Corporate welfare in action ....

[Rustic]

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.

That's why it is a failure,socialism always fails because it runs out of other peoples money…

 

[Brain357]

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.

That is not correct. They still get all the benefits as if they were actually paying taxes. They are getting the benefit of police and fire and roads and everything other companies are paying for. Getting benefits without paying is WELFARE.

 

[Brain357]

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.

That's why it is a failure,socialism always fails because it runs out of other peoples money…

In this case the state is using other companies money to pay for corporate welfare for other companies.

 

[Rustic]

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.

That's why it is a failure,socialism always fails because it runs out of other peoples money…

In this case the state is using other companies money to pay for corporate welfare for other companies.

That's why individualism needs to be promoted, the village/collective has never worked for the good of anybody

 

[Brain357]

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.

That's why it is a failure,socialism always fails because it runs out of other peoples money…

In this case the state is using other companies money to pay for corporate welfare for other companies.

That's why individualism needs to be promoted, the village/collective has never worked for the good of anybody

The government picking winners and losers sure does not work. It is against capitalism and the free market. I challenge Ray to show me what makes a stronger economy than free market capitalism.

 

[Rustic]

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.

That's why it is a failure,socialism always fails because it runs out of other peoples money…

In this case the state is using other companies money to pay for corporate welfare for other companies.

That's why individualism needs to be promoted, the village/collective has never worked for the good of anybody

The government picking winners and losers sure does not work. It is against capitalism and the free market. I challenge Ray to show me what makes a stronger economy than free market capitalism.

True, the federal government should not be seen nor heard…

 

[Brain357]

The cost of corporate welfare for profitable companies:
If you add these altogether, you see that federal, state and local governments force American families to give, on average, $2436 per year to companies that certainly don’t need the handouts (or shouldn’t be in business if they do). That $2436 could go a long, long way for most families, whether it was spent on food and clothing, vacation, a college fund, or whatever mom, dad and the kids most need. Indeed, considering that the average American family spends around $6500 per year on food, eliminating these corporate subsidies and returning the savings to taxpayers could pay for about 4.5 months-worth of groceries.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Solyndra was not picking winners and losers because Solyndra was a loser anyway. Solyndra didn't benefit the public not one iota. Therefore it was just DumBama kissing the asses of environmentalist.

 

[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.

That is not correct. They still get all the benefits as if they were actually paying taxes. They are getting the benefit of police and fire and roads and everything other companies are paying for. Getting benefits without paying is WELFARE.

/----/ So the 47% who pay no income tax is considered welfare?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Solyndra was not picking winners and losers because Solyndra was a loser anyway. Solyndra didn't benefit the public not one iota. Therefore it was just DumBama kissing the asses of environmentalist.

Wake up. When government picks winners and losers that is what you get. This happens all the time when government tries to pick a winner. Why do you have so much faith in them when there are examples like Solyndra of failure?

 

[Brain357]

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.

That is not correct. They still get all the benefits as if they were actually paying taxes. They are getting the benefit of police and fire and roads and everything other companies are paying for. Getting benefits without paying is WELFARE.

/----/ So the 47% who pay no income tax is considered welfare?

They are receiving free services.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Amazon will compete for business whether they have a distribution center here or in Arizona. It doesn't matter because they are not brick and mortar, so they could move in next door to mom and pop and have no effect on them whatsoever.

Our neighboring suburb built a brand new mall a few years ago. It was designed around Walmart because Walmart was the anchor store. The mall was doing great and a great place to shop until Walmart found a way out of their contract. They wanted to build a Super Walmart nearby but couldn't because of the store in the new mall.

After Walmart closed down, all those other stores in the mall began to close down as well. They all had contracts, but the contracts were null and void if the anchor store disappeared. Now that new mall is a wall of empty stores and empty parking lots because of Walmart's departure. There is only one store left and that is a grocery store which is still doing quite well.

Point is that while Walmart may close some other stores down, they open up twice as many in most cases. Walmart brings in customers to other stores as well as theirs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Solyndra was not picking winners and losers because Solyndra was a loser anyway. Solyndra didn't benefit the public not one iota. Therefore it was just DumBama kissing the asses of environmentalist.

Wake up. When government picks winners and losers that is what you get. This happens all the time when government tries to pick a winner. Why do you have so much faith in them when there are examples like Solyndra of failure?

Because Solyndra is different than a company getting an abatement to open up a business. Like I said, apples and oranges. If I remember correctly, Solyndra did get government money, and I don't mean less taxes. It was true welfare compared to tax breaks which is labeled welfare by the left to throw people off and be misleading.

Welfare is when you give somebody something they never had before. Taking less from somebody is not welfare because it was theirs in the first place.

 

[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.

Amazon will compete for business whether they have a distribution center here or in Arizona. It doesn't matter because they are not brick and mortar, so they could move in next door to mom and pop and have no effect on them whatsoever.

Our neighboring suburb built a brand new mall a few years ago. It was designed around Walmart because Walmart was the anchor store. The mall was doing great and a great place to shop until Walmart found a way out of their contract. They wanted to build a Super Walmart nearby but couldn't because of the store in the new mall.

After Walmart closed down, all those other stores in the mall began to close down as well. They all had contracts, but the contracts were null and void if the anchor store disappeared. Now that new mall is a wall of empty stores and empty parking lots because of Walmart's departure. There is only one store left and that is a grocery store which is still doing quite well.

Point is that while Walmart may close some other stores down, they open up twice as many in most cases. Walmart brings in customers to other stores as well as theirs.

You keep making wild claims right and left. Can you use some actual statistics?

So your mall was doing so great that Walmart moved out? Yeah sounds like a great situation. Obviously things weren't that great.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Solyndra was not picking winners and losers because Solyndra was a loser anyway. Solyndra didn't benefit the public not one iota. Therefore it was just DumBama kissing the asses of environmentalist.

Wake up. When government picks winners and losers that is what you get. This happens all the time when government tries to pick a winner. Why do you have so much faith in them when there are examples like Solyndra of failure?

Because Solyndra is different than a company getting an abatement to open up a business. Like I said, apples and oranges. If I remember correctly, Solyndra did get government money, and I don't mean less taxes. It was true welfare compared to tax breaks which is labeled welfare by the left to throw people off and be misleading.

Welfare is when you give somebody something they never had before. Taking less from somebody is not welfare because it was theirs in the first place.

They get all the benefits as if they are actually paying in full. They get the same police protection the business down the street is getting. They get the benefits of plowed roads the same as other businesses paying in full. It is welfare because they are not paying for services.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Solyndra was not picking winners and losers because Solyndra was a loser anyway. Solyndra didn't benefit the public not one iota. Therefore it was just DumBama kissing the asses of environmentalist.

Wake up. When government picks winners and losers that is what you get. This happens all the time when government tries to pick a winner. Why do you have so much faith in them when there are examples like Solyndra of failure?

Because Solyndra is different than a company getting an abatement to open up a business. Like I said, apples and oranges. If I remember correctly, Solyndra did get government money, and I don't mean less taxes. It was true welfare compared to tax breaks which is labeled welfare by the left to throw people off and be misleading.

Welfare is when you give somebody something they never had before. Taking less from somebody is not welfare because it was theirs in the first place.

They get all the benefits as if they are actually paying in full. They get the same police protection the business down the street is getting. They get the benefits of plowed roads the same as other businesses paying in full. It is welfare because they are not paying for services.

They are paying for those services and probably more than the ten stores or businesses next to them.

If you and I lived on the same street, and my house was 1,500 square feet larger than yours, 2 acres of land larger than yours, and I have a three car garage compared to your one car garage, I'm going to pay more property taxes than you are.

In fact that's my situation now. For a suburban property, mine is much larger than most of my neighbors. It's rental property so it generates an income. Over half of our property taxes goes to the schools, but me nor any of my tenants have children in those schools so we are paying thousands of dollars for nothing. In the meantime, the lady down the street with a much smaller property has four kids in our school system, and she's paying a third of what I'm paying towards the schools.

Taxation is not now nor ever was totally fair for everybody. Last year our federal government spent nearly 4 trillion dollars, and most of that money came from the wealthy. The other half of the country didn't pay a dime into the system.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Amazon will compete for business whether they have a distribution center here or in Arizona. It doesn't matter because they are not brick and mortar, so they could move in next door to mom and pop and have no effect on them whatsoever.

Our neighboring suburb built a brand new mall a few years ago. It was designed around Walmart because Walmart was the anchor store. The mall was doing great and a great place to shop until Walmart found a way out of their contract. They wanted to build a Super Walmart nearby but couldn't because of the store in the new mall.

After Walmart closed down, all those other stores in the mall began to close down as well. They all had contracts, but the contracts were null and void if the anchor store disappeared. Now that new mall is a wall of empty stores and empty parking lots because of Walmart's departure. There is only one store left and that is a grocery store which is still doing quite well.

Point is that while Walmart may close some other stores down, they open up twice as many in most cases. Walmart brings in customers to other stores as well as theirs.

You keep making wild claims right and left. Can you use some actual statistics?

So your mall was doing so great that Walmart moved out? Yeah sounds like a great situation. Obviously things weren't that great.

It was great, but Walmart wanted to open up a Super Walmart which they did after they closed the new store in the mall. It was located less than ten miles from their former store and opened up in less than a year after they closed the mall store.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Solyndra was not picking winners and losers because Solyndra was a loser anyway. Solyndra didn't benefit the public not one iota. Therefore it was just DumBama kissing the asses of environmentalist.

Wake up. When government picks winners and losers that is what you get. This happens all the time when government tries to pick a winner. Why do you have so much faith in them when there are examples like Solyndra of failure?

Because Solyndra is different than a company getting an abatement to open up a business. Like I said, apples and oranges. If I remember correctly, Solyndra did get government money, and I don't mean less taxes. It was true welfare compared to tax breaks which is labeled welfare by the left to throw people off and be misleading.

Welfare is when you give somebody something they never had before. Taking less from somebody is not welfare because it was theirs in the first place.

They get all the benefits as if they are actually paying in full. They get the same police protection the business down the street is getting. They get the benefits of plowed roads the same as other businesses paying in full. It is welfare because they are not paying for services.

They are paying for those services and probably more than the ten stores or businesses next to them.

If you and I lived on the same street, and my house was 1,500 square feet larger than yours, 2 acres of land larger than yours, and I have a three car garage compared to your one car garage, I'm going to pay more property taxes than you are.

In fact that's my situation now. For a suburban property, mine is much larger than most of my neighbors. It's rental property so it generates an income. Over half of our property taxes goes to the schools, but me nor any of my tenants have children in those schools so we are paying thousands of dollars for nothing. In the meantime, the lady down the street with a much smaller property has four kids in our school system, and she's paying a third of what I'm paying towards the schools.

Taxation is not now nor ever was totally fair for everybody. Last year our federal government spent nearly 4 trillion dollars, and most of that money came from the wealthy. The other half of the country didn't pay a dime into the system.

Again you are using no real facts or stats and frankly I've no idea what that has to do with corporate welfare. These companies are often not paying any taxes so how do you claim they are paying?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Amazon will compete for business whether they have a distribution center here or in Arizona. It doesn't matter because they are not brick and mortar, so they could move in next door to mom and pop and have no effect on them whatsoever.

Our neighboring suburb built a brand new mall a few years ago. It was designed around Walmart because Walmart was the anchor store. The mall was doing great and a great place to shop until Walmart found a way out of their contract. They wanted to build a Super Walmart nearby but couldn't because of the store in the new mall.

After Walmart closed down, all those other stores in the mall began to close down as well. They all had contracts, but the contracts were null and void if the anchor store disappeared. Now that new mall is a wall of empty stores and empty parking lots because of Walmart's departure. There is only one store left and that is a grocery store which is still doing quite well.

Point is that while Walmart may close some other stores down, they open up twice as many in most cases. Walmart brings in customers to other stores as well as theirs.

You keep making wild claims right and left. Can you use some actual statistics?

So your mall was doing so great that Walmart moved out? Yeah sounds like a great situation. Obviously things weren't that great.

It was great, but Walmart wanted to open up a Super Walmart which they did after they closed the new store in the mall. It was located less than ten miles from their former store and opened up in less than a year after they closed the mall store.

Prove it. You just keep giving this silly little examples with no proof of anything. I've provided many links showing how silly you are.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

Amazon will compete for business whether they have a distribution center here or in Arizona. It doesn't matter because they are not brick and mortar, so they could move in next door to mom and pop and have no effect on them whatsoever.

Our neighboring suburb built a brand new mall a few years ago. It was designed around Walmart because Walmart was the anchor store. The mall was doing great and a great place to shop until Walmart found a way out of their contract. They wanted to build a Super Walmart nearby but couldn't because of the store in the new mall.

After Walmart closed down, all those other stores in the mall began to close down as well. They all had contracts, but the contracts were null and void if the anchor store disappeared. Now that new mall is a wall of empty stores and empty parking lots because of Walmart's departure. There is only one store left and that is a grocery store which is still doing quite well.

Point is that while Walmart may close some other stores down, they open up twice as many in most cases. Walmart brings in customers to other stores as well as theirs.

You keep making wild claims right and left. Can you use some actual statistics?

So your mall was doing so great that Walmart moved out? Yeah sounds like a great situation. Obviously things weren't that great.

It was great, but Walmart wanted to open up a Super Walmart which they did after they closed the new store in the mall. It was located less than ten miles from their former store and opened up in less than a year after they closed the mall store.

/----/ You made it clear that WalMart wanted a larger store but it went over Brains head. (no pun intended)