Fortune 100 Companies Have Received a Whopping $1.2 Trillion in Corporate Welfare Recently

I can add to the list of what I consider corporate welfare:

1. Tax dollars put into hydro and energy projects, such as our BC Hydro, that then run at much lower cost, still made a profit, though our bills were 1/2 what they are now or less, and that money went into other programs. It shone an enormous light, so it had to be sold off to Americans. Well that is like, buying a house, paying it off, the government steals it and sells it to a foreign country that now rents it to you at twice the cost your original payments were.

Sorry but that is also Corporate Welfare.

2. Health insurance. I understand many don't like federal programs however.....government is supposed to be a minion of the people and whether medicare is done via tax or what I'd prefer, taxing banks, its cheaper when run federally, and co-hosted provincially or state wise. Not talking obama care at all, its trying to shove the 2 together.

When you spend tax dollars, and throughout the years, the US has spent more percentage wise, than Canada, but provided bare bones, and nothing to some, and at the same time hand it out to your rich friends to fleece people more through private insurance, you are also committing Corporate Welfare, by fleecing people for those you are really working for, and their businesss is to get as much tax dollars, make sure its all ineffective and then rape people again via private ways.

Its not just handouts, the whole system is rigged to fleece people AND hand them over to corporations.

AND ITS ILLEGAL BUT WON'T STOP TILL PEOPLE WAKE UP.

reply to post by deadcalm


I largely agree with you...with a few exceptions.

First, one cannot discount the "buying vote" mechanism used by the left, promising "free" when there's less and less ability to pay those "free" services.

Second, "a living wage". Back in the day, a couple would marry, make use of the "two living as cheaply as one". save their money, both working and when the husband had worked up from his entry level wage, would make a down-payment on a house, THEN have children. It worked for most.

Now, somehow, it has morphed into "make kids when the hormones dictate" and demand more money -via the vote buying party- and force those companies to automate, reduce work forces or cut the quality of their product or service just to survive-and now compete with cheap Asian products, a pressure that didn't exist a few decades ago. Almost a daily increase in regulations, restrictions and taxes on top of that!

To me that all adds up to the destruction of small business as a means to move up. That American tradition is being wiped out as we speak.

Yes, the big Corporations are a major player in all this. THAT's where they have the edge. They get the breaks which compensates for those expenses that small business do without. End result? The big guys stay on top. No new "up and comers" coming up to play.

No longer a competitive market. It becomes a good old boy network with everyone else "regulated" into their "class".

A carbon copy of Europe. A carbon copy of Socialism and it's corporate funding.

Not all that complicated, is it?

RoScoLaz

freedomSlave these kind of people are greedy beyond belief

i'm not even sure they're people.

Yes they are! At least according to Mittens.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Also, before the pill and other contraceptives, women had babies on the average of every 18 months. Don't know how long that could have gone on without becoming China. That freed women up to go into the workforce and part of the upward mobility in the US. They also went into the workforce during WW2 but left when the war ended, then the boomers started being born.

The problem isn't welfare for the poor, welfare for the poor is essential for a proper capitalist system. Communist hate welfare, keeps the proles just content enough not to revolt against the whole capitalist system.

The wealthy just pile their money into offshore tax havens, or make investments that may/may not benefit the population as a whole (as in people outside of wallstreet; seriously there isn't much point in investing money i)

the poor don't have offshore tax havens, meaning the money stays stateside.
furthermore the poor don't even make enough to save money (usually), so most of the money goes into the purchasing of goods or services and thus stimulates the economy.

In addition to providing economic stimulus, by basically providing more people with the means to buy/consume, which in turn means that there are more consumers. And if there are more consumers, there is likely to be a growth of the market to meet the demands of said consumers.

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


Again, I agree re the tax havens, but disagree that a raise in minimum wages stimulates the economy, at least without the backlash of inflation due increased costs for those same basics.

If you want higher wages and more jobs and not higher wagers with less jobs, withdraw from the W.T.O. and place an import tariff on manufactured goods exempting Mexico and Canada.

At least the Soviets had anti-parasite laws and required work from all...

You ignore the facts of your own thread!

The big guys get the corporate welfare. That compensates for their increased costs via Increases in minimum wages, et al. The small business gets nothing and another nail in the coffin of those small businesses.

An increase in the minimum wage just drives more companies to move out of country to survive/compete with outside companies. It just makes it worse, job wise.

Jobs will be lost.Period.

reply to post by nwtrucker


There are a lot of minimum wage workers in the service, and retail industry. (think Wal-mart or Mcdonald's employees), how would they be outsourced?

I'm not sure how many in the manufacturing industry earn minimum wages. So I can't comment on how manufacturing would be effected.

You raise some interesting points though... Thank you for being civil BTW

First, one cannot discount the "buying vote" mechanism used by the left, promising "free" when there's less and less ability to pay those "free" services.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Left or right....makes no difference at all. Corporate welfare and vote buying happens on both sides...we have to get money out of politics...period. Corporations are not people and should not be able to donate unlimited funds to EITHER party. It undermines the people's ability to have a functional representative government.

Second, "a living wage".

A living wage has been established to be $15.00 per hour. But if wages had advanced along with increases in productivity and inflation...the minimum wage should be in the $21-$22 per hour range. Instead....the American taxpayer foots the bill to subsidise these peoples food, housing..ect....instead of being absorbed by the corporations. All while your money is being shovelled out the back door to these same corporations that refuse to pay these workers a living wage. Talk about a double dip eh?

Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity: Study

HERE

To me that all adds up to the destruction of small business as a means to move up. That American tradition is being wiped out as we speak.

All by design....small businesses could have made much better use of that 1.2 trillion...not to mention the 16+ trillion given to banks and foreign corporations for things like raising the minimum wage...instead...it gets given to the wealthiest corporations in the US.

Multi-national corporations that I remind you, have no national loyalty....their charter explicitly states that their prime responsibility is to shareholders...not the American people.

Not all that complicated, is it?

No...it isn't...which is why I cannot for the life of me...understand why the American people aren't raging in the streets.

reply to post by deadcalm


Agreed on both parties being "party" to it. BUT, one specializes in promising "more for less".

My view on most of the problems caused in our lack of jobs and behind that the amount paid is as much the Gov't's fault as the corporations. ( Gov't is, after all, THE Corporation.)

As far as "forcing" corporations to cover a living wage. (I don't buy those numbers you quote at all.) All they do is carry forward those increased expenses,(that's what wages are, an expense) and add it to the consumer,thee and me, via an increased price for those products or services. So, either way, we pay for it.

But all this is off topic. The OP is correct in the corporate "welfare" mechanism. Both parties are culpable-be it often to different corporations-and that is pure socialism. The incumbents win "popularity" for forcing a higher wage-even though at the same time pushing to double the current immigration quota from 1 million per year to 2 million. I won't even bother mentioning the illegals, combined they are forcing wages down through a huge supply with a shrinking demand which an increase in the minimum wage will add to.

Where up to now, many couple were "making ends meet" on two at minimum wage, we now have the burden of reduced hours and increased mandatory costs both due to Obamacare. This is nothing more than a political gambit to try and recover some of the lost popularity for the upcoming mid-term elections.

All this will done is make it worse in the long run. Just my opinion though....

reply to post by deadcalm


The issue isn't whether the State gives the money they've taken from you at gunpoint and gives it to the rich or the poor; the issue is that the State takes it in the first place. I long for the day when we only recognize two classes of people: the productive class and the parasite class.

deadcalm


It is also important to note that the 6 heirs to the Walton (Walmart) fortune....have more wealth between them than almost HALF THE US POPULATION COMBINED.

What would your solution be?

Steal the Waltons money and redistribute it to others?

GrassyTroll

The issue isn't whether the State gives the money they've taken from you at gunpoint and gives it to the rich or the poor; the issue is that the State takes it in the first place. I long for the day when we only recognize two classes of people: the productive class and the parasite class.

As much as I would love to see that happen, it won't, and for one simple reason:

There are more parasites to vote for jackasses who promise them more of other peoples money.

The parasite class is a cancer, and needs to be treated as such.

Steal the Waltons money and redistribute it to others?

reply to post by doubletap


Don't you get the point?....YOUR money is already being redistributed to Walmart and other insanely wealthy companies BEHIND YOUR BACK.

YOUR money is also going to support the employees of Walmart....so that these 6 people can accumulate more wealth...You have no issues with that???

16 TRILLION dollars of your money was given to FOREIGN BANKS AND CORPORATIONS.

The only ones not benefitting from this redistribution of YOUR wealth....IS YOU!!

I'm not advocating taking anything away from them. But the system definitely needs to be fixed....wouldn't you agree?

Getting corporate money out of politics is the first step.

reply to post by doubletap


lol; I hope this is sarcasm/an attempt at being ironically right-wing, this stuff sounds like its from Ebenezer Scrooge. Or Daniel Plainview

Agreed on both parties being "party" to it. BUT, one specializes in promising "more for less".

reply to post by nwtrucker


I strongly disagree. Whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House....the agenda is always the same.

My view on most of the problems caused in our lack of jobs and behind that the amount paid is as much the Gov't's fault as the corporations.

Corporations and banks control your government through MASSIVE campaign donations....an investment that pays them out again and again. These same corporations outsource your jobs to places like China and India...they also park a huge chunk off shore so they can AVOID PAYING TAXES.

As far as "forcing" corporations to cover a living wage. (I don't buy those numbers you quote at all.)

I guess my grandad was right...you can lead a horse to water but you can`t make it drink

I did link a study proving those numbers...but if you are still in doubt...heres a bunch more

HERE

HERE

HERE

I can do this all day....

and HERE

also HERE

Have a read over a few of these articles and then tell me that I am wrong. If thats still not enough...let me know, I can link LOTS MORE.

Where up to now, many couple were "making ends meet" on two at minimum wage,

The fact that your money used to go a lot further only reinforces my point....rampant money printing by the FED has devalued your dollar...which is known as INFLATION. How much have they devalued it...

Let me show you...

Why the U.S. Dollar Has Devalued by Over 95% Since the Federal Reserve was Created

HERE

Happy reading

Thanks for contributing!

reply to post by doubletap


Take heart, my friend. We in the productive class simply have to give a collective "no". It will happen faster than you think. In fact, it's already started.

reply to post by deadcalm


I believe you have some tax info lacking in your off-shore businesses. The Federal gov't taxes monies brought back into the U.S.-profits- at a rate of 30%. If left out of the U.S., there is no tax charged. Why this is, I don't know. It should be reversed, IMO.

U.S. corporations suffer from among the highest tax rates in the western world. At a guess, this compensates for the low individual income tax rates, compared to most countries.

Actually, if what you say is true, that corporations move offshore to avoid taxes...AVOID them, then where is the corporate welfare? The two statement contradict each other. In other words, why would they leave if they were enjoying huge profits from tax breaks.

In that scenario, only some corporations receive that "welfare" and others not. Those not...leave for cheaper labour and less regulatory restriction. So damned if they stay and damned if they leave.

Finally, I'm not a horse. I've been around a lot longer than you, at a guess. I know water when I see it and I know "partial truths" that forward a specific agenda.....

I've been around a lot longer than you, at a guess. I know water when I see it and I know "partial truths" that forward a specific agenda.....

reply to post by nwtrucker


I'm rolling up on 55 in May, so I'm hardly a spring chicken...I've been to the puppet show and I've seen the strings.

The only agenda I have my friend...is to try and not outlive the money I've saved for my retirement...all the rest of it can be damned for all I personally care.

But I do wish you the best of luck...whatever happens.

U.S. corporations suffer from among the highest tax rates in the western world. At a guess, this compensates for the low individual income tax rates, compared to most countries.

reply to post by nwtrucker


That's what they'd like you to believe...

But while the companies are correct that America’s corporate tax rate is statutorily the highest in the world, what they aren’t noting is that few corporations actually pay the 35 percent rate. In fact, even as profits for American corporations hit a 60-year high in 2011, their effective tax rate hit a 40-year low, and the U.S. collects less in taxes as a percent of the total economy than every industrialized country in the world save Iceland. It’s been 45 years since corporations paid the full top tax rate, and 26 American companies avoided taxation altogether over the past four years.

HERE

US Corporations Only Paid 13% Of Their Profits In Federal Tax: Apple Is The Explanation For This

There’s a new report out from the GAO pointing out that, by their measure, US corporations only paid 13% of their profits in the Federal corporate income tax. Instead of the 35% headline rate. This has caused some huffing and puffing from the Tax Foundation: essentially, arguing with their method of measurement. However, there’s a really very simple method indeed to explain why the disparity between the numbers. We can see it just by looking at what Apple AAPL +1.19% does with its tax burdens and extrapolate that a little bit to other large US companies with substantial overseas operations.

They’ve got their foreign business organised so that all of the profit piles up in Ireland. Ireland only charges the corporate income tax to profits made from economic activity in that country: thus the vast majority of Apple’s overseas profits go almost entirely untaxed. Their annual report has said that the average rate is around 2% only. Apple does not remit that money into the US: so, it’s not charged the US corporate income tax. And just this one company has substantial sums sheltered in this manner: they’ve a cash pile of well over $100 billion sitting around after only a few years of doing this. Add in that we know that the other tech giants, in fact almost all US corporates with substantial overseas operations, do exactly the same thing and our “tax gap” is explained. Estimates vary but something between $1.3 and $1.7 trillion is sitting offshore as a result of corporations doing this.

Forbes article...HERE

Actually, if what you say is true, that corporations move offshore to avoid taxes

SEE ABOVE...they don't move themselves...they move their MONEY. This is done so they can still fleece the American people out of their tax dollars, get fat susidies...ect. As long as there is profit to be made, they will maintain their US operations.

Smoke and mirrors my friend...smoke and mirrors.

reply to post by deadcalm


OK, I don't disagree with the corporate breaks, but you do avoid the point of the U.S. tax system rewarding those corporation keeping their profits outside of the U.S.. I don't care for links per say but there was a lengthy statement by the CEO of Coca-Cola that exposed this irony and was critical of the U.S. tax system.

It also misses the corporations that have moved the manufacturing outside the U.S. IE the ones NOT receiving those "breaks" that you quote. It only reaffirms my point that it's small business that's getting screwed...the entrepreneurs.

Four corporations not paying any (direct) taxes is a small percentage. I wish we had that low a percentage not paying personal income tax....

Again, your examples point out the extreme end of it and ignores the massive barriers faced by business over all,from Fed, state and local regulations, EPA, disability, SS... the list is long and distinguished.

U.S. manufacturing has been shrinking at an alarming rate. That manufacturing base is gone and perhaps never to return. Do you actually claim that they received the same "benefits" that those you point out do? Of course not.

That's the only point I'm making. Your not "wrong"...you just paint a very incomplete picture.