Corporate tax cuts are not working
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
So, no, you don't. Consumer Price Index is up, and corporate tax rate is going down. Your model is too simple.
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.
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.
Progress Rail bought ALL of EMD, which included the London plant, because that is where most of the manufacturing took place, after they closed their plant in Lagrange Il. It's not like ghey had a choice to not buy the London plant. If no one in London understands this, I can see why they were surprised
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?
So if a company or government is in a deficit position then salaries and bennies should be cut?
Incidentally, the only reason that the plant existed in the first place is that they had to have a Canadian plant to sell to CNR and CP.
there is a certain logic to that.
there is a certain logic to that.
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.
You have to find out what the cause of the deficit was first and make your decision from there.
If you have productive workers, cutting their salaries might actually make them less productive.
No it doesn't. It means your simple model has no predictive power. There's far more factors involved in the economics.
Apparently the tax breaks went to Caterpillar's customers, like CN. I'd appreciate if you (and Liberalman) can provide links that specify that EMD/Caterpillar received direct subsidies to the tune of $5MM; it'd really clear up this whole issue.
I like the added touch on adding a poll from a blog entry... Nice bit
Last edited:
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.
How often have you seen that happen? Even well meaning regulations often backfire when they meet reality. An easy example is rent controls. Now few would disagree with the intent but experience has shown reality is the opposite. When a landlord's income is restricted but his expenses are not the result is less rental housing being built and less maintenance on existing ones. Clearly neither is in the renters favor.
Captain Morgan it’s not corruption, government tells businesses that money is available for them courtesy of the taxpayer and then businesses apply for the money for whatever.
Our federal Conservative government is ruling the people of this great country with a firm iron fist but at the same time they are just bending over and are giving taxpayer money to the corporation and hoping they do the right thing and when they take the money and run the government does nothing.
Electro-Motive received $5 million in federal tax breaks announced on the factory floor by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008. That was before the plant was sold to its current owners in 2010, prompting questions from the union as to whether there were any strings attached to the money.
“I don’t know how we can hand these guys money like that with no job guarantees. It’s unconscionable,” said Lewenza, who rushed to London to meet with workers Friday after being informed of the closure by a senior Caterpillar official.
Canada News: Caterpillar closes Electro-Motive plant in London