Corporate welfare in action ....

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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.

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?

Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?

If I own Ray's antique shop, and I learn that a major operation is moving in which will bring in more consumers to our area, I think I would benefit from that.

Not only would I benefit from that, but when the city or town needs more tax revenue to keep things going, it's less likely they will be increasing my taxes because of the new revenue from the new business.

This is a business floor plan. Walmart moves into an area. Walmart is what's called an anchor store. Smaller businesses open up near Walmart to take advantage of Walmart's ability to draw in large crowds. I won't be paying anymore in taxes and Walmart will draw new customers that I never had before.

So I guess the question is, who loses when a city gives a business tax breaks?

You just said they can't stay afloat if they offer the deal to everyone. Yet you claim all these great things are coming from this deal. If there are so many great things then they can offer the deal to everyone. Certainly everyone getting this great deal is better than just one great deal.

So you give walmart a great deal and now they have all the advantages of being a huge company as well as the gov has picked them to win. So what happens:
Opinion: Study shows Walmart kills small biz

Or you throw a bunch of money at solyndra and oops, they go under. The government should not be picking winners and losers.

Since you are not a capitalist, what is it you are? What is better than free market capitalism?

Solyndra is an apple and oranges comparison. Solyndra was political and political only. It didn't benefit society or the general public. It only bought votes for the Democrat party.

No, they cannot offer the deal to everybody. It's like anything else, the more you buy, the cheaper it is.

Mom and Pop have their beverage store and pay X amount in taxes. Mom and pop have about four workers. They may not be great paying jobs, but they are jobs.

A company moves in down the street from mom and pop and opens up a northeast warehousing operation. They are going to have 60 docks, they are going to employ about 200 people, they get a tax break from the city to build their warehouse. It doesn't hurt mom and pop one bit.

Okay, so why don't we lower everybody's taxes so that mom and pop pay the same as the new warehouse? Because if they did that, then the new warehouse operation would not be moving there. They would move somewhere that's making a better offer and then you're back to square one. Mom and Pop would still be paying the same taxation, and likely see an increase down the road when the city needs more money.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Corporate welfare produces jobs and a desired product.

Social welfare produces urine and feces.

You make the call.

No, sorry it does not. (corporate welfare produces jobs)
The data points that out clearly.
The Obama corporate gifting and Wall Street bailouts produced a stunning growth in the markets. Record growth, record profits. But for who? We know who. The data is there. All of this growth flat out only increased wealth for the already wealthy. PERIOD.
This is why Obama will go down as the greatest asset to the wealthy elite in U.S. history.
And shows without argument that giving money to these people does not, at all, translate into jobs and opportunity for everybody else.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In most cases that's not true. If anything, smaller businesses are at an advantage because of larger businesses. That and again, a huge business moving in doesn't mean competition in most cases.

That is probably one of the dumbest post I have read in a very long time.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Apple to build Iowa data center, get $207.8 million in incentives

We've got to get a handle on this shit. Whatever happened to equal protection?

/---/ if a car dealership offers a big discount on a new car to "qualified" buyers, is that not equal protection?

 

[danielpalos]

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

The right wing only has a problem with welfare for real persons as Individuals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Obama corporate gifting and Wall Street bailouts produced a stunning growth in the markets. Record growth, record profits. But for who? We know who.

It had less to do with that than it did dumping trillions into the market called quantitive easing. Investors knew the game was rigged for winning, and that's why the market took off.

 

[Cellblock2429]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

mmmkay

/----/ if the government writes a check to a company in exchange for moving to an area then that is corporate welfare. But if the government simply reduces the tax bill for a set time in exchange for the move it is not welfare.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

The right wing only has a problem with welfare for real persons as Individuals.

/---/ we have an issue with welfare fraud but libs like to paint us as greedy by lumping all welfare recipients together. Welfare if you can't survive without it yes but it's not a giveaway to lazy bums or theives

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Obama corporate gifting and Wall Street bailouts produced a stunning growth in the markets. Record growth, record profits. But for who? We know who.

It had less to do with that than it did dumping trillions into the market called quantitive easing. Investors knew the game was rigged for winning, and that's why the market took off.

uh...yeah...and your point?
It was a massive money transfer of our tax dollars laid directly into the hands of the very wealthy. That is what happened.
And the money kept coming, between $40-$70 BILLION a MONTH despite the markets were in record growth/profits. Now of course, we know the money is WHY the markets had record growth.
But nevertheless your government took your money and gave it to an extraordinary small number of people that made them fabulously rich.
And, Obama was at the helm. God liberals are dumb. (not saying you....just that liberals still to this day think he is great)

 

[danielpalos]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

mmmkay

/----/ if the government writes a check to a company in exchange for moving to an area then that is corporate welfare. But if the government simply reduces the tax bill for a set time in exchange for the move it is not welfare.

micromanaging our tax codes for Individuals, is worse and could be considered, legally unethical, from a laissez-fair perspective. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

mmmkay

/----/ if the government writes a check to a company in exchange for moving to an area then that is corporate welfare. But if the government simply reduces the tax bill for a set time in exchange for the move it is not welfare.

micromanaging our tax codes for Individuals, is worse and could be considered, legally unethical, from a laissez-fair perspective. Only the right wing, never gets it.

/----/ Oh we get it. But until Washington reforms the tax code this crap will continue. My only issue is with the term Corporate Welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Obama corporate gifting and Wall Street bailouts produced a stunning growth in the markets. Record growth, record profits. But for who? We know who.

It had less to do with that than it did dumping trillions into the market called quantitive easing. Investors knew the game was rigged for winning, and that's why the market took off.

uh...yeah...and your point?
It was a massive money transfer of our tax dollars laid directly into the hands of the very wealthy. That is what happened.
And the money kept coming, between $40-$70 BILLION a MONTH despite the markets were in record growth/profits. Now of course, we know the money is WHY the markets had record growth.
But nevertheless your government took your money and gave it to an extraordinary small number of people that made them fabulously rich.
And, Obama was at the helm. God liberals are dumb. (not saying you....just that liberals still to this day think he is great)

Not really because the market could never grow the way it did by a very small group of investors. It was wall to wall blanket money that grew the market thanks to the Federal Reserve.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for the federal government bailing out banks, the stock market and the auto industry, but I don't believe they were responsible for the market growth when the market didn't reflect the economy.

The company that handles our IRA took our contributions during the recession and sat on them until they knew the market was going to take off, then they released that money and it was like buying four shares for the price of two. Many were using the same strategy which created the growth we seen during bad economic times. Yeah, we were the winners with our IRA's, but the big winners were the ones pumping in their own big money.

 

[danielpalos]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

mmmkay

/----/ if the government writes a check to a company in exchange for moving to an area then that is corporate welfare. But if the government simply reduces the tax bill for a set time in exchange for the move it is not welfare.

micromanaging our tax codes for Individuals, is worse and could be considered, legally unethical, from a laissez-fair perspective. Only the right wing, never gets it.

/----/ Oh we get it. But until Washington reforms the tax code this crap will continue. My only issue is with the term Corporate Welfare.

End the drug war, right wingers. Why should anyone on the left take y'all seriously, if that is not going to happen in five minutes or less, by executive order.

 

[Cellblock2429]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

mmmkay

/----/ if the government writes a check to a company in exchange for moving to an area then that is corporate welfare. But if the government simply reduces the tax bill for a set time in exchange for the move it is not welfare.

micromanaging our tax codes for Individuals, is worse and could be considered, legally unethical, from a laissez-fair perspective. Only the right wing, never gets it.

/----/ Oh we get it. But until Washington reforms the tax code this crap will continue. My only issue is with the term Corporate Welfare.

End the drug war, right wingers. Why should anyone on the left take y'all seriously, if that is not going to happen in five minutes or less, by executive order.

/----/ Is the war on Drung crimping your ability to make money?

 

[danielpalos]

mmmkay

/----/ if the government writes a check to a company in exchange for moving to an area then that is corporate welfare. But if the government simply reduces the tax bill for a set time in exchange for the move it is not welfare.

micromanaging our tax codes for Individuals, is worse and could be considered, legally unethical, from a laissez-fair perspective. Only the right wing, never gets it.

/----/ Oh we get it. But until Washington reforms the tax code this crap will continue. My only issue is with the term Corporate Welfare.

End the drug war, right wingers. Why should anyone on the left take y'all seriously, if that is not going to happen in five minutes or less, by executive order.

/----/ Is the war on Drung crimping your ability to make money?

Yes. It criminalizes simply having a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This OP obviously doesn't know what a publically traded company is, and who owns it. Hint: Countless public and private employee pension plans own Apple, omg those evil Teachers unions are sucking up corporate welfare ALARM!!

What does any of that have even the slightest bit to do with what the OP said?

 

[Brain357]

What does the new business do? Anyone who competes with them, or would like to, will be at a disadvantage. But the deeper harm comes in the way these policies promote bad economic decisions.

What bad economic decisions? As I stated, everybody wins. The new business moving in wins, the city wins, the state wins, existing businesses win.

Amazon is building a new distribution center here. Who is competing against that distribution center? The suburb of North Randall has been suffering since the decay and eventual closing of the Randall Park Mall. It's vacant land that not only doesn't create taxation or jobs, but an eyesore to boot. Plus there is a lot of land there and Amazon is not using all of it, so it may attract other businesses to the area.

Like I said, a win-win.

Amazon competes with everyone. They are a massive and profitable company. They do not need any help and they sure shouldn't have the government giving them advantages over competition. Just corporate welfare. It is not a win-win because every other business is now paying for this deal to Amazon. You just don't get it.

Correct, I don't get it. So how are other businesses paying for this deal?

Well now a small business has a big competitor not paying taxes. The small business goes under. I would say that is really paying...

In most cases that's not true. If anything, smaller businesses are at an advantage because of larger businesses. That and again, a huge business moving in doesn't mean competition in most cases.

You have used Walmart and Amazon as your examples. They both compete with almost everyone. They have both run many businesses out. You seem to not be in the real world.

 

[Rustic]

What bad economic decisions? As I stated, everybody wins. The new business moving in wins, the city wins, the state wins, existing businesses win.

Amazon is building a new distribution center here. Who is competing against that distribution center? The suburb of North Randall has been suffering since the decay and eventual closing of the Randall Park Mall. It's vacant land that not only doesn't create taxation or jobs, but an eyesore to boot. Plus there is a lot of land there and Amazon is not using all of it, so it may attract other businesses to the area.

Like I said, a win-win.

Amazon competes with everyone. They are a massive and profitable company. They do not need any help and they sure shouldn't have the government giving them advantages over competition. Just corporate welfare. It is not a win-win because every other business is now paying for this deal to Amazon. You just don't get it.

Correct, I don't get it. So how are other businesses paying for this deal?

Well now a small business has a big competitor not paying taxes. The small business goes under. I would say that is really paying...

In most cases that's not true. If anything, smaller businesses are at an advantage because of larger businesses. That and again, a huge business moving in doesn't mean competition in most cases.

You have used Walmart and Amazon as your examples. They both compete with almost everyone. They have both run many businesses out. You seem to not be in the real world.

A business run as a business will succeed, a business run like a socialist entitlement program will fail every time… Rightly so.

Fuck the village/collective… Only thing worse than nationalism is globalism

 

[Brain357]

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?

Wait a minute....... if a city or state offers tax abatements to a certain company to bring business and hundreds or thousands of jobs there, and it doesn't effect the tax rate other businesses are paying, then what's the harm to those other businesses?

If I own Ray's antique shop, and I learn that a major operation is moving in which will bring in more consumers to our area, I think I would benefit from that.

Not only would I benefit from that, but when the city or town needs more tax revenue to keep things going, it's less likely they will be increasing my taxes because of the new revenue from the new business.

This is a business floor plan. Walmart moves into an area. Walmart is what's called an anchor store. Smaller businesses open up near Walmart to take advantage of Walmart's ability to draw in large crowds. I won't be paying anymore in taxes and Walmart will draw new customers that I never had before.

So I guess the question is, who loses when a city gives a business tax breaks?

You just said they can't stay afloat if they offer the deal to everyone. Yet you claim all these great things are coming from this deal. If there are so many great things then they can offer the deal to everyone. Certainly everyone getting this great deal is better than just one great deal.

So you give walmart a great deal and now they have all the advantages of being a huge company as well as the gov has picked them to win. So what happens:
Opinion: Study shows Walmart kills small biz

Or you throw a bunch of money at solyndra and oops, they go under. The government should not be picking winners and losers.

Since you are not a capitalist, what is it you are? What is better than free market capitalism?

Solyndra is an apple and oranges comparison. Solyndra was political and political only. It didn't benefit society or the general public. It only bought votes for the Democrat party.

No, they cannot offer the deal to everybody. It's like anything else, the more you buy, the cheaper it is.

Mom and Pop have their beverage store and pay X amount in taxes. Mom and pop have about four workers. They may not be great paying jobs, but they are jobs.

A company moves in down the street from mom and pop and opens up a northeast warehousing operation. They are going to have 60 docks, they are going to employ about 200 people, they get a tax break from the city to build their warehouse. It doesn't hurt mom and pop one bit.

Okay, so why don't we lower everybody's taxes so that mom and pop pay the same as the new warehouse? Because if they did that, then the new warehouse operation would not be moving there. They would move somewhere that's making a better offer and then you're back to square one. Mom and Pop would still be paying the same taxation, and likely see an increase down the road when the city needs more money.

Solyndra is the government picking winner and losers. You think corporate welfare isn't political? It is lobbyists making deals with politicians for preferential treatment. Yes it is all political. And it is all bad capitalism.

 

[Brain357]

Amazon competes with everyone. They are a massive and profitable company. They do not need any help and they sure shouldn't have the government giving them advantages over competition. Just corporate welfare. It is not a win-win because every other business is now paying for this deal to Amazon. You just don't get it.

Correct, I don't get it. So how are other businesses paying for this deal?

Well now a small business has a big competitor not paying taxes. The small business goes under. I would say that is really paying...

In most cases that's not true. If anything, smaller businesses are at an advantage because of larger businesses. That and again, a huge business moving in doesn't mean competition in most cases.

You have used Walmart and Amazon as your examples. They both compete with almost everyone. They have both run many businesses out. You seem to not be in the real world.

A business run as a business will succeed, a business run like a socialist entitlement program will fail every time… Rightly so.

Fuck the village/collective… Only thing worse than nationalism is globalism

Corporate welfare is a socialist entitlement program.