This story is unavailable.

So, Trump was only able to save 800 of 2,400 jobs vs 0 of 2,400 jobs so those saved aren’t worth it? Is that the argument this article is trying to make? If not all jobs can be saved then no jobs should be saved? Would it be better for our country if every one of those 2,400 jobs were lost? Do you truly believe your followers are stupid enough to think 0 saved jobs are better than 800 saved jobs?

So, if that doesn’t work on them, then what? You take the angle that those 800 jobs that were saved are at the taxpayers expense? Which taxpayers? Those of Indiana or the entire country? If that doesn’t work, do you then try to drum up rage because this deal is corporate welfare for Carrier to the tune of $7,000,000 over 10 years or $700,000/year in tax incentives?

Now, I am from the south so I think 1 + 1 = cow, so I might not get this right, but let’s do some math:

800 (jobs) x $40,000 (average annual compensation of a Carrier employee) =$32,000,000 in taxable income/year.

Then, let’s tax everyone at 25%,

$32,000,000 x 25% = $8,ooo,000/year to the good ol’ US of A/year

$8,000,000 x 10 years = $80,000,000

Wait a minute, those greedy SOBs of Indiana levy a 3.3% state income tax of those who reside within it’s borders so let’s not forget those $$$.

$32,000,000 x 3.3% = $1,056,000/year

$1,056,000 x 10 years = $10,560,000

$10,560,000 — 7,000,000 = $3,560,000 surplus for the state of Indiana.

Or, it could be $660,000,000 pesos for our neighbors.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.