Trump woudl tax Carrier for moving production to Mexico

[TNHarley]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and do away with all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

 

[martybegan]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It probably won't stick because of treaties.

 

[TNHarley]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think that applies to this?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

All well and good but it'd have to be a helluva tax to make wipe out the money Carrier is saving making this move. Make doing business in the USA cheaper and more conducive to corporations, get rid of over regulating and lower their taxes.

 

[martybegan]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think that applies to this?

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

 

[Indeependent]

It probably won't stick because of treaties.

Trump has already stated over 1,000,000 times that as President he will tear up all Treaties that cause an imbalance and renegotiate.
Do you EVER watch his interviews?

 

[Iceweasel]

It probably won't stick because of treaties.

Trump has already stated over 1,000,000 times that as President he will tear up all Treaties that cause an imbalance and renegotiate.
Do you EVER watch his interviews?

The president doesn't have the authority. Trump thinks he's running for king. There are reasons companies leave, fixing it is how to bring them back, not executive orders from Mt. Olympus.

 

[defcon4]

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

Yes, I agree in theory but if you look at presently some companies are already being taxed higher than others domestically. Tobacco industry, alcoholic beverages, just the major ones.

 

[martybegan]

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

Yes, I agree in theory but if you look at presently some companies are already being taxed higher than others domestically. Tobacco industry, alcoholic beverages, just the major ones.

Considering Trusts are illegal, an industry isn't considered a single entity or group when it comes to bill of attainder laws.

 

[martybegan]

It probably won't stick because of treaties.

Trump has already stated over 1,000,000 times that as President he will tear up all Treaties that cause an imbalance and renegotiate.
Do you EVER watch his interviews?

The president doesn't have the authority. Trump thinks he's running for king. There are reasons companies leave, fixing it is how to bring them back, not executive orders from Mt. Olympus.

It's just another sign of the imbalance found in our system currently. The court thinks it can legislate from the bench, the presidents think they can just get things done with the flick of a pen, and the legislatures are too gridlocked to do anything about it.

 

[Indeependent]

It probably won't stick because of treaties.

Trump has already stated over 1,000,000 times that as President he will tear up all Treaties that cause an imbalance and renegotiate.
Do you EVER watch his interviews?

The president doesn't have the authority. Trump thinks he's running for king. There are reasons companies leave, fixing it is how to bring them back, not executive orders from Mt. Olympus.

Funny as NO ONE has contested this statement that Trump has made on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc...
Not ONE attorney stating the President can't do such a thing.

 

[TNHarley]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think that applies to this?

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

But isn't that about crimes and civil rights to individuals? Seems to me, it wouldn't be a crime, and could be legislated via Commerce Clause.
I don't know much about the "bill of attainder"..

 

[mikegriffith1]

Good for Trump. Most Democrats and Establishment Republicans are in bed with internationalist big corporations who could not care less about American jobs or shipping American jobs overseas. It's just so ironic that Democratic bots continue to think that their party is "for the little guy," when their party has savaged the little guy and has done the bidding of big corporations who want cheap labor via illegal immigration and has pushed for trade deals that they even admit will cost American jobs.

 

[Indeependent]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

But isn't that about crimes and civil rights to individuals? Seems to me, it wouldn't be a crime, and could be legislated via Commerce Clause.
I don't know much about the "bill of attainder"..

The odds are that no one on this forum really knows all that much about "Bill of Attainder".
Why do you think that applies to this?

 

[alang1216]

Is this the position of a "conservative"? What happened to letting the free market prevail? Even though I'm a Democrat and this kind of protectionism worries me as it just kicks the problems down the road without solving them.

 

[defcon4]

It's just another sign of the imbalance found in our system currently. The court thinks it can legislate from the bench, the presidents think they can just get things done with the flick of a pen, and the legislatures are too gridlocked to do anything about it.

I could never understand why a wing, within a branch of government, would voluntarily give up the power delegated to them by the Constitution by accepting unconstitutional executive orders.

 

[martybegan]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think that applies to this?

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

But isn't that about crimes and civil rights to individuals? Seems to me, it wouldn't be a crime, and could be legislated via Commerce Clause.
I don't know much about the "bill of attainder"..

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also covers groups of people, which a corporation is. Trump wants to either punish Carrier or make them change their business practices via the legislature and executive branch. It's basically what a bill of attainder is.

 

[Care4all]

Trump can not tear up treaties either....

You all are very gullible, or ignorant on this topic.

 

[TNHarley]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would impose taxes on Carrier air conditioning units manufactured in Mexico in light of the company's decision to move production from Indiana, a position in line with his strong opposition to international trade deals.
Video of the company's announcement last week to employees went viral on the Internet, showing emotional reactions to the loss of jobs while a representative of the company explained the move was "strictly a business decision." Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioning units, is owned by United Technologies Corp and announced it would be moving 1,400 jobs to Monterrey, Mexico.
During Saturday night's Republican debate, Trump said if he were president, he would approach Carrier officials and give them two choices.
"I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
A central part of Trump's campaign message has been his opposition to international trade pacts that allow products manufactured overseas to be imported with limited or no tariffs. It's a policy position that reverberates with middle- and low- income Americans, who have watched manufacturing jobs leave the country in the last several decades.

----
I like it. Punishing them for leaving, instead of punishing them for producing here. Good idea.
After you do that, and regress all of those terrible policies that hurt them and give them incentive for moving production, we will be on the right track.

Any threat to a specific company will probably be considered a "bill of attainder", and thus would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think that applies to this?

Because if you go to carrier directly, and say do this or else we will legislate to punish you, and you didn't make the legislation broad enough to cover a large enough group, than the bill would be a specific punishment to a specific group, thus a bill of attainder and thus unconstitutional.

But isn't that about crimes and civil rights to individuals? Seems to me, it wouldn't be a crime, and could be legislated via Commerce Clause.
I don't know much about the "bill of attainder"..

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also covers groups of people, which a corporation is. Trump wants to either punish Carrier or make them change their business practices via the legislature and executive branch. It's basically what a bill of attainder is.

Wouldn't Commerce Clause come into effect here?