[BobNJ1960]

No Mr. Gompers, There should be competition between states, and if Ct had not raised taxes by billions this decade already, the mess she is in would not have happened.

Let those with the best business climate win, and we aRe all better off.

Stop excusing excess taxation above the run rates of even Weicker and Rell, by saying let the end user pay.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

No Mr. Gompers, There should be competition between states, and if Ct had not raised taxes by billions this decade already, the mess she is in would not have happened.

Let those with the best business climate win, and we aRe all better off.

Stop excusing excess taxation above the run rates of even Weicker and Rell, by saying let the end user pay.

States should not be competing with each other IMO for companies. We are being taken for fools in this race to the bottom by cutting taxes etc for profitable businesses. If anything we should be competing against other countries as one UNITED country. Other countries are the ultimate competition.

The US motto is E pluribus unum which means "out of many, one" We don't have a problem with having a united front vis a vis the Military so why not an economic front too?

We can crush every country on the planet except perhaps China. All this in fighting is going to be the demise of the United States. Perhaps we won't be alive to see it, but it will happen unless we change course.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by UconnHusky1

Thanks...even better...

So how can Connecticut top this great news off? Perhaps McDonald's will announce a new restaurant with not just one, but a two vehicle drive thru to feed all of those lucrative Amazon jobs! Connecticut is on a role...

You're in luck. A double drive thru already exists at the Mcdonald's on the Berlin Trpke.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

If it was my decision I would let them leave. Just for fun though I will ask them what have they done with their retained earnings in the last 10 years. How much have they invested back into the company, and how much was sitting in a bank, and how much was paid out in dividends ? A company with retained earnings can afford to reinvest in itself. They do not need handouts from the Govt.

The ultimate answer to this tax incentive/tax breaks pattern that profitable companies engage in is to out law it entirely in every state. Better yet lets have a Fed law that out right bans it. Then states won't be racing each other to the bottom. Then we would be left with fighting with foreign countries to entice our businesses too, but you can fix that by placing a 1,000,000% tariff on all their products and services. With tariffs that high even the ultra rich won't be able to afford it.

This of course will never happen because politicians hand out these tax breaks like candy and it gives them power and bragging rights. Additionally, the public at large is too dumb to see what's happening and or don't care.

Ask 100 people on the street to define "Tariff" and 98 of them will tell you it's a new skin treatment and/or music group whose CD is set to drop next week.

Cut off your nose to spite your face. The GE, Aetna and Travelers employees all pay income taxes to the state. Losing these companies means losing that tax revenue when those jobs move out of state.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

If it was my decision I would let them leave. Just for fun though I will ask them what have they done with their retained earnings in the last 10 years.

So them leaving is fun for you? I am sure those tens of thousands of men and women who would lose their well-paying jobs would find it fun too, right?

Besides, aren't you a CT resident yourself? Do you have any idea how much this fun would cost you alone?

I actually happen to think you don't have the slightest clue, no disrespect.

Originally Posted by MrGompers

A company with retained earnings can afford to reinvest in itself.

So now, you know what Aetna can and can't afford? This idea of us discussing what another entity, be a company or a rich guy can afford it pretty preposterous. That's the opening act to -- "since you have the money, I will tax you even more."

This mindset has put CT in trouble, yet you advocate more of the same?

Originally Posted by MrGompers

The ultimate answer to this tax incentive/tax breaks pattern that profitable companies engage in is to out law it entirely in every state. Better yet lets have a Fed law that out right bans it. Then states won't be racing each other to the bottom. Then we would be left with fighting with foreign countries to entice our businesses too, but you can fix that by placing a 1,000,000% tariff on all their products and services. With tariffs that high even the ultra rich won't be able to afford it.

So that's the solution, huh? More taxes, more centralized Govt, less State power, correct?

And finally you got them hostage. They can't go anywhere, so now you got them where you want them. Let me take a wild guess what you'll do once you have them hostage. Now you can tax the hell out of them, coerce them, dictate to them, have them basically work you. And you are the Govt.

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I do not want to sound condescending but please open an accounting book. An ongoing business already knows what it's revenues and expenses are. Taxes are part of that. If the taxes rise and they want the same margin they need to raise prices. It's that simple. I don't know how easier I can make.

Whatever...

[ctguy87]

Corporate welfare debate aside - if GE packed up and left, it means about 7,000 people losing their income either by relocation or lay-offs. 7,000 less people paying income taxes. The vendors that GE uses for janitorial and cafeteria duties also out of work. The local restaurants also suffer from the elimination of company/personal lunches and happy hours. Hotels (and yes, the taxes that go along with them) lose business travel and suffer. The towns lose property taxes from those who relocate. Less gas tax now that 7,000 aren't commuting. Less sales tax as the newly unemployed tighten their wallets.

It's a serious cause and effect well beyond the taxes that GE pays. That's what supporters of increased taxes choose to ignore.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by UconnHusky1

Thanks...even better...

So how can Connecticut top this great news off? Perhaps McDonald's will announce a new restaurant with not just one, but a two vehicle drive thru to feed all of those lucrative Amazon jobs! Connecticut is on a role...

Look these are good jobs for untrained working class people. Would you rather this got built in Massachusetts or New York? Then everyone would be complaining that we did not get 500 jobs. 500 jobs is a lot and I am glad they are coming here. You should be too. Jay

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

Then we would be left with fighting with foreign countries to entice our businesses too, but you can fix that by placing a 1,000,000% tariff on all their products and services. With tariffs that high even the ultra rich won't be able to afford it.

Yeah, that will make the economy better, like Smoot and Hawley did.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Henry10

So them leaving is fun for you? I am sure those tens of thousands of men and women who would lose their well-paying jobs would find it fun too, right?

Besides, aren't you a CT resident yourself? Do you have any idea how much this fun would cost you alone?

I actually happen to think you don't have the slightest clue, no disrespect.

The problem with the tax breaks is if CT or another state wants to play we have to pay. By out right banning the practice we can eliminate that. I think you missed that point. If CT wants to retain these companies we are going to have to pay. They are only priming the pump to ask for tax breaks in the future. These business people are not stupid they play both sides.

Originally Posted by Henry10

So now, you know what Aetna can and can't afford? This idea of us discussing what another entity, be a company or a rich guy can afford it pretty preposterous. That's the opening act to -- "since you have the money, I will tax you even more."

I have a BS degree in accounting and I know exactly what I'm talking about. To put it in layman's terms "Retained earnings" is basically a corporation's savings account. They can choose what they want to do with it. Keeping it in the bank doesn't mean they will be taxed on it. Although I believe some politicians have floated that idea around.

What I am telling you and everyone here is if a corporation has Retained earnings it can afford to reinvest in itself. It doesn't need anyone's help. If they came to me for help I would ask them what have they done with their retained earnings in the last 10 years ?

If a person who applies for Medicaid or other Govt programs can be required to show how much money they have in the bank, BEFORE receiving help, why shouldn't a corporation be subject to the same rules? Aren't corporations always bragging that they are "people"?


I'm not going to change your mind and that's cool. I just put the info out there and people can take it or leave it. Perhaps someone will read this 5 years from now and gain some insight.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

If the taxes rise and they want the same margin they need to raise prices. It's that simple. I don't know how easier I can make.

Too simple.

1. Raising prices lowers demand; maybe a little, maybe a lot.
2. If you have effective competition, you may not be able to raise prices at all.