Why does the government give "corporate subsidies" to corporations?

That’s just it,if they can prove by getting these breaks they will indeed hire more people and expand the business here, not just take the cash and shove it in an off shore account, that most times they do, I wouldn’t have such a problem with them getting the break.

But they move overseas ANYWAY, and often demand AND GET government subsidies to achieve it. The government gives subsidies to corporations because corporations finance politicians. It’s just plain open and shut that simple! Politicians are bought and sold, and there is no longer any question as to “who owns the government?”

Corporations don’t even have to pay their employees enough to shop at their own facilities without government assistance. What more incentive could they possibly be given?

Do you guys have some studies to back these claims up, @SQUEEKY2 and @stanleybmanly?

@Seek, it depends on your position in the company. Floor clerks at Walmart, for example, make the least amount of money. But they DO have the option of working their way up the ladder. My DIL started as a floor clerk 4 years ago, at minimum wage, $7.50 or so. She’s in management now, making $40,000 a year, which is pretty good money around here and moving on up.
My dad and sister work (ed) for Boeing Corp. They make/made a boatload of money, but it didn’t happen overnight.

@Dutchess_III – by their own admission they have 2.2 million employees worldwide, and hand out 160,000 promotions (of any kind – not to management) per year.

That means there is one promotion (even if it’s just to Chief Ice-Cream Stocker) available for every 13.75 years worked. Yearly incremental raises if you stay in the same position? $0.20—$0.60 per hour, maximum.

You want documentation that corporations finance politicians? I don’t think it necessary, but it’s a moot point since the Supreme Court has declared it legal. I can’t post links anyway, I don’t know how to with this phone. Perhaps tonite with the laptop

Walmart is an example of a hidden subsidy. Employees are underpaid to the point that they qualify for food stamps as Seek stated. The corporation in effect shits the money it should be paying its workers into the pockets of the heirs. The result is that the taxpayers get to feed Walmart’s employees. It’s a rather shameful business model, but a perfect example of how profits in America are increasingly privatized, while expenses (like paying your employees enough to eat) are socialized.

Here are some major corporations that pay zero tax:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/15/forget-inversions-these-20-huge-profitable-companies-already-pay-zero-tax/

^^Another fine example of how the gap between the poor and wealthy is widening ,but by all means lets keep blaming the poor after all it is all their fault, for wanting a wage they can live on, how dare they.
Thanks for the link @

Like many myths and propaganda the rich and corporations are easy fall guys. People are envious because they cannot live as they want, with what they have. Everyone wants to live large but do not care that they did the foot work to get there. Since they can’t get there it is easier to vilify those who have by saying they cheated their way there than to admit they just did not do enough of the right things to enjoy that life; drag out the usual scuttlebutt, *the rich rigged the game so the average guy can get in, they froze the less than rich out of college to keep them from education that they can use for advancement, the rich are gaming the government and lining their pockets, etc. etc.

That if the corporations and the rich were taxed at a 40–65% rate, what would that do? Would that spawn more jobs? Would that make them hire more people at a higher hourly pay? The only way I can see that working is if you hit them with a hammer then extort offer them cushy cuts to hire more workers and get their goods from US companies, but then would we not end up with close to what is in place now? A system where it is win-win for the workers and the business is what needs to be figured out.

There would be SO much research to verify all of the blogs that claim what they claim that I don’t even want to go into it.

To keep it simple: The Federal government sets the minimum wage. The federal government also sets the income amounts that allow people to collect government benefits. Is that a catch 22 or what!
As for all the tax breaks, etc., there have to be loop holes, legal loop holes, that allow those companies to do that legally.

Yes loop holes for these corporations making enough money to afford to access these loop holes ,where as the little working slob can not get to these loop holes as for has to pay more in proportion in taxes.

Well, let’s take a look at this, tell me what you guys think.

@SQUEEKY2 Every employee has to pay the same amount of taxes within their tax bracket, no matter who they work for.

Of course, what gets me is big business doesn’t for the bracket they are in,and hence the gap between the wealthy and poor just keeps getting bigger and bigger

You referred to the “working slob,” and if they work for a company that doesn’t pay taxes, they don’t have to pay any more taxes than the person who works for a company that does pay taxes. So I don’t see how that gets passed on to the employee, unless it’s passed on to everyone.

Can someone look at this graph and explain to me what it means?

OK. Define “subsidy” What is one and why would a company qualify for it?

@Hypocrisy_Central No no no. You must understand that I don’t assert that the rich should be taxed at a 70% rate or that they are necessarily crooks. There’s no point in resenting or hating the rich, just as it’s pointless to despise wolves for tearing into sheep. But to state that the wolves are being victimized when you mention that they are devouring sheep is a mistake and just plain wrong.
Sure they’re taxed at 30% (with the exception of capital gains) but NOBODY RICH ever pays that except some poor working class schmo who wins the lottery. The tax system is arranged such that the more money you have, the higher is your bracket, as a progressive tax should operate. What is never discussed is the parallel truth that the more money you have, the more loopholes are afforded you so in the end, you pay a lower rate of tax than your gardener who is devoid of loopholes,and in addition has the money snatched from HIS check before he is paid. Now there’s nothing underhanded in people pursuing their own interests, but it’s just stupid to believe that the current system is the result of some consensus between the fat cat and his gardener.

What kind of loopholes?

How about things like they can invent a charitable foundation in their own name, and “donate” to it, and deduct the donations from their taxes, then use the foundation to gift themselves the money they just donated?

Want to know why I never donate money to the March of Dimes at the grocery store? Because the grocery gets to deduct that money from their taxes.

I don’t see how they could get away with deducting moneies that were given to charities by someone else’s income. I mean, we can deduct a certain percent of our charitable contributions, but it has to show on the balance sheets where it came from. It has to show in the assets as income and what kind of income.

@Dutchess_III

You don’t know what a subsidy is? I cannot believe that anyone can be that naive.

Here’s another example: the wealthy can put their assets into funds whereby they no longer are considered personal assets, and then they can qualify for Medicaid. This is done through the services of eldercare attorneys.

Then, on paper, they’re poor. In reality, they’re rich. Your tax dollars at work…..

@stanleybmanly What is never discussed is the parallel truth that the more money you have, the more loopholes are afforded you so in the end, you pay a lower rate of tax than your gardener who is devoid of loopholes,and in addition has the money snatched from HIS check before he is paid.
Yes, I agree (shocking I know) that there is a de facto ”C-note ceiling” and once you break through it, banks and financial institutions love you, and want to throw money at you now that you do not really need it. This sad fact I discovered long ago. It would seem that some people believe if you taxed the hell out of the rich, once they use all their loopholes, it will even the pond to near level across the board. I believe if there was better oversight on how certain incentives or subsidies were implemented that would be a start; then maybe the carrot would work better, even if there was no stick to counter. I think incentives should be in place when business create jobs, increase pay, etc. and upon getting the incentives, if they fail to follow through, then use the stick, and use it hard.

That helped a lot @Darth_Algar. Thanks.

@jca What kind of fund would that be?

@Dutchess_III: Someone who is looking to do that would probably need an elder law attorney. I just googled and found this: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-can-i-safely-transfer-my-assets-get-medicaid-pay-long-term-care.html

@Hypocrisy_Central I really want to make it clear that my views on this aren’t about hostility toward the rich. They aren’t “out to get” the rest of us. They are simply doing what we all do. They aren’t mean or malevolent people. They’re simply out to take care of themselves. If the rest of us are trampled in the process, it isn’t because they mean us harm, no more than you can blame an elephant for sucking a water hole dry. The elephant isn’t out to deprive the rest of the animals of water, it simply drinks all of the water it can get. Those hundreds of loophole exist because the rich have the means to arrange them by BUYING them. Stating this as a fact is not a matter of jealousy or resentment. It’s simply the truth!

Thanks @jca. I’ll remember that! ;)

That was something that was really awful about applying for benefits. You had to be so broke that you were one step away from the streets. If you had a car that was worth X-amount of money, you had to sell it. I had a ‘86 Aerostar Van. When I applied for help, in 1994, they told me I had to sell the van and get a vehicle that wasn’t worth so much.
I couldn’t have anything in savings.

@Dutchess_III: Except if you’re rich. Then you hire an attorney, hide your assets and then reapply.

Right.

@Dutchess_III

If you want to have an insightful debate about a particular subject how about at least putting in the modicum of effort to look up and learn what that subject is?

@stanleybmanly I really want to make it clear that my views on this aren’t about hostility toward the rich. They aren’t “out to get” the rest of us. They are simply doing what we all do. They aren’t mean or malevolent people.
I do not want to come off as seeing you vilifying the rich, but some do, I was just reiterating that. The reason those who vilify the rich is as you said, they blame the rich for their short comings or because they have to put in 8 times the effort to get to the same level as the rich. Wealth is not barred from most people, it just takes others more effort to get there, and it is better to vilify those who found an easier path than to make the Herculean effort to break through the ”C-note Ceiling”.