• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Jersey Pays $102 Million to Move Electronics Firm Down the Road

The point of course that I was making was when the US government was providing money either through loans or through equity positions in companies that did save a far larger number of jobs, I do believe that many of the people supporting the government giving money ( not a loan, not an equity position but a straight out gift) to Panasonic to save jobs, were rabidly against the bailouts ( which were loans, and equity positions) to the auto industry.

In other words massive hypocrites
 
Christies been giving money to corporations that hes stolen off public workers and by not making hundreds of millions in his half of the pension payments due....hes a scumbag
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The point of course that I was making was when the US government was providing money either through loans or through equity positions in companies that did save a far larger number of jobs, I do believe that many of the people supporting the government giving money ( not a loan, not an equity position but a straight out gift) to Panasonic to save jobs, were rabidly against the bailouts ( which were loans, and equity positions) to the auto industry.

In other words massive hypocrites
Click to expand...

Now if only we could get government (Any level) to completely stop doing this, then we wouldn't be talking about why a company would consider a move based on the highest incentivized government bidder.. The problem I see with this pragmatically is that aside from financial incentives some states offer natural incentives; and for whatever reason, warm weather, access to lakes, watershed, less retrictions or regulations, or a myriad of various none necessarily financial incentives, some states would have an advantage over others. So what's a governor to do?


Tim-
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The point of course that I was making was when the US government was providing money either through loans or through equity positions in companies that did save a far larger number of jobs, I do believe that many of the people supporting the government giving money ( not a loan, not an equity position but a straight out gift) to Panasonic to save jobs, were rabidly against the bailouts ( which were loans, and equity positions) to the auto industry.

In other words massive hypocrites
Click to expand...

You absolutely have no clue wtf you are talking about do you?

Bail outs: Saving companies that had, through piss poor decision making failed to make enough money to stay in business without drastic action.

NJ Panasonic deal: Enticing the company to NOT move out of the state, and taking the job's provided, elsewhere.


There is no hypocrisy, just failed comprehension on your part as to what the bail outs were and what NJ did.
 
Deuce said:
I was going to ask why bailouts and corporate welfare are bad when Democrats do it but are SAVING JOBS when Republicans do it.
Click to expand...

you seriously do not understand the difference between a corporate bailout, and a tax break? Really?

Allow me...

Bailout: In economics, a bailout is an act of loaning or giving capital to an entity (a company, a country, or an individual) that is in danger of failing, in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully without spreading contagion.

Tax break: a tax deduction that is granted in order to encourage a particular type of commercial activity
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
you seriously do not understand the difference between a corporate bailout, and a tax break? Really?
Click to expand...

Whovian, you should know by now that republicans send jobs overseas because we hate the little man, and when we don't send them overseas it's because we're nasty little hypocrites. Duh!
 
It's sad that talking points spewed by good like troopers like Deuce pass as "discussion" these days. It's almost as if some people are incapable of thinking for themselves or being honest about the stuff they post.

If Christie has say... GIVEN a local NJ millions to keep it from going out of business, paid state money into the company to keep it afloat, yeah, that'd be a bailout and we'd be condemning him and NJ for it.

That's honesty.

He did what all Governors do, he sweetened the pot to keep jobs in state. My question to those crying "lol republicans are hypocrites lol". Did you get this line in email form or is there a particular website you guys get your talking points from?
 
MrVicchio said:
It's sad that talking points spewed by good like troopers like Deuce pass as "discussion" these days. It's almost as if some people are incapable of thinking for themselves or being honest about the stuff they post.

If Christie has say... GIVEN a local NJ millions to keep it from going out of business, paid state money into the company to keep it afloat, yeah, that'd be a bailout and we'd be condemning him and NJ for it.

That's honesty.

He did what all Governors do, he sweetened the pot to keep jobs in state. My question to those crying "lol republicans are hypocrites lol". Did you get this line in email form or is there a particular website you guys get your talking points from?
Click to expand...

Daily KOS.
 
MrVicchio said:
You absolutely have no clue wtf you are talking about do you?

Bail outs: Saving companies that had, through piss poor decision making failed to make enough money to stay in business without drastic action.

NJ Panasonic deal: Enticing the company to NOT move out of the state, and taking the job's provided, elsewhere.


There is no hypocrisy, just failed comprehension on your part as to what the bail outs were and what NJ did.
Click to expand...

He GAVE the company money to protect jobs

The US government lent money to protect jobs

I know and understand fully what the NJ government did and what the US government did

Both used taxpayer money to protect jobs
 
Like don, I would like to see some numbers to see whether this is actually fiscally beneficial. Keeping a company in the state is nice... even giving them breaks to do so, but if the money that the state pays is far more than the revenue it will receive, this is a bad deal for the state. If the state will earn money, even in the long haul, then it was a good move.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
He GAVE the company money to protect jobs

The US government lent money to protect jobs

I know and understand fully what the NJ government did and what the US government did

Both used taxpayer money to protect jobs
Click to expand...

WRONG.

Nice try, thanks for playing.
 
The reality is that while it's questionable to grant single exceptional tax breaks to companies to entice them to stay or come, what the practice proves is important:

Not taxing business encourages businesses to stick around.

Christie should follow up this tax break by insisting that all businesses in the Garden State have their taxes cut, by a minimum of 50%, across the board.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Like don, I would like to see some numbers to see whether this is actually fiscally beneficial. Keeping a company in the state is nice... even giving them breaks to do so, but if the money that the state pays is far more than the revenue it will receive, this is a bad deal for the state. If the state will earn money, even in the long haul, then it was a good move.
Click to expand...

I second that.
If Christie had some economists give numbers such as the estimated income the state would earn from the company's stay, then weighed it with the 102 million dollars, then fully understood the benefits and gave the break, he's a smart man. If not, he's a fool
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
The reality is that while it's questionable to grant single exceptional tax breaks to companies to entice them to stay or come, what the practice proves is important:

Not taxing business encourages businesses to stick around.

Christie should follow up this tax break by insisting that all businesses in the Garden State have their taxes cut, by a minimum of 50%, across the board.
Click to expand...

You do know what kind of effect that will have, do you
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Yes, all the commie libs on the board are going to attack the Mayor.
Click to expand...

The Mayor again proving that he does not understand definitions.

He asked a question. Do you know what kind of affect that would have on NJ?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Yes, all the commie libs on the board are going to attack the Mayor.
Click to expand...

Yes, and even the moderates and the conservatives will do the same. A 50% tax deduction is outrageous, even the Bush and Reagan tax breaks weren't so idiotic. A 50% tax deduction means that less money for education, welfare, health, infrastructure, subsidies, everything, which NJ desperately needs. Companies will flock, sure, but the amount of potential tax collected won't make up half of the deduction. If you said that with a full understanding of the economy, got estimates and statistics, showed them, and stated that, then I won't oppose it. Yet you did it with no understanding of the consequences, with no statistics, no estimates, so your statement (more of a joke) couldn't be taken seriously
 
Proud South Korean said:
Yes, and even the moderates and the conservatives will do the same. A 50% tax deduction is outrageous, even the Bush and Reagan tax breaks weren't so idiotic. A 50% tax deduction means that less money for education, welfare, health, infrastructure, subsidies, everything, which NJ desperately needs. Companies will flock, sure, but the amount of potential tax collected won't make up half of the deduction. If you said that with a full understanding of the economy, got estimates and statistics, showed them, and stated that, then I won't oppose it. Yet you did it with no understanding of the consequences, with no statistics, no estimates, so your statement (more of a joke) couldn't be taken seriously
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I live in NJ. That kind of tax reduction is idiotic. The state needs revenue. Reducing that amount of revenue will bankrupt the state so fast, there will be no ability to draw in new business... and when new business comes in, they will never make up for the money lost. The idiot Christie has already glutted the education system here. This would make it far worse.
 
There is a sweet spot for taxes, too high, you retard business, too low you lose revenue.

NJ Taxes ARE too high, as evidenced by the economic conditions, however, 50% across the board would be a bad idea. A better idea would be a phased say, 25% cut, 5% lower every 6 months. You get higher revenue as business picks up will not raping the existing budget, once you hit that 25% mark you get a good idea of if you've gone too low and can ease back higher, if it's "just right" or needs more lowering.

50% across the board would break the state.
 
Whovian said:
The $102 million here pales in comparison to the loss in tax revenue, wages from lost jobs, etc. that Panasonic moving out of the state would cause.

This was a good financial decision for NJ. Period.
Click to expand...

Not arguing that it looks good NOW; is there a poison pill that Panasonic must swallow if the company decides to move out of state later on or shut down the factory all together? I saw this same thing happen with a shopping center or two when I worked for the local development council. We'd give this comapny tax breaks and incentives; build roads for the chopping centers, lay sewer lines; even took out ads in our print media buys only to have the firm close down inside of 10 years one time.

Is there anything in the deal conserning such things in Jersey? Always wanted to go there.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Absolutely. I live in NJ. That kind of tax reduction is idiotic. The state needs revenue. Reducing that amount of revenue will bankrupt the state so fast, there will be no ability to draw in new business... and when new business comes in, they will never make up for the money lost. The idiot Christie has already glutted the education system here. This would make it far worse.
Click to expand...

I agree CC...whats really killing jersey is HomeRule...it costs a fortune in taxs to keep every little town its own kingdom....especially the 620 schoolboards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom