Corporate welfare in action ....

[dblack]

We have a general welfare clause not a common welfare clause.

Check it out, with Dr. Steve Brule! (aka danielpalos)

 

[dblack]

It's not control, it's competition.

It's not competition based on voluntary choices. It's based on the state's power to tax, to enforce the law. It's one thing for different states to have different laws and different approaches to taxation. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is states having different laws for different people (or businesses). It's states saying, essentially, "Move to our state and you won't have to follow the same laws (pay the same taxes) as the rest of the rubes. We'll cut you a special deal!".

You don't seem to have much appreciation for equal protection but it's fundamental to freedom and just government. A founding premise of individual rights is the conviction that no one is above the law. This is what Adam's was talking about when he said we want "a government of laws, not men". Laws can be debated, discussed and voted on. But if our leaders have no responsibility to apply them uniformly, the laws are pointless.

When the taxes we pay are based on what kind of special deals we've managed to work out with government, rather than consistent, predictable laws, government IS controlling our economic decisions. And the more this becomes the practice, the more they will control. It's essentially a kind of backdoor socialism - but it's arguably worse because we, most of us anyway, don't see it for what it is.

After all, don't you think that everyplace in America needs jobs? Don't you think that everyplace in the US needs an economy? What happens to a city, town or county if there are no jobs or businesses? Then we would be criticizing those people for being on welfare when they are totally capable of working instead.

It's not the job of government to provide us with jobs or a local economy. If I try to live some place, in some way, that isn't viable, government has no responsibility - and in my opinion shouldn't be allowed to - follow me around making sure I have everything I need.

 

[Brain357]

Koch Brother Urges Conservatives to Skip "Corporate Welfare"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not competition based on voluntary choices. It's based on the state's power to tax, to enforce the law. It's one thing for different states to have different laws and different approaches to taxation. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is states having different laws for different people (or businesses). It's states saying, essentially, "Move to our state and you won't have to follow the same laws (pay the same taxes) as the rest of the rubes. We'll cut you a special deal!".

Yes it is competition because cities and states are competing for businesses with other cities and states.

You don't seem to have much appreciation for equal protection but it's fundamental to freedom and just government. A founding premise of individual rights is the conviction that no one is above the law.

So who's above the law? When a city or state makes a deal with a business, it's done within the law.

When the taxes we pay are based on what kind of special deals we've managed to work out with government, rather than consistent, predictable laws, government IS controlling our economic decisions. And the more this becomes the practice, the more they will control. It's essentially a kind of backdoor socialism - but it's arguably worse because we, most of us anyway, don't see it for what it is.

Taxes have always been different for different people and groups. Where is the equal protection for me when married couples get tax breaks that I don't? Where is the equal protection for me as a childless man when people with children get to write them off on their taxes? Where is the equal protection when the wealthy pay almost all the income taxes in this country while the rest of the country pays none?

Taxation has always been different for different people. That's why our tax code books are larger than two Holy Bibles.

It's not the job of government to provide us with jobs or a local economy. If I try to live some place, in some way, that isn't viable, government has no responsibility - and in my opinion shouldn't be allowed to - follow me around making sure I have everything I need.

Government bringing industry to your community is what government is supposed to do. Without jobs, the city, town or even state could collapse. How can you tax people to support your city or state if you can't make any money because there are no jobs around? Who would provide the street lights and electricity? Who would provide garbage removal? Who would provide police and fire protection? And if you did have a fire, who would provide the water that's supplied to the fire hydrant to put out your house fire?

People elect politicians to do things like bring in jobs and create a sustainable government. There is no such thing as a broken bankrupt sustainable government or government services. If a politician(s) let their town go completely to hell and not lift a finger to retard or stop it, the citizens will vote those people out of power and elect people that will do something about their plight.

 

[Brain357]

It's not competition based on voluntary choices. It's based on the state's power to tax, to enforce the law. It's one thing for different states to have different laws and different approaches to taxation. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is states having different laws for different people (or businesses). It's states saying, essentially, "Move to our state and you won't have to follow the same laws (pay the same taxes) as the rest of the rubes. We'll cut you a special deal!".

Yes it is competition because cities and states are competing for businesses with other cities and states.

You don't seem to have much appreciation for equal protection but it's fundamental to freedom and just government. A founding premise of individual rights is the conviction that no one is above the law.

So who's above the law? When a city or state makes a deal with a business, it's done within the law.

When the taxes we pay are based on what kind of special deals we've managed to work out with government, rather than consistent, predictable laws, government IS controlling our economic decisions. And the more this becomes the practice, the more they will control. It's essentially a kind of backdoor socialism - but it's arguably worse because we, most of us anyway, don't see it for what it is.

Taxes have always been different for different people and groups. Where is the equal protection for me when married couples get tax breaks that I don't? Where is the equal protection for me as a childless man when people with children get to write them off on their taxes? Where is the equal protection when the wealthy pay almost all the income taxes in this country while the rest of the country pays none?

Taxation has always been different for different people. That's why our tax code books are larger than two Holy Bibles.

It's not the job of government to provide us with jobs or a local economy. If I try to live some place, in some way, that isn't viable, government has no responsibility - and in my opinion shouldn't be allowed to - follow me around making sure I have everything I need.

Government bringing industry to your community is what government is supposed to do. Without jobs, the city, town or even state could collapse. How can you tax people to support your city or state if you can't make any money because there are no jobs around? Who would provide the street lights and electricity? Who would provide garbage removal? Who would provide police and fire protection? And if you did have a fire, who would provide the water that's supplied to the fire hydrant to put out your house fire?

People elect politicians to do things like bring in jobs and create a sustainable government. There is no such thing as a broken bankrupt sustainable government or government services. If a politician(s) let their town go completely to hell and not lift a finger to retard or stop it, the citizens will vote those people out of power and elect people that will do something about their plight.

Big government picking winners and losers. A state should offer the same deal to all businesses. They should not choose which companies the gov prefers and give them better deals.

Those doing the lost lobbying win, not the best companies.

 

[Brain357]

Corporate Welfare Wastes Taxpayer and Economic Resources

 

[Brain357]

Corporate Welfare Distorts Free Market Forces

The other day Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) joined the founders of Hardywood Park Craft Brewery for a big announcement: Hardywood, which opened its Richmond brewery just four years ago, will commence a $28 million expansion in Goochland County. The project will include a brewery and distribution center, a beer garden, an amphitheater and more. This is good news for Hardywood, but it's not so good news for other craft-beer companies -- because Hardywood is getting a big financial boost courtesy of Virginia taxpayers. The financial benefits for Hardywood are emmense. It will receive:

• A $1.15 million package includes a $500,000 grant from the Commonwealth's Opportunity Fund;
• $250,000 from another state fund;
• $56,000 for job training;
• An additional $1 million in tax incentives.

This is patently unfair to those craft brewers who don't get special treatment. Business leaders often talk a good game about free enterprise. But they're frequently first in line when government starts handing out other people's money, or writing rules that restrict the competition, such as occupational-licensing regulations and import tariffs.

As a result of the state's interference, Hardywood will get more resources than it would on its own. In the process, consumers will have less money to buy things they actually want -- because Virginia is forcing them to help produce beer they actually don't. Businesses that would have been able to satisfy customers better than Hardywood and Stone Brewing can will have fewer resources with which to do so. Job applicants will be steered to jobs in the beer industry instead of other fields that could use them more.

A whole host of unintended consequences will ripple throughout the economy -- but they will do so largely unseen. McAuliffe and Hardywood get all the buzz, but everyone else will have to live with the hangover.

 

[Brain357]

Nobody who believes in free market and small government can support this crap.

 

[Brain357]

How Corporate Welfare Undermines Real Free Enterprise - Charles Koch Institute

Mitchell’s fellow panelists agreed. Alison Fraser, managing director of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute, explained that local governments often compete for new businesses by offering tax credits and other subsidies rather than by working towards making the economic climate more market-friendly for all participants. For those looking to succeed in the marketplace, “it’s one of the most frustrating things,” Fraser noted.

While such government intervention may look appealing in the short term, it carries large economic implications in the long term, added Tim Carney, columnist for the Washington Examiner: “The biggest expansions of government were done at the request of big business.” As for why corporate welfare often goes unaddressed in the national economic conversation, Carney pointed to the difficulty in recognizing it. “The costs are in the distortions,” he said, “and it’s almost impossible to see.”

 

[Brain357]

Why Corporate Welfare Contradicts Free Market and Capitalism
To understand why corporatism violates the concepts of both capitalism and the free market, it might be helpful to define these two terms. Capitalism.org describes capitalism as a system in which property is privately owned and there is a separation of state and businesses similar to the separation of church and state. A free market is one in which businesses have an opportunity to compete without certain companies receiving an unfair advantage. InvestorWords.comdefines a free market as a system in which businesses are not restrained by government subsidies, interference or regulation.

Corporate welfare violates the separation of business and state that is an important aspect of capitalism. It violates the principles of a free market by giving an uneven playing field, restraining certain industries through regulation or giving favored corporations a competitive advantage through subsidies. In short, corporate welfare is counterproductive to both capitalism and the free market.

Corporate Welfare Is Neither Free Market nor Capitalism - Personal Money Store Blog

 

[dblack]

It's not competition based on voluntary choices. It's based on the state's power to tax, to enforce the law. It's one thing for different states to have different laws and different approaches to taxation. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is states having different laws for different people (or businesses). It's states saying, essentially, "Move to our state and you won't have to follow the same laws (pay the same taxes) as the rest of the rubes. We'll cut you a special deal!".

Yes it is competition because cities and states are competing for businesses with other cities and states.

I didn't say it wasn't competition. I said it wasn't competition based on voluntary choices. Taxation is coercive.

You don't seem to have much appreciation for equal protection but it's fundamental to freedom and just government. A founding premise of individual rights is the conviction that no one is above the law.

So who's above the law? When a city or state makes a deal with a business, it's done within the law.

When government gives specific people or companies exemptions from laws the rest of us have to follow, it's a blatant violation of equal protection. It's bad law.

When the taxes we pay are based on what kind of special deals we've managed to work out with government, rather than consistent, predictable laws, government IS controlling our economic decisions. And the more this becomes the practice, the more they will control. It's essentially a kind of backdoor socialism - but it's arguably worse because we, most of us anyway, don't see it for what it is.

Taxes have always been different for different people and groups. Where is the equal protection for me when married couples get tax breaks that I don't? Where is the equal protection for me as a childless man when people with children get to write them off on their taxes? Where is the equal protection when the wealthy pay almost all the income taxes in this country while the rest of the country pays none?[/

Taxation has always been different for different people. That's why our tax code books are larger than two Holy Bibles.

I'm against all these policies as well. For the same reason.

It's not the job of government to provide us with jobs or a local economy. If I try to live some place, in some way, that isn't viable, government has no responsibility - and in my opinion shouldn't be allowed to - follow me around making sure I have everything I need.

Government bringing industry to your community is what government is supposed to do.

Only under socialism or communism. In a free market, it's up to the people to maintain their own industry and wealth.

Without jobs, the city, town or even state could collapse. How can you tax people to support your city or state if you can't make any money because there are no jobs around? Who would provide the street lights and electricity? Who would provide garbage removal? Who would provide police and fire protection? And if you did have a fire, who would provide the water that's supplied to the fire hydrant to put out your house fire?

Yep, cities, towns, even states can go "out of business" if they aren't viable. Forcing the matter with coercion doesn't doesn't really help though. In southeastern Missouri, there are counties where 70% of the people rely on government aid. These counties are so dysfunctional that the state has to subsidize most basic services because there's simply no profit in it for private vendors. Do you consider government keeping these communities afloat a good thing?

 

[Brain357]

Not even Americans for Prosperity likes Wisconsin’s terrible Foxconn deal

Such incentives are generally an awful way to lure jobs — expensive, inefficient and fraught with unintended consequences. They can prompt costly bidding wars between states and impede other budget priorities. They have little effect on employment, growth or wages. They may induce unwise borrowing. Companies often come back again and again, as blackmailers tend to, seeking yet more blandishments. And nothing stops them from walking away when times get tough. . .

In short, Wisconsin’s plan is likely to help a few people in an unpromising industry find temporary work before they’re displaced by technology — and to do so at the expense of everyone else in the state.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not even Americans for Prosperity likes Wisconsin’s terrible Foxconn deal

Such incentives are generally an awful way to lure jobs — expensive, inefficient and fraught with unintended consequences. They can prompt costly bidding wars between states and impede other budget priorities. They have little effect on employment, growth or wages. They may induce unwise borrowing. Companies often come back again and again, as blackmailers tend to, seeking yet more blandishments. And nothing stops them from walking away when times get tough. . .

In short, Wisconsin’s plan is likely to help a few people in an unpromising industry find temporary work before they’re displaced by technology — and to do so at the expense of everyone else in the state.

It's not costing the state anything. They are gaining from it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, cities, towns, even states can go "out of business" if they aren't viable. Forcing the matter with coercion doesn't doesn't really help though. In southeastern Missouri, there are counties where 70% of the people rely on government aid. These counties are so dysfunctional that the state has to subsidize most basic services because there's simply no profit in it for private vendors. Do you consider government keeping these communities afloat a good thing?

So the solution is not to try to bring in new businesses and keep the state subsidizing them?

Only under socialism or communism. In a free market, it's up to the people to maintain their own industry and wealth

No, because people cannot do that on an individual basis. That's why we have government officials, so they can collectively maintain a city or state on behalf of all the people.

When government gives specific people or companies exemptions from laws the rest of us have to follow, it's a blatant violation of equal protection. It's bad law.

If that were the case, all taxation is a violation of equal protection. What do you pay more taxes on, a can of soda or a can of beer? What do you pay more taxes on, a candy bar or a pack of cigarettes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not competition based on voluntary choices. It's based on the state's power to tax, to enforce the law. It's one thing for different states to have different laws and different approaches to taxation. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is states having different laws for different people (or businesses). It's states saying, essentially, "Move to our state and you won't have to follow the same laws (pay the same taxes) as the rest of the rubes. We'll cut you a special deal!".

Yes it is competition because cities and states are competing for businesses with other cities and states.

You don't seem to have much appreciation for equal protection but it's fundamental to freedom and just government. A founding premise of individual rights is the conviction that no one is above the law.

So who's above the law? When a city or state makes a deal with a business, it's done within the law.

When the taxes we pay are based on what kind of special deals we've managed to work out with government, rather than consistent, predictable laws, government IS controlling our economic decisions. And the more this becomes the practice, the more they will control. It's essentially a kind of backdoor socialism - but it's arguably worse because we, most of us anyway, don't see it for what it is.

Taxes have always been different for different people and groups. Where is the equal protection for me when married couples get tax breaks that I don't? Where is the equal protection for me as a childless man when people with children get to write them off on their taxes? Where is the equal protection when the wealthy pay almost all the income taxes in this country while the rest of the country pays none?

Taxation has always been different for different people. That's why our tax code books are larger than two Holy Bibles.

It's not the job of government to provide us with jobs or a local economy. If I try to live some place, in some way, that isn't viable, government has no responsibility - and in my opinion shouldn't be allowed to - follow me around making sure I have everything I need.

Government bringing industry to your community is what government is supposed to do. Without jobs, the city, town or even state could collapse. How can you tax people to support your city or state if you can't make any money because there are no jobs around? Who would provide the street lights and electricity? Who would provide garbage removal? Who would provide police and fire protection? And if you did have a fire, who would provide the water that's supplied to the fire hydrant to put out your house fire?

People elect politicians to do things like bring in jobs and create a sustainable government. There is no such thing as a broken bankrupt sustainable government or government services. If a politician(s) let their town go completely to hell and not lift a finger to retard or stop it, the citizens will vote those people out of power and elect people that will do something about their plight.

Big government picking winners and losers. A state should offer the same deal to all businesses. They should not choose which companies the gov prefers and give them better deals.

Those doing the lost lobbying win, not the best companies.

So it's better to not offer tax abatements and just have no new jobs come to your town? Would you like to see your town or city fall apart all in the name of equal taxation?

 

[Brain357]

Yep, cities, towns, even states can go "out of business" if they aren't viable. Forcing the matter with coercion doesn't doesn't really help though. In southeastern Missouri, there are counties where 70% of the people rely on government aid. These counties are so dysfunctional that the state has to subsidize most basic services because there's simply no profit in it for private vendors. Do you consider government keeping these communities afloat a good thing?

So the solution is not to try to bring in new businesses and keep the state subsidizing them?

Only under socialism or communism. In a free market, it's up to the people to maintain their own industry and wealth

No, because people cannot do that on an individual basis. That's why we have government officials, so they can collectively maintain a city or state on behalf of all the people.

When government gives specific people or companies exemptions from laws the rest of us have to follow, it's a blatant violation of equal protection. It's bad law.

If that were the case, all taxation is a violation of equal protection. What do you pay more taxes on, a can of soda or a can of beer? What do you pay more taxes on, a candy bar or a pack of cigarettes?

If these deals are so good for the state they should offer them to all companies, not certain ones picked by the state. You don't seem to understand the importance of keeping the government out of capitalism and free market. Or you just don't like capitalism.

 

[Brain357]

It's not competition based on voluntary choices. It's based on the state's power to tax, to enforce the law. It's one thing for different states to have different laws and different approaches to taxation. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is states having different laws for different people (or businesses). It's states saying, essentially, "Move to our state and you won't have to follow the same laws (pay the same taxes) as the rest of the rubes. We'll cut you a special deal!".

Yes it is competition because cities and states are competing for businesses with other cities and states.

You don't seem to have much appreciation for equal protection but it's fundamental to freedom and just government. A founding premise of individual rights is the conviction that no one is above the law.

So who's above the law? When a city or state makes a deal with a business, it's done within the law.

When the taxes we pay are based on what kind of special deals we've managed to work out with government, rather than consistent, predictable laws, government IS controlling our economic decisions. And the more this becomes the practice, the more they will control. It's essentially a kind of backdoor socialism - but it's arguably worse because we, most of us anyway, don't see it for what it is.

Taxes have always been different for different people and groups. Where is the equal protection for me when married couples get tax breaks that I don't? Where is the equal protection for me as a childless man when people with children get to write them off on their taxes? Where is the equal protection when the wealthy pay almost all the income taxes in this country while the rest of the country pays none?

Taxation has always been different for different people. That's why our tax code books are larger than two Holy Bibles.

It's not the job of government to provide us with jobs or a local economy. If I try to live some place, in some way, that isn't viable, government has no responsibility - and in my opinion shouldn't be allowed to - follow me around making sure I have everything I need.

Government bringing industry to your community is what government is supposed to do. Without jobs, the city, town or even state could collapse. How can you tax people to support your city or state if you can't make any money because there are no jobs around? Who would provide the street lights and electricity? Who would provide garbage removal? Who would provide police and fire protection? And if you did have a fire, who would provide the water that's supplied to the fire hydrant to put out your house fire?

People elect politicians to do things like bring in jobs and create a sustainable government. There is no such thing as a broken bankrupt sustainable government or government services. If a politician(s) let their town go completely to hell and not lift a finger to retard or stop it, the citizens will vote those people out of power and elect people that will do something about their plight.

Big government picking winners and losers. A state should offer the same deal to all businesses. They should not choose which companies the gov prefers and give them better deals.

Those doing the lost lobbying win, not the best companies.

So it's better to not offer tax abatements and just have no new jobs come to your town? Would you like to see your town or city fall apart all in the name of equal taxation?

Please share examples of towns falling apart due to equal taxation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, cities, towns, even states can go "out of business" if they aren't viable. Forcing the matter with coercion doesn't doesn't really help though. In southeastern Missouri, there are counties where 70% of the people rely on government aid. These counties are so dysfunctional that the state has to subsidize most basic services because there's simply no profit in it for private vendors. Do you consider government keeping these communities afloat a good thing?

So the solution is not to try to bring in new businesses and keep the state subsidizing them?

Only under socialism or communism. In a free market, it's up to the people to maintain their own industry and wealth

No, because people cannot do that on an individual basis. That's why we have government officials, so they can collectively maintain a city or state on behalf of all the people.

When government gives specific people or companies exemptions from laws the rest of us have to follow, it's a blatant violation of equal protection. It's bad law.

If that were the case, all taxation is a violation of equal protection. What do you pay more taxes on, a can of soda or a can of beer? What do you pay more taxes on, a candy bar or a pack of cigarettes?

If these deals are so good for the state they should offer them to all companies, not certain ones picked by the state. You don't seem to understand the importance of keeping the government out of capitalism and free market. Or you just don't like capitalism.

Okay, so they offer the same tax rate to all the companies, and then the city can no longer stay afloat because they don't have enough money coming in. That's what you'd like to see?

 

[Brain357]

Yep, cities, towns, even states can go "out of business" if they aren't viable. Forcing the matter with coercion doesn't doesn't really help though. In southeastern Missouri, there are counties where 70% of the people rely on government aid. These counties are so dysfunctional that the state has to subsidize most basic services because there's simply no profit in it for private vendors. Do you consider government keeping these communities afloat a good thing?

So the solution is not to try to bring in new businesses and keep the state subsidizing them?

Only under socialism or communism. In a free market, it's up to the people to maintain their own industry and wealth

No, because people cannot do that on an individual basis. That's why we have government officials, so they can collectively maintain a city or state on behalf of all the people.

When government gives specific people or companies exemptions from laws the rest of us have to follow, it's a blatant violation of equal protection. It's bad law.

If that were the case, all taxation is a violation of equal protection. What do you pay more taxes on, a can of soda or a can of beer? What do you pay more taxes on, a candy bar or a pack of cigarettes?

If these deals are so good for the state they should offer them to all companies, not certain ones picked by the state. You don't seem to understand the importance of keeping the government out of capitalism and free market. Or you just don't like capitalism.

Okay, so they offer the same tax rate to all the companies, and then the city can no longer stay afloat because they don't have enough money coming in. That's what you'd like to see?

Ok so these deals really aren't good? You want the state to make bad deals and make other companies pay for them?

Just those with all the lobbying do well?

 

[Brain357]

WEDC: Walker’s Expensive Corporate Welfare Failure

In July 2012, Kohl’s Secured Up To $62.5 Million In State Tax Credits To Keep Its Headquarters In Menomonee Falls, And Then In August, Notified The Federal Government It Would Cut 67 Jobs And Outsource Its Milwaukee-Based Accounts Payable And Sales Audit Functions To India.