NO that is the result. I am sure you remember the process I illustrated, year 1 of the contract, the supplier and Walmart agree on the price. Year 2 Walmart wants a 10 - 15% discount and an exclusivity deal. The company can swing it, barely, reasoning that they can make up for in volume, Walmart is all but their exclusive customer now. Year 4 Walmart wants a further 15% cut. Now with no other customers the company has to look at off shoring just to stay in business.
As for elimination of any tax credits why not. The corporation is further reducing the US tax base by no longer hiring US taxpayers - those jobs are now overseas. So why should the company still receive tax credits from the federal government? Anyhow that is the stick - I'd also suggest a carrot, why not allow companies to write off 50% of the wages of any new hires, provided they stay employed with the company for at least a year. By managing corporate tax policy carefully, the federal government could have an enormous impact on the number of corporations hiring US workers and significantly reduce the loss of US manufacturing jobs. That is of course unless you agree that companies ought to get tax credits for reducing the number of American jobs, or just get plain federal giveaways. Funny though if the government gives money to people for doing nothing its called welfare. What do you call it when the government gives money to corporations for doing nothing? On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Who are you kidding? No company will move their plants off shore > _solely_ so they can do business with Wal-Mart. Besides, why is it > Wal-Mart's fault? No company is forced to business with Wal-Mart. > > Not sure how I feel about your idea about the surtax or eliminating a > tax credit for companies that move plants off shore. My initial > reaction was to agree, but after thinking about it for a while it > seems more like a punishment for trying to do what is best for your > company. > > To me, that would be like taxing UPS for choosing to use cheaper fuel > to keep their expenses down. > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> To add on to your comment, those other companies do not have the same >> buying policies that Walmart uses with its suppliers. That really >> creates an incentive for those corporations to move production off >> shore. Moreover with current tax structures for corporations they >> still get corporate tax breaks even though most of their production is >> offshore. >> >> Perhaps one way of countering the trend is to make it far more >> expensive for the companies to offshore - elmination of any tax >> credits etc or a surtax on offshoring. >> >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Casey Dougall >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Wy single out Wal-Mart? >>>> >>>> Target, K-Mart and the like sell pretty much the same products. Does >>>> only Wal-Mart buy them from the Chinese? >>>> >>> >>> >>> While they may purchase goods from China, Asia etc... They still create >>> thousands of fairly decent paying jobs in their distribution centers, not to >>> mention the management positions at each store. >>> >>> Just saying... >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:328708 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
