Just Fred wrote:

Just wondering would it be better for the jobs to leave the country?

It's not about that, Common.  It's about the strategy to keep jobs here.  Offering Carrier 700 grand of Indiana's taxpayer money to keep half the workforce here amounts to corporate welfare.  It opens the door to other corporations doing the same thing.

Suppose you and I owned a widget manufacturing company.  All we need to do is threaten to move our operation overseas.  We cash in via holding the taxpayers of PA hostage.  I don't think that's a good idea.  Our company was successful, but you and I got greedy and decided to take advantage of a subsidy we didn't need just like Carrier did.

There is no strategy to keep jobs here! This is a first in a long time! To the average American this is great news.
And to the 1000 people who are keeping their jobs it's beyond great news.

In some ways, Trump handled the Carrier plant like he manages his charitable foundation. Using other people's money to deliver on promises he wouldn't be able to keep any other way, and then take credit for it.

Touchdown, Lager!  The money that was funneled to Carrier via Indiana taxpayers was a smokescreen making Trump and Pence look good.  Common, what would you think about Governor Wolf doing the same thing for a company headquartered in Scranton?
 

For all those opposed to what Trump just did (secure $700,000 in state tax breaks and convince Carrier that future federal corporate tax reductions are on the way), what should Trump have done?

If nothing is done to keep those jobs, the lose to the taxpayers to the state of Indiana would be much worse than $700,000.  Say those 1,000 employees average $40,000 annual income (700 jobs are factory and 300 were high paying management jobs and engineers, so the $40,000 average is probably low).  That equals $40 million in annual income.  Indiana Personal Income Tax is 3.3%.  Remove those jobs and that is $1.32 million less in tax revenues right off the bat.  Add in additional lost revenue from these people not spending their salaries in local businesses and the additional safety net costs, and the cost well exceeds $2 million to be conservative.

To answer your questions Tennyson:

Does anyone really believe that the whole issue is Carrier is getting approx. $700,00 per year for 10 years is the ultimate reason that they decided to keep some of the workers employed there when their projected saving of moving to Mexico was a savings of approx. $65 Million per year ?

No, I don't think that was the ultimate reason they kept the job here.  Something else probably occurred in the discussions that we won't ever hear about.  Maybe something along the lines of them being told to keep the jobs here or risk losing government contracts and Carrier asked for a little something in return so it looks like it was a two-way negotiation.  Also, it is really only a $500,000 per year new tax break.  They were getting $200,000 per year from Indiana for job re-training, but lost that when they said they were going to move jobs.  They just got that money reinstated.

Also, do you expect that Trump will get involved every time some company threatens to move a plant somewhere else?

No, I don't expect him to and hope this does not become a pattern.  I think this was done for political show as Carrier was a major topic in the election and this is a way for Trump to show he is going to do what it takes to keep jobs here.

Additionally do you believe that our leaders should be so intertwined in specific business deals such as this (as opposed to passing universal things for ALL businesses such as tax cuts, etc)?

No, in general I don't think they should.  I also didn't think they should have been involved with GM back in the bailout in 2009.  It seems many people who supported that specific intervention don't support this one.
 

Brady Bunch wrote:

For all those opposed to what Trump just did (secure $700,000 in state tax breaks and convince Carrier that future federal corporate tax reductions are on the way), what should Trump have done?

If nothing is done to keep those jobs, the lose to the taxpayers to the state of Indiana would be much worse than $700,000.  Say those 1,000 employees average $40,000 annual income (700 jobs are factory and 300 were high paying management jobs and engineers, so the $40,000 average is probably low).  That equals $40 million in annual income.  Indiana Personal Income Tax is 3.3%.  Remove those jobs and that is $1.32 million less in tax revenues right off the bat.  Add in additional lost revenue from these people not spending their salaries in local businesses and the additional safety net costs, and the cost well exceeds $2 million to be conservative.

Totally agree. There can be a benefit for states to offer tax incentives/breaks to businesses to attract and keep companies in state. Of course how much of an incentive can and should be debated. I can't argue with someone who says that a company valued at 88 billion dollars doesn't need a 7 million dollar tax break.

This isn't about Carrier though, in my opinion. It's about Trump's overall approach to trade and business and employment. He cannot just go from business to business like some magic fairy doling out tax cuts on a case by case basis.