Top 8% Own 85%

[Brain357]

People have been lied to about unions. They were told the good workers would make more and blah blah blah. Well they all just make less. They will want to be union again.

Yes. More unions would be great!
How did the unions do when they ran United Airlines?
It must have been wicked awesome. Right?

Ran united airlines? Why would unions run a company? They help workers get better pay an benefits, not run companies.

LOL...........

Let me explain something to you.... Business at the basic fundamental level is very very simple.... It's price of goods/service minus the cost of producing the goods/service.

Everything else... is basically all details. It's price minus cost equals profit. Zero profit, and you close. Small profit and you basically are waiting to close. Large profit and you expand and grow, and produce better goods/services.

Unions take over 50% of the business equation. And the other 50%? The price? The company has absolutely no control over the price. None whatsoever.

Controlling the cost is the biggest aspect of the business, and when Union take over that, and demand highers costs of production... that's why GM and Chrysler and Hostess, and un-countable others have all gone bankrupt.

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

 

[Brain357]

It will help, but it isn't the whole story. We still have all the collusion and shipping jobs away. We need to do more to stop that also.

Then we need to turn to Communism or a Dictatorship if we want to force companies to stay here. Maybe tell them execution is the penalty.

We don't force anybody to do anything in a free country; of course, that excludes DumBama since he is now forcing Americans to have healthcare insurance. But other than that, we don't operate that way.

There are many laws we are forced to obey.

We don't force, we give tax incentives to do the right things.

You can't give enough tax incentives to change this. If I'm losing money on a factory, what tax incentive are you going to give me to keep that factory open? You realize that if I am taking a loss, that cutting my taxes for zero, to zero, isn't an incentive?

France attempted that with the Goodyear Tire plant. It failed. They closed the plant. Tax incentives only work when you have multiple good choices. If I can be massively profitable in both Ohio and Kentucky, but Ohio offers better incentives, then I'll go there. But If I can't be profitable in Ohio, no amount of incentives is going to make me move to Ohio.

Moreover, incentives only delay the problem. I wish I could remember what company it was. It was a bank, but I can't remember which bank did this. They built their HQ in Columbus, with a massive 10 year tax abatement. Then after the abatement ran out, they moved their HQ to Hilliard (suburb), with a new tax abatement. But then 10 years later, they moved to Dublin, with a new 10 year tax abatement, where they are now. Obviously it wasn't a mega bank like Bank of America or something, but it was a large multi-state bank.

The incentives works for as long as the incentive lasts. You might delay the jobs leaving the US, for a few years, but ultimately if the economic reality is that the over all incentive is to move jobs over seas.... then that's what's going to happen.

And worse, the people on the left-wing of American politics will scream and yell about it the entire time, and work to remove the incentives you want to put in place. General Electric is the poster child for this. They, as a corporate strategy, work to get as many tax incentives as possible. That's why people are constantly screaming about them paying low tax.

So while you are right now promoting "tax incentives" to keep jobs in the US, the moment you pass those tax incentives and corporations start taking advantage of them, you'll be screaming that corporations don't pay enough tax! I've seen people on this forum do that EXACTLY. One thread they are claiming we need tax incentives for X, and in the very next forum thread, screaming non-stop about how corporations avoid taxes.

The solution is simply to lower the tax rates, lower the regulations, and cut mandates and fees. Make it more profitable to operate in the US.

Sorry but it is immensely profitable to do business in the US. Lower tax rates? Most companies pay very little now. We have had strong economies with our current corporate tax rates. What industry will lower regulations help?

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

It is more profitable to do it elsewhere. It is profitable here. And every big company needs the US market. I have seen many companies move products overseas for just a little more profit.

 

[Brain357]

It will help, but it isn't the whole story. We still have all the collusion and shipping jobs away. We need to do more to stop that also.

Then we need to turn to Communism or a Dictatorship if we want to force companies to stay here. Maybe tell them execution is the penalty.

We don't force anybody to do anything in a free country; of course, that excludes DumBama since he is now forcing Americans to have healthcare insurance. But other than that, we don't operate that way.

There are many laws we are forced to obey.

We don't force, we give tax incentives to do the right things.

You can't give enough tax incentives to change this. If I'm losing money on a factory, what tax incentive are you going to give me to keep that factory open? You realize that if I am taking a loss, that cutting my taxes for zero, to zero, isn't an incentive?

France attempted that with the Goodyear Tire plant. It failed. They closed the plant. Tax incentives only work when you have multiple good choices. If I can be massively profitable in both Ohio and Kentucky, but Ohio offers better incentives, then I'll go there. But If I can't be profitable in Ohio, no amount of incentives is going to make me move to Ohio.

Moreover, incentives only delay the problem. I wish I could remember what company it was. It was a bank, but I can't remember which bank did this. They built their HQ in Columbus, with a massive 10 year tax abatement. Then after the abatement ran out, they moved their HQ to Hilliard (suburb), with a new tax abatement. But then 10 years later, they moved to Dublin, with a new 10 year tax abatement, where they are now. Obviously it wasn't a mega bank like Bank of America or something, but it was a large multi-state bank.

The incentives works for as long as the incentive lasts. You might delay the jobs leaving the US, for a few years, but ultimately if the economic reality is that the over all incentive is to move jobs over seas.... then that's what's going to happen.

And worse, the people on the left-wing of American politics will scream and yell about it the entire time, and work to remove the incentives you want to put in place. General Electric is the poster child for this. They, as a corporate strategy, work to get as many tax incentives as possible. That's why people are constantly screaming about them paying low tax.

So while you are right now promoting "tax incentives" to keep jobs in the US, the moment you pass those tax incentives and corporations start taking advantage of them, you'll be screaming that corporations don't pay enough tax! I've seen people on this forum do that EXACTLY. One thread they are claiming we need tax incentives for X, and in the very next forum thread, screaming non-stop about how corporations avoid taxes.

The solution is simply to lower the tax rates, lower the regulations, and cut mandates and fees. Make it more profitable to operate in the US.

Sorry but it is immensely profitable to do business in the US. Lower tax rates? Most companies pay very little now. We have had strong economies with our current corporate tax rates. What industry will lower regulations help?

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

So a tax incentive wouldn't work, but business people tell you taxes are a problem? Ummm....ok

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Plenty of customers have money. We have more millionaires and billionaires in this country than we ever had. We make a new millionaire nearly every day.

I want to buy a widget, so I go to your widget store. You want $150.00 for your widgets. Okay, not bad, but I can go online and get the same widget for $110.00 Where is the decision here?

If that were the case we wouldn't have such a slow economy.

We have a slow economy because of the uncertainty of our finances. We also have a slow economy because people would rather sit on welfare than go to work; welfare programs pay too well, but certainly not enough for people to have a lot of extra money to spend.

93 million Americans of working age not working or looking for a job. 45 million Americans being fed by other taxpayers. HTF can anybody get an economy going like this? Add to that the foreigners that come here and keep our wages down, you have all the ingredients to have stagnant wages.

There aren't lots of great jobs out there waiting to be filled.

You don't need a great job, you need an average or good job.

My industry needs 60,000 new workers they can't find. That's why they are turning to foreigners. You can't get Americans to stay off of drugs long enough to pass a drug test nor pay enough to get them off of social programs.

Your industry isn't exactly a real attractive job for most.

There you go. You said a mouthful right there. Not only do jobs have to have a promising future and career, they now have to be attractive enough. And if they aren't, get your Obama phone, get your SNAP's card, apply to HUD for a house in the suburb, get on Medicaid through Obama Care.

It sure as hell beats working, doesn't it? Let the foreigners come here and do the jobs.

 

[Brain357]

Unions didn't make the decision to make that things. haha

 

[Andylusion]

Yes. More unions would be great!
How did the unions do when they ran United Airlines?
It must have been wicked awesome. Right?

Ran united airlines? Why would unions run a company? They help workers get better pay an benefits, not run companies.

LOL...........

Let me explain something to you.... Business at the basic fundamental level is very very simple.... It's price of goods/service minus the cost of producing the goods/service.

Everything else... is basically all details. It's price minus cost equals profit. Zero profit, and you close. Small profit and you basically are waiting to close. Large profit and you expand and grow, and produce better goods/services.

Unions take over 50% of the business equation. And the other 50%? The price? The company has absolutely no control over the price. None whatsoever.

Controlling the cost is the biggest aspect of the business, and when Union take over that, and demand highers costs of production... that's why GM and Chrysler and Hostess, and un-countable others have all gone bankrupt.

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

 

[Brain357]

If that were the case we wouldn't have such a slow economy.

We have a slow economy because of the uncertainty of our finances. We also have a slow economy because people would rather sit on welfare than go to work; welfare programs pay too well, but certainly not enough for people to have a lot of extra money to spend.

93 million Americans of working age not working or looking for a job. 45 million Americans being fed by other taxpayers. HTF can anybody get an economy going like this? Add to that the foreigners that come here and keep our wages down, you have all the ingredients to have stagnant wages.

There aren't lots of great jobs out there waiting to be filled.

You don't need a great job, you need an average or good job.

My industry needs 60,000 new workers they can't find. That's why they are turning to foreigners. You can't get Americans to stay off of drugs long enough to pass a drug test nor pay enough to get them off of social programs.

Your industry isn't exactly a real attractive job for most.

There you go. You said a mouthful right there. Not only do jobs have to have a promising future and career, they now have to be attractive enough. And if they aren't, get your Obama phone, get your SNAP's card, apply to HUD for a house in the suburb, get on Medicaid through Obama Care.

It sure as hell beats working, doesn't it? Let the foreigners come here and do the jobs.

Nobody on welfare are living all that great.

 

[Brain357]

Ran united airlines? Why would unions run a company? They help workers get better pay an benefits, not run companies.

LOL...........

Let me explain something to you.... Business at the basic fundamental level is very very simple.... It's price of goods/service minus the cost of producing the goods/service.

Everything else... is basically all details. It's price minus cost equals profit. Zero profit, and you close. Small profit and you basically are waiting to close. Large profit and you expand and grow, and produce better goods/services.

Unions take over 50% of the business equation. And the other 50%? The price? The company has absolutely no control over the price. None whatsoever.

Controlling the cost is the biggest aspect of the business, and when Union take over that, and demand highers costs of production... that's why GM and Chrysler and Hostess, and un-countable others have all gone bankrupt.

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have a slow economy because of the uncertainty of our finances. We also have a slow economy because people would rather sit on welfare than go to work; welfare programs pay too well, but certainly not enough for people to have a lot of extra money to spend.

93 million Americans of working age not working or looking for a job. 45 million Americans being fed by other taxpayers. HTF can anybody get an economy going like this? Add to that the foreigners that come here and keep our wages down, you have all the ingredients to have stagnant wages.

There aren't lots of great jobs out there waiting to be filled.

You don't need a great job, you need an average or good job.

My industry needs 60,000 new workers they can't find. That's why they are turning to foreigners. You can't get Americans to stay off of drugs long enough to pass a drug test nor pay enough to get them off of social programs.

Your industry isn't exactly a real attractive job for most.

There you go. You said a mouthful right there. Not only do jobs have to have a promising future and career, they now have to be attractive enough. And if they aren't, get your Obama phone, get your SNAP's card, apply to HUD for a house in the suburb, get on Medicaid through Obama Care.

It sure as hell beats working, doesn't it? Let the foreigners come here and do the jobs.

Nobody on welfare are living all that great.

They are living pretty comfortable. Need some links? I have them right here, and a couple from the US Census bureau.

 

[Andylusion]

Then we need to turn to Communism or a Dictatorship if we want to force companies to stay here. Maybe tell them execution is the penalty.

We don't force anybody to do anything in a free country; of course, that excludes DumBama since he is now forcing Americans to have healthcare insurance. But other than that, we don't operate that way.

There are many laws we are forced to obey.

We don't force, we give tax incentives to do the right things.

You can't give enough tax incentives to change this. If I'm losing money on a factory, what tax incentive are you going to give me to keep that factory open? You realize that if I am taking a loss, that cutting my taxes for zero, to zero, isn't an incentive?

France attempted that with the Goodyear Tire plant. It failed. They closed the plant. Tax incentives only work when you have multiple good choices. If I can be massively profitable in both Ohio and Kentucky, but Ohio offers better incentives, then I'll go there. But If I can't be profitable in Ohio, no amount of incentives is going to make me move to Ohio.

Moreover, incentives only delay the problem. I wish I could remember what company it was. It was a bank, but I can't remember which bank did this. They built their HQ in Columbus, with a massive 10 year tax abatement. Then after the abatement ran out, they moved their HQ to Hilliard (suburb), with a new tax abatement. But then 10 years later, they moved to Dublin, with a new 10 year tax abatement, where they are now. Obviously it wasn't a mega bank like Bank of America or something, but it was a large multi-state bank.

The incentives works for as long as the incentive lasts. You might delay the jobs leaving the US, for a few years, but ultimately if the economic reality is that the over all incentive is to move jobs over seas.... then that's what's going to happen.

And worse, the people on the left-wing of American politics will scream and yell about it the entire time, and work to remove the incentives you want to put in place. General Electric is the poster child for this. They, as a corporate strategy, work to get as many tax incentives as possible. That's why people are constantly screaming about them paying low tax.

So while you are right now promoting "tax incentives" to keep jobs in the US, the moment you pass those tax incentives and corporations start taking advantage of them, you'll be screaming that corporations don't pay enough tax! I've seen people on this forum do that EXACTLY. One thread they are claiming we need tax incentives for X, and in the very next forum thread, screaming non-stop about how corporations avoid taxes.

The solution is simply to lower the tax rates, lower the regulations, and cut mandates and fees. Make it more profitable to operate in the US.

Sorry but it is immensely profitable to do business in the US. Lower tax rates? Most companies pay very little now. We have had strong economies with our current corporate tax rates. What industry will lower regulations help?

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

So a tax incentive wouldn't work, but business people tell you taxes are a problem? Ummm....ok

You said that, not me. If they don't pay tax... which is what you said, not me. If they don't pay taxes, how is a tax incentive going to help? You made that claim, not me.

I said taxes are a problem, and tax incentives will only work, as long as they are in effect. When the incentive goes away, so does the benefit. You are only delaying the problem.

And that's only if there is a profitable option. If you have two profitable options, then the incentive works. But if it's not profitable to be in the US.... no amount of incentive is going to fix that.

 

[Brain357]

There aren't lots of great jobs out there waiting to be filled.

You don't need a great job, you need an average or good job.

My industry needs 60,000 new workers they can't find. That's why they are turning to foreigners. You can't get Americans to stay off of drugs long enough to pass a drug test nor pay enough to get them off of social programs.

Your industry isn't exactly a real attractive job for most.

There you go. You said a mouthful right there. Not only do jobs have to have a promising future and career, they now have to be attractive enough. And if they aren't, get your Obama phone, get your SNAP's card, apply to HUD for a house in the suburb, get on Medicaid through Obama Care.

It sure as hell beats working, doesn't it? Let the foreigners come here and do the jobs.

Nobody on welfare are living all that great.

They are living pretty comfortable. Need some links? I have them right here, and a couple from the US Census bureau.

They aren't starving if that is what you mean.

 

[Andylusion]

LOL...........

Let me explain something to you.... Business at the basic fundamental level is very very simple.... It's price of goods/service minus the cost of producing the goods/service.

Everything else... is basically all details. It's price minus cost equals profit. Zero profit, and you close. Small profit and you basically are waiting to close. Large profit and you expand and grow, and produce better goods/services.

Unions take over 50% of the business equation. And the other 50%? The price? The company has absolutely no control over the price. None whatsoever.

Controlling the cost is the biggest aspect of the business, and when Union take over that, and demand highers costs of production... that's why GM and Chrysler and Hostess, and un-countable others have all gone bankrupt.

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

View attachment 70923

Notice how you responded with nothing, while I responded with facts?

 

[Brain357]

There are many laws we are forced to obey.

We don't force, we give tax incentives to do the right things.

You can't give enough tax incentives to change this. If I'm losing money on a factory, what tax incentive are you going to give me to keep that factory open? You realize that if I am taking a loss, that cutting my taxes for zero, to zero, isn't an incentive?

France attempted that with the Goodyear Tire plant. It failed. They closed the plant. Tax incentives only work when you have multiple good choices. If I can be massively profitable in both Ohio and Kentucky, but Ohio offers better incentives, then I'll go there. But If I can't be profitable in Ohio, no amount of incentives is going to make me move to Ohio.

Moreover, incentives only delay the problem. I wish I could remember what company it was. It was a bank, but I can't remember which bank did this. They built their HQ in Columbus, with a massive 10 year tax abatement. Then after the abatement ran out, they moved their HQ to Hilliard (suburb), with a new tax abatement. But then 10 years later, they moved to Dublin, with a new 10 year tax abatement, where they are now. Obviously it wasn't a mega bank like Bank of America or something, but it was a large multi-state bank.

The incentives works for as long as the incentive lasts. You might delay the jobs leaving the US, for a few years, but ultimately if the economic reality is that the over all incentive is to move jobs over seas.... then that's what's going to happen.

And worse, the people on the left-wing of American politics will scream and yell about it the entire time, and work to remove the incentives you want to put in place. General Electric is the poster child for this. They, as a corporate strategy, work to get as many tax incentives as possible. That's why people are constantly screaming about them paying low tax.

So while you are right now promoting "tax incentives" to keep jobs in the US, the moment you pass those tax incentives and corporations start taking advantage of them, you'll be screaming that corporations don't pay enough tax! I've seen people on this forum do that EXACTLY. One thread they are claiming we need tax incentives for X, and in the very next forum thread, screaming non-stop about how corporations avoid taxes.

The solution is simply to lower the tax rates, lower the regulations, and cut mandates and fees. Make it more profitable to operate in the US.

Sorry but it is immensely profitable to do business in the US. Lower tax rates? Most companies pay very little now. We have had strong economies with our current corporate tax rates. What industry will lower regulations help?

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

So a tax incentive wouldn't work, but business people tell you taxes are a problem? Ummm....ok

You said that, not me. If they don't pay tax... which is what you said, not me. If they don't pay taxes, how is a tax incentive going to help? You made that claim, not me.

I said taxes are a problem, and tax incentives will only work, as long as they are in effect. When the incentive goes away, so does the benefit. You are only delaying the problem.

And that's only if there is a profitable option. If you have two profitable options, then the incentive works. But if it's not profitable to be in the US.... no amount of incentive is going to fix that.

You would change corporate taxes. They would pay a lot in taxes if they chose to not hire here and pay well. If they do those things they can pay 0.

 

[Andylusion]

You don't need a great job, you need an average or good job.

My industry needs 60,000 new workers they can't find. That's why they are turning to foreigners. You can't get Americans to stay off of drugs long enough to pass a drug test nor pay enough to get them off of social programs.

Your industry isn't exactly a real attractive job for most.

There you go. You said a mouthful right there. Not only do jobs have to have a promising future and career, they now have to be attractive enough. And if they aren't, get your Obama phone, get your SNAP's card, apply to HUD for a house in the suburb, get on Medicaid through Obama Care.

It sure as hell beats working, doesn't it? Let the foreigners come here and do the jobs.

Nobody on welfare are living all that great.

They are living pretty comfortable. Need some links? I have them right here, and a couple from the US Census bureau.

They aren't starving if that is what you mean.

I've actually met people on welfare, and it's not a bad life.

The worst part of it, is that you are stuck in that situation forever. But it's pretty comfortable. Yeah, they are not starving. In fact obesity is higher among the welfare.

 

[Brain357]

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

View attachment 70923

Notice how you responded with nothing, while I responded with facts?

GM market share is going downhill... that isn't good.

 

[Brain357]

Your industry isn't exactly a real attractive job for most.

There you go. You said a mouthful right there. Not only do jobs have to have a promising future and career, they now have to be attractive enough. And if they aren't, get your Obama phone, get your SNAP's card, apply to HUD for a house in the suburb, get on Medicaid through Obama Care.

It sure as hell beats working, doesn't it? Let the foreigners come here and do the jobs.

Nobody on welfare are living all that great.

They are living pretty comfortable. Need some links? I have them right here, and a couple from the US Census bureau.

They aren't starving if that is what you mean.

I've actually met people on welfare, and it's not a bad life.

The worst part of it, is that you are stuck in that situation forever. But it's pretty comfortable. Yeah, they are not starving. In fact obesity is higher among the welfare.

Nobody grows up wanting to be on welfare. Everyone starts with dreams and goals. I guess when there is lots of inequality and few opportunities people settle.

 

[Brain357]

who would ever want that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ran united airlines? Why would unions run a company? They help workers get better pay an benefits, not run companies.

LOL...........

Let me explain something to you.... Business at the basic fundamental level is very very simple.... It's price of goods/service minus the cost of producing the goods/service.

Everything else... is basically all details. It's price minus cost equals profit. Zero profit, and you close. Small profit and you basically are waiting to close. Large profit and you expand and grow, and produce better goods/services.

Unions take over 50% of the business equation. And the other 50%? The price? The company has absolutely no control over the price. None whatsoever.

Controlling the cost is the biggest aspect of the business, and when Union take over that, and demand highers costs of production... that's why GM and Chrysler and Hostess, and un-countable others have all gone bankrupt.

GM and Chrysler went bankrupt because the management had them building cars nobody wanted. Hostess? Not exactly a healthy choice.

This is another one of those bonkers things people say, that doesn't fit with reality.

"cars nobody wanted"

Really? Nobody wanted them? Really? You can prove that?

So throughout the entire recession, from 2007 to 2010, GM had the largest chuck of US market share. More than any other manufacturer in the US.

In other words, they were selling more of the "cars nobody wanted" than any other car maker in the US, apparently to customers who didn't want them.

BS. No, the problem wasn't that people didn't want their cars. The problem was Unions.

BS. All their problems were management problems. Had nothing to do with unions. The downfall began in the 80's when the imported cars were fuel efficient and what customer wanted. The US companies continued to make big gas guzzlers. US cars haven't even had good styling until the last 5 years maybe.

Again, looking at the FACTS, now your opinion..... GM sold more cars, than any other car company in the country. This is a "Fact".

How is it a management problem, that you are selling more cars than any other company in the country? What 'management problem' is that?

Here's what the problem was. The cost of labor was too high, compared to the price the cars fetched. Toyota... can change their labor costs. Honda.... can change their labor costs. GM and Chrysler could not, because they were under Union contracts, enforced by the government.

That's the problem. You can't blame management, or that "no one wanted" when they were out selling everyone. It goes back to my simple explanation of business. Price of product minus cost of production. When Unions jack up the cost of production, eventually you end up in bankruptcy.

The problem is that US companies put money into their union workers instead of their product. This was explained to me by my mechanic when I last owned an American car.

So after I got rid of that piece of junk, I went to Toyota and never been happier. Never been towed, never been late for work, never been stranded anywhere, because Toyota put their money into quality than labor. That's why Toyota can give you a 100,000 mile 7 year warranty on their products and American companies can't.

If you go to an American dealership, and compare a 50,000 mile used car compared to the price of a new one, you'll find a huge gap. Do the same at Toyota, and you'll see how much value their used cars have kept.

 

[Andylusion]

You can't give enough tax incentives to change this. If I'm losing money on a factory, what tax incentive are you going to give me to keep that factory open? You realize that if I am taking a loss, that cutting my taxes for zero, to zero, isn't an incentive?

France attempted that with the Goodyear Tire plant. It failed. They closed the plant. Tax incentives only work when you have multiple good choices. If I can be massively profitable in both Ohio and Kentucky, but Ohio offers better incentives, then I'll go there. But If I can't be profitable in Ohio, no amount of incentives is going to make me move to Ohio.

Moreover, incentives only delay the problem. I wish I could remember what company it was. It was a bank, but I can't remember which bank did this. They built their HQ in Columbus, with a massive 10 year tax abatement. Then after the abatement ran out, they moved their HQ to Hilliard (suburb), with a new tax abatement. But then 10 years later, they moved to Dublin, with a new 10 year tax abatement, where they are now. Obviously it wasn't a mega bank like Bank of America or something, but it was a large multi-state bank.

The incentives works for as long as the incentive lasts. You might delay the jobs leaving the US, for a few years, but ultimately if the economic reality is that the over all incentive is to move jobs over seas.... then that's what's going to happen.

And worse, the people on the left-wing of American politics will scream and yell about it the entire time, and work to remove the incentives you want to put in place. General Electric is the poster child for this. They, as a corporate strategy, work to get as many tax incentives as possible. That's why people are constantly screaming about them paying low tax.

So while you are right now promoting "tax incentives" to keep jobs in the US, the moment you pass those tax incentives and corporations start taking advantage of them, you'll be screaming that corporations don't pay enough tax! I've seen people on this forum do that EXACTLY. One thread they are claiming we need tax incentives for X, and in the very next forum thread, screaming non-stop about how corporations avoid taxes.

The solution is simply to lower the tax rates, lower the regulations, and cut mandates and fees. Make it more profitable to operate in the US.

Sorry but it is immensely profitable to do business in the US. Lower tax rates? Most companies pay very little now. We have had strong economies with our current corporate tax rates. What industry will lower regulations help?

Every industry. If they pay very little now, how would a tax incentive help?

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I've worked with, and talked with CEOs of businesses for the last decade. Never met one, not one, that said they pay very little in tax.

IF that was true, then why the heck would anyone anywhere, be pushing to lower the tax? Let's make this personal for a second. I personally have pushed for lowering my tax rate. Why would I do this, if I was paying zero tax? If I looked at my pay stub, and it said "zero tax". on it, why would I ever complain about the tax rate? It's because 1/4 of my check in gone. That's why I complain. And companies are no different. I highly doubt I would ever hear of a business person complaining about the tax rate, if they never paid massive tax.

Moreover, when people actually survey these business people, they say taxes is a problem. Why would they say that, if you are right, and they never pay tax? (or pay very little now).

You say it is immensely profitable, but the fact jobs are leaving suggests you are wrong. My own company outsourced to China. Why? Because it was not profitable to do it in the US anymore. That's why they did it. I asked. The CEO told me. They laid it all out, and the deal was, it was not profitable to do the product in the US. So the product is built in China. There you go. No amount of tax incentive would make us build that product here. None.

So a tax incentive wouldn't work, but business people tell you taxes are a problem? Ummm....ok

You said that, not me. If they don't pay tax... which is what you said, not me. If they don't pay taxes, how is a tax incentive going to help? You made that claim, not me.

I said taxes are a problem, and tax incentives will only work, as long as they are in effect. When the incentive goes away, so does the benefit. You are only delaying the problem.

And that's only if there is a profitable option. If you have two profitable options, then the incentive works. But if it's not profitable to be in the US.... no amount of incentive is going to fix that.

You would change corporate taxes. They would pay a lot in taxes if they chose to not hire here and pay well. If they do those things they can pay 0.

I would eliminate corporate tax completely. Pay well? If they pay enough they don't make a profit, they won't pay tax either. What's the point of your tax incentive then?

"if you pay well, you can pay zero tax."

"we're paying enough we have no profit, and we pay zero tax".

Dumb.

You do realize that Apple Computer, now makes more money outside the US, than inside the US, right? They could simply leave the country completely, and not have to worry about your tax rates or incentives, and make more money than ever.

People will still buy their products here, even if Apple left the country. Guarantee.

 

[Andylusion]

View attachment 70925
who would ever want that?

That was my favorite car. lol