The Real U. S. Welfare Cheats

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/opinion/the-real-welfare-cheats.html?ref=opinion
A study to be released Thursday says that for each dollar America’s 50 biggest companies paid in federal taxes between 2008 and 2014, they received $27 back in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts.

Originally posted by Phranny
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/opinion/the-real-welfare-cheats.html?ref=opinion
A study to be released Thursday says that for each dollar America’s 50 biggest companies paid in federal taxes between 2008 and 2014, they received $27 back in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts.

Hardly news is it?

Originally posted by Phranny
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/opinion/the-real-welfare-cheats.html?ref=opinion
A study to be released Thursday says that for each dollar America’s 50 biggest companies paid in federal taxes between 2008 and 2014, they received $27 back in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts.

Lumping a loan or loan guarantee in the same category as a payment is exceptionally misleading. People on welfare don't get loans. They get payments.

Originally posted by sh76
Lumping a loan or loan guarantee in the same category as a payment is exceptionally misleading. People on welfare don't get loans. They get payments.

This may be true, but it is also true that the Fortune 500 in America gets special treatment, both politically and in terms of financial gifts such as tens of billions of $$ every year in subsidies and grants from our good government, though The Fortune 500 employ less than 10% of the population, while small and medium sized business who employ over 80% get next to nothing. Not exactly a level playing field.

I would also add the cost of corporate welfare in America is TWICE that of social welfare programs, such as food stamps and welfare.

It's interesting that the right wing always seems to turn a blind eye to this...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#37ac9a996881

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-welfare-tax-breaks-subsidies/

http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/

Originally posted by bill718
This may be true, but it is also true that the Fortune 500 in America gets special treatment, both politically and in terms of financial gifts such as tens of billions of $$ every year in subsidies and grants from our good government, though The Fortune 500 employ less than 10% of the population, while small and medium sized business who employ over 80% get ...[text shortened]... s/

http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/

That all may be true, Bill. But it's not because the government loves to give money to the super-rich. It's based on the reality that the bankruptcy of a big company can have catastrophic effects on the economy.

I'm all for capping the salary or bonuses of companies receiving bailouts, though.

Originally posted by bill718
This may be true, but it is also true that the Fortune 500 in America gets special treatment, both politically and in terms of financial gifts such as tens of billions of $$ every year in subsidies and grants from our good government, though The Fortune 500 employ less than 10% of the population, while small and medium sized business who employ over 80% get ...[text shortened]... s/

http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/

Businesses pay countless billions in taxes, employee millions of people and are denied the right to vote. People on welfare produce next to nothing. Government should spend more time meeting the needs of its productive assets and not just worry about its biggest failures.

Originally posted by sh76
Lumping a loan or loan guarantee in the same category as a payment is exceptionally misleading. People on welfare don't get loans. They get payments.

These are NOT loans. They are tax breaks. Quite a few companies in the U.S. make lots of money yet pay zero or very minimal dollars in taxes. It's welfare for the rich.

Originally posted by quackquack
Businesses pay countless billions in taxes, employee millions of people and are denied the right to vote. People on welfare produce next to nothing. Government should spend more time meeting the needs of its productive assets and not just worry about its biggest failures.

Corporations and businesses do not create jobs. When people have money to spend on goods and services, businesses hire people to create the goods and services. If our middle class keeps shrinking, the economy will remain sluggish as there will be less demand for products. Yes, government should spend more on meeting the needs of its producers, those who demand goods and services which then leads to production, by guaranteeing a living wage and post secondary education.

Originally posted by quackquack
Businesses pay countless billions in taxes, employee millions of people and are denied the right to vote. People on welfare produce next to nothing. Government should spend more time meeting the needs of its productive assets and not just worry about its biggest failures.

Don't you think that "worrying" about those "biggest failures" might enable them to become "productive assets"?

Originally posted by Phranny
These are NOT loans. They are tax breaks. Quite a few companies in the U.S. make lots of money yet pay zero or very minimal dollars in taxes. It's welfare for the rich.

If you want to use that methodology, those on welfare on nett receive more tax (in the form of benefits) than they pay.

It's like saying politicians and other so called public servants pay tax. They receive more than is taken back from them, they do not pay tax.

Originally posted by Phranny
These are NOT loans. They are tax breaks. Quite a few companies in the U.S. make lots of money yet pay zero or very minimal dollars in taxes. It's welfare for the rich.

Tax breaks are not payments. They are reductions of taxes, based on a firm doing something the government wants done. BTW, individuals get tax breaks for the same reasons.

You can't give a tax break to someone who doesn't pay taxes.

How large corporate entities pay taxes is a different story. Unlike the individual sole proprietor, who pays taxes on every last dollar of profit, and can only deduct what the IRS says he can, corporate entities exist to do business, and deduct all actual expenses from before tax income.

Another BTW, all people in business are not rich. Companies routinely go bankrupt, that is they lose the money invested in them. A great many scrape by on income that a lot of factory workers would scoff at and refuse to work for.

A good example are young professionals (doctors, dentists, accountants, lawyers) who start off with a mountain of college debts, borrowing money to open an office and staff it. Folks who talk about "welfare for the rich" are simply jealous of the success of others.

Tax breaks, in general, are reduced rates, or paybacks for doing something that the government considers desirable. In many cases, these are loans, very favorable loans at low interest, and amounts that would not be made with conventional underwriting. The payback is doing things that most businessmen would not do, without the incentives. The problem with this policy, is that when things go wrong, the government's fingerprints are all over it, and thus the bailouts.

Originally posted by Phranny
These are NOT loans. They are tax breaks. Quite a few companies in the U.S. make lots of money yet pay zero or very minimal dollars in taxes. It's welfare for the rich.

Did you even read your own post?

"federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts"

Originally posted by sh76
That all may be true, Bill. But it's not because the government loves to give money to the super-rich. It's based on the reality that the bankruptcy of a big company can have catastrophic effects on the economy.

I'm all for capping the salary or bonuses of companies receiving bailouts, though.

Sure, that makes sense. Losing a few companies from the Fortune 500 would throw 4-5% of our population on the unemployment lines, and that can have "catastrophic effects on the economy", so they need to be protected with billions in corporate welfare money every year, however, small and medium sized business who employ 80+% percent of our population, don't deserve a safety net, because after all, if they go down 80% unemployment is far more acceptable than 4-5% unemployment....right?? Now I get it! 🙄

Originally posted by bill718
Sure, that makes sense. Losing a few companies from the Fortune 500 would throw 4-5% of our population on the unemployment lines, and that can have "catastrophic effects on the economy", so they need to be protected with billions in corporate welfare money every year, however, small and medium sized business who employ 80+% percent of our population, don't d ...[text shortened]... down 80% unemployment is far more acceptable than 4-5% unemployment....right?? Now I get it! 🙄

The obvious flaw in your argument is that you do not currently have 80% unemployment which would indicate that those smaller businesses have not collapsed which indicates that no safety net for them was necessary.

Originally posted by bill718
Sure, that makes sense. Losing a few companies from the Fortune 500 would throw 4-5% of our population on the unemployment lines, and that can have "catastrophic effects on the economy", so they need to be protected with billions in corporate welfare money every year, however, small and medium sized business who employ 80+% percent of our population, don't d ...[text shortened]... down 80% unemployment is far more acceptable than 4-5% unemployment....right?? Now I get it! 🙄

Small companies individually are more easily replaceable than huge companies.

Small companies going bankrupt are not that terrible for the economy. An idea that wasn't working stops being perpetuated, the entrepreneur goes and gets a new job or starts a new company and the investors or banks that gave the start-up capital lose their investments (the possibility of which they calculated into the original investment anyway). This is inevitable in some cases and is a desirable part of the market.

The bankruptcy of, say, General Motors, would have instant, staggering effects on the economy.