RTFA

 

There is this and Sears holding Illinois hostage for tax incentives. Ohio's governor is reportedly willing to give $400 million to lure Sears.

This will not actually add jobs either , mind you. It's just way easier for politicians to steal other states jobs than worry about the long term focus of creating the conditions for employment

2wolves: Weaver95: Ford Motor Co. will ask the state for an incentive package Monday to help pay for the company's plans to convert its Avon Lake van plant into a commercial truck plant.


I have a counter-proposal - how about Ford pays for the conversion themselves. And if they shut down the plant and move the jobs overseas, then the company AND the vice president of the company pay a fine of no less than 10% of their net worth and get a free IRS audit of their holdings.

how the f*ck is this considered capitalism!? man up and pay for this shiat your damn selves! stop having the tax payers bail your asses out!

Why steel died in the U.S.. None of the big players grasped the fact that the state of the art had passed them by. J&L, U.S. Steel, etc were running on pre-WW2 mind sets.

The U.S. automobile corporations have had to be dragged into the 20th century kicking and screaming all the way.

Glass parking lot?

Makh: Only 1900 jobs? What is that, like 3 Apple Stores?

I think you misread that as "Only $1900?". Then that would make sense with a reply of, "What is that, like 3 Apple iPhones?"

/Sadly, the math actually works that way as well.

//But then again, most iPhone users are pretty sad to begin with.

Weaver95: Ford Motor Co. will ask the state for an incentive package Monday to help pay for the company's plans to convert its Avon Lake van plant into a commercial truck plant.


I have a counter-proposal - how about Ford pays for the conversion themselves. And if they shut down the plant and move the jobs overseas, then the company AND the vice president of the company pay a fine of no less than 10% of their net worth and get a free IRS audit of their holdings.

how the f*ck is this considered capitalism!? man up and pay for this shiat your damn selves! stop having the tax payers bail your asses out!

Ford has a counter counter proposal. How about you buy American only and if you buy any foreign car you will be fined no less than 10% of you total worth and get an IRS audit (including your internet purchases).

This is the classic case of Americans saying, "we want competition in the products we buy but not competition in the services we sell!" Another classic case is the people who oppose H1B.

FTA:

Last month, Chrysler announced it would invest $500 million to retool its Jeep complex in Toledo, a move that should create 1,000 jobs. The state offered $10 million in job-creation tax credits and another $2 million in grants for job training and machinery.

So Ford wants the same thing that the state gave to Chrysler?

[thisisaoutrage.jpg]

Allen262: FTA:

Last month, Chrysler announced it would invest $500 million to retool its Jeep complex in Toledo, a move that should create 1,000 jobs. The state offered $10 million in job-creation tax credits and another $2 million in grants for job training and machinery.

So Ford wants the same thing that the state gave to Chrysler?

[thisisaoutrage.jpg]

Because it has been done before, it is OK to keep doing? I don't think it is right that a large company can legally hold a state and city hostage, nor is it right for a state or city be able to essentially give a company money to stay/move.

Politicians are always obsessed with big business because it's headling-grabbing. You can create the environment where 50 companies employing 50 people move in and no-one writes about it. You can create the environment where a couple of guys start up in a garage and create billion dollar industries, and no-one writes about it.

The problem with subsidising companies is that you'll frequently just end up with companies at the point where they've hit maximum scale. They'll ask for a subsidy for 2000 jobs, but they won't create many more. And those jobs are in a mature industry which means that you're in a race to the bottom on salaries, and you'll either have to keep paying for those jobs, or they'll go to China.

It's getting the new Apples and ARM holdings into your town when they're still working out of cheap rented offices, and before they bring 2000 jobs as they grow. As far as I'm aware, ARM never had a subsidy from Cambridge. They're in Cambridge because that's where Acorn started, and Acorn started in Cambridge because of the university.

mr0x: This is the classic case of Americans saying, "we want competition in the products we buy but not competition in the services we sell!" Another classic case is the people who oppose H1B.

You are an idiot for lumping those together. The H1B issue is that there are americans who can do jobs, but not for the pitance that american companies want to pay. So they fark with the requirements to bring in H1Bs to do the job, threaten to revoke their green card and work the fark out of them for far cheaper than they can get away with screwing over an american.

THAT is the problem with H1B. We have plenty of people in the US that can do the jobs, the corporations do not want to pay a fair wage.

some.old.lady.: Meatzilla: RTFA

 

Am I correct in assuming you believe the gist of the article states that ford (and others) are not asking for capital, but for tax incentives (tax breaks)?

In the main, it seems to me that subby is a bit off in the characterization of the companies' requests.

?

What is the difference between getting money and not paying money that you would otherwise be required to pay? In the end, the state has less money by that amount, and the company has more money by that amount.

This is exactly the sort of thing the Occupy movement is protesting against. I cannot go to the state and say "you know, give me a break on my sales tax and my car registration fees, or I'm moving to another state." But, companies somehow get to make threats along those lines? Fark Ford.

Weaver95: Ford Motor Co. will ask the state for an incentive package Monday to help pay for the company's plans to convert its Avon Lake van plant into a commercial truck plant.


I have a counter-proposal - how about Ford pays for the conversion themselves. And if they shut down the plant and move the jobs overseas, then the company AND the vice president of the company pay a fine of no less than 10% of their net worth and get a free IRS audit of their holdings.

how the f*ck is this considered capitalism!? man up and pay for this shiat your damn selves! stop having the tax payers bail your asses out!

It works for football teams (build us a stadium) and they can only leave the state, not the country. Well...not yet anyway.

oukewldave: Allen262: FTA:

Last month, Chrysler announced it would invest $500 million to retool its Jeep complex in Toledo, a move that should create 1,000 jobs. The state offered $10 million in job-creation tax credits and another $2 million in grants for job training and machinery.

So Ford wants the same thing that the state gave to Chrysler?

[thisisaoutrage.jpg]

Because it has been done before, it is OK to keep doing? I don't think it is right that a large company can legally hold a state and city hostage, nor is it right for a state or city be able to essentially give a company money to stay/move.

Mercedes got the state of Alabama to pay a percentage of the salary of the workers they hire (for a period of time), and other foreign makers have leveraged all kinds of sweetheart deals out of other states in the south.

http://washingtonindependent.com/22236/cars

Don't hate on Ford, It's how business get's done..

Weaver95: Ford Motor Co. will ask the state for an incentive package Monday to help pay for the company's plans to convert its Avon Lake van plant into a commercial truck plant.


I have a counter-proposal - how about Ford pays for the conversion themselves. And if they shut down the plant and move the jobs overseas, then the company AND the vice president of the company pay a fine of no less than 10% of their net worth and get a free IRS audit of their holdings.

how the f*ck is this considered capitalism!? man up and pay for this shiat your damn selves! stop having the tax payers bail your asses out!

This is not capitalism. This is the American hybrid of capitalism and socialism where, instead of people taking risks with their own wealth and getting to reap the rewards good or bad, we socialize the costs, and privatize the profits above a certain amount, and tax the shiat out of the profits below a certain amount so that new competitors are prevented from succeeding. That way we keep a ready pool of desperate labor, clamoring for any scrap of a job, or bread, that those in the political aristocracy deign to toss them.

Basically, it is the new feudalism.

This is the same Ford that everyone keeps telling me "didn't take bailout money", right?

How is this not Socialism? And how is this Capitalism?

Universal healthcare, social security, public schools, free school lunches for the needy, public housing? Socialism
Giving government money to big business to help improve their bottom line? Capitalism.

And then on top of that, they get tax credits. Tax credits! And Ford isn't going to create any new jobs.

Stories like these make me want to slap every CEO who complains about how the US is awful on big business.

tomWright: This is the American hybrid of capitalism and socialism


It's nothing of the kind. Hybridized systems are social democracies (new window), which don't resemble the United States at all. Contrary to your assertion this *is* capitalism left to its own devices. We're reverting to a laissez faire system where government doesn't interfere with the markets, but the markets can interfere with government to their own ends.

The fact we're now a nation of useful idiots that call this capitalist perversion "socialism" just shows how backward we've become.

mekki: How is this not Socialism?


Because socialism would be nationalizing Ford under public ownership. Not giving it money.

Weaver95: how the f*ck is this considered capitalism!?

It involves the use of capital. "Capitalism" doesn't mean "things I think are fair and equitable." Quite the opposite in fact. This is "free market capitalism" at work. "Market freedom" doesn't mean freedom for you or democracy. It means the market is free to demand what it pleases. In this case: money from the public to pad its bottom line, and if you take free market capitalism seriously, that's the way it should be.

Ed Willy: There is this and Sears holding Illinois hostage for tax incentives. Ohio's governor is reportedly willing to give $400 million to lure Sears.

This will not actually add jobs either , mind you. It's just way easier for politicians to steal other states jobs than worry about the long term focus of creating the conditions for employment

What really made it hilarious (and upsetting to Ohio) was that while he was offering Sears $400 million in tax breaks, Chiquita decided to bail Cincinnati for Charlotte because NC offered way more tax incentives than Ohio did.

Talk about putting your eggs in one basket, if Sears doesn't move to Ohio, I think this would be an epic fail for what is already a disastrous term for Kasich.

/He deserves it though

DarnoKonrad: Weaver95: how the f*ck is this considered capitalism!?

It involves the use of capital. "Capitalism" doesn't mean "things I think are fair and equitable." Quite the opposite in fact. This is "free market capitalism" at work. "Market freedom" doesn't mean freedom for you or democracy. It means the market is free to demand what it pleases. In this case: money from the public to pad its bottom line, and if you take free market capitalism seriously, that's the way it should be.

This is why those who think a pure free-market is the solution to all of our woes are farking retarded.

Because no matter how many people try to play nice, there's always someone who acts like a total dick and ruins it for the rest of us.

DarnoKonrad: mekki: How is this not Socialism?


Because socialism would be nationalizing Ford under public ownership. Not giving it money.

What you defined is communism (USSR style). Socialism would be taxing their profits at 70% to fund cradle to grave health care.

NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE!

whither_apophis: DarnoKonrad: mekki: How is this not Socialism?


Because socialism would be nationalizing Ford under public ownership. Not giving it money.

What you defined is communism (USSR style). Socialism would be taxing their profits at 70% to fund cradle to grave health care.


No, that's social democracy. Socialism is the public ownership of capital -- not the degree of taxation on private capital. Communism is a theoretical libertarian ideal where socialism leads to a stateless egalitarian society like Star Trek.

Benevolent Misanthrope: And if we do give them the money, is there anything to make them stay, or do they maximize profit by cutting tht plant and those jobs anyway?

The money will just serve to reduce the jobs in the long run. Modernizing manufacturing plants never creates new jobs. Modernizing means making them more efficient and more automated - meaning reducing the amount of human involvement. Guaranteed that after that plant is modernized those 1900 jobs will gradually be reduced.

Ed Willy: This will not actually add jobs either , mind you. It's just way easier for politicians to steal other states jobs than worry about the long term focus of creating the conditions for employment

A very good point that shows how little real growth of new, well paying jobs there is in the U.S. It is easier for politicians to try to "steal" jobs from another state than to figure out how to create an environment to grow new industries and net new jobs. Large corporations know this and love playing states against each other for the best deal. As was mentioned above, it gets more headlines. In addition, every time you see a "jobs advisory" committee established by politicians, whether at the Federal, State, or local level, they invariably put folks from large corporations on these boards, thinking that "they employ a lot of folks, therefore we need to cater to them" - not realizing that, in most cases, if these folks can increase profit by cutting jobs and/moving jobs overseas, they will do so in a heartbeat.

Idiots fail by making it sound like the government is simply handing a cashier's check to the company CEO.

Idiots fail to understand how tax credits work.

Idiots fail.

farkin_Gary: Idiots fail by making it sound like the government is simply handing a cashier's check to the company CEO.

Idiots fail to understand how tax credits work.

Idiots fail.

What is the difference between saying "You have to pay the normal amount of taxes, but here is a bunch of money" vs "I'm not giving you a bunch of money, but you don't have to pay that amount in taxes that you would otherwise owe"? As I said before, the end result is the company has that amount more, and the government has that amount less. In that respect, it's the same thing.

jack21221: farkin_Gary: Idiots fail by making it sound like the government is simply handing a cashier's check to the company CEO.

Idiots fail to understand how tax credits work.

Idiots fail.

What is the difference between saying "You have to pay the normal amount of taxes, but here is a bunch of money" vs "I'm not giving you a bunch of money, but you don't have to pay that amount in taxes that you would otherwise owe"? As I said before, the end result is the company has that amount more, and the government has that amount less. In that respect, it's the same thing.

Ha! Define "normal taxes."

The difference is, the proper amount of tax is the amount of tax due after all legal means to reduce the tax bill have been exhausted.

DarnoKonrad: whither_apophis: DarnoKonrad: mekki: How is this not Socialism?


Because socialism would be nationalizing Ford under public ownership. Not giving it money.

What you defined is communism (USSR style). Socialism would be taxing their profits at 70% to fund cradle to grave health care.


No, that's social democracy. Socialism is the public ownership of capital -- not the degree of taxation on private capital. Communism is a theoretical libertarian ideal where socialism leads to a stateless egalitarian society like Star Trek.

well sure technically, but this is America where we can define anything the way we want.

farkin_Gary: Ha! Define "normal taxes."

The difference is, the proper amount of tax is the amount of tax due after all legal means to reduce the tax bill have been exhausted.

Right, including begging the state for money. Again, the end result is the same. Begging for cash up front and begging for a lowering of what would otherwise be paid lead to identical outcomes. The latter just seems a little less like grift at a glance.

jack21221: farkin_Gary: Ha! Define "normal taxes."

The difference is, the proper amount of tax is the amount of tax due after all legal means to reduce the tax bill have been exhausted.

Right, including begging the state for money. Again, the end result is the same. Begging for cash up front and begging for a lowering of what would otherwise be paid lead to identical outcomes. The latter just seems a little less like grift at a glance.

Finally! Someone else gets that.

I always seem to have a hard time explaining that to people sometimes.

GoodyearPimp: This is the same Ford that everyone keeps telling me "didn't take bailout money", right?

Because they didn't...

If this meets your criteria of "taking government money" or a "bailout", then state and local governments have bailed out just about every carmaker there is, including Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, Hyundai, Suburu, etc..

The cliche' "don't hate the player, hate the game" cannot be more fitting. Any carmaker that didn't exert this kind of leverage would be at a distinct competitive disadvantage...

This seems to be a key feature of a lot of corporate business plans including Spectrum Brands (think Rayovac batteries, Remington shavers, Black and Decker, George Foreman grills) Link (new window) "Broke" Wisconsin is giving them a $4 million forgiveable loan to create 40 jobs, and do renovations they were going to have to do anyway. Meanwhile the company's CEO took home $7.3 million last year, and three other execs took home more than $4 million, the amount the state is lending the company. Oh, and the company was in bankruptcy 2 years ago, and hasn't turned a profit since.

I guess it makes good business sense to socialize risks and privatize profits, if you can get away with it.

Everyone is focused on discussion on the relationship between the government and the company. I dont see any discussion about the relationship between the company and the government AND the union, and then the workers who would exist out side of it if treated fairly. There needs to be more of this. The occupy crowd seems only to focus on big business and their profits, and how obscenly gross the CEO's salary's are. Because it is easy to only have one bad guy.
Why stop at the CEO's of the companies, lets look at the CEO's of the labor unions. Lets look at the government policy. Lets look at the lawyers representing their perspective interests. Lets look at the laborers, lets look at the consumer. Because in the end, getting anyone to part with thier share of the "cookie" is impossible.

The correlation between Apple stores and this is moot. Apple stores hock wares manufactured in china. We only buy the end product in these stores. The intellectual support for these products has already left. Ultimately you reach a point where you replace the product and refurb what is broken. There is no great labor matrix built around the continued use of these products, their stable function, or government mandate into their use. Your Iphone breaks? Toss it and get a new one. Benefit only to APPLE co. and the Chinese folk who put em together. It isnt just largely Apple but all techology in general.

The auto industry on the other hand has a large matrix of support and industry jobs built around keeping your investment running within the government guidelines, not to mention the tax benefits the purchase and use of the item generate in the long run.

Imagine taxing every minute of use on your iphone to the tune of 18.4% so the fed can have their share, and then the state's on top of it. Oh and then paying a yearly checkup and licensing fee, and local fee for use. and then an access fee based upon where you are currently sitting. and then back to roaming charges whenever you are moving.

FIgure if there is that much tax base put into the use of auto's and trucks, then maybe the Govt could pony up some dough to keep folks employed there, manufacturing that cash cow. Have the Govt put some strings in it that it has to be 35% greener or use solar or some crap like that.

oukewldave: Allen262: FTA:

Last month, Chrysler announced it would invest $500 million to retool its Jeep complex in Toledo, a move that should create 1,000 jobs. The state offered $10 million in job-creation tax credits and another $2 million in grants for job training and machinery.

So Ford wants the same thing that the state gave to Chrysler?

[thisisaoutrage.jpg]

Because it has been done before, it is OK to keep doing? I don't think it is right that a large company can legally hold a state and city hostage, nor is it right for a state or city be able to essentially give a company money to stay/move.

So what do you want to do about it? Have the NLRB tell them where they can site their businesses, like they're attempting to do to Boeing?

Chameleon: dforkus: The cliche' "don't hate the player, hate the game" cannot be more fitting. Any carmaker that didn't exert this kind of leverage would be at a distinct competitive disadvantage...

And this, right here, is why free-market capitalism is a terrible way to structure society. Businesses are not only allowed to work unethically, they are downright forced to if they want to stay in business.

Give an example of a system, existing or in the past, that's structured more to your liking.

jjorsett: oukewldave: Allen262: FTA:

Last month, Chrysler announced it would invest $500 million to retool its Jeep complex in Toledo, a move that should create 1,000 jobs. The state offered $10 million in job-creation tax credits and another $2 million in grants for job training and machinery.

So Ford wants the same thing that the state gave to Chrysler?

[thisisaoutrage.jpg]

Because it has been done before, it is OK to keep doing? I don't think it is right that a large company can legally hold a state and city hostage, nor is it right for a state or city be able to essentially give a company money to stay/move.

So what do you want to do about it? Have the NLRB tell them where they can site their businesses, like they're attempting to do to Boeing?

Sounds good to me. I live in Boeington and our tax dollars paid their worker's training. If they want to pull up stakes and head to SC, Boeing has to refund the money.

LarryDan43: Weaver95: Ford Motor Co. will ask the state for an incentive package Monday to help pay for the company's plans to convert its Avon Lake van plant into a commercial truck plant.


I have a counter-proposal - how about Ford pays for the conversion themselves. And if they shut down the plant and move the jobs overseas, then the company AND the vice president of the company pay a fine of no less than 10% of their net worth and get a free IRS audit of their holdings.

how the f*ck is this considered capitalism!? man up and pay for this shiat your damn selves! stop having the tax payers bail your asses out!

It works for football teams (build us a stadium) and they can only leave the state, not the country. Well...not yet anyway.

Why would teams leave the country? For the phat European and Asian football monies?

The_Time_Master: mr0x: This is the classic case of Americans saying, "we want competition in the products we buy but not competition in the services we sell!" Another classic case is the people who oppose H1B.

You are an idiot for lumping those together. The H1B issue is that there are americans who can do jobs, but not for the pitance that american companies want to pay. So they fark with the requirements to bring in H1Bs to do the job, threaten to revoke their green card and work the fark out of them for far cheaper than they can get away with screwing over an american.

THAT is the problem with H1B. We have plenty of people in the US that can do the jobs, the corporations do not want to pay a fair wage.

You are the severely misinformed idiot.

The H1b must be given the same wage as US workers. In fact, his salary and the job requirements must be posted on the business location and the salary disclosed to immigration for approval and matched by the tax records. In fact, hiring an H1b is much more expensive than a local since it has all those lawyer fees associated with it and the huge H1B application fees to the government.

All those IT people were butthurt over H1B because it increased supply of the available IT labor pool and the competition decreased wages. Through misinformation and tugging patriotic heart strings they got the H1B visa reduced, and guess what happened. Outsourcing boomed.

Weaver95: I have a counter-proposal - how about Ford pays for the conversion themselves. And if they shut down the plant and move the jobs overseas, then the company AND the vice president of the company pay a fine of no less than 10% of their net worth and get a free IRS audit of their holdings.

If anyone still needed proof that weaver is an idiot that doesn't know much about anything here it is. I count 7 stupid things in this statement, my personal favorite is the "company AND the vice president of the company" as if companies only have one VP or the VP would be the person who makes the decision on this.

That actually isn't true, my favorite part was his completely ridiculous notion that they should pay a fine for moving jobs overseas even though such action is not illegal