Annual List of Corporate Welfare Queens.....2013 Edition..

[Nbadan]

I'm sure that the House of Reps is writing a bill regulating this corporate welfare as you read this...

Boeing, Second Largest Federal Contractor, Pays No Federal Income Tax in 2013



In its just-released annual report, Boeing Company reported that it claimed $82 million in federal tax refunds, despite reporting $5.9 billion in U.S. pre-tax profits last year. This represents an effective tax rate of -1.4 percent. Boeing paid just $11 million in state income taxes, an effective state tax rate of just 0.2 percent. The disclosures were made in Boeing’s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last Friday.

Since 2008, Boeing has reported between $1.6 billion and $5.9 billion in profits each year, yet has paid no federal income taxes in three of those years. Over the last six years, Boeing has reported $26.4 billion in pre-tax profits to its shareholders, while claiming a total of $105 million in refunds from the IRS, an effective tax rate of -0.4 percent.

With $20 billion in sales to the federal government in fiscal 2013, Boeing was the nation’s second largest contractor. Boeing alone received 4.4 percent of all federal government contracts last year. Boeing reported to shareholders that 34 percent of its 2013 sales were made to the U.S. government.

Boeing’s CEO, W. James McNerney, Jr., received total compensation of $27.5 million in 2012, according to the company’s proxy statement filed with the SEC. Information on McNerney’s 2013 pay will be revealed when the company files its new proxy statement next month.

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/boeing-second-largest-federal-contractor-pays-no-federal-income-tax-2013

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe you should write congress and tell them you are tired of their tax laws.

[boutons_deux]

Maybe you should write congress and tell them you are tired of their tax laws.

Congressman only listen to $$$, not letters.

Want something done, or not done? pay up.

Congress, state legislatures, state judges, are always open for business of being bribed.

My bet is the primary motivation to get elected (or hired as legislative aide, consultant) is self-enrichment, not public service.

[Nbadan]

Maybe you should write congress and tell them you are tired of their tax laws.

:lol

[The Reckoning]

i thought those numbers would be higher

[DarrinS]

Where's the list?

[Winehole23]

state and local subsidies, last twenty years, page 5: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/subsidizingthecorporateonepercent.pdf

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

i thought those numbers would be higher

Boeing is still nothing compared to Lockheed Martin, the biggest defense industry welfare queen in America.

[boutons_deux]

How the Rich Became Dependent on Government Welfare

Remember when President Obama was lambasted for saying "you didn't build that"? Turns out he was right, at least when it comes to lots of stuff built by the world's wealthiest corporations. That's the takeaway from this week's new study of 25,000 major taxpayer subsidy deals over the last two decades.

Entitled "Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent," the report from the taxpayer watchdog group Good Jobs First shows that the world's largest companies aren't models of self-sufficiency and unbridled capitalism. To the contrary, they're propped up by billions of dollars in welfare payments from state and local governments.

Such subsidies might be a bit more defensible if they were being doled out in a way that promoted upstart entrepreneurialism. But as the study also shows, a full "three-quarters of all the economic development dollars awarded and disclosed by state and local governments have gone to just 965 large corporations" — not to the small businesses and startups that politicians so often pretend to care about.

In dollar figures, that's a whopping $110 billion going to big companies. Fortune 500 firms alone receive more than 16,000 subsidies at a total cost of $63 billion.
These kinds of handouts, of course, are the definition of government intervention in the market. Nonetheless, those who receive the subsidies are still portrayed as free-market paragons.

Consider Charles and David Koch. Their company, Koch Industries, has relied on $88 million worth of government handouts. Yet, as the major financiers of the anti-government right, the Kochs are still billed as libertarian free-market activists.

Similarly, behold the big tech firms. They are often portrayed as self-made success stories. Yet, as Good Jobs First shows, they are among the biggest recipients of the subsidies.

Intel leads the tech pack with 58 subsidies worth $3.8 billion.

Next up is IBM, which has received more than $1 billion in subsidies. Most of that is from New York — a state proudly promoting its corporate handouts in a new ad campaign.
Then there's Google's $632 million and Yahoo's $260 million — both sets of subsidies primarily from data center deals. And not to be forgotten is 38 Studios, the now bankrupt software firm that received $75 million in Rhode Island taxpayer cash. The company received the handout at the very moment Rhode Island was pleading "poverty" to justify cuts to public workers' retirement benefits.

Along with propping up companies that are supposedly free-market icons, the subsidies are also flowing to financial firms that have become synonymous with never-ending bailouts. Indeed, companies like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup — each of which were given massive taxpayer subsidies during the financial crisis — are the recipients of tens of millions of dollars in additional subsidies.

All of these handouts, of course, would be derided if they were going to poor people. But because they are going to extremely wealthy politically connected conglomerates, they are typically promoted with cheery euphemisms like "incentives" or "economic development." Those euphemisms persist even though many subsidies do not end up actually creating jobs.

In light of that, the Good Jobs First report is a reality check on all the political rhetoric about dependency. Most of that rhetoric is punitively aimed at the poor. That's because, unlike the huge corporations receiving all those subsidies, the poor don't have armies of lobbyists and truckloads of campaign contributions that make sure programs like food stamps are shrouded in the anodyne argot of "incentives" and "development."

But as the report proves, if we are going to have an honest conversation about dependency and free markets, then the billions of dollars flowing to politically connected companies need to be part of the discussion.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/how-the-rich-became-dependent-on-government-welfare

[DMX7]

Maybe you should write congress and tell them you are tired of their tax laws.

that will really change things.

[boutons_deux]

Apple, Microsoft among firms earning tax-free interest from US


Four of the largest US-based technology companies hold a huge amount of US Treasury debt and use it to earn tax-free interest, a new report claims.

Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Cisco Systems collectively hold $124 billion in US Treasury debt overseas, the UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/03/12/apple-and-microsoft-among-us-tech-giants-reaping-interest-payments-on-offshore-cash/) Wednesday. The debt is kept offshore so the companies can earn interest on the treasuries without worrying about paying taxes.

That some of the largest technology companies in the world are holding so much interest-bearing debt and not having to pay taxes might not resonate well with individuals looking down the barrel at an April 15 personal income tax filing date and big tax bill. Still, the companies are acting well within US law, so they're not violating any regulations.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57620286-92/apple-microsoft-among-firms-earning-tax-free-interest-from-us-report/?tag=nl.e703&s_cid=e703&ttag=e703&ftag=CAD090e536

[boutons_deux]

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

A new venture called Open the Books, based in Illinois, was founded with a mission to bring transparency to how the federal budget is spent. And what they found is shocking: between 2000 and 2012, the top Fortune 100 companies received $1.2 trillion from the government. That doesn't include all the billions of dollars doled out to housing, auto and banking enterprises in 2008-2009, nor does it include ethanol subsidies to agribusiness or tax breaks for wind turbine makers.

What Open the Book's forthcoming report (http://www.openthebooks.com/) does reveal is that the most valuable contracts between the government and private firms were for military procrument deals, including Lockheed Martin ($392 billion), General Dynamics ($170 billion), and United Technologies ($73 billion).

After military contractors, $21.8 billion was granted out to corporate recipients in the form of direct subsidies; literally transfers of cash from the pockets of Americans to major corporations. The biggest winners were General Electric (GE) ($380 million), followed by General Motors (GM) ($370 million), Boeing (BA) ($264 million), ADM ($174 million) and United Technologies ($160 million).

$8.5 billion in federally subsidized loans were also doled out to giant oil companies Chevron and Exxon Mobile, and $1 billion went directly to massive agri-business Archer Daniels Midland.

Of course, the banks also got their piece of the pie: $10 billion in federal insurance went to Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, not including any of the 2008 bailout money. Walmart enjoyed its share of federal insurance backing as well.

Thanks to Open the Books, the curtain has been lifted and the whole country can now witness the great suckling of corporate America. As Open the Books founder Adam Andrzejewski put it: "Mitt Romney had it wrong: When it comes to the Fortune 100, it's 99%, not 47%, on some form of the government's gravy train."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/22577-new-report-fortune-100-companies-have-received-12-trillion-in-corporate-welfare-recently

So Ryan and similar Repug assholes want to screw the poor and break their "culture of dependence"?

But have nothing but more tax breaks, subsidies, etc for "dependent" corporations?

[boutons_deux]

A Nation of Takers?

In the debate about poverty, critics argue that government assistance saps initiative and is unaffordable. After exploring the issue, I must concede that the critics have a point. Here are five public welfare programs that are wasteful and turning us into a nation of “takers.”

First, welfare subsidies for private planes.

The United States offers three kinds of subsidies to tycoons with private jets: accelerated tax write-offs, avoidance of personal taxes on the benefit by claiming that private aircraft are for security, and use of air traffic control paid for by chumps flying commercial.

As the leftists in the George W. Bush administration put it when they tried (http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=8747) unsuccessfully to end this last boondoggle: “The family of four taking a budget vacation is subsidizing the C.E.O.’s flying on a corporate jet.”

I worry about those tycoons sponging off government. Won’t our pampering damage their character? Won’t they become addicted to the entitlement culture, demanding subsidies even for their yachts? Oh, wait ...

(http://mobile.nytimes.com/images/100000000349857/2014/03/27/opinion/kristof-a-nation-of-takers.html?from=mostemailed)Second, welfare subsidies for yachts.

The mortgage-interest deduction was meant to encourage a home-owning middle class. But it has been extended to provide subsidies for beach homes and even yachts (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-23/yacht-owners-seek-to-salvage-deduction-for-second-homes.html).

In the meantime, money was slashed last year from the public housing program for America’s neediest. Hmm. How about if we house the homeless in these publicly supported yachts?

Third, welfare subsidies for hedge funds and private equity.

The single most outrageous tax loophole in America is for “carried interest,” allowing people with the highest earnings to pay paltry taxes. They can magically reclassify their earned income as capital gains (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/house-proposal-would-raise-taxes-on-private-equity-income/), because that carries a lower tax rate (a maximum of 23.8 percent this year, compared with a maximum of 39.6 percent for earned income).
Let’s just tax capital gains at earned income rates, as we did under President Ronald Reagan (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/business/a-starting-point-for-tax-reform-what-reagan-did.html), that notorious scourge of capitalism.

Fourth, welfare subsidies for America’s biggest banks.

The too-big-to-fail banks in the United States borrow (http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/2014/1403sant.pdf) money unusually cheaply because of an implicit government promise to rescue them. Bloomberg View calculated last year (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-) that this amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion to our 10 biggest banks annually.

President Obama has proposed a bank tax to curb this subsidy, and this year a top Republican lawmaker, Dave Camp, endorsed the idea as well. Big banks are lobbying like crazy to keep their subsidy.

Fifth, large welfare subsidies for American corporations from cities, counties and states.

A bit more than a year ago, Louise Story of The New York Times tallied (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html) more than $80 billion a year in subsidies to companies, mostly as incentives to operate locally. (Conflict alert: The New York Times Company is among those that have received millions of dollars from city and state authorities.)

You see where I’m going. We talk about the unsustainability of government benefit programs and the deleterious effects these can have on human behavior, and these are real issues. Well-meaning programs for supporting single moms can create perverse incentives not to marry, or aid meant for a needy child may be misused to buy drugs. Let’s acknowledge that helping people is a complex, uncertain and imperfect struggle.

But, perhaps because we now have the wealthiest Congress in history (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus.html), the first in which a majority of members are millionaires, we have a one-sided discussion demanding cuts only in public assistance to the poor, while ignoring public assistance to the rich. And a one-sided discussion leads to a one-sided and myopic policy.

We’re cutting one kind of subsidized food — food stamps — at a time when Gallup finds (http://www.gallup.com/poll/164363/americans-struggle-afford-food.aspx) that almost one-fifth of American families struggled in 2013 to afford food. Meanwhile, we ignore more than $12 billion annually in tax subsidies (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/pdf/tax_expenditures.pdf) for corporate meals and entertainment.

Sure, food stamps are occasionally misused, but anyone familiar with business knows that the abuse of food subsidies is far greater in the corporate suite. Every time an executive wines and dines a hot date on the corporate dime, the average taxpayer helps foot the bill.

So let’s get real. To stem abuses, the first target shouldn’t be those avaricious infants in nutrition programs but tycoons in their subsidized Gulfstreams.

However imperfectly, subsidies for the poor do actually reduce hunger, ease suffering and create opportunity, while subsidies for the rich result in more private jets and yachts.

Would we rather subsidize opportunity or yachts? Which kind of subsidies deserve more scrutiny?

Some conservatives get this, including Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He has urged “scaling back ludicrous handouts to millionaires that expose an entitlement system and tax code that desperately need to be reformed.”

After all, quite apart from the waste, we don’t want to coddle zillionaires and thereby sap their initiative!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/opinion/kristof-a-nation-of-takers.html?from=mostemailed

[Winehole23]

well, of course we have welfare for the mega-rich. it's called "pro-business" policy, and it's the only reputable form of socialism in the USA.

[boutons_deux]

Walmart On Welfare


Next time you drive past a Walmart, think about how much in taxes you pay to subsidize the nation’s largest private employer, owned by the nation’s richest family.
Your cost this year: $24 if you are single, $49 if you are a couple, and $99 if you are a couple with two kids.

And you pay whether or not you shop at Walmart or its Sam’s Clubs.

Put another way, if you are single and a minimum-wage earner, the first 4 minutes you are on the job each week just goes to provide welfare for Walmart and the Waltons.

For a family of four, the cost of welfare for Walmart and the Waltons probably comes to more than your weekly take-home pay, based on government data on incomes.

American taxpayer money explains almost a third of Walmart’s worldwide pretax profits last year. But that understates the scale of taxpayer assistance to the retailer, which made 29 percent of its sales overseas last year.

Figure about 44 percent of Walmart’s domestic pretax profits were contributed by local, state and federal taxpayers directly and indirectly, based on company disclosure statements.

These figures on welfare for Walmart and the Waltons were calculated from a report released today by Americans for Tax Fairness (http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-admin/www.americansfortaxfairness.org), part of a broad coalition of union, civil rights and other organizations trying to shame the Walton family into paying wages that if not good, are at least enough to make sure Walmart employees do not qualify for food stamps.

So far the Waltons have shown themselves to be shameless and utterly unapologetic for foisting any of their costs onto taxpayers instead of earning their way in the marketplace.

This is in a way not surprising. The best-known heir of the retailing innovator Sam Walton, his daughter Alice, 64, has a long history of drunk-driving accidents, including killing a woman hit by her vehicle.

While repeat drunk drivers are routinely prosecuted in most jurisdictions, often as a matter of policy, and upon conviction get the time behind bars their conduct deserves, to date no law enforcement agency has seen fit to prosecute Alice Walton. Instead she basks in the glow of encomiums for the philanthropy enabled by the fortune her father built and boosted by the steady flow of money taxpayers are forced to give her, her relatives and other Walmart investors.

Compared to this taxpayer largesse, Walton philanthropy is small change.

The Walton Family Foundation ranks 22nd in America with $2.2 billion in assets, which may seem large. But Walmart and the Waltons have already extracted that much from the taxpayers this year. In fact they hit about $2.2 billion of taxpayer subsidies on Saturday, April 12, based on the Americans for Tax Fairness report.

The $7.8 billion a year annual cost estimate in the new report is based on a study last year by the House Education and the Workforce Committee Democratic staff. It showed that each Walmart in Wisconsin costs taxpayers between $905,000 and $1.75 million in welfare costs.

Americans for Tax Fairness extrapolated to all the Walmarts in America based on that study and then took into account other costs taxpayers are forced to bear to subsidize the company and, thus, its controlling owners, the Waltons.

The study estimates that if the subsidy costs were divided equally among the company’s 1.4 million American workers, the cost would be $4,415 per Walmart employee.

Welfare for Walmart workers, the Americans for Tax Fairness report says, costs $6.2 billion, making it by far the bulk of the costs taxpayers must bear.

The study estimates that only $70 million is for the use of tax dollars to build Walmart stores, distribution centers and other property provided by the largesse of the taxpayers.

That number is small because Walmart has pretty much built out across America.

To date Walmart has probably received $1.5 billion from taxpayers to build and equip stores, distribution centers and other buildings, according to Phil Mattera, research director at Good Jobs First (http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-admin/www.goodjobsfirst.org), which on a budget of about $1 million annually has for years dragged out of local, state and federal officials details of how much welfare Walmart gets.

The discounted rates at which dividends are taxed, a policy first put forth by then-President George W. Bush in 2003, save the Walton heirs $607 million in taxes annually, the Americans for Tax Fairness report calculated from company disclosure reports.

...

http://www.nationalmemo.com/walmart-welfare/

And do we see Repugs and astro-turf tea baggers bitching about corporate welfare?

[boutons_deux]

Looking at Some Corporate Tax Loopholes Ordinary Citizens May Envy

It’s Tax Day.

That means accountants across the country are working furiously to meet the midnight deadline for submitting individual returns.

In corporate America, however, many accountants are already done. The deadline for corporate returns this year was March 17, though companies could seek a six-month extension.

While individuals have long sought to take advantage of dozens of deductions and loopholes, corporations have famously excelled at this game.

How well? Companies paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6 percent in 2010, the last time the Government Accountability Office (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/government_accountability_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org) measured the rate. That compares with the nominal federal tax rate of 35 percent, so all those accountants appear to have done their jobs in exploiting the loopholes in our tax code.

The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican, proposed a vast reform of our tax code this year, eliminating a lot of the Swiss cheese that makes it so porous and, arguably, unfair. Mr. Camp’s proposal, as you might imagine, isn’t gaining a lot of traction.

In recognition of Uncle Sam’s payday, it’s only proper to take note of some of the most egregious corporate tax loopholes and some unexpected beneficiaries.

■ For the last seven years, a debate has raged over the “carried interest” benefit taken by private equity (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/category/main-topics/private-equity/?inline=nyt-classifier) and hedge fund executives. Instead of paying ordinary rates on much of their income — typically 35 percent for the highest bracket (39.6 percent for this tax year) — these executives pay the capital gains rate of 15 percent. It’s a clear loophole that is plainly unfair. Despite repeated efforts to repeal it, the loophole has remained, in part because of well-financed industry lobbying in Washington.

But much of the lobbying isn’t coming from the private equity industry — it’s coming from another beneficiary that often goes overlooked: the real estate industry.

The carried-interest loophole is related to what is known as partnership accounting.

Any company that uses such treatment can take advantage of the loophole. That means not just private equity and hedge funds, but also venture capital and much of the oil and gas industry. The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, which has lobbied against the repeal of the loophole, says that “41 percent of all investment partnerships are real estate related (http://washingtonexaminer.com/dave-camps-tax-reform-riles-special-interests-especially-the-real-estate-industry/article/2544881).” When Mr. Camp announced his tax reform proposal, guess which industry was exempted? Real estate.

■ If individual taxpayers are arrested, admit guilt and reach a civil settlement with the government, they cannot deduct the costs from their returns. But amazingly, a company is allowed to claim those costs as a business expense. JPMorgan Chase (http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=JPM&inline=nyt-org), for example, which has agreed to pay billions of dollars in fines for various transgressions, can deduct a large portion — and all the legal expenses — from its taxes.

“Ordinary citizens don’t deduct their parking tickets or library fines from their taxes,” U.S. PIRG, the federation of state public interest research groups, said in a statement. “Corporations like JPMorgan shouldn’t be able to deduct their settlements for wrongdoing either. The settlement loophole costs taxpayers billions each year.”

In one case, at least, JPMorgan has agreed to forgo this benefit. It will not take a deduction on its $1.7 billion fine (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/jpmorgan-settles-with-federal-authorities-in-madoff-case/) related to its actions regarding Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/frauds_and_swindling/ponzi_schemes/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), saving the taxpayers about $600 million.

And it’s not the only one. This year, Toyota (http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=TM&inline=nyt-org), which admitted it hid safety defects from the public (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/business/toyota-reaches-1-2-billion-settlement-in-criminal-inquiry.html), agreed as part of a $1.2 billion criminal penalty with the United States government that it would not “file a claim, assert or apply for a tax deduction or tax credit.” The U.S. PIRG said this one line saved taxpayers $420 million.

Still, the U.S. PIRG highlighted a study conducted by the Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-747) in 2005 that found that of 34 settlements worth more than $1 billion, 20 companies took advantage of tax rules to deduct all or part of the settlement costs.

■ A tiny but symbolic loophole still persists. Companies that own aircraft can depreciate their planes more quickly than airlines — over five years instead of seven — and claim the deduction. In total, closing the loophole is worth $3 billion to $4 billion over a decade.

■ A much larger loophole involves the deduction of executive stock options by the company issuing them. Inexplicably, many of Silicon Valley’s newest star companies will be able to shelter a large portion of their profits as a result. Citizens for Tax Justice estimated late last year that a dozen technology companies, including Twitter (http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=TWTR&inline=nyt-org), LinkedIn (http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=LNKD&inline=nyt-org) and Priceline, “stand to eliminate all income taxes on the next $11.4 billion they earn — giving these companies $4 billion in tax cuts.”

The effect is enormous and has significantly changed the bottom line — and tax rates — at some of the largest companies.

“This tax break allowed Amazon (http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=AMZN&inline=nyt-org) to reduce its federal and state income taxes by $750 million between 2010 and 2012,” Citizens for Tax Justice estimated. “The company’s combined federal and state effective tax rate over this period was just 9.4 percent; absent the stock option tax break, the combined tax rate would have been 40.4 percent.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dealbook/2014/04/14/looking-at-some-corporate-tax-loopholes-ordinary-citizens-may-envy/?from=dealbook

Corporate-Americans Really Are Different From Human-Americans

[boutons_deux]

corporatizing, privatizing, dumbing down, indoctrinating

Walmart heirs pour more than $1 billion into reshaping American education (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/28/1295319/-Walmart-heirs-pour-more-than-1-billion-into-reshaping-American-education)


http://images.dailykos.com/images/80606/large/5793707396_4baeda8473_z.jpg?1398708836

Walmart isn't just reshaping work in America. The company's largest shareholders, members of the Walton family, are also pouring money into reshaping how future American workers are educated (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/us/a-walmart-fortune-spreading-charter-schools.html?src=me&_r=0), promoting and funding everything from individual charter schools to charter-friendly policies, voucher policies and legislative attacks on teachers:


In addition to giving grants to right-leaning think tanks like the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, the Walton foundation hired an education program officer who had worked at the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative business-backed group.

Walton has also given to centrist organizations such as New Leaders for New Schools, a group co-founded by Jon Schnur, a former senior adviser to President Obama’s transition team and to Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.In 2013, the Walton foundation spent more than $164 million across the country.

According to Marc Sternberg, who was appointed director of K-12 education reform at the Walton Family Foundation last September, Walton has given grants to one in every four charter start-ups in the country, for a total of $335 million. [...]

Although the foundation’s leaders say they are focused on helping children in poverty or stuck in low-performing schools, some of their actions support concepts regardless of whether poor children benefit. In 2012, for example, Walton gave $300,000 to the Douglas County School District in Colorado to help it fight a lawsuit brought by opponents of a voucher program. The median income of families in the district, where the public schools are high performing, is more than $99,000, according to census data.


Walton money has been behind the drive to close Chicago public schools while the city expanded charter schools,

and has gone to attacking New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for having the nerve to turn down a handful of applications by charter schools to take over space in public school buildings.

All of this is in the absence of evidence that, even with money pouring in from the Waltons and Bill Gates and Eli Broad, charter schools outperform traditional public schools on average (some do, some don't, and the overall effects are a wash), while in many places, charter schools have many fewer special needs students, English language learners and homeless students.

But really, you don't need to look any further than the fact that this money is coming from the Walmart Waltons to realize that education and opportunity are not the goal.

Because we know what Walmart is as an employer and as an economic force in this country, and what we know tells us for damn sure that education and opportunity rank exactly nowhere on the Walton priority list.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/28/1295319/-Walmart-heirs-pour-more-than-1-billion-into-reshaping-American-education?detail=email

the oligarchy, the plutocracy, the 1% are fucking up everything in America that used to make America the envy of the world.

[xrayzebra]

Did you all forget Obama's favorite company? General Electric. And GE's CEO, Obama's right hand man.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Did you all forget Obama's favorite company? General Electric. And GE's CEO, Obama's right hand man.

They're definitely up there on the corporate welfare queen list, tbh.

[Th'Pusher]

Did you all forget Obama's favorite company? General Electric. And GE's CEO, Obama's right hand man.
No. They're number 44. You know there is an actual list posted upstream.

[Winehole23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/17/the-united-states-of-subsidies-the-biggest-corporate-winners-in-each-state/

[Winehole23]

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/

[boutons_deux]

Here's a less obvious type of Repugs' corporate welfware/socialism. The entire Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D were and are unfunded redistribution of taxpayer $100Ms to BigCorp investors.

Fed war on health care spending abuse needs to include Medicare Advantage

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/03/23/16942/fed-war-health-care-spending-abuse-needs-include-medicare-advantage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29

[Winehole23]

rare reversal for banks:

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/01/big-banks-suffer-rare-fail-as-congress-cuts-nearly-1-billion-a-year-in-handouts/

[boutons_deux]

rare reversal for banks:

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/01/big-banks-suffer-rare-fail-as-congress-cuts-nearly-1-billion-a-year-in-handouts/

he 0.001% and banks CREATED the Fed in 1913, so naturally the Fed shovels taxpayer $Bs to the banks. 6%/year, guaranteed, no risk?

[boutons_deux]

rare reversal for banks:

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/01/big-banks-suffer-rare-fail-as-congress-cuts-nearly-1-billion-a-year-in-handouts/

"Numerous other provisions in the final bill deregulate (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/11/06/Paul-Ryan-New-House-Speaker-Same-Old-GOP-Favors-Wall-Street) portions of the financial industry,

including preempting states from regulating companies that advise small businesses,

removing certain private equity firm oversight restrictions, and

enabling “emerging growth” companies from hiding their financial activities from investors.

A late entry (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/highway-bill-bank-favors_565cc17be4b072e9d1c2e848) to the bill will force the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to shift resources to determine whether mortgage companies are “rural lenders.”

Under Dodd-Frank, lenders in rural communities can offer riskier mortgages without giving consumers stronger protections.

Even firms that don’t predominantly operate in rural areas can qualify for the rural lender designation, according to the bill’s language."

yep, Congress really screwed BigFinance.

[Winehole23]

gives with one hand, takes with the other. you do know that legislation involves compromise, right?

[boutons_deux]

gives with one hand, takes with the other. you do know that legislation involves compromise, right?

BigFinance, BigCorp always "win" the compromises they buy

[Winehole23]

well, of course we have welfare for the mega-rich. it's called "pro-business" policy, and it's the only reputable form of socialism in the USA.https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/amazon-tracker

[Spurtacular]

https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/amazon-tracker

So, what is your take on that?

[Winehole23]

my take on tax subsidies/abatements for businesses?

not only are they a ripoff for states/cities/counties, at the state level the incentives sometimes work like a political slush fund.

pols forgive taxes, corporations pay them back on the campaign trail.

[Winehole23]

what's your take on corporate tax abatements and subsidies?

[Winehole23]

So, what is your take on that?did you check out the website?

what's your take?

[Spurtacular]

did you check out the website?

what's your take?

I glanced. But I'm not presuming anything. What is your take?

[Winehole23]

post #31 on this page. I also have other takes on the previous page.

maybe you should take a moment to review the thread before spouting off.

[Spurtacular]

post #31 on this page. I also have other takes on the previous page.

maybe you should take a moment to review the thread before spouting off.

Spouting off is asking you for your take on your own link? Take your meds, bruh.

[Winehole23]

I gave you my take on Amazon. A trillion dollar company doesn't need subsidies from states, counties and municipalities to extend its distribution network.

It should pay its fair share of taxes like any other corporation.

[Winehole23]

What's your take on corporate tax subsidies, Spurtacular?

[Spurtacular]

I gave you my take on Amazon. A trillion dollar company doesn't need subsidies from states, counties and municipalities to extend its distribution network.

It should pay its fair share of taxes like any other corporation.

And are you figuring out that both parties are the parties of the corporations yet, or is this just some weird anomaly to you?

[Spurtacular]

What's your take on corporate tax subsidies, Spurtacular?

I'm not for them at all. Low interest loans is as far as I'd want the govt. to even consider going. Otherwise, our bankruptcy laws are in place for a reason.

[Winehole23]

And are you figuring out that both parties are the parties of the corporations yet, or is this just some weird anomaly to you?not at all.

this thread goes back 4-1/2 years and that for sure wasn't the first time I ever heard of tax abatement.

[Winehole23]

I'm also familiar with the broad spectrum political pandering to corporations. I agree that it's not exclusively a GOP or Dem thing.

we basically have two pro-business parties in the US. they chop the onion a little different, but it's the same onion.

[boutons_deux]

I'm also familiar with the broad spectrum political pandering to corporations. I agree that it's not exclusively a GOP or Dem thing.

we basically have two pro-business parties in the US. they chop the onion a little different, but it's the same onion.

the oligarchy totally controls both parties and govt, and therefore have rigged America irreversibly to enable/enrich/protect the oligarchy.

unstoppable, irreversible, and it's going to get much worse, while extremely polarized, cultish/tribal fat-assed, ill, decrepit Americans are dazed by bullshit myths about themselves and America, and now confused, befuddled, flummoxed by the relentless cacophony of bullshit, lies, deceptions, corruptions from the political and religious rabble rousers.

here's how the very smart, very wealthy, capable oligarchy LIES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmh4RdIwswE

[sickdsm]

Everyone claims to have the short end of the stick regarding subsidies. I look on that list and at first glance i notice airlines, clothing, car dealerships, google, wal mart, etc.. If without subsidies or corporate welfare, does a new GMC Acadia cost $150k? New Air Jordans $500? Everyday people get fasttracked to those corporate welfare including the common man.

[ElNono]

Everyone claims to have the short end of the stick regarding subsidies. I look on that list and at first glance i notice airlines, clothing, car dealerships, google, wal mart, etc.. If without subsidies or corporate welfare, does a new GMC Acadia cost $150k? New Air Jordans $500? Everyday people get fasttracked to those corporate welfare including the common man.

Quantify it for me. Give me some figures. You happen to be in an industry that does get fasttracked, but the common man that works two jobs doesn't. The guy running a small business largely doesn't.

I readily admit it infuriates me that a local company was handed out a huge parcel of land, $8m+ in tax breaks and to top it off, I gotta watch the Porsches, Mercedes, Audis coming in and out of there all day.

I'm fortunate our small business is doing very well, but it's all sweat. I get no handouts. I get no land. I get no breaks. What you do will only take you so far, then it's who you know, that's the reality of it.

[sickdsm]

Quantify it for me. Give me some figures. You happen to be in an industry that does get fasttracked, but the common man that works two jobs doesn't. The guy running a small business largely doesn't.

I readily admit it infuriates me that a local company was handed out a huge parcel of land, $8m+ in tax breaks and to top it off, I gotta watch the Porsches, Mercedes, Audis coming in and out of there all day.

I'm fortunate our small business is doing very well, but it's all sweat. I get no handouts. I get no land. I get no breaks. What you do will only take you so far, then it's who you know, that's the reality of it.
I suggest you talk to your reps or individual corporations about that. I'm not going to hunt down individual statistics for each corporation. I think it's humorous to pretend subsides only affect the that directly receive it when we are on a sports message board. Almost all pro teams are the benefit of land, added taxes on girls, etc.... If you are a Spurs fan, you've received those benefits indirectly.


Wal Mart definitely is able to add value to their prices by this process. You don't even need to shop there to receive it. Competitors need to compete with them on prices. Not saying to need to love the idea but you do need to realize that you are benefiting. I've always heard the comments that airline travel in the us is highly subsidized. No doubt that I've benefitted from some cheap tickets before. Under $100 for a 3k mile round trip? Gotta be some subsides in that.

[sickdsm]

I suggest you talk to your reps or individual corporations about that. I'm not going to hunt down individual statistics for each corporation. I think it's humorous to pretend subsides only affect the that directly receive it when we are on a sports message board. Almost all pro teams are the benefit of land, added taxes on girls, etc.... If you are a Spurs fan, you've received those benefits indirectly.


Wal Mart definitely is able to add value to their prices by this process. You don't even need to shop there to receive it. Competitors need to compete with them on prices. Not saying to need to love the idea but you do need to realize that you are benefiting. I've always heard the comments that airline travel in the us is highly subsidized. No doubt that I've benefitted from some cheap tickets before. Under $100 for a 3k mile round trip? Gotta be some subsides in that.

Common Man that works two jobs? Only 5% work two full time jobs. Full time with part time side gig doesn't qualify since alot work more on their single job.

[ElNono]

I suggest you talk to your reps or individual corporations about that. I'm not going to hunt down individual statistics for each corporation. I think it's humorous to pretend subsides only affect the that directly receive it when we are on a sports message board. Almost all pro teams are the benefit of land, added taxes on girls, etc.... If you are a Spurs fan, you've received those benefits indirectly.

Wal Mart definitely is able to add value to their prices by this process. You don't even need to shop there to receive it. Competitors need to compete with them on prices. Not saying to need to love the idea but you do need to realize that you are benefiting. I've always heard the comments that airline travel in the us is highly subsidized. No doubt that I've benefitted from some cheap tickets before. Under $100 for a 3k mile round trip? Gotta be some subsides in that.

The bolded didn't stop you from making bold generalizations, just like you can't back up or quantify this 'trickle down' subsidies effect. That the abuse is widespread on large corporations doesn't make it right either.

But even if you could demonstrably show a certain degree of trickle down, the concept is wrong. The ideas of subsidies in a free market economy is to artificially keep business above water due to specific concerns that have nothing to do with a free flowing economy.

For example, farm subsidies make sense with regards to food supply for the country or in the case of war. It's a national security issue, not an economic issue.

The FDIC is another good example: it will backstop and give certainty that deposits, up to a certain amount, are covered even if the bank goes belly up, to prevent civil unrest (notice how it doesn't prevent the bank from going belly up).

The economic part should, theoretically, be handled by the market itself. It should be competition, improvement in processes, quality, what picks winners and losers, not governments. At least, that's what your average free market economist will tell you.

Otherwise, how different is that from communism? In Communism the rationale is that 'the community' pick winners and losers, with 'the community' being the elected government.

That's why it's incredibly hypocritical to hear the whining about socialism and welfare, yet, turn around, grab a handout and rationalize it as 'well, they're getting theirs, I'm gonna get mine'.

[sickdsm]

The bolded didn't stop you from making bold generalizations, just like you can't back up or quantify this 'trickle down' subsidies effect. That the abuse is widespread on large corporations doesn't make it right either.

But even if you could demonstrably show a certain degree of trickle down, the concept is wrong. The ideas of subsidies in a free market economy is to artificially keep business above water due to specific concerns that have nothing to do with a free flowing economy.

For example, farm subsidies make sense with regards to food supply for the country or in the case of war. It's a national security issue, not an economic issue.

The FDIC is another good example: it will backstop and give certainty that deposits, up to a certain amount, are covered even if the bank goes belly up, to prevent civil unrest (notice how it doesn't prevent the bank from going belly up).

The economic part should, theoretically, be handled by the market itself. It should be competition, improvement in processes, quality, what picks winners and losers, not governments. At least, that's what your average free market economist will tell you.

Otherwise, how different is that from communism? In Communism the rationale is that 'the community' pick winners and losers, with 'the community' being the elected government.

That's why it's incredibly hypocritical to hear the whining about socialism and welfare, yet, turn around, grab a handout and rationalize it as 'well, they're getting theirs, I'm gonna get mine'.

Totally misrepresented what I said. I guess some hear what they imagine others to say. I'm not saying it's right or I believe in trickle down reagonomics, what I'm saying is that you are benefiting from alot of those subsidies. I'm not saying that it's an immense amount or even trying to quantify it. Just that it does exist. By you arguing that, your trying to say that if Walmart did not receive any subsidies, they would still be able to sell the same products at the same price, it would just be less profit. Do you agree with that statement?

[ElNono]

Totally misrepresented what I said. I guess some hear what they imagine others to say. I'm not saying it's right or I believe in trickle down reagonomics, what I'm saying is that you are benefiting from alot of those subsidies. I'm not saying that it's an immense amount or even trying to quantify it. Just that it does exist. By you arguing that, your trying to say that if Walmart did not receive any subsidies, they would still be able to sell the same products at the same price, it would just be less profit. Do you agree with that statement?

Nobody here denied they exist. What was discussed is if they need to be granted to those that are granted.

You brought the argument that the common man benefits from those subsidies, but outside of a gut feeling, or 'believe me', I got nothing from you to substantiate it.

What I'm arguing is that Walmart shouldn't receive any special treatment/taxpayer monies, and they should have the liberty (as they do now) to price things as they deem to remain competitive. Much like Amazon and everyone else.

That's what any other business that does not receive any incentive does, and then the chips will fall where they may. Some companies will be able to stay in business, some companies will not and the individuals that make them up will move on to something else, create new businesses, etc.

In a theoretic free-market economy, there has to be a compelling reason for government intervention: antitrust concerns, national security, civil unrest, etc.

Not even the 'jobs' excuse makes sense *IF* the company is profitable (not to mention extremely profitable). The only case I can think of is if a company is going belly up, and you have an extremely large amount of employees. In that case you could seek government intervention, not to save the failing company, but to transition the workers to other jobs (and it really is, again, associated with the civil unrest angle).

Now, if we're talking socialism, we can then add some other concerns, like employee's well being, minimum set of benefits, etc.

[Winehole23]

Related to Amazon HQ2:


Every year, American cities and states spend up to $90 billion (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/report_examining-the-local-value-of-economic-development-incentives_brookings-metro_march-2018.pdf) in tax breaks and cash grants to urge companies to move among states. That’s more than the federal government spends on housing, education, or infrastructure. And since cities and states can’t print money or run steep deficits, these deals take scarce resources from everything local governments would otherwise pay for, such as schools, roads, police, and prisons.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/amazons-hq2-spectacle-should-be-illegal/575539/

[Winehole23]

But there are three major problems with America’s system of corporate giveaways.

First, they’re redundant. One recent study (http://www.natemjensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Kansas-Working-Paper-7-23-15.pdf) by Nathan Jensen, then an economist at George Washington University, found that these incentives “have no discernible impact on firm expansion, measured by job creation.” Companies often decide where they want to go and then find ways to get their dream city, or hometown, to pay them to do what they were going to do anyway. For example, Amazon is a multinational company with large media and advertising divisions. The drama of the past 13 months probably wasn’t crucial to its (probable) decision to expand to New York City, the unambiguous capital of media and advertising.

Second, companies don’t always hold up their end of the deal. Consider the saga of Wisconsin and the Chinese manufacturing giant Foxconn. Several years ago, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker lured Foxconn with a subsidy plan totaling more than $3 billion. (For the same amount, you could give every household in Wisconsin about $1,700 (https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/29/18027032/foxconn-wisconsin-plant-jobs-deal-subsidy-governor-scott-walker).) Foxconn said it would build a large manufacturing plant that would create about 13,000 jobs near Racine. Now it seems the company is building a much smaller factory with just one quarter of its initial promised investment, and much of the assembly work may be done by robots. Meanwhile, the expected value of Wisconsin’s subsidy has grown to more than $4 billion. Thus a state with declining wages for many public-school teachers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/07/03/a-new-public-education-movement-is-emerging-in-wisconsin-a-rebuke-to-gov-walkers-war-on-labor-and-school-privatization/?utm_term=.5de93532b373) could wind up paying more than $500,000 per net new Foxconn job—about 10 times the average salary (https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/11/15/169146/attacks-public-sector-unions-harm-states-act-10-affected-education-wisconsin/) of a Wisconsin teacher.

Third, even when the incentives aren’t redundant, and even when companies do hold up their end of the bargain, it’s still ludicrous for Americans to collectively pay tens of billions of dollars for huge corporations to relocate within the United States.

[Will Hunting]

It would never happen because neither party would go for it, but he obvious solution is that any state, city or local municipality giving corporate handouts away should get major cuts in federal funding.

If the City of Arlington doesn’t need Jerry Jones to pay property taxes on Cowboys Stadium then it doesn’t need any federal money either imo.

[Winehole23]

1062357887505350656

[Will Hunting]

1062357887505350656
:lol and that doesn’t even include the PILOT agreement Amazon is going get, which is undoubtedly a sweetheart deal on real estate taxes.

[Winehole23]

what does Amazon want to hide from VA taxpayers?

1062372347280269318

[Winehole23]

1062396985313943553

[boutons_deux]

NY residents will also "pay" with more congestion on streets and subway, plus higher rents.

and yes, the NY subway is really a shit hole compared to Paris, and even London.

low taxes, evaded/avoided taxes? It's why America can't have modern, safe country

[Winehole23]

$4.6 billion in taxpayer subsidies and counting:

https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/news/releases/amazon-hq2-hq3-subsidy-awards-costly-not-yet-fully-accounted

[Winehole23]

"dark store" theory of taxation and the retail apocalypse:

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/property-tax-dark-store-theory-retail-apocalypse-walmart/574123/

[boutons_deux]

Why can't my house be property-tax-rated like a "dark house" somewhere?

[Winehole23]

Matt Taibbi: Bezos flavored oligarchy?


Rather quickly after the “HQ2” announcement was made, MarketWatch ran a piece pointing out that moving to Northern Virginia might have other benefits for Amazon: HQ2 in the D.C. area could help Amazon snag a $10 billion Pentagon contract (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hq2-in-the-dc-area-could-help-amazon-snag-a-10-billion-pentagon-contract-2018-11-12).
Yes, the company has increased the odds that it will be awarded one of the all-time lucrative defense deals, the $10 billion Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract, providing cloud services and a platform for Department of Defense operations, instantly becoming one of the biggest federal contractors.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/why-amazon-chose-new-york-virginia-756355/