Would you END CORPORATE WELFARE?

Question

Would you or would you not END CORPORATE WELFARE?
Do You Want Lower Taxes? The US is the third lowest taxed country of the industrialized world. BUT, what If I told you that your taxes could be lowered, our schools, roads, bridges, first responders, emts, police, and fire departments could all receive more funding and in addition to all of that we could finance research and development for renewable, clean energy sources and break our dependence on oil, coal and nuclear power just by ending Corporate Subsidies(also known as corporate "welfare")? NOWHERE in the US Constitution is the House of Representatives or the Senate Granted the authority to use tax payer funds to subsidize business or guarantee loans. Why are these corporate GIANTS being supported on the backs of the hard-working, tax-paying Americans?

Help end this injustice by visiting: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/take...

Sources:
www.nader.org
www.wikipedia.com
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592....

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/182505639

civil_av8r, the gov't is TAKING our money in the form of taxes and GIVING it to mult-million or multi-billion dollar corporations. It is absolutely welfare.

Ken C.,
calling someone "goofy" doesn't strengthen your argument. It's actually just a "straw man attack." Rather than tackle the issue, you throw insults at me and try to discredit me. Luckily, the American people and the members of the Yahoo! community are too smart to be fooled by your nonsense.
Now, if the US government took our taxpayer dollars and gave it to low income individuals, you'd call that "welfare," wouldn't you? Instead, our government takes our taxpayer dollars and gives it to huge corporations who don't really need it. If a company, corporation or whatever can not sustain itself, it should just be allowed to fail. It should NOT be bailed out by the American taxpayers. Get OFF our backs big business!!

When you have a corporation that threatens to move it's operations out of state or worse yet, out of the country, because it's "too expensive" or whatever their reasoning, they are NOT looking out for the American people. Daimler Chrysler made a move like that in Toledo Kansas and forced the local and state government to grant them subsidies, and tax breaks and for the local government to assume all responsibility for environmental damage Daimler Chrysler caused. Pro-sports teams do it too. They threaten to pack up and move if the city they're in doesn't build them a new stadium. That burden falls on the taxpayers and the tax payers don't see a dime of what those pro-sports teams bring in as far as revenue!

Answer 1

Not only END it, but force those same companies to repay all that money. If they aren't making a profit on their own, then they shouldn't be continuing in business.

If they DO turn a profit, then they don't need subsidies.

Sugar, Oil, Tobacco, all still receive subsidies from taxes paid by regular Americans.

I was watching Nader on PBS doing a One on One interview with an NPR host. THis is one VERY sharp man and probably one of the most informed and intelligent people in the US. Nader would DEFINITELY get rid of Corporate Welfare. He would also penalize companies which take the handouts then close factories and plants and "outsource" their labor needs to Mexico, India, Taiwan, etc.

No MORE TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESS. Not to "stimulate employment" not to "ensure low costs" not for ANY REASON.

Answer 2

It's not "welfare" when they are returning a portion of the money that was already yours...

PS: Corporations employ Americans. The government does not. The more money corporations have; the more they can expand; the more Americans they can potentially employ. The more money the government has; the more money that is wasted on bridges to nowhere.

PPS:
<>

Taxpayers may not directly receive compensation from the revenues of pro-sports teams, but they and the whole community does benefit:

1) The pro-sports teams will make a larger gross income from a better stadium and therefore have to pay a larger amount of taxes.
2) The pro-sports teams will attract more people with a better stadium therefore increasing the clientèle of other existing local businesses and facilitate new upstarts to serve the overflow further increasing the tax-roll.

Sure the government has to analyze whether the investment of tax dollars will result in a net gain of tax revenue and should avoid losing propositions, but viably improved facilities in a city benefit the general populace. A nicer looking city and larger tax revenue are not bad things.

Why are you so anti-improvement?

Answer 3

The government uses corporate subsidies (actually collecting LESS tax than they would otherwise, but not writing the corporation a check) to encourage PRIVATE endeavors into all of the causes you mention above. (education, roads, alternative fuels) So in effect, subsidies are lessening governmental control by encouraging the private sector to engage in activities that would otherwise fall as burdens on the tax payers. It strenghthens capitalism and encourages the market to step in rather than the government.
Perhaps subsidy reform is necessary to lessen abusive corporate practices, but subsidies can better guide the market without the brutal effects of laizes faire.

Just for the record nearly all government subsidies are INDIRECT rather than direct which means that rather than pay, perhaps, 5.5 million dollars in tax, if they had used their funds in a supported manner, a company would pay 5.2 million.

Diamler Chrysler v. Cuno was dismissed because Cuno et al lacked standing to sue. Chrysler was building a NEW facility and was considering several different sites, in order to encourage the company to locate in their area, local governments offered tax ABATEMENTS which is basically saying if you bring jobs to our county by locating here, you don't have to pay property taxes for x number of years. Once again, NOT writing Chrysler a check, AND encouraging capitalism.

Answer 4

It's always a bit disturbing to hear conservatives talk about ending welfare for the needy (statistically the majority of welfare recipients are single parent white working females) but support the increase to the greedy (statistically corporations run by white working males).

Most of the people voting in the greed don't actually benefit from it. The "Trickle Down" ran dry for the majority of USA citizens in the middle and lower class. And the welfare needy are often portrayed as single black unemployed mothers which just isn't factual.

And of fraud? Corporate fraud cost the nation much more than welfare fraud, but which topic gets the hottest debate in the NeoCon world?

Interesting.

Thanks for the links.

Answer 5

A question can be a lie if it implies a falsehood. There is no Corporate Welfare. If each and every person will send to me just one dollar I will buy that man an unabridged dictionary, so he can learn what "welfare" means.

Answer 6

Yes I would want end corporate welfare, I would like them to lower taxes because its not fare for us and they should learn to provide for themselves.

Answer 7

If you actually understood what your links said, you just contradicted yourself.
Please give us your definition of "Corporate Welfare".
Please do not site Ralph Nader in a serious discussion of Economics...Just makes you look Goofy.....

Answer 8

Welfare is giving money. You label corporate welfare as the gov't not taking their money. Strange lot you are.

Answer 9

I would end all corporate subsidy, especially that which comes out of SS. If they can't make it on their own, they don't deserve to be in business.
_____________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny (Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Answer 10

stop asking the same question over and over please.