Corporate welfare in action ....

[Brain357]

Should the gov be giving away tax dollars like that?

why not? every person working at the facility will be paying taxes. so there is a big gain to the state and the country. not sure you get it yet.

Well it is anti capitalism and free market. You think gov picking winners and losers is better than free market?

You like higher taxes? Company moves or expands paid by tax payers. Tax payer loses.

well why do states care that a business come to their state then? especially when the state says, we'll give you this kind of deal? you think it's because they would lose money? you can't be that stupid can you?

It seems you are that stupid. Company gets great deal. Politician says look at all these great jobs. Tax payer gets hosed.

how does the tax payer get hosed?

Don't be stupid now.

Why should they pay for a company to move or expand? These millions getting thrown around are from tax payers! This is no different than social welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living.

Why?

Seriously? So we don't have rampant poverty..

If living costs continue to raise and wages don't more and more people continually fall under the federal poverty level...
It's not rocket science.

"Why?"
Do you hate America?

Seriously?

Seriously.

So we don't have rampant poverty..

Getting low skilled Americans laid off isn't going to reduce poverty.

If living costs continue to raise and wages don't

Wages after inflation are rising.
Maybe not for low skilled workers who compete with millions of low skilled illegal aliens.

more and more people continually fall under the federal poverty level...

I agree, boot the illegals if you want wages to rise.

Do you hate America?

No. I hate the economic idiocy coming from the left.

Oxy-moron. Dems always do better for the economy than the gop, history shows us.

Yeah, Jimmy Carter was awesome!!!

And Obama with the slowest recovery in 70 years? Just the Best!!!

Obama needed to add another 100,000 pages of regulation......that would have done the trick, eh?

What did you think about his rule for gas mileage?

Should automakers have to get an average fleet MPG of 54.5 by 2025?
Any downside to that swell idea?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So then you know gov should stay out of capitalism.

Absolutely.
Cut the corporate rate to 15%.
End the minimum wage.
End agricultural subsidies.
Lots of things the Federal government should stop doing.

But you are ok with tax payers funding corp moves and expansions?

Funding? No.
I think writing a check to a sports team or buying a stadium for a sports team is a bad idea.
Giving a new facility a lower property tax for a limited time is fine.
More if the tax receipts, even at the lower rate, are higher than the unimproved land tax receipts.

So you do want the gov picking winners and losers. So those doing the most lobbying get breaks. Tax payers lose.

So you do want the gov picking winners and losers.

Giving a temporary low property tax rate on new facilities isn't picking winners and losers.

Tax payers lose.

If the new facility provides higher revenues, now or in the future, they don't lose.

It is if only certain companies get deals.

If never seems to happen.

It is if only certain companies get deals.

If a company with 10,000 employees gets a deal and a company with 10 doesn't, that's picking winners?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So then you know gov should stay out of capitalism.

Absolutely.
Cut the corporate rate to 15%.
End the minimum wage.
End agricultural subsidies.
Lots of things the Federal government should stop doing.

But you are ok with tax payers funding corp moves and expansions?

Funding? No.
I think writing a check to a sports team or buying a stadium for a sports team is a bad idea.
Giving a new facility a lower property tax for a limited time is fine.
More if the tax receipts, even at the lower rate, are higher than the unimproved land tax receipts.

I guess the company has a bad business model and needs to be propped up with tax incentive?

Or not.

Or not? Why else give them tax deal? If they can afford it why should the tax payer pay?

Why else give them tax deal?

Companies with good business models never get a deal? Only ones with bad models?

If they can afford it why should the tax payer pay?

A lower tax rate shouldn't mean the tax payer pays.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If republicans weren't funneling all our money to the top 1% for the last 5 decades we would not need nearly the amount of social welfare that we use today.

We don't need as much social welfare now, it's just that as long as it's there, people will take it instead of working more hours or bettering themselves.

How did the Republicans "funnel money" to the rich the last five decades?

If the republicans didn't fight tooth and nail every time a bill came up to raise minimum wage we wouldn't need nearly the amount of social welfare we use today.

With people who play the system, if you increase their pay, they will decrease their hours so as to stay on those programs. All you really accomplished is them getting the same money and government benefits only working less hours for it.

Gop is so "against" handouts. But they just can't help wanting the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Why would the GOP want the poor to get poorer? There is no advantage to the Republicans if the poor get poorer.

 

[Brain357]

But you are ok with tax payers funding corp moves and expansions?

Funding? No.
I think writing a check to a sports team or buying a stadium for a sports team is a bad idea.
Giving a new facility a lower property tax for a limited time is fine.
More if the tax receipts, even at the lower rate, are higher than the unimproved land tax receipts.

So you do want the gov picking winners and losers. So those doing the most lobbying get breaks. Tax payers lose.

So you do want the gov picking winners and losers.

Giving a temporary low property tax rate on new facilities isn't picking winners and losers.

Tax payers lose.

If the new facility provides higher revenues, now or in the future, they don't lose.

It is if only certain companies get deals.

If never seems to happen.

It is if only certain companies get deals.

If a company with 10,000 employees gets a deal and a company with 10 doesn't, that's picking winners?

If it is not for all companies it is picking winners and losers. You trust gov to do that? You like high taxes?

 

[Brain357]

But you are ok with tax payers funding corp moves and expansions?

Funding? No.
I think writing a check to a sports team or buying a stadium for a sports team is a bad idea.
Giving a new facility a lower property tax for a limited time is fine.
More if the tax receipts, even at the lower rate, are higher than the unimproved land tax receipts.

I guess the company has a bad business model and needs to be propped up with tax incentive?

Or not.

Or not? Why else give them tax deal? If they can afford it why should the tax payer pay?

Why else give them tax deal?

Companies with good business models never get a deal? Only ones with bad models?

If they can afford it why should the tax payer pay?

A lower tax rate shouldn't mean the tax payer pays.

The money comes from somewhere. They still collect services. Are services free?

 

[Brain357]

Becoming dependent on corp welfare weakens our companies on a global scale.

 

[jc456]

did they?

Should the gov be giving away tax dollars like that?

why not? every person working at the facility will be paying taxes. so there is a big gain to the state and the country. not sure you get it yet.

Well it is anti capitalism and free market. You think gov picking winners and losers is better than free market?

You like higher taxes? Company moves or expands paid by tax payers. Tax payer loses.

well why do states care that a business come to their state then? especially when the state says, we'll give you this kind of deal? you think it's because they would lose money? you can't be that stupid can you?

In addition to these deals, Florida taxpayers “paid out at least $37.9 million to six unnamed companies for 3,600 jobs that never materialized.” Scott’s agency is refusing to disclose the companies, but said it is renegotiating their contracts “so that the incentive payments are in accordance with the company’s performance.”

Florida Taxpayers Provide $1.7 Billion In Corporate Welfare, Get Few Jobs In Return

that most likely didn't happen the way that article stated. They have no evidence, it stated so in the article.

"Scott’s aide even admitted that corporate breaks might not produce a single job. Given Florida’s last decade of history, the outlook definitely doesn’t look good."
Corporate breaks isn't handing out cash.

 

[jc456]

Becoming dependent on corp welfare weakens our companies on a global scale.

that sounds like a dem bumper sticker.

BTW, one day sweetie you'll understand how states actually collect revenues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Funding? No.
I think writing a check to a sports team or buying a stadium for a sports team is a bad idea.
Giving a new facility a lower property tax for a limited time is fine.
More if the tax receipts, even at the lower rate, are higher than the unimproved land tax receipts.

So you do want the gov picking winners and losers. So those doing the most lobbying get breaks. Tax payers lose.

So you do want the gov picking winners and losers.

Giving a temporary low property tax rate on new facilities isn't picking winners and losers.

Tax payers lose.

If the new facility provides higher revenues, now or in the future, they don't lose.

It is if only certain companies get deals.

If never seems to happen.

It is if only certain companies get deals.

If a company with 10,000 employees gets a deal and a company with 10 doesn't, that's picking winners?

If it is not for all companies it is picking winners and losers. You trust gov to do that? You like high taxes?

If it is not for all companies

Just for the large ones promising new jobs in the area.

it is picking winners and losers

I disagree.

You trust gov to do that?

Federal corporate taxes should be 0%.
Property taxes are up to local government.

You like high taxes?

Cut them. All. A lot.

 

[jc456]

why not? every person working at the facility will be paying taxes. so there is a big gain to the state and the country. not sure you get it yet.

Well it is anti capitalism and free market. You think gov picking winners and losers is better than free market?

You like higher taxes? Company moves or expands paid by tax payers. Tax payer loses.

well why do states care that a business come to their state then? especially when the state says, we'll give you this kind of deal? you think it's because they would lose money? you can't be that stupid can you?

It seems you are that stupid. Company gets great deal. Politician says look at all these great jobs. Tax payer gets hosed.

how does the tax payer get hosed?

Don't be stupid now.

Why should they pay for a company to move or expand? These millions getting thrown around are from tax payers! This is no different than social welfare.

they pay? hmmm don't think so, corporations are offered a deal to pay in less, that's all. and that less is still more then them leaving.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Funding? No.
I think writing a check to a sports team or buying a stadium for a sports team is a bad idea.
Giving a new facility a lower property tax for a limited time is fine.
More if the tax receipts, even at the lower rate, are higher than the unimproved land tax receipts.

I guess the company has a bad business model and needs to be propped up with tax incentive?

Or not.

Or not? Why else give them tax deal? If they can afford it why should the tax payer pay?

Why else give them tax deal?

Companies with good business models never get a deal? Only ones with bad models?

If they can afford it why should the tax payer pay?

A lower tax rate shouldn't mean the tax payer pays.

The money comes from somewhere. They still collect services. Are services free?

The money comes from somewhere.

Charging a new factory $5 million a year, instead of $10 million a year, is better than the $1 million being charged for farmland.

They still collect services.

Which ones?

Are services free?

No. Government provided services are way too expensive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Becoming dependent on corp welfare weakens our companies on a global scale.

The highest corporate tax rate in the world weakens our companies.

 

[Brain357]

Becoming dependent on corp welfare weakens our companies on a global scale.

that sounds like a dem bumper sticker.

BTW, one day sweetie you'll understand how states actually collect revenues.

Would be a good capitalist bumper sticker.

 

[Brain357]

Becoming dependent on corp welfare weakens our companies on a global scale.

The highest corporate tax rate in the world weakens our companies.

Nobody pays that. Don't worry congress will fix it. Ha

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If not for the corporations providing low paying jobs, there wouldn't be any, and everyone would be on full benefits.

They are able spare a living wage. They don't want to and they don't care. The owners of Wal-Mart are making a killing and a high number of their employees don't make enough to make ends meet. They can pay people more, they don't. And it's not right.

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have ran a business before and that explanation was trash. Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" .... "underpaying" people brings us to people working 40 hours a week and still needing government assistance. Totally unacceptable to me.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc. But when people are working 40 hours a week, in the richest country in the world, and can't make rent THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

Correct, something is wrong. You need to work more than 40 hours a week. I've done it plenty of times. I've had two or three jobs at one time in the past. I still do it now when you consider I invested my money and am now a landlord.

The problem is not that there are not enough jobs, the problem is there are not enough people willing to do the jobs. They would rather sit home and talk on their Obama phone all day.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

You buy that?
You don't think Wal-Mart can afford to pay their cashiers 12 an hour instead of 10??? That's horse shit.

If the work is only worth $10, why should they pay them $12?

Because the groceries they buy are worth 60 and they pay 120. Because the place they rent is worth 500 and they're paying 800..

Pay has to be relative to living costs. They arent.

How did it become the employers responsibility to increase pay with the cost of living? When did he or she sign on to that? Did the employee ask the potential employer if they increase pay with the cost of living?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

If people are not mentally or physically able to make a living, then they should be on disability which we have in this country. Two of my tenants are on disability and they still work albeit part-time, but they work and do fine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Becoming dependent on corp welfare weakens our companies on a global scale.

The highest corporate tax rate in the world weakens our companies.

Nobody pays that. Don't worry congress will fix it. Ha

Nobody pays that.

Not when you average in their lower rate on foreign earnings.

 

[Brain357]

Becoming dependent on corp welfare weakens our companies on a global scale.

The highest corporate tax rate in the world weakens our companies.

Nobody pays that. Don't worry congress will fix it. Ha

Nobody pays that.

Not when you average in their lower rate on foreign earnings.

Lots of deductions.