Read my post about competition.
$5,000,000.00 over 4 years for 400 jobs, although not ideal (I would have preferred no incentive), was a bone to the union and cost a little over $3000.00 per year per job.I also understand, and I may be wrong here, that most if not all of the money was a subsidy intended to provide incentive for buyers to purchase product made at this plant. So you're looking at a 5 million dollar investment to derive benefit in the local economy over a 4 year period. Seems excessive for four years to me.
Corporate bailouts work only if the company creates new jobs but it usually gets distributed to the share holders and bonuses of the high level management.
Even though I do not like the NDP they have the better idea in distributing corporate welfare, which is pay the company after the job is created and filled with a new worker.
My understanding from the local business gossip around town was that there was never any intention of making a long term go of this plant. Why exactly they purchased in the first place no one is sure. I don't know what they paid for it initially but it seems like it would be a lot of cash outlay for just capital assets
This means there is not enough competition.Consumer Price Index is up, and corporate tax rate is going down.
Got any proof of this, or are you simply talking the party-line?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
Follow the money of government past corporate bailouts Captain Morgan
Salary is important, but meaningless if not put into the context of corporate profit.
So if a company or government is in a deficit position then salaries and bennies should be cut?
Thanks. The so-called tax break was not given to EMD, it was given to companies who bought locomotives from EMD allowing them to deduct the depreciation cost of the locomotives at a quicker rate than other capital expenditures and thus, it was hoped, increase the purchase of machines built by the London plant. CNR bought over 40 locomotives after Harper introduced the incentive.
So if a company or government is in a deficit position then salaries and bennies should be cut?
This means there is not enough competition.
Caterpillar owns EMD.
Caterpillar was given tax breaks.
Should a company pay back tax breaks or have financial penalties if they decide to give away the business to the U.S.?
A lot of people who voted here seem to think so.
I think that any tax breaks given to Caterpillar have little to do with this business.
When a corporation hoards profit, it not only hurts the economy, but also its own industry in the long run.
And to Walter's point about Government regulation, any regulation must be in the interest of consumers, naturally.
We'd all really appreciate if you showed us this high level corruption.
I'm guessing that the money trail ends up with a bunch of brown paper bags being passed around?
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Caterpillar moved south of the border?The feud between the union and the company may be a separate matter, but it undeniably comes at the cost of the taxpayer when the result is migrating business south of the border.
Apparently the tax breaks went to Caterpillar's customers, like CN. I'd appreciate if toy (and Liberalman) can provide links that specify that EMD/Caterpillar received direct subsidies to teh tune of $5MM; it'd really clear up this whole issue.