For WCS coach
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
You have to pick your sacrifices, yes, and you also have to have the income and savings.
I wonder what they'd think when they saw my wife walking with a stroller, just like my mother and her mother would have been doing at that age.
C'mon Kenny,
You know who Bogey and I are referring to. Does your buddy walk the streets at all hours of the day? No, because he is at work. Or, he works the night shift and during the day is at home asleep.
This is not the person's we are talking about.
Also, if you know a little secret about having a spouse stay at home I'm all ears. My wife and I can hardly pay the bills with both of us working. Of course we do like to blow some money on things like food, clothes, and the house payment.
For the first year of my kid's life, my wife was stay at home, and now that she's back to work we have fangled our schedules in such a way that one of us is always home with the kid. Again, it is a priority thing, and those of Kenny and my generation have decided for various reasons, stay at home parenting isn't such a bad thing.
I personally don't dress to the nines when I go to town on a Tuesday afternoon. Doesn't mean I'm on welfare.
A
ag-man
Guest
Where might one find this information? Since even the term "corporate welfare" is in contention, I am having a hard time verifying the $4,000 amount.
From 2013: Note that it doesn't use just 50k as a reference point. This guy works at CATO and this is from The Federalist.
A popular new article from the far lefties at Common Dreams frighteningly warns that American families pay, on average, $6000 per year in corporate welfare to the dreaded “big business.” There’s plenty to like in this article, and its general theme – hardworking American taxpayers forced by Big Government to line the pockets of large, well-connected corporations – certainly warrants more bipartisan attention (and criticism). I’m also happy to see that not everyone on the left has abandoned their distaste for corporate subsidies now that their subsidy-loving guy is in the White House.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Common Dreams’ criticisms and math do eventually veer into confused, anti-business mumbo-jumbo, but here’s what they get exactly right:
1. $870 for Direct Subsidies and Grants to Companies. The Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. federal government spends $100 billion a year on corporate welfare. That’s an average of $870 for each one of America’s 115 million families.
This is definitely (and depressingly) correct: as I noted in my 2012 Cato paper on global subsidy reform, the US government provides myriad taxpayer-funded benefits to agribusiness, green energy, automobile manufacturers, and whole host of other US businesses. Even worse, the $100 billion figure is up significantly (about $10 billion) over the last two budget-strapped years.
2. $696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels. A New York Times investigation found that states, counties and cities give up over $80 billion each year to companies… $696 for every U.S. family.
Again, 100% correct, and this is actually one area in which state competition harms taxpayers, as politicians from different states compete with each other to woo corporations by offering them buckets of other people’s money.
6. $870 for Corporate Tax Subsidies…. [T]he Tax Foundation has concluded that their ‘special tax provisions’ cost taxpayers over $100 billion per year, or $870 per family. Corporate benefits include items such as Graduated Corporate Income, Inventory Property Sales, Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, Accelerated Depreciation, and Deferred taxes.
Yep, and they also include all those green energy tax breaks quietly thrown into last year’s Fiscal Cliff deal. Wouldn’t you say it’s time for a simpler, fairer, more globally-competitive corporate tax code?
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.
As correct and important as these points are, however, the well-meaning lefties at Common Dreams go off the rails a bit when they try to add other line items to US taxpayers’ tab. For example, they bemoan “$350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees”, despite the obvious fact these management fees are the simple cost of the fund management services provided. Investors have a choice as to whether to pay this fee or invest their money elsewhere, and government certainly isn’t forcing them to do so (unlike the subsidies above). Lumping in together these voluntary transactions with government-forced wealth transfers is like comparing anti-cronyism apples and with anti-capitalism oranges. And any government-backed effort to end such fees would require laws and regulations from the same folks who happily provided all those subsidies to their Big Business buddies. Think that’ll work out well for Mom, Dad and Timmy? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
The Common Dreams folks also add in “$1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens” because “the average 2012 taxpayer paid an extra $1,026 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost from offshore tax havens by corporations and wealthy individuals”. However, unlike the tax subsidies above, “tax havens” are actually a lawful check on, rather than a gift from, Big Government. And tax offshoring is primarily the unintended consequence of bad tax policy (especially the United States’ high corporate tax rates and failure to follow most other industrialized nations by switching to a “territorial” tax system), rather than the intended result of misguided corporate welfare policies. Indeed, the best way to stop tax offshoring it to create a simple system with rules and rates that don’t encourage such behavior.
Finally, there’s one glaring omission from Common Dreams’ list: protectionism, which, as I explained in a 2011 Cato paper, forces American consumers to subsidizes domestic corporations by taxing imports and raising domestic prices of the taxed goods and services:
At their core, trade barriers are the triumph of coercion and politics over free choice and economics. Trade barriers are the result of productive resources being diverted to achieve political ends and, in the process, taxing unsuspecting consumers to line the pockets of the special interests that succeeded in enlisting the weight of the government on their side. Protectionism is akin to earmarks, but it comes out of the hides of American families and businesses instead of the general treasury.
The US Customs and Border Patrol collected about $40 billion in duties, taxes and fees on imports in FY 2012 – translating to about $348 per US family in needless taxes on food, clothing and other items. And, of course, this bill doesn’t include the higher prices that American families must pay due to these barriers. Any list of corporate welfare is incomplete without this forcible redistribution of wealth from American consumers to a well-connected cabal of domestic manufacturers and unions.
That said, the fact that Common Dreams got a few things wrong shouldn’t overshadow the fundamental truth that corporate welfare is most definitely a real and important problem for the American families who are forced to provide it. Subsidies are also an increasingly bipartisan issue which resonates with anti-corporatist folks on the left and limited government, free market folks on the right. As such, a campaign against corporate welfare provides an excellent political opportunity for a free market populist politician to build a new left/right coalition to challenge corporatist/statist status quo that currently infects Capitol Hill and state houses across the country. A necessary first step to any such endeavor, however, is properly distinguishing between real subsidy problems and misguided populist claptrap. Only then can some smart politician develop policies and positions that will finally rid us of our self-interested “public servants” whose exit from government is long overdue.
Follow Scott on Twitter.
Scott Lincicome is an international trade attorney, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and Visiting Lecturer at Duke University. Follow Scott on Twitter. The views expressed herein are Scott Lincicome’s alone and do not necessarily represent the views of his employer
I guess I should have copy and pasted a 700 word article no one would read like you do.
I'll break it down for you (not that it will do any good). If I could get paid $100 for every person on SS disabilty that I found a job for, i'd take that job in a heartbeat and live very comfortably. 90% of the people I meet on SS disability are working cash jobs to increase their income. Those are able bodied people who don't want a job. Just because you can't do the job you are doing means you need another job, not that you are disabled.
Hopefully that is simple enough for you to comprehend.
While I know of no one supporting "corporate welfare" i've never seen a description of what it is that didn't include cities giving tax breaks to entice businesses, or companies simply having a lower tax rate than individuals. Those are smart pro growth incentives that I wouldn't classify as welfare. Foregoing chaging a company tax doesn't raise my bill. There is true corporate welfare such as subsidies to things like auto makers and "green" energy companies (I don't think those originate in the conservative camp) but it's unlikely those things add up to anywhere near $4000/yr.
Why change the subject? We pay a crap load more to big money corps and your GOP takes care of big business.
Yet you pretend to be 'conservative'? Gimme a break..you'll redistribute wealth to the rich and leave all the other bills unpaid. Those are called deadbeat hypocrites.
It's a race to the bottom with no real benefit to taxpayers. It's a zero sum game. That economic activity is going to be here. It's just a question of what city or state they can extort the most.
My problem is that all companies should pay the same rate. Walmart shouldn't get a property tax break for building a store that allows it to pay less than a mom and pop shop.
If NO city or state would offer these huge tax breaks for a company to come to their state or city they would still have to find a place to locate their factory of offices. A town didn't used to have to offer all these discounts to a business. I don't know who started it to steal jobs from another town but they should be horse whipped. School districts all over the country have less money to operate on because of it.
It's one thing to say you want to have a lower tax rate than your neighbor for all businesses. I get that. It's another to have a different rate for each project. It's a waste of time and resources, and it is not beneficial for John Q. Public
The topic was how much the federal government spent on "corporate welfare" compared to helping the "poor". I fail to see how a town or county or even state trying to attract business through THEIR tax policy has substantial impact on federal corporate "welfare".
That is the problem with the term corporate welfare. It can be just that but usually includes things that aren't.
Cmon 3R. You don't really oppose competition do you? If you a socialist setting for business then you will get lower quality businesses and cities. Competition sharpens everyones focus.
They aren't attracting them through consistent, fair tax policy. They are attracting them by creating an unequal playing field among businesses in their own jurisdiction.
Why should pharmacy A pay more than in taxes than pharmacy B when they are right across the street from each other in the same taxing jurisdiction? It's bad policy.
I said the elimination of competition was what socialism did. What 3R was saying was eliminating competition too.
Thanks for proving my point that you're not aware of what socialism is.
Yes it is, it's a way for big business to get special deals that aren't available to other companies. Mom and pop is forced to subsidize Walmart when they build a store. That's welfare.
Corporate welfare doesn't only come from federal tax dollars but it does come from tax dollars none the less. You reckon any of the states or towns giving away these "local" tax dollars don't get all the federal tax dollars they can get to make up for it?
I wish the Christian Conservatives would pay me a §100 for every uninformed, false, lie, or just plain un Christ like post you make. I could retire and the faux Christian Conservatives would be bankrupt.
There is less competition in a socialist society. I didn't say complete elimination. Having less is elimination.
States and towns get all the federal tax dollars they can regardless.
The conversation about corporate welfare is designed to say corporations are getting federal checks written to them just like other welfare recipients are. Is that what you think corporate welfare is? If so, those programs that lead to that are likely not driven by conservatives.
Uninformed....you could make a few bucks. The rest....you'd starve.
You have likely a different definition of Christian Conservative than actual Christian Conservatives do. I believe Christlike is one word.
socialism does limit competition in some ways, but that's not the core point of it. Socialism can be a market based system.
But that doesn't mean any action which limits competition is socialist. And some limits on competition are very good ideas.
Look at the farm bill. Look at the defense budget. Lots of goofy tax credits. Etc. there are a lot of examples of corporate welfare that are pushed by republicans.
And they are still afraid NOT to offer a company some outlandish deal like NO taxes for 10 years to get them to come to their state or town while their school districts suffer with old run down buildings and highway/street departments can't afford to maintain the roads. Like I said if NO one made those offers the companies would have to build or open for business somewhere anyway.
You do realize there is zero tax revenue from a company that goes elsewhere don't you? If you get zero for 10 years or zero forever, which builds the better roads and schools long term? I for one support attracting business over losing out to someone with a better location or other advantage I can't compete with. I want the revenue stream from taxes that aren't paid by individuals writing checks to the government.
Nope. I've never been to Alaska either but have a pretty good idea what it's like from reading about it.
And where have I supported ANY of that? I oppose unnecessary spending period. Being a Republican doesn't equal conservative.
If it isn't socialistic, what is it? Socialism promotes equality of outcome over reward for effort and success. That alone eliminates competition. Limits on competition are not good ideas unless you are refering to basic guidelines like rules in a game that apply to all. There should not be a limit on how many points you can score.
There are differing degrees of socialism in different countries. There are also differing degrees of cancer in humans. Both can be survived if the affect is limited. I don't think having a little cancer is a good idea though.
