What the fuck did they mean by this?

What the fuck did they mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZkT768QevrU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

they're trying to imply that saving jobs is a cost to the taxpayers, as opposed to a long term benefit. Also, that number seems to drop every time I hear it.

>He only saved 800 jobs costing 8mil? Why would president trump spend 12 million on 400 jobs? Only an idition would save 10 jobs for 20 billion!

The jobs were saved through a tax break.

It's saying that it is the tax payers burden to support these 800 carrier jobs.

There are also going to be future lay-offs because the company is going to automate more.

Carrier didnt get paid 7mill. The didnt have to pay 7mill. But the msm will twist it

I wonder who gave them the idea...

...

ITT: fake news

Something retarded no doubt.

7 million over 10 years for 1000 people is $700 per year, you think these people don't pay over $700 in tax per year? Then you're an idiot.

This was actually an amazing deal, Trump bent Carrier over and fucked them right in the pussy.

7 people supporting 800 jobs?

seams like a good deal to me

Now open your calculator app and calculate how much it would cost to "save" every manufacturing job and you'll start to understand the problem.

7 million over ten years is great, considering they probably pay 3 million in taxes each year.

So, cost of 7 million over 10 year.
Will get about 30 million in return because of the jobs.

Net gain of about 23 million?

I don't see any way you can spin this into a problem Justin, but please feel free to finish your thought or provide some kind of basis for your thesis for us to work from.

Because using the numbers I just quoted to you there would be absolutely no issue with doing this specific deal to "save every manufacturing job" (from who?), though of course this is in no way a precedent so he'll probably have to make more deals.

tldr what the fuck is your point?

>fuck the taxpayers, let's double the minimum wage!
>fuck the taxpayers, let's make college free!
>wha--Trump saved JOBS? Won't somebody think of the poor taxpayers ;_;
I legtimately hate these retards, holy shit.

I forgot to take into account how much it would cost tax payers if they lost the jobs and had to go on the welfare system instead...

Trump could personally save a family from a burning home and he'd still get criticized.

Cartoonists should do the same thing but a shitload of feral black underclass welfare recipients being carried along by the tax payer, OH WAIT no that'd be evil racist white supremacist hatred right?

...

>When he saw a big guy
>big guy

BANE?

Uhhh, you don't get to bring friends.

>The jobs were saved through a tax break.
Thats the wrong language though, it could more accurately be called tax relief.

By removing a tax burden from companies isn't a tax break, its allowing them to keep more of their money.

The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%, its why so few corporations ever want to plant roots in the US.

it means they don't understand that tax rates are variable based on how a company preformsit means they don't understand that 800 jobs are 800 people paying taxes and spending money that otherwise wouldn't have or if so on a lesser level when making a lesser wage
it means that someone makes far to much to draw shitty comics on subjects he doesn't understand
it means that he should draw a cartoon of us tax payers carrying all of nigger america based on the gibs we pay for
it means job creation has become a bad thing in this country but if king nigger bails out the automotive industry it was for the jobs that they'll;l say don't matter because my automation will leave no jobs
tl;dr it means nothing because the artist is an audist

this actually a fine example of why liberals can't run government, they don't understand long term net benefits or long term net losses
just gib dat nao

>hurr subsidies are bad

fucking neoliberalism scum need to be gassed

Because the "deal" (which Trump lied about repeatedly) is actually crony capitalism.

They don't know how to math

Funny that there's no blacks as tax payers

Subsidies are a neoliberal/neoconservative policy you moron.

>crony capitalism

ask your English teacher what this means lad

taxation is theft you fascist.

>I don't want to pay my hard earned taxes for public works projects
>but I wholeheartedly support making it policy to pay my hard earned taxes to subsidize middle aged rust belt factory workers

At least try to be consistent.

Again, no subsidy was offered or given. Trump isn't in the business of throwing money at a problem hoping for a solution.

most of those 800 would eventually get some other job so you cant calculate it like that. generally speaking creating jobs through tax breaks en masse doesnt work. its tested and failed.

Underrated

That the

What they mean to tell you is they are fucking stupid because the tax payers will not carry the burden for that deal. Tax breaks are not tax credits, but liberal douche bags are fucking retards who take genders studies and other dumb fuck courses, and know nothing about economics.

When did shitlibs become the most principled of libertarians. Did they forget the obama bailouts all of a sudden, he gave billions in taxpayer dollars (not even tax breaks) to GM, and banks.

so what youre saying is Trump is continuing Obamas policies?

idk but the president did not fund taxpayer money to keep carriers jobs. Pure propaganda - the president elect can't direct funds any more than a sitting president.

Somehow I think $7 million dollars over 10 years is nothing compared to the multiple billions that Obama handed out. Stop being ignorant.

How did keeping Carrier in the US even cost a single taxpayer cent?

>subsidize
The taxes on them were so high they weren't able to compete if they stayed in the US. That not subsidizing, it's just pro business practice

>subsidies are good
Your dumb. No subsidy was offered

I have a question.

If the taxpayers bail out a company. And, let's say, the amount per citizen is equal to one unit of product produced by said company.

Shouldn't that mean that every taxpayer gets a free unit? You know, seeing how they paid for one.

Did you get a cheque in the mail when Justin sold all the gold?

>how dare trump let the house burn down!

No. And I'm still waiting on my free car from GMC for when we bailed them out in the hopes they wouldn't move the plant to china. Then they moved the plant to china.

They mean it will be better for everyone if you loose your job cause keep it up too expensive.

>subsidize
>i literally don't understand the words coming out of my mouth
>he thinks letting a company keep their own money is a subsidy

Kek

those jobs that were are gonna be automated

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZkT768QevrU

>Keeping workers employed generates more taxes
This. And that's not even accounting for how many would be a drain due to collecting unemployment and other social welfare as a result of being laid off.

>tax cuts
>tax payers burden
>obamacare, gibsmedats, obamaphones, illegal immigration
>not tax payers burden,
Hmmm

>45th street
>45 president
PREORDAINED

Good thing I don't expect things to change any time soon.

> The bat-man

Confirmed

We could go live in a forest together.

You have to be the girl though.

Thanks swiss bro. I was thinking the same thing. (((they))) are going to dwindle down every Trump accomplishment in the future.

This. I love how libtards all of the sudden care about the taxpayer.

DOES ANYONE ELSE


see the irony in generally ((((socialist))) agenda driven libcucks arguing that helping the MINORITY in favor of the MAJORITY is unethical.

especially considering its about economics

Consider the following.

Taxpayer funded jobs in Toronto. Replacing sidewalks, or paving roads and other such things is my example.

The last couple of years, the city has been going hog wild on these sorts of things. Replacing sidewalks that are perfectly fine. Paving roads that aren't too bad, while neglecting others that are, for some reason. Watermain work just about everywhere this year. Not sure if it's emergency or not, but god damn, the timing and placement is fucking horrible.

Now for the economic "gains" from this kind of work. Taxes in for the job. Involves the following: Materials, equipment, wages and other costs such as permits insurance and whatnot. Taxes gained from said job is only on the wages. So it's a net loss there. Replacing perfectly fine sidewalks has no economic gain. And unless the road is in disrepair and in need of replacement, there's little to be gained there in the form of economic gain or efficiency. So what's the point of the busy work?

It is written

Your example is Keynesian(ish), it's completely unrelated.

Your example is vague and ignoring the details. So it's completely irrelevant.

There are times where a bailout is a good thing. Such as for companies with specialized workers who have a unique skill set that only exists in that industry. So keeping the skills sharp is essential for when they are really needed. Which is the excuse for a portion of the runaway military budget. Gotta keep those heavy armor alloy welders skills from deteriorating.

Secondly, if a certain service is essential to the everyday function of society, a bailout is justified. To some extent at least. Proper implementation helps to keep CEOs from pocketing the bailout and saying "THANK YOU!"

Otherwise, let the company die.
The free market will fill the void the failure left behind. Maybe the new guy will make it work.

>>fuck the taxpayers, let's double the minimum wage!
this one is good though.

its either that or the poorfags elect bernie next time and we wont be able to do shit about it.

i dont mind not giving the poorfags much, but we give them too little right now.

>Your example is vague and ignoring the details. So it's completely irrelevant.
Yes the specific numbers which relate directly to this specific incident are completely irrelevant and vague.

>There are times where a bailout is a good thing. [wall of text]
And this is one of them, though it's not a bailout.

>Secondly, if a certain service is essential to the everyday function of society, a bailout is justified.
This doesn't mean if the service isn't essential that a bailout (which this isn't) isn't justified.

>Otherwise, let the company die.
This wouldn't have happened, as anyone with a cursory insight into the situation would know.

check teh date. 12-09
probably talking about solyndria

We give them too much.
The majority of poor people are poor because of their own life choices. Not because they are helpless.
The few that do need our help, don't get it. Because the other fuckers that abuse it make it harder.
The key is to get quality social services workers that actually care and can weed out the shitters. But I doubt there's anyone in that profession that isn't apathetic as fuck.

Only the left is fine with spending Billions on illegal alien school, housing and education, but $700,000 tax breaks a year for 800 Legal American Jobs, FUCK THAT!

Saged, one-posting.

Oh Jeb, we fucked up by electing Drumpf instead of you.

What if Jeb was VP? Would that be a good thing?

That's because their wages are being paid for with tax dollars to begin with. Yes, Communism sucks.

Those values ARE consistent with capitalism you dummie.

I'd much rather my money go to a company and keep employees employed than it going to a welfare leech.

Unless what's being payed for by taxes is legit for the betterment of the whole. Like taking all resources and funds to make interplanetary colonization ship. or some such nonsense.

Communism is great. So long as there are more resources than people. Wipe out 95% of the population and we could live in the closest thing to a communist utopia as you could ever hope for.

So literally the opposite of GOB and is $2000 suit? How foolish are they to think we'll fall for that? A man in a $3200 suit is too smart for such trickery.

No different than handing that welfare leech a broom and telling him to sweep the desert.
It serves no economic gain. So the only question is, which costs the taxpayer less.

Also, you have to factor in that if a motivated worker. Who genuinely wants to work, will find other employment. So a good portion of those working "leeches" will find other work and only be leeching for a short period of time.

>not putting the original with the tax payers carrying a car from GM
Nice job shill

>There are times where a bailout is a good thing.
Not a bailout. Is this copypasta?

It means

>We'll find fault with everything Trump does no matter how many people it benefits because we are that goddamn salty and bitter.

>Communism is great. So long as there are more resources than people. Wipe out 95% of the population and we could live in the closest thing to a communist utopia as you could ever hope for.
Yeah nah. Bolsheviks tried that, Mao tried that. Over 100mil dead between the two of them, still shit.

People paying less taxes somewhere doesn't mean that other people have to pay MORE taxes somewhere else to make up for it.

Because it's an impossible field to work. I'm in Healthcare systems now but I did social work for 5 years out of college.

When you have twice the caseload you should, get laid 28k a year, and keep having to deal with Tyshawn because his parents didn't pay their heat bill again, you just stop caring, and it leaks across all the fields within social work. You deal with more scum than you should ever have to and the entire system is trash and needs overhaul. DHS, Family Services, all of it.

Nothing.

Liberals think that the government is entitled to the entire product of your labor like the goddamn communists they are.

Ergo, when the government decides to take less money, liberals believe it is equivalent to giving you a feudal largesse instead of letting you keep more of your hard-earned cash.

>Mr. trump i dundu nuffin
top laff

Any insights on what might help?

You need to understand what a bailout is. A bailout is when the government corrects the balance on what was already taken.

No, because "more funding" is really all I can think of. They need better workers which means better compensation, but they also need to be allowed to vet people applying for welfare and shit more.

The whole system is FUBAR.

>We will frame a positive as a negative because we're unAmerican pieces of smug commie shit, and can't accept seeing the right prove our ideas are terrible in front of the public we've tried to dupe for so many years.

Retards say Trump is wrong for keeping a Tax paying/American family feeding company in the US by letting them pay lower taxes instead of none at all and move the fuck away to Mexico. Retards will continue to believe what the media says despite everything. Dont even fucking mention the TARP program that poured billions in tax payer money to bailout the banks which exterminated most leftie jobs

Now begin to use rational thought and realize Trump has no power whatsoever yet and only did the Carrier move as a PR stunt through Pence's Indiana connections.

Fake comic

>Also, that number seems to drop every time I hear it.
Because a certain (((union boss))) went on a media shitfit about how only 750 of the 1,100 workers saved were unionized.

What's with the labelling of everything in these political cartoons?
At this point, the drawer might as well have gone for an essay.

that he believes himself to be an artist -- although I wouldn't call that sketch art -- and has no knowledge in business or economics

Than american workers are more expesive than workers elsewhere, so producing in America less profitable, and the difference will have to be paid by taxpayes.
Althought they could also rise the price accordingly.