Corporate welfare in action ....

[Uncensored2008]

No, they don't need to compete. If companies want to grow they need to expand and build. Huge companies win, tax payers lose with these deals. Do you pretend to be conservative?

No, they don't need to compete.

They do.
That's why, when Moonbeam adds more taxes and stupid regulations, corporations and people move to other states. If we forced uniform tax rates nationwide, like the EU wants to do across their federation, it would be harder to escape governmental stupidity.

Again, that's not what this thread is about. State's competing with lower taxes is fine. States are giving "most favored corporation status" to a company, along with a care-package of abatements and exemptions. Corporate Welfare, or whatever you call this game of dueling tax abatements, is government-corporate collusion, plain and simple.

Huge companies win, tax payers lose with these deals.

Believe me, I understand that idiots in government can make stupid deals. When it comes to government, stupidity is a feature, not a bug. I still don't think we should prohibit these abatements.

Should they be allowed to run the entire tax code that way? Everyone gets a different deal depending on what their lobbyists can haggle for? Why even have laws?

Why does the right wing Only complain about welfare for Individuals?

They don't provide jobs, taxes, revenue


.

Did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?

We have the largest economy in the world, Mexico is our third largest trading partner, and tourism is one of the largest employers in twenty-nine States.

Derp!

Finish second grade, and some might take you a bit more seriously, doper.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's rather frightening to consider what the question must be:

And the answer is;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2017 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Only problem is it should be a five-year plan, rather than ten. Don't worry, you can have two in a row.

The question is: How do you put monies back into the economy?

We have 47 years of wage disparity to recover from. Ten years is necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

Utter bull. Nobody would give tax abatements if that were true.

I've given plenty of examples where the city/state and tax payers get hosed. Are you not paying attention? Politicians hand these things out. They say look at all these jobs we created. The corp gets tons of money, and the tax payer gets hosed.

Then why didn't the people vote those politicians out of office? I'm sure most of the abatements happen in Democrat cities anyway.

Gee why do many bad politicians get reelected? Are you really claiming all bad politicians get voted out?

The will if the local news shows people that an abatement was a net loss. Politicians have no reason to give a company a break unless it benefited the city or town in some way--usually financial.

These deals are never so obvious to pick out. Look at Foxconn. It is 3 billion and they guess it won't break even for 25 years. When does the media start calling them out on that one? After 25 years? Gosh you have a lot of faith in government. Again look at the US debt. Politicians are not fiscally responsible.

Infrastructure; the public sector should be responsible for those "conduits to private sector markets". Thus, communication, energy, potable and waste water management, and even "industrial waste management" could be accommodated via the public sector much more easily than it may be for the private sector to raise the capital intensive sums needed.

Public sector control of Infrastructure means, no excuses when it comes to the common defense regarding natural disasters.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The question is: How do you put monies back into the economy?

We have 47 years of wage disparity to recover from. Ten years is necessary.

So... You "put money back in the economy" (whatever that is supposed to mean) by confiscating the wages of the middle class and giving them to the most wealthy corporation in the world?

Damn, you Stalinists are swell...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've given plenty of examples where the city/state and tax payers get hosed. Are you not paying attention? Politicians hand these things out. They say look at all these jobs we created. The corp gets tons of money, and the tax payer gets hosed.

Then why didn't the people vote those politicians out of office? I'm sure most of the abatements happen in Democrat cities anyway.

Gee why do many bad politicians get reelected? Are you really claiming all bad politicians get voted out?

The will if the local news shows people that an abatement was a net loss. Politicians have no reason to give a company a break unless it benefited the city or town in some way--usually financial.

These deals are never so obvious to pick out. Look at Foxconn. It is 3 billion and they guess it won't break even for 25 years. When does the media start calling them out on that one? After 25 years? Gosh you have a lot of faith in government. Again look at the US debt. Politicians are not fiscally responsible.

Infrastructure; the public sector should be responsible for those "conduits to private sector markets". Thus, communication, energy, potable and waste water management, and even "industrial waste management" could be accommodated via the public sector much more easily than it may be for the private sector to raise the capital intensive sums needed.

Public sector control of Infrastructure means, no excuses when it comes to the common defense regarding natural disasters.

So doper, you are always whining about "income disparity," so why do you want to exempt the most wealthy corporation in the entire world from paying taxes?

 

[danielpalos]

Amazon will be using services they are not paying for. That is welfare. And no you haven't given any real examples. The numbers never work out. You live in fantasy land. A good deal would be amazon moves in, creates jobs, and pays taxes for services.

What happens when Pinellas County in Florida offers them a ten-year exemption on property taxes if they locate there instead of your hypothetical county? Amazon should ignore the offer?

Bribery and graft should be illegal. The leaders of Pinellas County in Florida should spend the next decade in federal prison.

What a concept. maybe Persons required to work in an at-will employment State can be compensated with stock options in for-profit prisons.

 

[dblack]

It's rather frightening to consider what the question must be:

And the answer is;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2017 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Only problem is it should be a five-year plan, rather than ten. Don't worry, you can have two in a row.

The question is: How do you put monies back into the economy?

Ahh... OK. I was sure the question was: How can we convert the US to a totalitarian state?

We have 47 years of wage disparity to recover from. Ten years is necessary.

So this is two (!) five-year plans, for the price of one. Bonus!

 

[danielpalos]

Why is that not happening in Seattle?

Because Seattle already had one of the highest costs of living in the country.

Seattle is also home Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon and several other huge companies. They could not find anyone willing to work for $7.50 an hour and most are paid in excess of $15.00 without a minimum.

Take that same minimum wage to Ocala, Florida or Bellington, Washington, and the place would be devastated.

You do make an exceptional case though for NOT making any minimum wage a Federal Law. Without question, it should be left to the local municipality.

Dears, if it is Only about "not being able to make it on the back of cheap labor", those "lousy capitalists should fail". Capitalism is about competition.

 

[danielpalos]

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? If so why do they need a special deal on taxes?

The amazon around here doesn't pay much and has lots of turnover btw.

There are several articles on this subject that refutes what you claim.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? Of course it is. Or do you think it's better for business to leave that mall in a pile of rubble?

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower and provide good paying jobs with the best of benefits as the article outlines.

Lots of construction, lots of good paying jobs afterwards, the school system makes out, the taxpayers make out, even the state makes out. The domino effect of companies that provide Amazon with packing materials, trucking, and technology a plus.

Everybody wins, and tax abatements are responsible for it.

Good paying jobs? You're kidding, right?

It's already been posted on this board.

A supervisor at Amazon makes $15.65/hr which is crap pay. You have to stand for 8 hours in heat up to 90 degrees because Amazon doesn't believe in air conditioning. To qualify you need a bachelor's degree. Would anyone in their right mind pay $50K for an education for that job?

The American worker is woefully underpaid.

Amazon doesn't need subsidies. Period.

Here's a solution: stop importing cheap labor from Mexico.

A national minimum wage.

Single Payer for Everyone. For Everything.

I would love to be able to, "lease a girlfriend", at a Dollar Store.

 

[Brain357]

Why is that not happening in Seattle?

Because Seattle already had one of the highest costs of living in the country.

Seattle is also home Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon and several other huge companies. They could not find anyone willing to work for $7.50 an hour and most are paid in excess of $15.00 without a minimum.

Take that same minimum wage to Ocala, Florida or Bellington, Washington, and the place would be devastated.

You do make an exceptional case though for NOT making any minimum wage a Federal Law. Without question, it should be left to the local municipality.

Increasing minimum wage only sets off a domino effect. You may make more money up front, but within a few years, everything else costs more money and you find yourself right back where you started from.

My father and I were discussing this the other day. He's a retired construction worker. We both watch those shows on HGTV where they buy and sell houses all the time. What you get in some of these states for a million dollars you could find here for less than 300K. A million dollar home here is nearly a mansion.

Increased wages creates a huge cost of living increase. Several years ago I rented an apartment to a kid from New York because he was going to school here. I was charging him $450.00 at the time. He told me that the apartment I rented him would cost over $1,000 in New York state. He said my larger apartments (which I was generally charging $500.00 a month for) would go easily for $1,200 a month, and probably over 2 grand a month if they were close to NYC.

You trust the government to dish out corporate welfare. You should trust them to manipulate wages. See your beliefs make no sense.

You can keep using that term Corporate Welfare all you want, but when you do, I think tax breaks--not welfare at all. And I'm all for tax breaks. The lower the taxes, the better.

Maybe this will start to help you understand Ray. A single woman with 2 kids can get a lot better deal on welfare and taxes if she has a 3rd child. But is that really the best life decision? That's what is happening with corporate welfare. Corps take the gov deals, but aren't necessarily doing what is best for business. This corporate welfare distorts the economy.

 

[Aldo Raine]

The will if the local news shows people that an abatement was a net loss. Politicians have no reason to give a company a break unless it benefited the city or town in some way--usually financial.

Conservative and liberal groups have criticized the explosion in tax breaks under Christie, calling it textbook “corporate welfare” and noting that the state has garnered a record 10 credit-rating downgrades because of a lack of revenue to cover the cost of hospitals, pensions, schools, property tax rebates and other services. State revenue is not keeping pace with New Jersey’s ballooning, legally mandated costs, analysts at Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings say.

Lawmakers ignoring $7.4B boom in 'corporate welfare,' experts say

And how is NJ doing with all this corporate welfare?

N.J. economic recovery still lagging, despite recent jobs numbers

So they are growing slower than other states. That has nothing to do with any corporate welfare.

You are going to sit there and say it has no effect whatsoever? If you really believe that you sir can not be talked to or reasoned with

Then don't talk or try to reason with me. Problem solved.

Well no shit!

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are several articles on this subject that refutes what you claim.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? Of course it is. Or do you think it's better for business to leave that mall in a pile of rubble?

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower and provide good paying jobs with the best of benefits as the article outlines.

Lots of construction, lots of good paying jobs afterwards, the school system makes out, the taxpayers make out, even the state makes out. The domino effect of companies that provide Amazon with packing materials, trucking, and technology a plus.

Everybody wins, and tax abatements are responsible for it.

Good paying jobs? You're kidding, right?

It's already been posted on this board.

A supervisor at Amazon makes $15.65/hr which is crap pay. You have to stand for 8 hours in heat up to 90 degrees because Amazon doesn't believe in air conditioning. To qualify you need a bachelor's degree. Would anyone in their right mind pay $50K for an education for that job?

The American worker is woefully underpaid.

Amazon doesn't need subsidies. Period.

Here's a solution: stop importing cheap labor from Mexico.

A national minimum wage.

Single Payer for Everyone. For Everything.

I would love to be able to, "lease a girlfriend", at a Dollar Store.

Wouldn't your current blow up girlfriend get jealous?

 

[OnePercenter]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.

Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.

Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.

Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

It's not fantasy, idiot. It happened.

Still waiting for an example, you know so I can destroy you.

Government spends more on corporate welfare than social welfare.

Social welfare adds $1.70 to the economy for every $1.00 spent. Corporate welfare adds zero, and in some cases causes a negative.

Utter fucking bullshit.

 

[Brain357]

Amazon will be using services they are not paying for. That is welfare. And no you haven't given any real examples. The numbers never work out. You live in fantasy land. A good deal would be amazon moves in, creates jobs, and pays taxes for services.

What happens when Pinellas County in Florida offers them a ten-year exemption on property taxes if they locate there instead of your hypothetical county? Amazon should ignore the offer?

I don't know much about you Markle. Do you believe in capitalism and the free market? Or do you think lots of government intervention leads to a stronger economy?

 

[danielpalos]

No, they don't need to compete.

They do.
That's why, when Moonbeam adds more taxes and stupid regulations, corporations and people move to other states. If we forced uniform tax rates nationwide, like the EU wants to do across their federation, it would be harder to escape governmental stupidity.

Again, that's not what this thread is about. State's competing with lower taxes is fine. States are giving "most favored corporation status" to a company, along with a care-package of abatements and exemptions. Corporate Welfare, or whatever you call this game of dueling tax abatements, is government-corporate collusion, plain and simple.

Huge companies win, tax payers lose with these deals.

Believe me, I understand that idiots in government can make stupid deals. When it comes to government, stupidity is a feature, not a bug. I still don't think we should prohibit these abatements.

Should they be allowed to run the entire tax code that way? Everyone gets a different deal depending on what their lobbyists can haggle for? Why even have laws?

Why does the right wing Only complain about welfare for Individuals?

They don't provide jobs, taxes, revenue


.

Did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics?

We have the largest economy in the world, Mexico is our third largest trading partner, and tourism is one of the largest employers in twenty-nine States.

Derp!

Finish second grade, and some might take you a bit more seriously, doper.

We have the largest economy in the world, Mexico is our third largest trading partner, and tourism is one of the largest employers in twenty-nine States.

Why should the left wing, take the right wing, seriously about economics or the law?

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Allowing corporations to keep their own money they earned is not corporate welfare.

We talked about this a lot earlier in the thread. It's probably more accurate to refer to it as "Corporate Socialism", as the net effect is the state exerting control over capital.

ALL the money comes from businesses, neither the state or federal government generate revenue. Its hardly welfare or socialism or any other damn nonsense if businesses get to keep their own damn money.

Thanks Simple Simon; your opinions are always so well thought out (sarcasm).

Sagacious thinkers understand the benefit to business and industry of the power, water, sewage, roads, and police and fire protection, paid for by all taxpayers - individuals and businesses.

Government doesn't provide power, moron. Water and sewage and fire protection have been provided privately in many locations. For the most part, security is also provided privately. Most corporations provide their own security. About the only thing police do is give out traffic tickets and file a report after you have been robbed.

Is that Canada or the US?

 

[danielpalos]

It's rather frightening to consider what the question must be:

And the answer is;


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2017 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Only problem is it should be a five-year plan, rather than ten. Don't worry, you can have two in a row.

The question is: How do you put monies back into the economy?

We have 47 years of wage disparity to recover from. Ten years is necessary.

More public sector means of production in the manner and fashion of our Post offices and Post roads, and Hoover Dam.

 

[OnePercenter]

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? If so why do they need a special deal on taxes?

The amazon around here doesn't pay much and has lots of turnover btw.

There are several articles on this subject that refutes what you claim.

Is it good for business for Amazon to build this? Of course it is. Or do you think it's better for business to leave that mall in a pile of rubble?

They need a tax deal to keep their prices lower and provide good paying jobs with the best of benefits as the article outlines.

Lots of construction, lots of good paying jobs afterwards, the school system makes out, the taxpayers make out, even the state makes out. The domino effect of companies that provide Amazon with packing materials, trucking, and technology a plus.

Everybody wins, and tax abatements are responsible for it.

You like that government is making these decisions, rather than the market?

States and local governments need to compete to attract business.
Without competition, idiot politicians could create a "sweetened beverage tax", like the assholes in Cook County, and never suffer the consequences of their stupidity and greed.

No, they don't need to compete. If companies want to grow they need to expand and build. Huge companies win, tax payers lose with these deals. Do you pretend to be conservative?

So my city collects three million dollars in taxes every year to support our city. A new business moves in and the city (with abatements) now collects 3.4 million in taxes every year. How did the taxpayer lose?

I'd love to see the cities budget reports.

 

[danielpalos]

The question is: How do you put monies back into the economy?

We have 47 years of wage disparity to recover from. Ten years is necessary.

So... You "put money back in the economy" (whatever that is supposed to mean) by confiscating the wages of the middle class and giving them to the most wealthy corporation in the world?

Damn, you Stalinists are swell...

Dear, in the US, our Social Contract (enforcible at law), enumerates the powers to pay the debts, and provide for the general welfare and common defense of the (several) United States.