Tax Amnesty for Big Corps fail to create Jobs.

[jackace]

I agree the corporate tax does not help us at all, because no matter what happens the corporation just passes that tax on to others. What I agree with though is forcing corporations who want to sell their goods here to employ a certain number or percent of employees here in this country either that or we need tariffs of some kind to protect our own interests.

Personally I do not like seeing all our industries (most of which we automated and/or perfected) going overseas. When something is not produced in your country you loose control and the power. This idea that America will be the intellectual and monetary power and places like Mexico, China, Korea, Taiwan, etc will be the labor are stupid. What are we going to do when the manufacturing has been done in those countries so long that we no longer can compete? (when we have no skilled labor or factories) Those once 2nd and 3rd world countries will now be dictating to us the terms of our relationship.

 

[HGC]

If someone in India or China can do the job cheaper and/or better, I say more power to him. Cheaper goods and services for the rich countries, relief from mind-boggling poverty for the poor countries, and human capital in the rich countries freed to redeploy more profitably. Though it is tough on those inevitably displaced by progress, trying to stop progress to save them is a net loser.

Even if the buggy whip industry could have been saved by federal laws, it wouldn't have been a good thing, despite the temporary relief to workers in that industry. Government attempts to prop up more expensive labor and thereby decrease manufacturing efficiency are likewise misguided.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: HGC
If someone in India or China can do the job cheaper and/or better, I say more power to him. Cheaper goods and services for the rich countries, relief from mind-boggling poverty for the poor countries, and human capital in the rich countries freed to redeploy more profitably. Though it is tough on those inevitably displaced by progress, trying to stop progress to save them is a net loser.

Even if the buggy whip industry could have been saved by federal laws, it wouldn't have been a good thing, despite the temporary relief to workers in that industry. Government attempts to prop up more expensive labor and thereby decrease manufacturing efficiency are likewise misguided.

Yes, Globalization is great. But we need to add more progressive taxes so we can have government funded retraining programs, so the workers that lose the jobs can train for other ones. Bush, however, doesn't care about those workers, and leaves them for dead, while giving corporations massive handouts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it. Not only do Corps vigorously offshore jobs, but then the Bushistas subsidize them for doing it by giving them tax breaks on profits that were parked overseas... While claiming it'll create American jobs...

Three Card Monte on a global scale...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So it's ok for poor people that get handouts become dependant on them but not corporations and farmers?

It should be fairly obvious that necessity must be considered in addition to dependency. Many families need food stamps and other services just to be able to afford three cheap meals a day (necessity greatly outweighs the problem of dependency) however I can't think of any corporation that needs handouts.

EDIT: I don't want to get into the farmers debate because I am woefully ignorant in that area

 

[jackace]

Another problem I never brought up with corporate welfare is competition. How is a new startup, who does things better then the large corporation, supposed to compete in an open market when the big corporation is receiving millions if not billions of dollars in welfare? That big, mismanaged corporation would have gone out of business and the better managed, small business would have stepped in and filled the role. But because of the government interference the small business could be run out of business, whether on purpose by the large corporation or not, (yes business is that cut-throat that they will use the government to run competition out of the industry) and the large corporation still goes bankrupt, goes out of business, moves overseas, etc.

 

[HGC]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: HGC
If someone in India or China can do the job cheaper and/or better, I say more power to him. Cheaper goods and services for the rich countries, relief from mind-boggling poverty for the poor countries, and human capital in the rich countries freed to redeploy more profitably. Though it is tough on those inevitably displaced by progress, trying to stop progress to save them is a net loser.

Even if the buggy whip industry could have been saved by federal laws, it wouldn't have been a good thing, despite the temporary relief to workers in that industry. Government attempts to prop up more expensive labor and thereby decrease manufacturing efficiency are likewise misguided.

Yes, Globalization is great. But we need to add more progressive taxes so we can have government funded retraining programs, so the workers that lose the jobs can train for other ones. Bush, however, doesn't care about those workers, and leaves them for dead, while giving corporations massive handouts.

I feel for workers in transition (I'm one myself) and their need for retraining, but government programs to do that have a long history of failure. In fact, every time the government increases subsidies for colleges, they raise their tuition. There is a great revolution now in online and community colleges offering practical work-oriented programs. I say government please get out of the way, these folks will compete on price and do the best job with retraining.

I'm with you 100% on handouts to corporations. This would be such a winner for Republicans, to just phase out corporate welfare as was done with personal welfare. I suppose their campaign contributors wouldn't stand for it...

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: HGC

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: HGC
If someone in India or China can do the job cheaper and/or better, I say more power to him. Cheaper goods and services for the rich countries, relief from mind-boggling poverty for the poor countries, and human capital in the rich countries freed to redeploy more profitably. Though it is tough on those inevitably displaced by progress, trying to stop progress to save them is a net loser.

Even if the buggy whip industry could have been saved by federal laws, it wouldn't have been a good thing, despite the temporary relief to workers in that industry. Government attempts to prop up more expensive labor and thereby decrease manufacturing efficiency are likewise misguided.

Yes, Globalization is great. But we need to add more progressive taxes so we can have government funded retraining programs, so the workers that lose the jobs can train for other ones. Bush, however, doesn't care about those workers, and leaves them for dead, while giving corporations massive handouts.

I feel for workers in transition (I'm one myself) and their need for retraining, but government programs to do that have a long history of failure. In fact, every time the government increases subsidies for colleges, they raise their tuition. There is a great revolution now in online and community colleges offering practical work-oriented programs. I say government please get out of the way, these folks will compete on price and do the best job with retraining.

I'm with you 100% on handouts to corporations. This would be such a winner for Republicans, to just phase out corporate welfare as was done with personal welfare. I suppose their campaign contributors wouldn't stand for it...

Well, tution needs to be raised, because theres a shortage of supply. More and more children are going to college, and there are less spots availible. Also, the notion that government programs are deemed to fail is pretty far stretched. Government programs are very helpful, to many people. Yes, sometimes, there are agencies that outlive their usefullness, but thats why you need to trim the fat every couple of years.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: jackace
Another problem I never brought up with corporate welfare is competition. How is a new startup, who does things better then the large corporation, supposed to compete in an open market when the big corporation is receiving millions if not billions of dollars in welfare? That big, mismanaged corporation would have gone out of business and the better managed, small business would have stepped in and filled the role. But because of the government interference the small business could be run out of business, whether on purpose by the large corporation or not, (yes business is that cut-throat that they will use the government to run competition out of the industry) and the large corporation still goes bankrupt, goes out of business, moves overseas, etc.

The Small Business Administration is extremely helpful, in terms of cash (grants and cheap loans), education, and incentives. All you (as a small business) have to do is ask. Small Businesses have their own Welfare office (and it's a good thing, IMO, since small business create the majority of jobs in this country).

In many (if not most), cases big business don't mess with the smaller / newer /startups. That's their most fertile ground for gaining technology, research, or new product.

Big Pharma frequently partners up with new startup or small drug companies and provide funding and material support for the first rights to their new drugs/discoveries.

Big Software routinely partners with, then buys out the smaller shops

Manufacturing also frequently buys out or merges with smaller organizations with newer/ more efficient manufacturing techniques (which are usually proprietary processes or devices)

I'm not saying it doesn't happen; my point is that, generally, small businesses are the "farmland" where larger businesses gather capacity, new ideas, or new products without having to suffer the full pain of development.

Certainly there are cases of various abuses, one of the most obvious case from the past is the "Sears scenario," where Sears would contract for massive quantity of "things," then once the small guy is greared up to manufacture or supply them, Sears re-negotiates the price down (the small guy either drops the price or gets stuck with lots of excess capacity, much of which was usually "leveraged').

Of course there's all those little Microsoft issues in the past.... but as a rule, Microsoft is more into acquiring than stomping these days. Check out Microsoft Uinversity, outside of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.

It was (still is, I think), by all descriptions, a WIN-WIN for everyone; poorer people got free/cheap technical education, MS (and all the other companies in India) got batches of new Microsoft-friendlyprogrammers and users, Andhra got some money, living conditions improved. And, of course, there's the evil Mr. Bill Gates giving BILLIONs (of his own money, the bastard!) away to schools, medicine, research ...

I believe you'd find, if you'd give it a fair look, that most of the senior corporate officers of most of the Fortune 500 personally give considerable sums to charities. They also provide support, individually and with volunteer corporate resources, in the form of warm bodies and things collected (shoes, coats, backpacks full of school supplies).

I'd almost be willing to wager that the majority of large (ala Fortune 100/500) corporations give back to the community, in the form of various charities and initiatives, as much or more than they get in "Corporate Welfare" from the collective governments (Fed, State, County, City).

The bottom line is, of course; " You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate." They wouldn't have it if "someone" didn't give it to them.

Lansing Michigan pulled most of their "Corporate Welfare" incentives to GM (and at a very bad time to do so). GM is closing / has closed three plants (in Lansing alone) and consolidated operations to friendlier and cheaper areas elsewhere.

Unless you make it illegal at a federal level, some communities will always be willing to give a little to get a lot, and they'll prosper. Other communities, like Lansing (my old home town), will try to stick it to the big companies that keep their communities afloat and lose bigtime (at least for a while).

 

[jackace]

That was my point. It should have never started and needs to be illegal at the federal level.

I live here in Boise Idaho. Micron is the largest private employer in the entire state by a large margin. A few years ago when they were negotiating for tax breaks they were big on "we want to be a pillar in the community", "we want to be involved in the community", etc. They wanted to do all those things but needed huge tax cuts to do it.

They received their tax cuts and business continued until they just now lost $200m+ last quarter. They laid off 1100+ people, will outsource more jobs, and move some operations overseas. The CEO went on the news and told the community that Micron has to be responsible to their share holders and to do so it will not be whats good for Boise or Idaho. Why was this not talked about when the state of Idaho gave up $millions if not $billions of tax revenue?

So the corporation will take anything you give them but when it comes to crunch time they just leave the community out to dry, with no sense of loyalty or anything. For this reason I believe it should be illegal to participate in any of this corporate welfare.

On a side note. I agree the CEO themselves might be a good citizen, but my comments have been addressed toward the corporation as a citizen. They are good citizens when things are good for them. Soon as things go bad they drop you in a heartbeat.

 

[HGC]

Another problem with corporate welfare is how politicians select the winners. A cab driver in Brooklyn or a gas station owner in Dubuque will not be on the list. Why? Because they will not be donating millions to the campaigns of the party giving out the candy. I don't see how that is fair.

Also, why should we believe that politicos can pick the best industries to subsidize better than the marketplace? All the evidence suggests that they can't.