Indiana Estimated Tax Payment Form 2020: Fill & Download for Free

Both the US and China governments try to stimulate their economies, how do they differ in strategy and effectiveness?The question is not focused enough. You need to define the period you are referring to in order to determine strategy and effectiveness, because it is obvious that when you have a budding economy as compared to a mature economy, the measures likely to produce great effectiveness will vary both in time and scope. Presumably you are concerned with current circumstances, so we will focus on the current economic situation relative to these two particular countries.If you study the Kondratieff wave, you will note that economies in general have both small surges and long term supercycles. And there are of course quite a few theories out there on what drives these cycles, ranging from inequity such as massive wealth gaps, opportunity and social freedoms, technological advances, birth rates and revolutions, or political intolerance and terrorism. Obviously if inequity is low and opportunity is easily available, peaceful moral decisions of the populace are mainly preferred; and the opportunism often creates inspiration and genius and technological industrial advances creating a virtuous cycle. The demographics also play a role, as people in general seem to behave fairly predictably through their life cycle regarding schooling, marriage, family, housing and retirement as such. Other variables include land and housing, which often also have cyclical booms and busts. And we need to remember debt and credit cycles too. It is not such a recent phenomenon though, as William Thompson at Indiana University has illustrated some documents detailing some 18 such cycles dating back to 930AD in Song China.So in the case of USA, examining its monetary policy, you normally turn the economy by lowering interest rates and that in turn stimulates demand and the economy turns on a dime as they say. That is until you reach zero interest rate, and in the case of Japan and even European economies, even negative interest rates. This happened in 1932 in the USA and also in 2008, and the US had to do massive quantitative easing because the Lehman Crisis created a massive non-performing loan debacle of 29 trillion USD default. A detailed look at the Fed’s bailout. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf The Fed printed money to buy financial assets, which created a huge lending bubble right up till the present. So, this is the second option- monetisation. Did this trickle down monetary policy achieve redistribution of wealth? Probably not, if present economic conditions seen at present prevail.Hence in phase three, the government has been monetising and buying assets, mainly financial, and the liquidity is driving the stock markets. But the side effect is that cash is losing appeal as a store of value asset in terms of inflation. Then we have to consider how it affects the ordinary Joe in terms of tax policy – who will shoulder the debt burden, the rich or the middle class or the poor. The main issue now is that with the high Gini Coefficient wealth gap, there is great dissatisfaction, and the political parties are not really having meaningful co-operation, resulting in some degree of cognitive dissonance, and now, with Covid -19 the recession seems to be addressed by monetary policy alone which is already having an estimated US federal debt of nearly 26 trillion plus US$, in which the Central Banks are printing money, buying financial assets and even Government debt T bills and spreading money around into the ranks of the unemployed. The dissatisfaction and riots need to be addressed among the disempowered in order to get the economy back in order.Currently, with Trump’s trade war, and technological denial to China, and geopolitical tensions and even capital markets being affected with measures against Wechat or Tik-Tok, and potential delisting of companies or limitation on investment, times are indeed troubling. And whatever measures you wish to undertake, you have to look at the potential big picture of dissociation de-coupling and polarisation of the global economy in terms of the supply chain and if you are targeting self-sufficiency, then the risk of inflation is an ever-present issue. Then you need to look at the industries which are being affected by the pandemic, and the restructuring of newer industries in which you need to stimulate the economic throughput to create new jobs and new wealth. So in terms of debt deflation in USA as at present, you need to reflate, even if the value of your currency drops.The problem around the world is that there is at present no rise in aggregate demand in spite of negative interest rates, and no higher global growth at least for the near future because of the virus effect. Real wages are not really increasing and the CARES program needs to target the return to meaningful occupation for those who have been retrenched. Will there be growth in the supply chain from newer technology, new management or flexi work from home? Will investment in infrastructure occur if Biden is elected, and increase in education spending using an expansionary fiscal policy instead of military industrial complex spending. It would seem that the previous deregulation which created the Mortgage Debt Crisis taught Wall St a lesson but Trump has already rolled back the Dodd-Frank Financial regulations.Level of savings can influence growth since higher savings enable higher investment, and although it can be hard for the government to influence savings, lately savings have seen a rise during the pandemic because there has been a reduction in spending. It is also paramount to improve industrial relations and workers motivation or else the economy will be affected and productivity will be lost. Human capital can be increased by offsetting the student loan debt load, so that US graduates can find jobs, save for retirement, buy homes and raise families. Trump’s narrow minded focus on students, especially from Asia, tends to limit the contribution from Research and Development and should be reversed. Perhaps the export market will benefit from the weaker dollar, in which case the trade balance will improve and the domestic manufacturers will stand to gain especially in emerging markets. Limiting FDI capital infusion from China and other emerging markets does not do America many favours, so the policy may need to be readdressed. It is possibly self-defeating in the long run. Hopefully a democratic presidency will review this rather myopic view. Ironically mostly it is under the Democrats that the wrong policies of the Republicans get to be remediated. So the S & P will probably get back to another bull run over the next four to eight years.Other measures such as job- retraining, refinancing of equity poor but responsible homeowners may be viable for preventing too many foreclosures and boost consumer spending but you will need a good banker to spot irresponsible homeowners. Tax cuts and rebates are used to return money to consumers and boost spending. In 2017, the Trump administration proposed, and Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The legislation lowered corporate taxes to 20% where the former high tax rate was 35%, but of course lots of critics leveled accusations on it of benefiting the already rich. Instead of wasting effort trying to constrain the development of other peoples and countries, it is better to adopt a less aggressive policy to reduce the need to spend mainly on defence, spur the economy with infrastructure commitments, improve education and health of the people, orientate a more progressive social environment for the people and that will create the required growth. Will the ‘new’ administration do that, whether it is Trump or Biden.What about China.In the immediate near term, China’s growth will be dependent on investment led strategy of the public sector and exports. Consumption as a contributor was lower because of the pandemic, and its recovery slower than the pick-up in production, although the peak unemployment of 6.2% in February 2020 eased to 5.7% by June. In terms of infrastructure, there is still a lot to be done both to create new links, roads, rail, sewage, power stations, flood control civil engineering projects in water conservancy such as drainage and irrigation channels. With a total investment of RMB 1.29 trillion, the projects are expected to drive direct and indirect further investment and create near to a three-quarter million job creation.There is also a corresponding drive to install new infrastructure for the 5 G network and industrial internet, big data and Artificial Intelligence, cloud computing, I O T, blockchain, and smart transportation. Shanghai is spending 270 B RMB on 34000 5G base-stations and thousands of charging stations for electric vehicles, while Fujian also is investing 72.9 B in new infrastructure projects, and Quangdong is backing RMB 180 B for Huawei, Baidu, JD.com, Inc. and so on; with another 60K 5G stations and so is Chongqing (81 B), Yunnan (377.6B) , Zhejiang (540B) and others. There is a massive investment program going on. So a fiscal stimulus of about 8.5 trillion RMB is in place to recharge the economy.Because China is a major exporter and probably at least 200 million of the population are involved in the manufacturing and service sector for the foreign trade, the pandemic has reduced world demand, and so the excess inventory needs to be channeled to domestic consumption and this requires certain measures such as re-certification of technical standards to allow production for both exports and domestic sales to be done on the same production line so that standards of quality are maintained and cost of production is reduced. Remember that exporters are not familiar with domestic distribution channels, so the government puts up online shopping festivals for export products to attract domestic buyers. Then there is the issue of financial support for export industries to include credit insurance covers products sold in domestic markets, and also supply chain financing and operational credit support.What else is useful. These will include reducing transportation cost for import and export enterprises, reduce export tax rates and other support measures, until the external global demand returns. Whatever other detractors may say, the China market is important for many EU and Primary producers as well as the US exporters. Even in terms of FDI into China, US FDI has been stable over the past few years at a rate of 12 to 15 billion USD in spite of the trade war because business knows where the demand and sales are located. So China in fact has been lowering tariffs and ‘negative lists’, in other words those industries off-limits for foreign investors are getting smaller. In fact next year, Beijing is opening its Universal Studios Theme Park, so it is not in the interest of US enterprises to leave China in most instances, unless they find they cannot compete with all international and domestic competitors.China has begun to look into its night economy, which exceeds 16 trillion RMB in terms of consumption. So it makes sense to boost this pattern using consumption coupons, Night festivals, street stalls in which attention is now paid to hygiene and quality of goods, and attention to rubbish and pollutants to protect public health. Mind you, street stall economy has advantages of low risk and low prices and low financial requirements, and so this is helpful in getting unemployed people to start their own business. Chengdu set up 2000 plus areas for street stall economy and 20000 areas for mobile vendors to operate, creating 100000 jobs, and sales of commercial vehicles went up!Therefore China is having an expansionary fiscal policy, raising budget deficit to 3.76 trillion or about 3.6% of GDP – and the quantum of stimulus will be about RMB 8.5 trillion including local government bonds issued of about 3.75 trillion. Other measures such as tax cuts in VAT, exemptions of pensions and unemployment and work injury insurance contributions for the moment until December 2020, postpone income tax payments, reduce electricity tariffs and internet charges, reducing rentals for using state owned assets such as exhibition halls, easier access to bank loans, extending repayments of principals and interest of bank loans, and support for the S & M enterprises. China’s population likes to save, and with household savings equivalent to 2 years of disposable income, it is a level which bodes well for private consumption, so China is likely to get a GDP growth of 2-4 % this year, which is quite an achievement.thanks for A2A.

Yes and No ! The individual States cannot pick and choose where they expand…under the court rulings. Over 50 millions are still uninsured something called a system failure. Also funds for health care and specifically the practice of neurology is very important. The US epidemic of Opiods medication is quite important in the overdose death mumbers.The USA have studied all the medical systems in the world one by one….many and many times. They know the bad points and the best points of every system, Dennmark, Switzerland, France, Canada have such good medical systems. It is now time to oblige everyone in the US congress political arena to start working on proposing something innovative , creative and operational for a 2 speed system for everyone. The US medical system is a big failure for the average income self employed population of working entrepreneurs.In the USA individual rights are very strong. Single payer cannot be a acceptable formula for the USA, a (2) speed system is the only acceptable system. One high end for the rich with picking and choosing their doctors, hospitals and type of medical surgery and paying most of the total cost for treatement. This would make the rich happy and comfortable with any final State formula medical system. They can pay what they want so let them do so but not at the expense of the middle income and poor. The June 2012 supreme court decision did statute rules to follow on each state final guide lines for a minimum medical system for everyone.Nothing this big happens with medical care overnight and without controversy. Numerous concerns were raised from all demographics and from both sides of the political aisle. Some of the concerns were legal questions regarding constitutionality and so legal processes began to address this issue. In June 2012, the Supreme Court decided in a 5–4 vote that the Act is constitutional. This has allowed the legislation to stand and over the next few years the more transforming parts will start to be implemented. It is important to understand the issues surrounding the Supreme Court decision and the impact this may have on health care and specifically the practice of neurology.The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or the Act) is considered the most important legislation passed by the US Congress since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. It is the direct result of rising health care costs in the United States and was a major initiative of President Obama's first term. During its passage there was much debate surrounding the legislation. While some of this debate continues today, on June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) put many of the legal questions to rest and paved the way for implementation of the Act. This article will review the issue before the Supreme Court and then discuss some of the areas that are likely to impact on neurology practices and patients.FOOTNOTESCoverage under the Medicaid expansion became effective January 1, 2014 in all states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion except for the following: Michigan (4/1/2014), New Hampshire (8/15/2014), Pennsylvania (1/1/2015), Indiana (2/1/2015), Alaska (9/1/2015), Montana (1/1/2016), Louisiana (7/1/2016), Virginia (enrollment began 11/1/2018 for coverage effective 1/1/2019), and Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, and Utah (to be determined).Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and New Hampshire have approved Section 1115 waivers for the Medicaid expansion.Idaho voters approved a ballot measure in November 2018 that requires the state to submit a state plan amendment to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to implement the Medicaid expansion within 90 days of approval of the measure.CMS reapproved the Kentucky HEALTH expansion waiver on November 20, 2018. A previous approval of the waiver was set aside by the DC federal district court in June 2018 and sent back to HHS to reconsider (except for the separate "institution for mental disease" substance use disorder payment waiver, which was not set aside by the court and was allowed to go into effect).Maine adopted the Medicaid expansion through a ballot initiative in November 2017 and the ballot measure requires submission of a state plan amendment (SPA) within 90 days and implementation of expansion within 180 days of the measure’s effective date, but the Governor failed to meet the SPA submission deadline (April 3, 2018). The Governor complied with a Maine Supreme Judicial Court order to submit an expansion SPA to the federal government on September 4, 2018. However, the Governor also sent a letter to the federal government asking CMS to reject the SPA. The newly elected Democratic governor, Janet Mills, has supported Medicaid expansion and is likely to move quickly to implement after taking office in January 2019.The most important legal question about the Act before the Supreme Court was on the constitutionality of mandating all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. If this section was determined to be unconstitutional, then the other legal questions would need to be addressed. The Act states that if a person cannot show proof of insurance, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will impose a tax on them. Some felt it was unconstitutional, and beyond the scope of Congressional power, to require Americans to buy a private market commodity. The Court decided that because the penalty was treated as a “tax” and Congress has a right to impose taxes, the Act was constitutional. Once this decision was made, it negated most of the other legal questions that were being raised, with one exception; federal funding of Medicaid.1The Supreme Court was also asked to address an issue related to the expansion of Medicaid. The Act provided for expanding Medicaid eligibility to 133% of poverty level and provided federal funding to states for this expansion. It directed that states that did not expand eligibility would lose all of their Medicaid funding. The Court decided in a 7–2 vote that states could not be coerced to expand their Medicaid offerings; therefore, if a state chooses not to expand its Medicaid program, the federal government cannot withdraw all Medicaid funding to that state. However, the Court did find that if a state chooses to expand coverage, they must accept all of the federal regulations attached to that expansion. They cannot pick and choose where they expand.What are the implications of the SCOTUS mandate decision?It is well accepted that the rising cost of health care in the United States is unsustainable and this is clearly the main driver for reforming the way health care is practiced and administered.2 There are studies that show that despite higher spending on health care in the United States, we do not have better outcomes or healthier patients than in countries with lower spending on health care.3 So while most health care pundits accept that spending more does not mean better health, what remains unclear is how to fix these problems. Some believe that improved access to health insurance and therefore health care will correct some of the current burdens on the system. There are an estimated 48 million Americans who are currently not covered by health insurance.4 This puts financial pressures on the system at certain levels. Studies have shown that uninsured individuals experience delays in accessing health care and therefore access the system once they are sicker. This correlates with presentation at later disease stages requiring longer and more costly care.5The cost of caring for the uninsured gets passed on to the public in a variety of ways, including higher cost for insurance and higher cost for providing care. Opening up the pool of premium paying, insured individuals provides more money to the entire system and also allows more individuals to access care earlier in their disease. It is believed this will lead to lower costs to the system.6So which individuals are in the uninsured population and how can we get them insured? This is one of the questions addressed by the ACA. Clearly there are some individuals or small groups who could purchase health insurance but have chosen not to. It is estimated that of the 48 million Americans who do not have health insurance, 18 million could and have chosen not to purchase it.7 In order to get some of the uninsured population to purchase insurance, the ACA created a penalty for not having it. Debate continues as to whether the intent was actually to be a penalty or a tax, but as it was set up as a tax under the Internal Revenue Service, the Supreme Court determined it was constitutional. There is also debate about how successful the provision will be. It is not clear that the penalty is enough to incentivize people to pay for insurance. There are estimates that the penalty will be at most around $700 a year, whereas the cheapest health insurance will be around $600–$1,000 per month.7 The economics suggest this group would be better off paying the penalty. However, estimates suggest that of the 48 million uninsured, only 18 million may chose not to purchase insurance, and so there will still be a net gain for the covered pool.7While the mandate addresses the population of uninsured who could afford insurance but choose not to purchase it, clearly there are many uninsured who cannot afford health insurance. The Act also provides for ways to help these groups become insured. There will be subsidies, tax breaks, and credits for individuals or small groups to now purchase insurance. Starting in 2014, individuals and small groups will have access to either state or federal insurance exchanges that will assist with obtaining affordable health insurance. The exchanges will provide summaries of new insurance products as well as summaries of what subsidies/tax breaks/credits might apply to assist with purchasing the insurance. These exchanges are currently under development and so the effectiveness remains to be seen.How does the Medicaid expansion affect medicine?The SCOTUS decision on the Medicaid expansion deserves some further exploration as the implications of this remain unclear. The Court decided that states were not required to expand their Medicaid programs and if they chose not to expand they did not risk their current levels of federal funding. The Act provides for expansion of Medicaid eligibility to 133% of poverty level and would provide 100% funding for this expanded group until 2020, at which point federal funding drops to 90%. This means that states have a number of options regarding Medicaid. One option is to fully implement the defined expansions and receive 100% federal funding until 2020 followed by 90% funding. However states may decide, for political or financial reasons, not to participate in the expansion and continue their Medicaid programs as they are now and still receive current funding levels. But there is ambiguity as to whether states could decide on partial expansions and still receive federal funding for that expansion. For example, a state could expand its Medicaid program to 115% or 125% of the poverty level. There is nothing in the legislation or the SCOTUS decision that prevents a state from a smaller expansion and still being eligible for the 100% federal coverage to that expansion level. States may make compromise choices in this way.8 As the Act moves through regulatory channels, more guidance may come regarding these alternative options. The net effect of the expansion of Medicaid eligibility is to allow more people to be covered under Medicaid. While expanding the insured population broadens the pool and this may be good for getting patients on the covered side of the equation, it is unclear if this is good for providers given the traditionally low reimbursement rates for Medicaid.What else does the ACA do for health care reform?Since the ACA appears to be here to stay, it is important to understand some of the other provisions it creates. There are some that are good for patients and perhaps for neurology practices.What are some positives of the Act for neurology patients?Lifetime limits and preexisting condition exclusions go away (2014)9By removing lifetime limits and existing condition restrictions, patients with chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis or epilepsy no longer face losing access to care or medications by arbitrary time or dollar limits.2. Children up to age 26 can remain on their parent's medical insurance (2010)9Children will be covered longer, allowing them to finish schooling and get employment and hopefully their own access to insurance.3. Medicare part D limits (“donut hole”) are phasing out. 2010 insured receive $250 rebateb. 2011 gap decreased by 50%c. Continued phase-out through 2020The enactment of Medicare part D provided seniors coverage for medications; however, it included limits that caused them to lose coverage after a certain dollar amount was spent. This resulted in many seniors having to pay the full cost of medication part of the year and effectively led to many stopping or decreasing their medicines. The Act phases out this limit and eventually provides ongoing coverage of medications for seniors on Medicare.Recommended preventive care must be covered by insurance (2012)Additionally, in order to shift costs from so-called “rescue care,” which results from delayed access to care/treatment, insurance is required to cover preventive care. Hopefully this will address the issue of higher costs when care is delayed and patients are sicker.A total of 85% of insurance premiums must go to medical care or patients get rebate (2011)Finally, insurance companies must keep overhead expenses to a minimum and use the bulk of insured premium dollars for providing health care (85%) or they must refund premium dollars to the insured. In the first year of this requirement, this provision was estimated to have saved consumers approximately $1.5 billion.What are some positive effects of the ACA on neurology businesses?Tax credits for small businesses offering health insurance (2011)Practices currently offering health insurance can take tax credits for some of the cost of the premiums.2. Small businesses will have access to purchasing health insurance for employees through exchanges (2014)Many neurology practices across the country are small businesses. It is harder for small businesses to provide health insurance to employees than for the larger corporations. Access to cheaper insurance options through exchanges provided by the ACA may also help this situation and thereby insure more Americans.3. Incentive payments for quality measure reporting and electronic health record (EHR) use (2010, ongoing)Another way that neurology revenue may be helped is through the incentive offerings, including participation in certain reporting programs—e-prescribing, quality measure reporting, and use of EHR. Ultimately there are penalties for not participating in these programs. However, there are potentially significant barriers to participate in these incentive programs. Most of these require up-front costs in equipment, staff, and training that smaller practices may not be able to afford. The financial incentives may not balance out the cost of implementation, making it a financial challenge for small businesses that are already struggling with declining revenues. Also, changes to workflow can be disruptive to busy practices that are already functioning at their limits of volume and efficiency.What does the future hold?While the bulk of the ACA tends to focus on insurance reform and not really health care reform, there are sections that attempt to change the way health care is provided. The Act provides for pilot programs and incentives to develop new models of care including Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) and Patient Centered Medical Homes (PCMH). Some organizations have been officially identified on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Web site as ACO11 and have agreed to the reporting and payment requirements associated with this designation. They have also agreed to take on a certain amount of financial risk if they do not meet targets. Initially any money saved on care is shared by the insurers and the providers. However, if costs are not lowered, the groups will be penalized and lose money.12 Physician groups are also getting involved with the PCMH or networks of care models. These focus on disease states and organize a patient's care around teams and what the specific needs of the patient may be. Many of these groups are collaborating with insurance companies and are focusing on using electronic resources, guidelines, and registries to improve care and lower costs. PCMH models are trying to engage patients in their health care decisions.13 With both of these models, there are plans for greater public reporting of cost and outcomes. Those groups, hospitals, or physicians providing the lowest cost for care with the best outcomes will be designated by some preferred ranking and patients will be encouraged to use these providers.The goal for most new models of care is to eliminate the current fee-for-service payment programs and replace them with cheaper, more effective ways of providing care. However, these new models have not been proven to reduce cost or provide better care or outcomes. Most of the new models focus on incentivizing primary care providers, defined as internal medicine, pediatrics, and family practice, but not specialists. Specialty groups argue that for certain diseases such as multiple sclerosis, dementia, congestive heart failure, or diabetes, a specialist may be functioning as the patient's primary (main) provider and therefore should be eligible for these incentives. At this time, it remains unclear how specialists will fit in to these new models.It also is not clear that any of these changes will improve the health of Americans. The talk is all about improving quality and there are programs focusing on reporting of measures related to this. Whether focusing on these measures actually makes people healthier remains to be seen. Clearly change is here and change is always difficult. Now that the Act has been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, the health care industry is moving forward with the implementation. Time will tell if we are building a system that is more cost effective and provides better quality and healthier outcomes for our patients.With all the large military increases in the Trump budget this money could of solved the entire medical system in the USA under a two speed system with a minimum to be supplied in each state or across the border in a adjacent state. There is no where a political will and the ,most powerful medical lobby in Washington is causing havoc and stagnation on how to move forward and implement any new formula under the latest supreme court decision guidelines.Really the USA do not desire any form of medical system as a basic minimum for everyone being poor or rich. Honestly the rich do not require nor desire or care for a new system as they can pay their way thru something the poor cannot do in all justice in any of the USA States. I understand Vermont has a system that uses some of the Canadian medication cost and is quite succesful in offering medication and medical services that might of originated a few miles on the other side of the Canadian border to the satisfaction of all. Vermont may be a model to analyse for the future as Mr Bernie Saunders has some good deserved credit for his 77 year achievement in this world.It is impossible to compare the Canadian medical system versus the USA with less than a minimal system for everyone. The USA require to create their own system to deal with the rich & the poor all under a 2 speed free or minimal paying system and get fast track approval pass the congress and the senate…something almost impossible to understand under President Donald Trump…..1-Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act: What does it mean for neurology?

Your question assumes a fact that is not totally true. Trump PROMISED to bring jobs back to the United States. Is he? In almost every case he has bragged about jobs saved and kept from moving offshore, turns out not to be the case. The effect will be zero in China. Foxconn is building a new LCD display plant in Wisconsin, not moving an existing plant in China to expand it’s capabilities. Automation is the new dirty word for factory jobs in China. If America wants to stay competitive, it too will turn to automation. Are we retraining our factory workers for other skills? Zip! The only retraining I have heard about in the news was a Chinese wind farm installation company retraining American coal miners to maintain these wind farms in the U.S.CARRIER: “About 1,400 positions were on the chopping block, per company estimates. Over the past year, Trump has claimed he could maintain at least 1,100 of those jobs in the United States. But on Monday, the company gave official notice to Indiana officials that it would start laying off workers at the factory on July 20 and keep slashing staff until approximately 800 factory employees remain….He said those numbers could go even higher, noting that United Technologies (Carriers parent) had agreed to invest roughly $16 million into updating the plant….But later that month, Greg Hayes, chief executive of United Technologies, admitted that the $16 million investment would go toward automation. “ (Washington Post)“Two days before becoming president, Donald Trump tweeted that GM, Ford, Lockheed Martin and others announced investments and job creation in the U.S. “because of me!” But industry experts and company officials say the recent moves were largely market-driven and were in the works before Trump was elected….The decision not to build the plant in Mexico, where Ford had planned to build the next generation Ford Focus, was scrapped because “we’ve seen decreasing demand here in North America for small cars, and we simply don’t need the capacity anymore,” Fields said on Fox Business News. Instead, he said, Ford will build it in an existing facility in Mexico.” (factcheck)Re Foxconn, Foxconn is a Taiwan company that, does subcontract work for the likes of Apple, HP, etc. “Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., trading as Foxconn Technology Group, is a Taiwanese multinational electronics contract manufacturing company headquartered in Tucheng, New Taipei, Taiwan. Foxconn is the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer and the fourth-largest information technology company by revenue. It is the largest private employer in China and one of the largest employers worldwide. Its founder and chairman is Terry Gou…..Foxconn is primarily a contract manufacturer; its clients include major American, Canadian, Chinese, Finnish, and Japanese electronics and information technology companies. Notable customers and products the company manufactures for include BlackBerry, iPad, iPhone, iPod, Kindle, Nintendo 3DS, Nokia, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Nintendo Switch, and Xbox One. …Foxconn has 12 factories in nine Chinese cities—more than in any other country. Foxconn's largest factory worldwide is in Longhua Town, Shenzhen, where hundreds of thousands of workers (varying counts include 230,000, 300,000, and 450,000 are employed at the Longhua Science & Technology Park, a walled campus sometimes referred to as “Foxconn City”. Covering about 1.16 square miles (3 square km), it includes 15 factories, worker dormitories, 4 swimming pools, a fire brigade, its own television network (Foxconn TV), and a city centre with a grocery store, bank, restaurants, bookstore, and hospital. While some workers live in surrounding towns and villages, others live and work inside the complex; a quarter of the employees live in the dormitories, and many of them work up to 12 hours a day for 6 days each week. Another of Foxconn's factory "cities" is Zhengzhou Technology Park in Zhengzhou, Henan province, where a reported 120,000 workers are employed as of 2012. Foxconn continues to expand, and planned factories include sites at Wuhan in Hubei province, Haizhow, Kunshan in Jiangsu province, Tianjin, Beijing, and Guangzhou in Guangdong province, China. On May 25, 2016, the BBC reported that Foxconn fired 60,000 employees because it had automated "many of the manufacturing tasks associated with our operations". Foxconn confirmed those claims….President Donald Trump announced on July 26, 2017 that Foxconn will build a $10 billion flat screen TV manufacturing plant in southeastern Wisconsin. The deal is being criticized for the $3 billion in tax-payer funded incentives given to Foxconn. The state of Wisconsin would have to pay a subsidy to Foxconn of up to $250 million each year for fifteen years. An analysis by the Wisconsin State Legislature's nonpartisan budget office determined that state taxpayers would recoup their investment in 2043. In return, the deal would return an estimated $181 million each year. This loss, according to economics professor Michael Hicks, amounts to a payment of $1,200 from each household to Foxconn. Foxconn would also be exempt from an environmental impact statement and be able to avoid several other environmental protection rules that other companies must comply with ” (Wikipedia)….” Foxconn, formally known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd, hopes to open a $10 billion plant in 2020 at a 1,000-acre site in southeastern Wisconsin. It will initially employ 3,000 people but that number could rise to 13,000, officials have said. Proponents including President Donald Trump and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker have touted the project's investment potential and job creation, including an expected 22,000 ancillary and 10,000 construction jobs.” (Nasdaq)“Altogether 1.2 million people are employed in the Taiwanese assembly and electronics company” (The Register)BTW, Foxconn automation plans for the future: “In three years, Foxconn will probably use robots and automation to complete 70 percent of its assembly line work, said company CEO Terry Gou on Thursday in news footage circulated online. Although the Taiwanese manufacturing giant employs over 1 million workers in mainland China, it has also been investing in robotics research. Previously Gou said he hoped to one day deploy a ”robot army” at the company’s factories, as a way to offset labor costs and improve manufacturing.” (PC World)BTW, Although the Taiwanese manufacturing giant employs over 1 million workers in mainland China, it has also been investing in robotics research. Previously Gou said he hoped to one day deploy a ”robot army” at the company’s factories, as a way to offset labor costs and improve manufacturing.” (PC World)….”Foxconn began developing its own industrial robots in 2007. It now has 1,600 employees at two factories in Shenzhen and Jincheng, in Shanxi province, who churn out 10,000 Foxbots a year, Day said. The machines are capable of performing more than 20 manufacturing tasks, including pressing, printing, polishing, packaging and testing.” (Business Insider)In summary, Foxconn fired 60,000 Chinese employees today because of automation. It plans to fire 700,000 in China over 3 years because of robots. Last year, in Shenzhen, I heard that Foxconn was buying manufacturing robots from Japan at the rate of about 1000 per month. Foxconn is also designing and building it’s own robots. It plans to hire a maximum of 13,000 employees in Wisconsin….has Foxconn reduced it’s China labor force because of the new Wisconsin plant? Fat chance! Foxconn is turning to automation at it’s factory because Chinese labor costs are getting too high. Foxconn finds an American state salivating to get jobs, bingo, it get’s a 3 billion dollar discount. Five years from now, what will Foxconn Wisconsin employee count be when and if it ever gets to 13,000 employees? I think that was just sales talk. Chinese salesman hoodwinks American governor because he knows nothing or very little about international manufacturing and where it is headed. His boss President Trump likewise. Dumb as dumb can be. Trump fired, or they quit, all the guys that could have told him automation was replacing labor worldwide. Manufacturing jobs that went to China, died in China—-they are not coming back, they are not being reborn here. The Wisconsin jobs will be on life support and will be replaced sooner than later by automation.Analysis | Trump said he would save jobs at Carrier. The layoffs start July 20.Trump: Jobs Returning 'Because of Me' - FactCheck.orgCritics of Wisconsin's proposed Foxconn plant voice concernsFoxconn is world's 10th biggest employer: 1.2 MILLION on payrollFoxconn expects robots to take over more factory workRobots are taking over Foxconn