What do Libs mean when they rant about corporate welfare?

How does a corporation collect welfare?


Where is the corporate welfare office located?


Corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes, and as such people collect welfare not corporations, economics 101.What do Libs mean when they rant about corporate welfare?
It is when the government pays money or gives tax breaks to companies rather than the poor.What do Libs mean when they rant about corporate welfare?
A no-bid contract for Halliburton sounds suspiciously like corporate welfare. So do tax breaks that put the burden on individuals who are poor and middle class. So do government subsidies.
poor people pay taxes not the rich they always get the tax brakes at times I never see a time that poor people get a break


when they are ones at times don't have kids
Income tax, SS tax, Medicare tax,.. should be abolished and replaced with the national sales tax (see fairtax.org)


This would introduce large savings in tax collection. Currently more than a million people in US make a living figuring out taxes.


Those people could better serve society in other fields (medicine, education , engineering,...)


Additional benefit would be great reduction in corporate lobbying in Washington. This would clean up the political process as well.


Economic benefits would be huge. The main reason for offshore headquarters would be eliminated. Many new jobs would be created. Corporations would be free to make decisions based on business sense and not spend energy trying to figure out tax consequences of their decisions.
You should probably have paid better attention in class when you took Economics 101; if you had you would probably know that corporations do pay taxes.








The phrase corporate welfare references the Reagan adminstration doctrine (and carried on in both Bush Sr. and Jr. administrations) of ';trickle-down economics.';





In the theory of trickle-down economics, you start with cutting taxes to the corporations. It is assumed that the owners of the businesses will use this extra money to try to make money for themselves by adding onto their current businesses or by creating new businesses. With the increase in businesses there should be many more jobs, because you need someone to run these businesses. A fine theory on the surface and one that should have ended with a much better economy. However, one can see from the current recession and the one that plagued most of the first Bush's time in office that this theory has a failing somewhere.





So I looked into it and found a weakness in the theory. What it fails to take into account is how businesses work. Of course if you give them extra money they will try to use it to make more money for themselves, so that part does work. However, the theory fails to take into account how businesses work.





The businesses attempt to hire as few workers as possible at the lowest wage they can manage, make them work as quickly as possible (to limit overtime), and with substandard materials (to save money they go with the cheapest materials they can without risking a lawsuit). The businesses force the employees to do this to make products that they then sell at the highest market price they can manage as well. So when so few employees (who are also consumers) get a low wage but have to pay prices that have gone through the roof; we can all see that they will end up in debt real fast, though not as fast as the ones who weren't able to get the jobs (because those were very limited).





But the businesses got theirs from lower taxes and high prices.





The Democrats are nearly as bad though. They want to tax everybody--corporations, high classes, middle classes, low classes. Basically they just take everyone's money and try to waste it as quickly as possible.





The best idea is to mix the two ideas. Raise taxes on the corporations. This forces them to give up money back into the system. Which money is the lifeblood of the economy, it must continue flowing through the system for it to grow. The corporations must be forced to give it up or they'll hold onto it. However, drop taxes on investors. Money that goes into corporations is taxed twice (once on the corporation and once on the investors). Dropping taxes on investments though encourages more investment (and therefore more businesses).





At the same time, drop taxes on the middle and lower classes. These have to spend money, it is the only way they can survive. They must buy food, clothing, shelter, and they like to spend it on ';keeping up with the Joneses'; (getting unnecessary things like TV's and nice cars and such). They put it back into the economy by buying these things from businesses. The businesses still get the same money as they would have if they had tax cuts, but the employee/consumer gets to use it first to get what he needs. The money flows through the system and it grows the economy.














----You seem to continue to insist that corporations don't pay taxes. In Corporate law, a corporation is treated as a separate ';person'; from the owners. Now business partnerships (small businesses) are not charged taxes as a separate entity from the owners; but large corporations like Wal-Mart or Toys-R-Us or Home Depot and the like are treated as separate entities and are required to pay taxes.





And poor people for the most part do pay taxes. Poor is considered below $15,000 a year. But you don't stop paying taxes (income considered too low) until something like $5,000 or less per year. That is a huge difference of $10,000 a year.
Gee! Gradjasan just answered ALL my economic concerns. I ditto him, he's got my thoughts down...
It's a term which means government policies designed to favor individual corporations, or protect certain industries dominated by corporations. Some examples are trade tariffs, loopholes in the tax laws, agricultural subsidies (which often require minimum sizes of farms in order to be collected, and hence favor the large corporate farms, rather than smaller family farms), and cases where there are government expenditures or tax breaks designed to attract large businesses.





Medicare part D, the prescription drug benefit for seniors, could be argued to be either corporate or traditional welfare, since one of the major motivations was to bail out the large corporations who had promised prescription drug benefits as a retirement benefit.





Corporate welfare is obviously very different from standard welfare payments given to poor people. To someone who truly favors free markets, it's probably even more offensive than traditional welfare. These programs do much more to distort the marketplace than social programs which help poor people.





Perhaps it's an inaccurate term, and corporate favoritism would be a better word for it, but this is what people mean when they say corporate welfare.
If you don't know how corporations get Tax dollars, then you should not vote because you are voting in ignorance.





Educate yourself! There should be no Politics Q %26amp; A because it promotes laziness! Answer your own political questions!
Here are examples from the Bush/Cheney Energy Policy:


-- Eight billion dollars in welfare payments to the oil business, just as the nation's oil companies report the highest profits in the entire history of the industry.


-- $100,000 tax break for buying Hummers


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503鈥?/a>


-- Bush's ';Clear Skies'; initiative eliminated mandatory pollution caps for individual plants in favor of industry-wide levels that allow for companies to buy and sell emissions credits. ';The 10 most polluting electric power companies collectively could pocket $9 billion every year under the wrong kind of cap-and-trade program.';