Corporate Welfare

[Bert]

The funny thing about those who are obsessed with corporate welfare is that I never hear them bring up the funds given to companies introducing clean energy solutions.:sssh:

 

The company I work for applied for a grant from the State that would pay for IT training for employees. We are looking to bring in Electronic Data Interchange and hope the grant would pay for training for the software. When the government offers money for something like that, is that corporate welfare or investing in businesses in the state?? There is quite a bit of grey area, not as black and white as many hope.

 

Another case is where both the State of KY and City of Louisville were offering incentives for developers and builders to develop and build in blighted areas of Louisville. The theory is the money upfront will be paid back over time in the form of property taxes and payroll taxes from the companies located there and also bringing companies back into town instead of new office/industrial parts going further out of Louisville and often up in Indiana. Once again, is that corporate welfare or is that the government holding out a carrot to get private enterprises to clean up blighted neighborhoods so the government does not have to do it all on its own?

 

By no means am I a defender of all corp welfare, just sometimes it can be smart government investment. I will fully admit that Ol' Mayer Jer (former Mayor of Louisville Jerry Abrahmson) sold the city out to the developers of 4th Street Live. The MILLIONS handed over to the Baltimore Developement company was way to much to ever consider justifying. Jerry just bent over all Louisville tax payers for that screw up job. Some say Jurich did it to Jerry also with all the risk of default of the stadium falling to the city rather than shared with the Louisville Athletic Dept where as most of the income is kept by the Louisville Athletic Dept. I have not read up on this enough to comment but that seems to be the consensus. Thank the heavens Jerry is in a place now where he cannot screw up anymore (Lt. Gov) and it looks like his political career is over.

[woodsrider]

I'm really surprised TTP hasn't been in here yet to make is well thought out and fact based case.

[Twotoplace]

I'm really surprised TTP hasn't been in here yet to make is well thought out and fact based case.

I failed to compliment Bert yesterday for his well-thought-out post 51 over on the companion Drug Testing for Welfare thread. More people, woodsrider, should follow Bert's example of scholarship and clarity in thought rather than assail the messenger.

[woodsrider]

I failed to compliment Bert yesterday for his well-thought-out post 51 over on the companion Drug Testing for Welfare thread. More people, woodsrider, should follow Bert's example of scholarship and clarity in thought rather than assail the messenger.

 

Right, you mean like calling them classist instead of putting forth and actual intelligent counter? Or you could take the talking points route and be sure to state numbers like $9.5 billion in profits to demonize a company but never once mention they pay the highest tax rate % of any US company. Just keep throwing out they make $9.5 billion in profits yet receive less then a $1 billion in subsidies and pay $30+ billion in tax. Meaning they receive $0 subsidies and still pay $29+billion in tax.

[UKMustangFan]

Right, you mean like calling them classist instead of putting forth and actual intelligent counter? Or you could take the talking points route and be sure to state numbers like $9.5 billion in profits to demonize a company but never once mention they pay the highest tax rate % of any US company. Just keep throwing out they make $9.5 billion in profits yet receive less then a $1 billion in subsidies and pay $30+ billion in tax. Meaning they receive $0 subsidies and still pay $29+billion in tax.

 

There you go using facts again.

 

It's obvious all he does is troll on here. I'd recommend the ignore feature.

[Bert]

Hmmmm. Not exactly the direction I was thinking this thread would go.

[LIPTON BASH]

Right, you mean like calling them classist instead of putting forth and actual intelligent counter? Or you could take the talking points route and be sure to state numbers like $9.5 billion in profits to demonize a company but never once mention they pay the highest tax rate % of any US company. Just keep throwing out they make $9.5 billion in profits yet receive less then a $1 billion in subsidies and pay $30+ billion in tax. Meaning they receive $0 subsidies and still pay $29+billion in tax.

 

Like I said corporate welfare is only problem if the government is picking winners and losers in an industry. If everyone in the same industry has same the advantages then by definition it can't be welfare. I have a problem with how some of the green energy contracts have been handed out but I'm not against the government putting out incentives to promote growth in that area.

 

I can't take TTP serious on this topic because in the most polite way possible he doesn't understand it.

 

Corporate welfare for the most part is a myth and a term hyped on left wing blogs.

[Twotoplace]

Exxon made $104 million a day in 2012. Only an Exxon stockholder would argue that a company of this wealth requires a corporate welfare subsidy from Uncle Sam. Far better to take the $$ and upgrade VA hospitals.

[UKMustangFan]

Exxon made $104 million a day in 2012. Only an Exxon stockholder would argue that a company of this wealth requires a corporate welfare subsidy from Uncle Sam. Far better to take the $$ and upgrade VA hospitals.

 

Against my better judgment, I'm going to try and respond to one of your posts.

 

Why should they be penalized for being successful? They already pay a heck of a lot more taxes than other corporations. Just because they're good at running a business, you think they deserve to pay more money to those that aren't willing to help themselves? Corporations, heck businesses in general, are in business to make money. If a subsidy exists for businesses in their industry, you think they should pass it up because they run a profitable business?

 

I eagerly await your response that in no way, shape, or form comes anywhere close to addressing anything I said.

[Twotoplace]

Against my better judgment, I'm going to try and respond to one of your posts.

 

Why should they be penalized for being successful? They already pay a heck of a lot more taxes than other corporations. Just because they're good at running a business, you think they deserve to pay more money to those that aren't willing to help themselves? Corporations, heck businesses in general, are in business to make money. If a subsidy exists for businesses in their industry, you think they should pass it up because they run a profitable business?

 

I eagerly await your response that in no way, shape, or form comes anywhere close to addressing anything I said.

The two guys who run my neighborhood liquor store don't get a government subsidy. Why should Exxon, which made $4.3 million AN HOUR in 2012? An additional reason to turn off the gravy train is that Big Oil is going the way of typewriters and buggy whips. No need to subsidize an industry with an expiration date.

[UKMustangFan]

The two guys who run my neighborhood liquor store don't get a government subsidy. Why should Exxon, which made $4.3 million AN HOUR in 2012? An additional reason to turn off the gravy train is that Big Oil is going the way of typewriters and buggy whips. No need to subsidize an industry with an expiration date.

 

Sounds like your issue is with the government handing out the subsidies, rather the companies taking advantage of them.

 

When you file your taxes, do you take advantage of any deductions or credits you're allowed or do you simply pay what is owed before they're applied?

[woodsrider]

Exxon made $104 million a day in 2012. Only an Exxon stockholder would argue that a company of this wealth requires a corporate welfare subsidy from Uncle Sam. Far better to take the $$ and upgrade VA hospitals.

 

The two guys who run my neighborhood liquor store don't get a government subsidy. Why should Exxon, which made $4.3 million AN HOUR in 2012? An additional reason to turn off the gravy train is that Big Oil is going the way of typewriters and buggy whips. No need to subsidize an industry with an expiration date.

You obviously are not interested in having an intellectual debate. You continue to throw out numbers like "$4.3 million an hour" to try and sensationalize your post and demonize the big bad corporation. The problem is you have yet to address the fact that Exxon still pays $29+ Billion in tax after your so called subsidy.

[UKMustangFan]

You obviously are not interested in having an intellectual debate. You continue to throw out numbers like "$4.3 million an hour" to try and sensationalize your post and demonize the big bad corporation. The problem is you have yet to address the fact that Exxon still pays $29+ Billion in tax after your so called subsidy.

 

Agreed.

 

The thing that boggles my mind is why wouldn't they take advantage of the subsidy? To me it's no different than itemizing on a personal tax return or taking a credit. If it's available to be used, you'd be an idiot to not take advantage of it. Now if you want to complain about whether the subsidy should exist, that's one thing, but even then, that's an argument against the government, not the corporation. :idunno:

[Getslow]

Corporate welfare for the most part is a myth and a term hyped on left wing blogs.

 

At a federal level, I think that argument can be made. At a state and local level, corporate welfare is very, very real... and it often goes hand in hand with cronyism... which I think was part of the point Bert was originally trying to make.

[All Tell]

 

Against my better judgment, I'm going to try and respond to one of your posts.

 

 

I eagerly await your response that in no way, shape, or form comes anywhere close to addressing anything I said.

 

At least you weren't disappointed.