Why We Need to Abolish Corporate Welfare

You are, I assume, aware that the Cato Institute receives a large portion of their funding from corporations just like the ones being denounced in this diatribe?

Sudsidies (direct payments) to corporations are a legitimate area to cut. But, tax credits are not. Corporations do not pay taxes. Any payments to governments must be made up by smaller pay raises or less benefits to enmployees, higher prices to customers or smaller dividends to shareholders. A majority of shareholders hold stock for retirement 401(k) or growth accounts.

quote:

Originally posted by pba:
Why We Need to Abolish Corporate Welfare
by Todd Altman
Jan 20, 2003

Corporate welfare is defined by the Cato Institute as "any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries." Although transfer payments in general (to the extent they redistribute the earned incomes of labor and capital) are morally wrong, corporate welfare is the worst transfer payment of all because it constitutes stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich. Examples of such giveaways can be found online at the Banneker Center's corporate welfare shame page.

The federal government currently spends roughly $93 billion a year on programs that provide subsidies to private businesses. Not only does this give big business an unfair advantage over smaller competitors, it gives politicians an excuse to deny much-needed tax relief to the bottom 75% of taxpayers -- those who, according to the Tax Foundation, make less than $55,226 a year.

Specifically, the bottom 75% (over 96 million people) pay approximately $156.8 billion a year in federal income taxes -- with those who make below $27,682 (the bottom 50%) paying a little over $38.3 billion, and those who make between $27,682 and $55,225 paying the rest.

Thus, if we eliminated corporate welfare, that alone would allow for the income tax to be reduced by nearly 1/2 for those making between $27,682 and $55,225, and abolished entirely for those making below $27,682. This would benefit wage-earners enormously by offsetting the regressive nature of the payroll tax, and would benefit small businesses by eliminating the anticompetitive nature of corporate welfare spending.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/corporate_welfare.htm

pba,
Arguement. THE CORPORATIONS RECIEVE UNIQUE BENEFIT FROM GOVERNMENT. True. The Benefits should halt. False.
The benefits should be regulated, and moderated, just like all the social welfare programs. But they should not be eliminated. I agree, each special and unique benefit for a Wal Mart or a Bus Company should be examined on a cost/benefit level. The win win is that the Cost of the Benefit is offset by the benefit to the community, the state, and the nation. If it comes up negative, reduce the cost of the benefit. It should come up as positive for the community as the Corporation is willing to allow it. AND. IF THE CORPORATION SAYS IT MUST BENEFIT THE CORPORATION MORE THAN THE COMMUNITIY. SEND THE CORPORATION PACKING.

Sassy Kims.
You Are aware, I assume, that the Cato Institute report quoted here does not conclude, as pba does, that ALL CORPORATE WELFARE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.
Cato institute, by the way, is NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, except in an indirect manner that some of its members and board are paid for public service outside the Cato institute.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by pba:
Why We Need to Abolish Corporate Welfare
by Todd Altman
Jan 20, 2003

Corporate welfare is defined by the Cato Institute as "any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries." Although transfer payments in general (to the extent they redistribute the earned incomes of labor and capital) are morally wrong, corporate welfare is the worst transfer payment of all because it constitutes stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich. Examples of such giveaways can be found online at the Banneker Center's corporate welfare shame page.

The federal government currently spends roughly $93 billion a year on programs that provide subsidies to private businesses. Not only does this give big business an unfair advantage over smaller competitors, it gives politicians an excuse to deny much-needed tax relief to the bottom 75% of taxpayers -- those who, according to the Tax Foundation, make less than $55,226 a year.

Specifically, the bottom 75% (over 96 million people) pay approximately $156.8 billion a year in federal income taxes -- with those who make below $27,682 (the bottom 50%) paying a little over $38.3 billion, and those who make between $27,682 and $55,225 paying the rest.

Thus, if we eliminated corporate welfare, that alone would allow for the income tax to be reduced by nearly 1/2 for those making between $27,682 and $55,225, and abolished entirely for those making below $27,682. This would benefit wage-earners enormously by offsetting the regressive nature of the payroll tax, and would benefit small businesses by eliminating the anticompetitive nature of corporate welfare spending.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/corporate_welfare.htm

pba,
Arguement. THE CORPORATIONS RECIEVE UNIQUE BENEFIT FROM GOVERNMENT. True. The Benefits should halt. False.
The benefits should be regulated, and moderated, just like all the social welfare programs. But they should not be eliminated. I agree, each special and unique benefit for a Wal Mart or a Bus Company should be examined on a cost/benefit level. The win win is that the Cost of the Benefit is offset by the benefit to the community, the state, and the nation. If it comes up negative, reduce the cost of the benefit. It should come up as positive for the community as the Corporation is willing to allow it. AND. IF THE CORPORATION SAYS IT MUST BENEFIT THE CORPORATION MORE THAN THE COMMUNITIY. SEND THE CORPORATION PACKING.

Sassy Kims.
You Are aware, I assume, that the Cato Institute report quoted here does not conclude, as pba does, that ALL CORPORATE WELFARE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.
Cato institute, by the way, is NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, except in an indirect manner that some of its members and board are paid for public service outside the Cato institute.

Ed, the words you used REGULATED and MODERATED like all social welfare programs trouble me.... because I don't think there is a monitor on any of that... If there are, then they are NOT doing their jobs.

I wish things of this nature would be moderated and HONESTLY ran, but alas, we all know that isn't going to happen... there is just TOO much money that can go into the GREEDY FAT CAT's back pocket for regulating and monitoring.....

MY OPINIONS ONLY, though.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by pba:
Why We Need to Abolish Corporate Welfare
by Todd Altman
Jan 20, 2003

Corporate welfare is defined by the Cato Institute as "any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries." Although transfer payments in general (to the extent they redistribute the earned incomes of labor and capital) are morally wrong, corporate welfare is the worst transfer payment of all because it constitutes stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich. Examples of such giveaways can be found online at the Banneker Center's corporate welfare shame page.

The federal government currently spends roughly $93 billion a year on programs that provide subsidies to private businesses. Not only does this give big business an unfair advantage over smaller competitors, it gives politicians an excuse to deny much-needed tax relief to the bottom 75% of taxpayers -- those who, according to the Tax Foundation, make less than $55,226 a year.

Specifically, the bottom 75% (over 96 million people) pay approximately $156.8 billion a year in federal income taxes -- with those who make below $27,682 (the bottom 50%) paying a little over $38.3 billion, and those who make between $27,682 and $55,225 paying the rest.

Thus, if we eliminated corporate welfare, that alone would allow for the income tax to be reduced by nearly 1/2 for those making between $27,682 and $55,225, and abolished entirely for those making below $27,682. This would benefit wage-earners enormously by offsetting the regressive nature of the payroll tax, and would benefit small businesses by eliminating the anticompetitive nature of corporate welfare spending.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/corporate_welfare.htm

pba,
Arguement. THE CORPORATIONS RECIEVE UNIQUE BENEFIT FROM GOVERNMENT. True. The Benefits should halt. False.
The benefits should be regulated, and moderated, just like all the social welfare programs. But they should not be eliminated. I agree, each special and unique benefit for a Wal Mart or a Bus Company should be examined on a cost/benefit level. The win win is that the Cost of the Benefit is offset by the benefit to the community, the state, and the nation. If it comes up negative, reduce the cost of the benefit. It should come up as positive for the community as the Corporation is willing to allow it. AND. IF THE CORPORATION SAYS IT MUST BENEFIT THE CORPORATION MORE THAN THE COMMUNITIY. SEND THE CORPORATION PACKING.

Sassy Kims.
You Are aware, I assume, that the Cato Institute report quoted here does not conclude, as pba does, that ALL CORPORATE WELFARE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.
Cato institute, by the way, is NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, except in an indirect manner that some of its members and board are paid for public service outside the Cato institute.

Pba does not have a arguement as of yet!!

I did not say I agree with this post,this is why I put it up for debate. Remember just because I post it,does not mean I agree with it. I like it when you debate it and post your thoughts and I will come and post my reply to what I think!

quote:

Originally posted by pba:

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by pba:
Why We Need to Abolish Corporate Welfare
by Todd Altman
Jan 20, 2003

Corporate welfare is defined by the Cato Institute as "any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries." Although transfer payments in general (to the extent they redistribute the earned incomes of labor and capital) are morally wrong, corporate welfare is the worst transfer payment of all because it constitutes stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich. Examples of such giveaways can be found online at the Banneker Center's corporate welfare shame page.

The federal government currently spends roughly $93 billion a year on programs that provide subsidies to private businesses. Not only does this give big business an unfair advantage over smaller competitors, it gives politicians an excuse to deny much-needed tax relief to the bottom 75% of taxpayers -- those who, according to the Tax Foundation, make less than $55,226 a year.

Specifically, the bottom 75% (over 96 million people) pay approximately $156.8 billion a year in federal income taxes -- with those who make below $27,682 (the bottom 50%) paying a little over $38.3 billion, and those who make between $27,682 and $55,225 paying the rest.

Thus, if we eliminated corporate welfare, that alone would allow for the income tax to be reduced by nearly 1/2 for those making between $27,682 and $55,225, and abolished entirely for those making below $27,682. This would benefit wage-earners enormously by offsetting the regressive nature of the payroll tax, and would benefit small businesses by eliminating the anticompetitive nature of corporate welfare spending.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/corporate_welfare.htm

pba,
Arguement. THE CORPORATIONS RECIEVE UNIQUE BENEFIT FROM GOVERNMENT. True. The Benefits should halt. False.
The benefits should be regulated, and moderated, just like all the social welfare programs. But they should not be eliminated. I agree, each special and unique benefit for a Wal Mart or a Bus Company should be examined on a cost/benefit level. The win win is that the Cost of the Benefit is offset by the benefit to the community, the state, and the nation. If it comes up negative, reduce the cost of the benefit. It should come up as positive for the community as the Corporation is willing to allow it. AND. IF THE CORPORATION SAYS IT MUST BENEFIT THE CORPORATION MORE THAN THE COMMUNITIY. SEND THE CORPORATION PACKING.

Sassy Kims.
You Are aware, I assume, that the Cato Institute report quoted here does not conclude, as pba does, that ALL CORPORATE WELFARE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.
Cato institute, by the way, is NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, except in an indirect manner that some of its members and board are paid for public service outside the Cato institute.

Pba does not have a arguement as of yet!!

I did not say I agree with this post,this is why I put it up for debate. Remember just because I post it,does not mean I agree with it. I like it when you debate it and post your thoughts and I will come and post my reply to what I think!

ok...TWO RESPONSES. Both deserving a reply, and each to be given a reply.
pba. I presented the arguement for REGULATED AND MODERATED Corporate Welfare, AND also REGULATED AND MODERATED Social Welfare. I have no idea what your position is. I presume, that since you saw fit to bring the subject up you wish to discuss it. Exactly what you responded.
Now, since you brought up the subject, and I took the time to present an arguement, would you take the time to present your position?

Kindred Spirit. I did use the words "Moderated" and "Regulated." I also support the concept of regulation based on Cost/Benefit ratio. You say that you are troubled by the lack of regulation and moderation. Well, that is the job of the Congress, and State Legislature, and City Council. The legislation creating the welfare program, either corporate or social, contains, invariably, limitations and standards. In the case of social welfare programs, the legislation does not apply to a unique entity but to a defined class of entities that fall into a unique catagory.
The issue of corporate welfare has a difference. Each piece of corporate welfare legislation applies to a unique entity, the specific corporation recieving the benefit.
In the case of social welfare, regulation is generally in the form of needs qualification, or membership in a specified group. Social Security is NOT available to working age people of sound mind and body. But it is available to all persons over a specified age who have participated in the program by paying premiums, in the form of payroll taxes. (BTW the reason that there is debate concerning government pensioners getting Social Security as well as government pension is part of that regulation issue.) Food Stamps are available to Pensioners or workers, based on their individual need.
I am loathe to use the terms necessary to discuss this, since I think there are people who will attack the arguement on the basis of the vocabulary of Ability and Need. It is a Marxist concept that each provides according to his ability and each recieves according to his need, but that is the essence of welfare, corporate or social.
The issue, if it is taken from a philosophical point is this. DOES ANYONE, OR ANY COMPNAY HAVE ANY RIGHT TO EXPECT THE REST OF SOCIETY TO KEEP THEM ALIVE AND HEALTHY?
Conservatives in general say no, unless we are the ones being kept alive. Liberals take the position that if we as a nation are going to keep the Wealthy alive and well with our labor, the wealthy are obligated to respond in kind.

pba,
one further comment. You wrote the title of this thread, "Why We Need to ABOLISH Corporate Welfare." (emphasis mine.) That certainly leads to a conclusion that you think corporations should be required to sink or swim with out the aid of the government.

I need some welfare or do I have to be rich to get it....lol

I agree that we need to abolish corporate welfare but I don't agree with Libertarianism, although they do have some things I agree with. They basically believe in the so called "Free Market" and in small government with little to no restrictions. I believe we need a strong Federal Government that is controlled by the people. To me that is the real meaning of the Revolution and America, "A Government for and by the People." It enforces the Constitution, and laws that protect us, has the power to stand against Corporations and is accountable to the people. We have been sold out but we can get it back, through our constitution, before they dismantle it.

I use to advocate the income tax, which is what we need to tax, income. The wealthy should pay. But now there are some theories floating about that being repressive so it gets a little complicated. Basically I Believe in a Wealth Tax. A tax on Wealth.

Tax breaks to the middle class and poor, who need the money and will spend it and help the economy.

No corporation became "Successful and Powerful" and no billionaire got rich without the power of Labor.

Vladamir Lenin said the same thing in 1917.

Or it could have been Leon Trotsky. I couldn't find any cut or paste for either. It was 1917 though, I think.