfare and Medicaid. I can't imagine that giving $7 million in tax breaks in this case isn't a great deal for Indiana.

It also is like shooting a sarter's pistol to other companies that they can get special tax breaks simply by threatening to leave. It's the government picking winners and losers. It creates a patchwork of laws and exceptions. Exactly the kind of thing YOU usually rail against.

If Obama or Clinton had done this, you would be ripping him and you know it.

 

[Belz...]

It also is like shooting a sarter's pistol to other companies that they can get special tax breaks simply by threatening to leave.

So Trump is showing weakness, then? Huh.

 

[Spindrift]

So Trump is showing weakness, then? Huh.

No, never. He's cutting deals that sound good as long as you don't examine the details. Trump knows his supporters have no interest in the details of anything. They just want him to do things. He's doing things.

 

[acbytesla]

How does that align with "stimulus spending"?

My problem with it is a short term bribe. It's a publicity stunt. Trump keeps saying he's different from other politicians. But he's not. He's not changing the system, he's playing the exact same games that we are used to by every politician before him.

The fact is Trump FOCUSED so heavily on this one plant that he had to do something. But what happens when this same problem arises elsewhere? Is he going to keep giving special tax breaks?

 

[acbytesla]

So Trump is showing weakness, then? Huh.

Just like he did when he met with the Mexican President.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Just like he did when he met with the Mexican President.

That wasn't weak, he totally met the Mexican Pres.

 

[acbytesla]

That wasn't weak, he totally met the Mexican Pres.

Yes he did...

 

[Fast Eddie B]

But what happens when this same problem arises elsewhere? Is he going to keep giving special tax breaks?

Unknown.

But tax breaks to stimulate a business or a sector is not something new. Think "Enterprise Zones". Or even the home interest deduction.

Let's see how it shakes out long term.

 

[sunmaster14]

It also is like shooting a sarter's pistol to other companies that they can get special tax breaks simply by threatening to leave. It's the government picking winners and losers. It creates a patchwork of laws and exceptions. Exactly the kind of thing YOU usually rail against.

True. I don't like it in general, but it also is how states have operated for decades. They compete with each other to attract or keep business in the state.

If Obama or Clinton had done this, you would be ripping him and you know it.

I would be downplaying their success, just like liberals are downplaying Trump's success. I'm playing devil's advocate here. It is nowhere near as good (or representative of his skills) as Trump claims and nowhere near as bad as his detractors claim. I'm trying to provide a little balance.

 

[Spindrift]

True. I don't like it in general, but it also is how states have operated for decades. They compete with each other to attract or keep business in the state.



I would be downplaying their success, just like liberals are downplaying Trump's success. I'm playing devil's advocate here. It is nowhere near as good (or representative of his skills) as Trump claims and nowhere near as bad as his detractors claim. I'm trying to provide a little balance.

Where you are wrong it that this deal is representative of Trump's skills. All show and no substance and a bad deal in the long run.

 

[steve s]

Bahrain is going to have its National Day party in Trump's D.C. hotel. Some of the money they spend will get into Trump's pocket. How is this not a violation of the emoluments clause?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-bahrain-hotel-dc-231941

Steve S

 

[Stacko]

Bahrain is going to have its National Day party in Trump's D.C. hotel. Some of the money they spend will get into Trump's pocket. How is this not a violation of the emoluments clause?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-bahrain-hotel-dc-231941

Steve S

He's not the President yet. Jan 20, 2017 it becomes a violation.

 

[acbytesla]

True. I don't like it in general, but it also is how states have operated for decades. They compete with each other to attract or keep business in the state.

I would be downplaying their success, just like liberals are downplaying Trump's success. I'm playing devil's advocate here. It is nowhere near as good (or representative of his skills) as Trump claims and nowhere near as bad as his detractors claim. I'm trying to provide a little balance.

Wow, you can be honest. For a change. I never knew you had it in you.

I'm not in favor of ANY special deals since it gets us bidding against ourselves and ends up just helping the corporations at the expense of the rest of us. But that doesn't mean I don't think some new industries or technologies shouldn't sometimes be helped such as alternative energy.

For example, we rightfully invest in research at universities and some great technological developments are made but they are very often abandoned because the risks associated with bringing those technologies to market. Unfortunately, it's never that simple as most businesses are only interested in the low hanging fruit.

 

[acbytesla]

He's not the President yet. Jan 20, 2017 it becomes a violation.

In spirit, it is a violation NOW.

 

[Random]

And a lot of white-collar crime is never prosecuted at all because it's hard to prove and expensive to pursue. Who went to jail after the financial collapse? At a minimum, you would have to prove that a specific hiring manager knew a specific worker was illegal -- not just suspected, not just should have known -- and violated the law deliberately. And you have to prove that whoever you are charging is personally responsible, not just part of a wayward bureaucracy. How many managers are prosecuted under the current laws in a given year? If it's more than zero, I'd be surprised. An administrative penalty is simple: Did your company use E-Verify when this person was hired? Our records show the answer is no. $10,000 please.

A corporation can be an empolyer, and you would be able to prove that a corporation hired an illegal worker quite easily, and fine it accordingly. Tracking down the specific beaureaucrat is not needed.

 

[Stacko]

Carrier gets a sweetheart deal and look who's invested in them refusing to place his assets in a blind trust.

Trump earned interest income of $2,501 to $5,000 from an investment in a United Technologies Corp. bond, according to a new financial disclosure form he filed Wednesday with federal election officials.