November 18, 200619 yr Trucking companies pay huge highway usage taxes for each truck annually. Not to mention a significant portion of every gallon of diesel fuel in taxes. And they make a substancial profit or they would not do it.
November 18, 200619 yr And they make a substantial profit or they would not do it.That is a secondary point at best. The most important issue here is that they are paying their fair share for using the highways and byways. To spin otherwise is dodging the facts. What is it you have against corporations?
November 18, 200619 yr Author I think it is interesting how this thread has evolved (or devolved, as the case may be) from the original discussion of proper redistribution of tax refunds into hyperbole concerning whether corporations reap more benefits out of the taxes they pay than "the poor." I am personally comfortable with this thread going wherever it takes us.
November 18, 200619 yr That is a secondary point at best. The most important issue here is that they are paying their fair share for using the highways and byways. To spin otherwise is dodging the facts. What is it you have against corporations? Nothing against corporations, but you can't have corporate welfare and complain about welfare for the poor. My point is, yes corporations pay higher taxes but they bennefit more.
November 18, 200619 yr Author Nothing against corporations, but you can't have corporate welfare and complain about welfare for the poor. My point is, yes corporations pay higher taxes but they bennefit more. Define what you mean by "corporate welfare," please. And, actually, corporate tax rates are lower than certain higher income individual tax brackets.
November 18, 200619 yr Define what you mean by "corporate welfare," please. And, actually, corporate tax rates are lower than certain higher income individual tax brackets. "The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare If you look further into the Boston Globe report they detail corporate wealthfare.
November 18, 200619 yr Author "The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare If you look further into the Boston Globe report they detail corporate wealthfare. Yes, of course what you did is go to Google, you typed in "corporate welfare," and then, without attaching the link, you cited the very first item to pop up following the search. What I want you to do is really look at what "corporate welfare" refers to, compare it with what we call "welfare to the poor," and then tell me whether you are comparing apples and apples. "Welfare to the poor" is AFDC, WIC, student loans, and similar such individual poverty programs. With the exception of student loans, almost all "welfare for the poor" programs sustain only the individual, and rarely benefit the community as a whole. The vast majortiy of "corporate welfare" programs are actually tax incentives for businesses to conduct research, exclusive licenses, or to locate a business or factory in a particular locale. While the corporation certainly benefits from these incentives, the crux of the matter is that these "welfare" incentives create jobs, grow industry, and otherwise stimulate economy. There are programs such as industry bailouts that do not accomplish this, but they account for a small portion of the total. There is no comparison between "individual welfare" and "corporate welfare." Frances likes Wikipedia, so here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare
November 18, 200619 yr Yes, of course what you did is go to Google, you typed in "corporate welfare," and then, without attaching the link, you cited the very first item to pop up following the search. What I want you to do is really look at what "corporate welfare" refers to, compare it with what we call "welfare to the poor," and then tell me whether you are comparing apples and apples. "Welfare to the poor" is AFDC, WIC, student loans, and similar such individual poverty programs. With the exception of student loans, almost all "welfare for the poor" programs sustain only the individual, and rarely benefit the community as a whole. The vast majortiy of "corporate welfare" programs are actually tax incentives for businesses to conduct research, exclusive licenses, or to locate a business or factory in a particular locale. While the corporation certainly benefits from these incentives, the crux of the matter is that these "welfare" incentives create jobs, grow industry, and otherwise stimulate economy. There are programs such as industry bailouts that do not accomplish this, but they account for a small portion of the total. There is no comparison between "individual welfare" and "corporate welfare." Frances likes Wikipedia, so here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare My point is we spend ( or lose ) more tax dollars on corporations then we do for the poor, so if we accept one we can't complain about the other. Tax deferments for 10 years to get an auto manufcturer to select your county is corporate welfare. Does it create jobs and indivudal income tax, yes. But it is tax dollars lost for 10 years. Rebates to BIG OIL on the other hand is just windfall for the oil companies, creates no new jobs and no solution to alternate fules. Some corporate handouts are necessary and some are ridicules.
November 18, 200619 yr Author My point is we spend ( or lose ) more tax dollars on corporations then we do for the poor, so if we accept one we can't complain about the other. Tax deferments for 10 years to get an auto manufcturer to select your county is corporate welfare. Does it create jobs and indivudal income tax, yes. But it is tax dollars lost for 10 years. Rebates to BIG OIL on the other hand is just windfall for the oil companies, creates no new jobs and no solution to alternate fules. Some corporate handouts are necessary and some are ridicules. This is where I disagree with you. Using your terminology, if the "corporate welfare" is accruing benefits to us, it is valuable and worthwhile. There is certainly some fraud and excess that needs to be reigned in, but the concept of corporate incentives that produce jobs and stimulate growth is a positive concept. "Welfare to the poor," on the other hand, has merely become handouts. There is no economic stimulation, only dependence. There is no growth, only expectancy. Even the concept of supporting the poor has become stunted.
November 18, 200619 yr This is where I disagree with you. Using your terminology, if the "corporate welfare" is accruing benefits to us, it is valuable and worthwhile. There is certainly some fraud and excess that needs to be reigned in, but the concept of corporate incentives that produce jobs and stimulate growth is a positive concept. "Welfare to the poor," on the other hand, has merely become handouts. There is no economic stimulation, only dependence. There is no growth, only expectancy. Even the concept of supporting the poor has become stunted. Don't know that we disagree all that much. If in bringing in a new corporation to create jobs you decide to forgo tax dollars in favor of jobs, then that's good business. Welfare was recently reigned in by Clinton and should be review to prevent fraud. We can't cut off the neediest to prevent a scam artist from stealing our tax dollars, just as we can't reward coorporations with our tax dollars because they back the right canidates.
November 18, 200619 yr ... Frances likes Wikipedia, so here it is... Yes, I do like Wikipedia. I am also particularly fond of carrot cake. How did I get into this? Frances
November 18, 200619 yr Author Yes, I do like Wikipedia. I am also particularly fond of carrot cake. How did I get into this? Frances You taught me how to post links, remember? I just wanted to show Aunt B I cared.
November 18, 200619 yr You taught me how to post links, remember? I just wanted to show Aunt B I cared. Well, nothing says "Thank You" like a nice carrot cake ... Frances PS - in my new diet book, I show how carrot cake qualifies as the two helpings of vegetables that are required in each month's intake....
November 18, 200619 yr My point is we spend ( or lose ) more tax dollars on corporations then we do for the poor, so if we accept one we can't complain about the other. Tax deferments for 10 years to get an auto manufcturer to select your county is corporate welfare. Does it create jobs and indivudal income tax, yes. But it is tax dollars lost for 10 years. Rebates to BIG OIL on the other hand is just windfall for the oil companies, creates no new jobs and no solution to alternate fules. Some corporate handouts are necessary and some are ridicules. As a CPA and Tax Manager, I can tell you, you're flat out wrong. Most tax incentives are given at the local and state level and have a net positive effect on tax revenues. They don't cost the government anything. And most credits and deductions are designed to encourage companies to participate in activities for the benefit of their employees or the public. And what are these big oil rebates you're talking about?
November 19, 200619 yr As a CPA and Tax Manager, I can tell you, you're flat out wrong. Most tax incentives are given at the local and state level and have a net positive effect on tax revenues. They don't cost the government anything. And most credits and deductions are designed to encourage companies to participate in activities for the benefit of their employees or the public. And what are these big oil rebates you're talking about? Talking about the 2.7 Billion that the Bush Admin gave to the oil and energy companies when Exon made profits. you can source http://www.taxpayers.net and see some correspondence. Being in the tax business I would have thought that you may have read this in the papers or saw it on tv.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.