Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'I am running for president'

[akirby]

What Kev-Mo said. What's wrong with those principles? And if they're wrong, what is the right answer for each one?

 

I think some folks misinterpret things like protect our borders and enforce immigration laws as being anti-immigration or that personal responsibility means no safety nets or assistance but that's not it at all.

[Kev-Mo]

What Kev-Mo said. What's wrong with those principles? And if they're wrong, what is the right answer for each one?

 

I think some folks misinterpret things like protect our borders and enforce immigration laws as being anti-immigration or that personal responsibility means no safety nets or assistance but that's not it at all.

 

Thank you

 

 

From the liberals - I would like a rational explanation of why "Liberty" and the "US Constitution" is considered "Extreme". Remember, I asked for rational, not emotional.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Kev-Mo

[Len_A]

What Kev-Mo said. What's wrong with those principles? And if they're wrong, what is the right answer for each one?

 

I think some folks misinterpret things like protect our borders and enforce immigration laws as being anti-immigration or that personal responsibility means no safety nets or assistance but that's not it at all.

 

Because a lot of knee-jerk conservatives, and you know we've had some here over the years, interpret "personal responsibility" to mean no safety nets. On immigration, I expect the laws to be enforced. My parents immigrated to the U.S. from Malta, Europe, in the 1950's, did it by the rules, got their citizenship by the rules, and I expect the same to apply to any one who wants to enter our borders.

 

 

Thank you

 

 

From the liberals - I would like a rational explanation of why "Liberty" and the "US Constitution" is considered "Extreme". Remember, I asked for rational, not emotional.

Because like I answered akirby, above, the knee-jerk reaction form some conservatives invites that reaction in general. "U.S. Constitution" is treated by too many conservatives as black and white, without regard to the fact that over the decades, what SCOTUS has interpreted at one point in time as constitutional, got ruled unconstitutional at another point in time.

 

I just finished working for the third time in my career, with the American subsidiary of a European company, and before the knee-jerk reaction of how f'ed up Europe is, one company is German, and the other two Swedish, two economies of Europe that are, unlike Greece, Spain, France, or Italy, rock solid. Safety nets in those two countries last far longer than they do here in the United States, salaries and hourly wages are higher, their national healthcare is far more generous, and read this G** damn carefully - works without the horror stories of other countries national healthcare (many of which are exaggerated by those on the right, and I ought to know - I have three doctors in my family, one here in the USA, in Missouri, one in Malta, and One in Great Britain).

 

Too many of my family in Malta, England and Australia, as well as my now former colleagues in Sweden and Germany, are living better at similar income levels than middle class Americans. Friends and associates at all three companies, plus some other members of my family that went to work for multinationals, refuse to take anything more than a short term assignment here in the United States, and in fact, will take long term assignments in Canada over the USA, because of those economic and social differences.

[akirby]

But that's the problem. Any hint of conservative principles get categorized as extreme when they're not. And the same thing happens with liberals. Both parties are classifying the opposition as extreme with no middle ground. If you're for a balanced budget then you either want to cut welfare/safety nets or military spending depending on who you're talking to. Meanwhile there is no compromise and no middle ground and if this keeps up we're all F'ed.

[Len_A]

But that's the problem. Any hint of conservative principles get categorized as extreme when they're not. And the same thing happens with liberals. Both parties are classifying the opposition as extreme with no middle ground. If you're for a balanced budget then you either want to cut welfare/safety nets or military spending depending on who you're talking to. Meanwhile there is no compromise and no middle ground and if this keeps up we're all F'ed.

Could not agree with you more, across the board. I think you're 100% correct and on point.

[rscalzo]

My town did that with MSNBC. They left years before their agreed on contract allowed and told the town if you don't like to , sue us. The same ones that whine about the "worker". They screwed the taxpayer royally and could care less. The entire company was staffed with a bunch of whiny kids who wouldn't put themselves out for anyone. Everyone there was a "me first" type.

[Imawhosure]

Len, your observations are correct, with this I agree, but the motivation between the countries differ. In America, it is be all you can be, while in Europe, if you are not from old money, you become one of the worker bees.

 

Just ask your relatives (and I have friends and relatives also in Europe) how big their living space is. If your friends and relatives are like mine, we live in spaces 3 to 4 times their amount for the same amount of people as far as structures. We drive 4 to 5 times the distance for our employment, which means we demand better and nicer vehicles because we spend more time in them. In fact, many in Europe use mass transit.

 

And so you ask, what does this have to do with thread. A lot actually. You see, because of the way Europeans live, it is much more difficult to discern who is poor, and who is middle class. It is like the old tales of the family who lived next door in a 3 bedroom one floor ranch, who was worth 5 million dollars, and nobody knew.

 

In our country; for good or bad; people use their money for more space, better vehicles, nicer clothes, to live in a better area. The poor instantly see this as the middle class escapes the poverty ridden areas. In Europe, in 2 blocks you go from middle class, to poverty, back to middle class, then maybe to mildly rich. They are all on top of one another like sardines, because Europe is so dense.

 

The point is, there is no disconnect. There is little difference besides what they eat and wear. There is no escape from each other like there is here because of the space that is open. Therefore, there is much less class envy. The grass is always greener on the other side, especially when you can't get there.

 

You talk about safety nets. I ask you personally, (and I have asked this before, and my post was removed so I am tempting fate, lol) how much money would the government have to offer you NOT to work? Let us make pretend! Let us say the minimum wage is raised to 15 bucks an hr. For a 40 hr week, that equates to 600 bucks for 40 hrs. After federal taxes, SS, state, local, and medicare, lets say you take home 500. This means in a 4 week month, you take home 2000 dollars.

 

Now, let us say you are getting government dough! You get 1000 for rent, 350 in food stamps, 150 help in utilities, another 100 here or there, and you are at 1600 dollars. Now let us ALL contemplate this............I get 1600 dollars for doing absolutely NOTHING, or I can work 160 hours a month for 400 dollars more; OR I can go cut grass, wash cars, shovel snow, sew, babysit, or many other things under the table for a couple hours a day, and make just as much or more than that job pays me! And what if I am ill for a day? Damn, I lose off of that 160 hr paycheck, but not the government largesse. And the kicker? All the money I make is mine, Uncle Sam doesn't get a nickel. WHAT A DEAL!

 

Len, if I had a family, and I was working for 15 bucks an hr, I would be hard pressed not to take the government cash too, and I am a conservative. If that is what I think, what do you think all the libs are thinking, lol. Is it any wonder they promote class envy?!?!?

 

So, in the final analysis, let us count this up. If someone receives approximately 1600 bucks in help per month and instead decides to get a job where they actually pay 0 taxes, we save as a country, 1600 bucks, and that is with them paying absolutely NOTHING, no skin in the game. Safety net you say? I say it is NOT a safety net, I say rather it is one of two things.......it is either a hammock for the lazy, or it is a sharp razor that cuts deeply for us the producers.

 

I also say that if we demand more jobs putting the poor people to work......the riots in Baltimore never happen because they were to busy working, nobody would vote for a tax increase on themselves, children would go to better schools in the poor communities, and liberals would be out of a job permanently!

Edited May 9, 2015 by Imawhosure

[cal50]

Look to Greece as an example of a government promising and paying unsustainable benefits for the cash taken in.

 

Everyone can argue about policy / politics but there is no compromise in math and the current trend is more $$ going out than coming in.

People that are fortunate to be working taking a bigger hit for lower wages earned for more hours worked + added costs coming out of that

 

Its a receipt for disaster and no county has taxed or spent its way to prosperity.

[Ron W.]

there is no compromise in math and the current trend is more $$ going out than coming in.

 

THIS.

Why do our representatives have such a hard time understanding.

[Imawhosure]

Because one side buys votes with it, and if the other side talks about even a miniscule change, they lose votes. We didn't realize how unbelievable welfare reform was under Clinton and the republican congress. It was a once in a lifetime deal. Obama has basically thrown it out, and now we are back to who has what, and why don't I have it because I deserve it.

 

There was an article sometime last year or the year before, that single mother with 3 children in New York averages between 50 and 60,000 in benefits. Now you tell me in the Obama economy, with little manufacturing, where an unskilled worker is going to go and make that kind of money! Anyone on here give a realistic incentive for this person to go to work with the likelihood of them making a profit by doing so. What we have done is create a permanent class of people that have absolutely no chance of escape. We have disincentivized work, and promoted doing nothing. And with the economy the way it is, even those who are willing to try have no, or very little chance of success.

 

We can't do business like this and succeed, and yet we do. That should tell all of us there is something really wrong here, and quit listening to those who say you are evil and anti poor because you point out what is obvious to everyone, they just won't say it out of fear of not being PC.

[Len_A]

Try be on the other side of the argument, where you're trying hard as hell to find work, and you're either too educated for entry level, or they just won't talk to you when they find out you're over fifty.

 

My wife has two bachelors degrees, one on communications, one as a paralegal, and over twenty five years experience as a paralegal. Has only worked, sporadically, maybe sixteen months since December, 2008. Not for lack of trying.

 

Paralegal: pigeonholed by practice area - the majority of her experience is in preparing discovery requests from plaintiffs involved in either product liability suits or warranty lawsuits. Short version is that in Southeast Michigan, no one, and I mean no one will consider her for any other practice area, citing lack of experience in those areas. Employment agency after employment agency have sent her in for interviews, only to be shot down because all they want, from small law firm to large law firm, is experience in their particular area of law. Period. No opinions to the contrary will be tolerated. They won't budge.

 

Other jobs? Like what? Retail? Applications after application rejected, citing her experience as a paralegal, tell her (and in some cases us when I've been with her) that, with her experience, in their opinion, she'll jump at the fist paralegal job that comes her way, so again, application rejected. This has been going on for seven years. Other jobs, the same. No one wants to have a ramp up period with a new hire. We've been told, by both employers and employment agencies alike, that they want candidates that can hit the ground running now, and candidates that they, the employer, are comfortable, will be around long term.

 

As to my profession as MRO (Maintenance, Repair & Operations) industrial sales, thanks to distributors like Motion Industries and Grainger, and end user customers like Ford, Con Agra, Dow, etc, everything has become commoditized, profit margins have drastically fallen, and with falling profit margins, sales peoples incomes have taken a drastic hit - today, the vast majority of MRO industrial sales people make less than they did in 1998, NOT adjusted for inflation. Adjusted for inflation, even worse. I still know a lot of people in the business. A lot of people who held on to their jobs through the recession, seeing little to no gain back in the recovery because of continued cost cutting and commoditizing, have dropped out of the profession, most of them taking early retirement, in some cases under IRS Rule 72t. Distributors are doing more business, with less profit and as a result, fewer people. And some companies like Ford, are studying the idea of outsourcing all of their non-production, MRO purchasing...to Amazon.

 

We're tapped out. Broke. Busted. We filed for bankruptcy and expect to be discharged from it in a month. And without credit, with just my income, a modest house we bought in 1998 with two healthy middle class incomes, we can barely afford. Selling and downsizing now means asking my retired, elderly parents to cosign. No way.

 

So excuse me all to hell if I no longer buy the conservative philosophy, in any way, shape, or form. I'm the liberal enemy now, and I do mean enemy. There is not one conservative argument that hold water with me anymore. Tapping out all our savings and retirement money, and having to file bankruptcy has seen to that.

[Imawhosure]

I am sorry for your predicament Len, I really am. I don't really know what conservatism had to do with your plight, but if you believe it did, then I understand your disdain. I also am no spring chicken, and I know that my best earning days are far, far, behind me. I also know, that if I and many others do not stand up for conservatism, our children and grandchildren have no chance as this country goes broke.

 

Now, I do not know who you voted for this time, nor last time, nor the time before that. I also do not know which individuals voted for the people who got us into this disaster, but it was/is both republicans and democrats. While conservatives belong to the republican party, 1/2 of the republicans are not much better than democrats. The only reason conservatives run as republicans, is because there are no conservatives in the democratic party.

 

I remember an article Len less than 20yrs ago (and I bet you can still find it online) that foretold of baby boomers being in extremely high demand from 2010 on. There logic was solid, and it went something like this......and I am paraphrasing-----------> our companies would push to keep us, the world would be our oyster in business, because the birth rate was so low, they would have no choice but to offer us MORE money to stay put. And if we chose to leave? Our work ethic would land us in a job of our choice within reason, and the business community would have no choice but to embrace us if they wanted an intelligent work force, with superior work ethic.

 

So Len, ask yourself what happened to this scenario before you despise conservatives so much. How did the golden goose lay such a big egg? And let me state here that this prophecy I have mentioned was gospel throughout the business community!

 

2 things my friend..............

 

1. A liberal economy that has not created jobs worth squat, and

 

2. mass illegal immigration that puts absolutely no pressure on the job market because of lack of labor.

 

Ask yourself this---------> are illegals counted as non participants in the job market if they are not working? (I believe the answer is yes) And so, how much would the labor force shrink were they not here?

 

I am not trying to insult your intelligence by claiming that IF they were not here, your wife would have a job in her field yesterday. What I am suggesting is---------->that you both would be much more in demand, and no matter what the government claims today what the minimum wage is, you and her would be far surpassing it because of a much tighter labor market, no matter what occupation you personally chose to work in.

 

Doubt what I say is true? Do the math yourself! We are told we have between 11 and 14 million illegals in this country. Let us surmise that only 5 million of them are either working, or need work. Remove those 5 million, and how does the job market look now, and who is going to have to pay what to get our services.

 

Now then, I am not suggesting that you or I agree to remove 5 million people from this country that do not belong here. But, if you agree with my premise and find it reasonably accurate, then you have to admit, the people who WANT to allow our border to remain porous continuing to compound your/my/our problems are NOT conservatives, and by the same token, the ones demanding the border be guarded to stop the problem from becoming worse, ARE conservatives. We are called racists, and a host of other names because of it, but I just explained why it must happen. Hopefully, even if you stay a democrat, you will see at least that part our way.

 

Let me also state, that I as a conservative, want everyone to work if they are not retired fully, want them to make a decent to very good living, and in the process pay into the system. The only way to make this happen for a lot of people, is to have MORE jobs, and a smaller LEGAL workforce that will push compensation up! I honestly hope you understand the premise, and I wish both you and your wife success. Hang in there!

 

P.S. One more thing to solidify to you what I am saying is 100% accurate. Look up how many jobs the Obama administration claims it created since he took office. (no, I am not going to tell you he is misleading you, I have another tact that will really irritate you) Now look at the stats from our federal government on how many illegals have crossed the border in the same amount of time. Do you notice something Len?

 

Now after looking at those numbers, you should have absolutely zero doubt why it is so hard to find a job, and compensation is stagnant! And oh yeah, Bernie wants more of it, some republicans want more of it, and every democrat in congress wants more of it. Isn't it amazing that the American public doesn't, almost to the tune of 2 to 1, and they won't listen to a darn thing we say. Go figure.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Imawhosure

[Len_A]

Actually, those of us over fifty have been getting screwed since the very end of the Clinton administration, and the beginning of the Bush administration. And it's a lot of factors - too much immigration is only a small part of it. NAFTA hasn't helped. Off shoring of jobs hasn't helped, including tech support. Technology hasn't helped - paralegals like my wife don't handle discovery requests by going through engineers offices on document sweeps, like they did at Research & Engineering during the Explorer Firestone Tire problem, or rummaging through bankers boxes of paper. Now all the documents are on line, so either you replace people with computer programs, like eDiscovery, or you off shore the work to overnight centers in India, or you do both.

 

The list goes on. For all their faults, and they're many, at least liberals speak out against jobs leaving the country. I find conservatives put up too much of a smoke screen on the Constitution, and opportunity, and social this, and social that, and it's all bullshit designed to get the middle class to take their eye off the ball - jobs leaving, infrastructure crumbling, food safety compromised, etc. All to let big business profit at the expense of everyone else.

 

Look, I'm a sales rep - by nature, I'm a greedy son-of-a-bitch, but enough's enough. We're letting the greediest of the corporations profit more, and the rest of us have to make due with less.

 

There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

[Len_A]

And I don't agree with everything Bernie Sanders stands for. I just think the establishment on both sides of the aisle needs to be shaken up a bit.

[fordmantpw]

...at least liberals speak out against jobs leaving the country.

 

But yet they want to raise taxes on business? How does that make sense? Where are those businesses going to go if they have to pay more taxes here in the US?

 

I get the off-shoring and crap...I hate it! The company I work for farmed all of our financials out to India to save a few bucks and I hated it when they did it. But increasing taxes on businesses won't help. You have to entice those businesses to keep the jobs here. How do you do that? By offering tax incentives. Business taxes eventually get passed on to the customer anyway.

[Len_A]

 

But yet they want to raise taxes on business? How does that make sense? Where are those businesses going to go if they have to pay more taxes here in the US?

 

I get the off-shoring and crap...I hate it! The company I work for farmed all of our financials out to India to save a few bucks and I hated it when they did it. But increasing taxes on businesses won't help. You have to entice those businesses to keep the jobs here. How do you do that? By offering tax incentives. Business taxes eventually get passed on to the customer anyway.

I get it - business taxes eventually get passed on - if and only IF the market can bare it. That's fine. But enough people speak out against businesses fleeing the country for tax purposes, they'll notice. Just ask Burger King. Merging with Tim Hortons and planning to relocate to Canada didn't quite work out for them, did it? Now time to hammer (with a 2x4 or a sledgehammer) that point across to others. No time to be complacent. You make your profit here? You trade your stock on exchanges here? Then pay your God damn taxes here. They think they should be lower, fine - lobby Congress. But pay your damn taxes.

[fordmantpw]

I get it - business taxes eventually get passed on - if and only IF the market can bare it.

 

Can you explain what I bolded? It doesn't matter if the market can bear it or not, the taxes will get passed on. If they can't pass them on, then the business can't make money and will fold. Plain and simple.

 

Wouldn't it be better to give the company tax breaks for guaranteed employment? Rather than giving the money directly to the govt to waste, why not give it to employees who can then put it back into the economy. Then, those employees can give it to the govt to waste. This keeps jobs here in the states.

[akirby]

If you tax all businesses the same then all costs go up and all prices go up the same and it's a level playing field.

 

All you're going to do is force some businesses to go under and others to leave the country and no amount of public pressure will stop that. It only leads to more unemployment.

 

Focus on doing things that create more job opportunities and the net result will be more tax revenue from the individuals.

[30 OTT 6]

A corporation doesn't pay income tax if the net income before taxes is zero.

 

The only reason for a corporation to pass their income tax costs along to consumers is to maintain a profit level. Such a corporation would also have to pass along losses onto consumers. Good luck with that outside of a monopoly.

[fordmantpw]

A corporation doesn't pay income tax if the net income before taxes is zero.

 

The only reason for a corporation to pass their income tax costs along to consumers is to maintain a profit level. Such a corporation would also have to pass along losses onto consumers. Good luck with that outside of a monopoly.

 

And if a company doesn't have net income, they will die. Unless they are Tesla. We are talking about profitable businesses here.

 

Let's use a simple example. Let's say a company makes hamburgers. After all the costs (not counting taxes) go into a burger, they have $1.00 of costs in that burger. That includes cooking, labor, meat, buns, etc.

 

Now, if they want to make a little profit, which, really, should be acceptable, right? I mean, if they want to expand, or reward shareholders, they need to make a profit. So, they sell that burger for $1.10.

 

Ok, now, they've made $0.10 on that burger. So, they get to pay income tax. If Uncle Sam gets 20%, then they lose $0.02 of that profit, which means they have $0.08 remaining.

 

Now, this company doesn't feel it's worth it to be in business for $0.08 in profit on the burger. They feel they need to be in the $0.10 area, the area before taxes. So, what do they do? They have a few choices:

 

1) They raise the cost of their burger to $1.13. After taxes, this leaves them with $0.104 profit per burger. The other $.004 go into costs of paying those taxes. Now, look at that closely. In order for the company to be where they feel it is worthwhile, they had to increase the cost of their burger $0.03 in order to cover the original $0.02 that went to Uncle Sam. Hmmm, does that make good sense?

2) They eliminate 2 workers and replace them with automated burger flippers This takes their cost down $0.03 / burger. Now, they get $0.13/burger, and after taxes, they net $0.104. However, now two people are out of work, and the government has lost all income taxes for those two folks. Not to mention, now the government gets to pay welfare for those 2 since they can no longer feed their kids.

3) They eliminate the 401(k) match for their employees. Yeah, it sucks, but hey, they've got to have some cushion to cover downturns, otherwise all the employees lose their jobs when the economy tanks and burger sales fall.

[Len_A]

 

Can you explain what I bolded? It doesn't matter if the market can bear it or not, the taxes will get passed on. If they can't pass them on, then the business can't make money and will fold. Plain and simple.

 

Wouldn't it be better to give the company tax breaks for guaranteed employment? Rather than giving the money directly to the govt to waste, why not give it to employees who can then put it back into the economy. Then, those employees can give it to the govt to waste. This keeps jobs here in the states.

It absolutely does matter if the market can bear, or is willing to bear it. It's competition, it's the will of your customers to pay it. You make it sound so black and white. I'd like to say it may be true for small businesses, but it's an over simplification for just about everyone. Yes, at the extreme, it may cost jobs. They may have to find other ways to reduce costs, improve sales (and spread fixed costs over even more units of sale), improve productivity, etc. Same exact thing happens when raw material costs rise - I ought to know, I've had it happen to me more times than I care to count. You may think you're going to be able to pass those costs on to your customers, but with competition, the opposite can happen. Two competitors, selling the same products, don't necessarily have the same costs structures, and one may have more of an ability to absorb increases, be they tax increases, raw material costs, labor costs, insurance, etc.

 

And 30 OTT 6 is correct - a corporation pays no taxes if their net income is zero. Everything comes off the gross income already - salaries and wages, all benefit costs (including health insurance, retirement benefits, etc), depreciation or real property and equipment, all other taxes, interest, all other costs of doing business (including utilities, etc), etc. And they want to change tax residences to lower their corporate income taxes further? On top of large number of corporations already parking profits overseas, assigning patents and licenses to foreign subsidiaries, etc. Ridiculous.

 

Tax breaks for guaranteed employment? Sure. It's been tried, and there's as many failures as there are successes - you can ask any municipality or state that has played that game. But, in principle, I agree with you - I'd rather see corporate tax breaks used that way.

 

I'd also like to see the reverse - tax penalties for off shoring work. Let them find other ways to improve their bottom line. Improve productivity. Improve your product (and hopefully sell more). Stop screwing over American workers, American shareholders, etc.

[Ron W.]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/01/1525441/exxon-chevron-2012-profit/

 

From the article " Exxon received $600 million annual tax breaks. In 2011, Exxon paid just 13 percent in taxes "

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20130412-exxon-mobil-ceo-rex-tillerson-gets-15-percent-raise.ece

 

From the article

 

" Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson got a 15 percent pay hike to $40.3 million last year "

 

Why is our (18 Trillion in the hole) government giving subsidies to companies that make Billions per year in profit?

 

I picked Exxon but I'm pretty sure you could do the same with many others.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Ron W.

[fordmantpw]

What is done with the profits from a company like Exxon? How much money did they pay in payroll taxes? How much did their employees pay in taxes? How much money did they inject into the economy? How much did those tax breaks actually turn back around and save the government due to other taxes coming in? Or money injected back into the economy for R&D?

Not all tax breaks decrease the amount of money the government receives?

 

As far as the CEO's pay? That has no bearing on what the company pays in taxes. They pay him what they think he is worth. How much of his salary was paid to Uncle Sam for taxes? Plenty I'm sure!

[akirby]

I also don't agree with corporate tax breaks unless they apply to all companies.

Let's say that the government adds a 10% tax to all automakers in the U.S. Do you honestly think the mfrs will simply absorb that cost and lower their profits? Of course not. They'll all just raise prices to cover it eventually. That is the fallacy of the liberals. And if you tax them too much they'll just take their business elsewhere. You can't force a business to pay unreasonable taxes. You just can't. OTOH - removing taxes will reduce consumer costs in a competitive market. Remove 10% of Ford's cost and watch them undercut the competition.

 

Let state and local governments provide tax relief based on job creation. Keep the Feds out of it. Let the states compete for businesses and make it easier and more attractive for businesses to stay in the U.S. and they will.

[Len_A]

I also don't agree with corporate tax breaks unless they apply to all companies.

Let's say that the government adds a 10% tax to all automakers in the U.S. Do you honestly think the mfrs will simply absorb that cost and lower their profits? Of course not. They'll all just raise prices to cover it eventually. That is the fallacy of the liberals. And if you tax them too much they'll just take their business elsewhere. You can't force a business to pay unreasonable taxes. You just can't. OTOH - removing taxes will reduce consumer costs in a competitive market. Remove 10% of Ford's cost and watch them undercut the competition.

 

Let state and local governments provide tax relief based on job creation. Keep the Feds out of it. Let the states compete for businesses and make it easier and more attractive for businesses to stay in the U.S. and they will.

Our governor in Michigan is trying to get the state out of the tax relief business, instead trying to concentrate on fixing the overall business tax rates. To offset the reduction in revenue from cutting business tax rates, some tax relief for both low income workers and retirees was reduced, increasing taxes on newer retirees and reducing Earned Income Tax Credits for low income workers. The reduced business tax rates have not had the effect of attracting new business to Michigan, probably because competing states haven't followed suit, and still provide tax breaks selectively to bid for companies to come to their states. And municipalities are still providing the big property tax break selectively, as evidenced by the big breaks GM got last week, for improvements they're making to their Warren Tech Center, improvements they were going to make any to repair last summers storm damage, with or without the tax breaks (and don't think the tax breaks are a factor - three of my family are GM engineers, and I've know these repairs and improvements have been on the schedule since January of this year).