It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders: Carrier took Trump hostage and won-- Carrier Will Leave-Trump pays them to stay

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
they move to mexico because they can make more money there. like what?! yes we want our companies to stay here. why do people belive that over taxation is a good thing. wtf does the government do for anyone with all that tax money. quit taxing business, let them grow here and employ the people that live here.

HOW IS THAT NOT COMMON SENSE?




posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jjkenobi

So when GE moves it's refrigeration plant to Mexico it is due to taxes? They don't pay taxes, it is for cheap slave like labor.

Taxes are a shared responsibility.
Do you like paved roads? taxes
Educated populace? taxes
fire dept? taxes
police? taxes
interstate highways?taxes
generally safe country (thank the military)? taxes.......

Guess what, the corps enjoy these benefits as well, and they should help pay for them. Of course taxes should be fair.

If they are paying none, are they really too high?


Corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers (YOU) pay taxes. When you raise taxes on a corporation, they just pass the increased cost on to the consumer.

Tax code for both corporations and individuals needs to be dramatically simplified. Heck, the cost savings from having a simpler tax code for companies would probably offset the savings from moving operations overseas. Do you have any idea how much companies spend on accountants and lawyers every year just to comply with taxes? BILLIONS.

There should be no need for a corporation to have to spend millions a year hiring Big 4 accounting firms just to do their taxes. Nor should a companies tax return be 1000 pages.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jjkenobi

So when GE moves it's refrigeration plant to Mexico it is due to taxes? They don't pay taxes, it is for cheap slave like labor.

Taxes are a shared responsibility.
Do you like paved roads? taxes
Educated populace? taxes
fire dept? taxes
police? taxes
interstate highways?taxes
generally safe country (thank the military)? taxes.......

Guess what, the corps enjoy these benefits as well, and they should help pay for them. Of course taxes should be fair.

If they are paying none, are they really too high?


Corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers (YOU) pay taxes. When you raise taxes on a corporation, they just pass the increased cost on to the consumer.

Tax code for both corporations and individuals needs to be dramatically simplified. Heck, the cost savings from having a simpler tax code for companies would probably offset the savings from moving operations overseas. Do you have any idea how much companies spend on accountants and lawyers every year just to comply with taxes? BILLIONS.

There should be no need for a corporation to have to spend millions a year hiring Big 4 accounting firms just to do their taxes. Nor should a companies tax return be 1000 pages.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




It is possible that Trump, known for his bullying, might have threatened to withhold future government contracts from them.

This would be highly unethical.


Why is it unethical?

What is wrong with the US gov't playing a little more hardball or giving preference to Business that keep Jobs in the US?


edit on 401231America/ChicagoFri, 02 Dec 2016 10:40:54 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




Corporations now know that they can get favorable deals by holding jobs hostage. What could possibly go wrong?


they knew this before??? this isn't the first time a company has been bribed like this to stay. heck, I don't even think that it's the first time that carrier has benefited from this kind of deal. Maybe I am wrong, but I kind of think that their syracuse plant struck a similar deal with NY state about a decade or so ago.
don't get me wrong, I don't like these kinds of deals for a few reasons, not the least of which is that it seems that many of these companies will still threaten to move again in the near future and be back at the table trying to strike up another deal. but there's also the problem that there are plenty of smaller businesses having their own struggles, that maybe don't hire as many that will never be given the opportunity to sit at that table themselves, even if they do threaten to leave... it just strengthens the growing power of the big corps at the expense of their smaller competition.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

In other words regulate the free market.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Right, a profitable company is not paying taxes, the customer is.

When a company is no longer profitable then they are paying the taxes.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
SATURN Fx:



Imagine if you could drive down central America and it was like driving from Germany to Spain?


Maybe we should have developed Mexico instead of burning money in the ME. Maybe we would even have reinforcements with the Navy of better developed nations and we wouldn't have to protect every trade route in the world.

It would be great if we had a sort of open borders full cooperation (incorporation) with the US, Mexico, etc..right up to the panama canal tbh. unite all north and central america under one umbrella with order, laws, fair trade, etc...and have a tiny prebuilt border at the canal

But that might work for a 50 year plan..certainly not anytime soon...but yeah, if the opportunity arose, I would say America simply needs to buy mexico and resolve things that way.
Drug kingpins wouldn't like that though.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: luthier
SATURN Fx:



Imagine if you could drive down central America and it was like driving from Germany to Spain?


Maybe we should have developed Mexico instead of burning money in the ME. Maybe we would even have reinforcements with the Navy of better developed nations and we wouldn't have to protect every trade route in the world.

It would be great if we had a sort of open borders full cooperation (incorporation) with the US, Mexico, etc..right up to the panama canal tbh. unite all north and central america under one umbrella with order, laws, fair trade, etc...and have a tiny prebuilt border at the canal

But that might work for a 50 year plan..certainly not anytime soon...but yeah, if the opportunity arose, I would say America simply needs to buy mexico and resolve things that way.
Drug kingpins wouldn't like that though.



Yeah, if we started 100 years ago it would have been much better.

It's hard to imagine Norway the same place with Somalia next door.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42


Why is it unethical?

What is wrong with the US gov't playing a little more hardball or giving preference to Business that keep Jobs in the US?


I refer you to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 6.1—Full and Open Competition:


6.100 Scope of subpart.
This subpart prescribes the policy and procedures that are to be used to promote and provide for full and open competition.
6.101 Policy.
(a) 10 U.S.C. 2304 and 41 U.S.C. 3301 require, with certain limited exceptions (see subpart 6.2 and 6.3), that contracting officers shall promote and provide for full and open competition in soliciting offers and awarding Government contracts.
(b) Contracting officers shall provide for full and open competition through use of the competitive procedure(s) contained in this subpart that are best suited to the circumstances of the contract action and consistent with the need to fulfill the Government’s requirements efficiently (10 U.S.C. 2304 and 41 U.S.C. 3301).
6.102 Use of competitive procedures.
The competitive procedures available for use in fulfilling the requirement for full and open competition are as follows:
(a) Sealed bids. (See 6.401(a).)
(b) Competitive proposals. (See 6.401(b).) If sealed bids are not appropriate under paragraph (a) of this section, contracting officers shall request competitive proposals or use the other competitive procedures under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.
(c) Combination of competitive procedures. If sealed bids are not appropriate, contracting officers may use any combination of competitive procedures (e.g., two-step sealed bidding).
(d) Other competitive procedures.
(1) Selection of sources for architect-engineer contracts in accordance with the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 1102 et seq. is a competitive procedure (see subpart 36.6 for procedures).
(2) Competitive selection of basic and applied research and that part of development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement is a competitive procedure if award results from—
(i) A broad agency announcement that is general in nature identifying areas of research interest, including criteria for selecting proposals, and soliciting the participation of all offerors capable of satisfying the Government’s needs; and
(ii) A peer or scientific review.
(3) Use of multiple award schedules issued under the procedures established by the Administrator of General Services consistent with the requirement of 41 U.S.C. 152(3)(A) for the multiple award schedule program of the General Services Administration is a competitive procedure.


www.acquisition.gov...

Translation: anyone and their neighbor can bid for a government contract.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Good point, but the New World order isn't to raise the Mexicans out of abject poverty, it is to lower the US to a very low average income. Looks like their plan is working.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

not really, it's not...
since the business world still wants their huge profits, which means that there has to be enough consumers with money to buy their goods and services.
and don't think that the social service net isn't being harnessed now to provide them with those consumers, not to mention their low paid workforce.

we don't need deals like this one, it only kicks the can down the road some for a few. what we need is for the business and gov't sector to realize that this game can't continue forever and start making a honest effort to balance those three aspects I mentioned. both business and gov't could, if they wanted to, takes measures to reduce the cost of living, they could also do things that would ensure the workers could earn enough to not only meet the cost of their necessities but also have some extra to buy a few not so necessary items and the economic engine can keep chugging. but without a consumer buying, there is no need for an economic engine. and, that top ten, or so percent of top earners isn't enough to keep it chugging.
we have a choice between three futures...
the one we have the businesses manufacturing and providing services enjoying a cheap labor force and huge profits, with a gov't who is handing out checks to that cheap labor force out of tax revenue that is tapped into those business profits and the super wealthy... with more and more businesses going as the gov't decides that the people need less and less...
or, businesses get a wake up call, and realize that their employees can only be their consumers if they can earn enough to afford their products and more than likely the gov't helps them come to that realization a little by putting some pressure on them and together they can find a balance.
or well, we keep playing the game that has been playing out to the point where there is no salvation available to the economic system and it crumbles, leaving us in the age of cottage industry and bartering.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: seasonal

not really, it's not...
since the business world still wants their huge profits, which means that there has to be enough consumers with money to buy their goods and services.
and don't think that the social service net isn't being harnessed now to provide them with those consumers, not to mention their low paid workforce.

we don't need deals like this one, it only kicks the can down the road some for a few. what we need is for the business and gov't sector to realize that this game can't continue forever and start making a honest effort to balance those three aspects I mentioned. both business and gov't could, if they wanted to, takes measures to reduce the cost of living, they could also do things that would ensure the workers could earn enough to not only meet the cost of their necessities but also have some extra to buy a few not so necessary items and the economic engine can keep chugging. but without a consumer buying, there is no need for an economic engine. and, that top ten, or so percent of top earners isn't enough to keep it chugging.
we have a choice between three futures...
the one we have the businesses manufacturing and providing services enjoying a cheap labor force and huge profits, with a gov't who is handing out checks to that cheap labor force out of tax revenue that is tapped into those business profits and the super wealthy... with more and more businesses going as the gov't decides that the people need less and less...
or, businesses get a wake up call, and realize that their employees can only be their consumers if they can earn enough to afford their products and more than likely the gov't helps them come to that realization a little by putting some pressure on them and together they can find a balance.
or well, we keep playing the game that has been playing out to the point where there is no salvation available to the economic system and it crumbles, leaving us in the age of cottage industry and bartering.





Consumers also have to stop being so price conscious. Consumers demand lower and lower costs and business responds. They only way to offer the prices demanded by consumers and maintain profitability is to lower their cost structure. This involves either automation and finding cheaper labor sources hence the need to outsource.

When consumers reward companies by paying higher prices for keeping their product made in America, they won't be so tempted to move overseas.

The only other alternative is to shut our market down so that competitors who utilize overseas markets cannot import goods with significantly lower cost basis.... i.e., tariffs that equalize the markets.

The American worker simply cannot compete against workers in second and third world # holes because our standard of living is too high.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The reason I say their plan is working is because the CEO's are only concerned about the next quarters returns. And if everything goes to crap the CEO gets millions of $ to leave after being fired.

I really think that the businesses don't see a big problem yet.

There is only one way to solve this. Protect our industries. If we don't it will become a national security issue.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




Consumers also have to stop being so price conscious. Consumers demand lower and lower costs and business responds.


I'm sorry but for the most of the 50+ years I've lived, the only $100 pair of shoes that were even likely to exist was maybe some special orthodontic shoes.. maybe the idea that we are enjoying cheaper prices for offshoring was true at one time, but I have my doubts now. they promised us cheaper prices, and for awhile they were cheaper, but once we got comfortable, those prices went up, along with corp profits... now, I think it was just a con.

but, guess what, as the wages go down, so doesn't the family's ability to buy much in those things less necessary for life, things that used to be bought in walmart are bought in the second hand stores, more money used to pay bills, and buy food (which is mostly grown in america), and pay rent... the money stays home. so, I guess that problem is solving itself, in a rather unpleasant way!




The American worker simply cannot compete against workers in second and third world # holes because our standard of living is too high.



so aren't our expectations! we want our neighborhoods nice and clean, houses all nicely painted with fresh paint, lawns nicely trimmed, more and more employers seem to want their employees available to be called in at a moment's notice making cellphones more and more necessary and half the time, the only way to apply for their jobs is through an internet connection. are our neighbors gonna accept that we are poorer and since we can't afford to buy food we have a few chickens and a cow in our back yards along with some sheep so we can trim them for the wool that we can spin and weave, sew into clothing? and to be honest, our standard of living has been going down since the 70's when the foreign labor markets was tapped into and their goods started coming into the country.. it's not risen!



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I think some are starting to... take walmart.
awhile back the gov't was talking about cutting food stamps, or maybe then did cut them and walmart decide to check out just what the effect of that cut would have on their business model.. I don't think they liked the result much since shortly afterward, the raised their wages a tad.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
Thankyou dawnstar, the best post yet.

We need to pull making shoes back home, tires, textiles, toys, electronics, and house hold products. Or impose tariffs to raise the price of the goods to equate to a fair wage in the country of origin.

If we don't start to slowly make these moves our national security could be at stake.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
Here is the main problem, corps not sharing the gains in productivity with the workers. I think the Reagan revolution was a sham for the average worker. Trickle down is a lie.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

it's already a national security issue. we are so reliant on these foreign labor markets now that if there was an embargo, or even if the dollar was to lose it's place as a world currency, well.... we no longer have the ability to produce our products, the factories were shut down, the machinery left to rust, the buildings turned into apartment complexes, or bulldozed down.

and if there is any truth in the idea that the cheaper labor makes our product cheaper, well, it's shot down when one considers how much it costs for the gov't to hand out the food stamps, the rental assistance, the medical care, and all those needs that quite frankly, a much larger percentage of americans could life just fine without any assistance from the gov't before this all began.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

This is just a very small portion of the issue.

It is so bad that working people require cheap goods because of inflation through printing press money.

It's also so bad that I'd we stop consuming and save A: interests rates barely cover inflation and B: if we become a save and stop consuming society we tank the market.

If deport illegals 15 dollar an hour min wage in cali does farm work

If we use tariffs supply lines get more expensive

If we cut taxes the deficit goes up from lack of budget balancing.

Congress not the president needs to undo this slowly.
edit on 2-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join