Karl Marx

Remove all ads!

Really? Can you prove that? Last time I checked I paid my fair amount of taxes, as do millions of other Americans. Despite being huge profit makers corporations only pay about 25-35 percent, whereas a very rich individual is subjected to much higher rates. While the rich pay account for over 50 percent of the tax revenue, the top 5 percent also control half the wealth in the country, so it is fair that they do.

The term "welfare" in general is used as a pejorative by many people. That doesn't prove a thing (desperate again, NOG?). In fact, when you commented that "the Dems were all about welfare," I took it to be pejortive, and many people use it that way. But you deny that; I'll take your word for it.

Nevertheless, corporate welfare is no joke to most people. As Cato comments, "most everyone is opposed to corporate welfare." You can deny that there is no such thing, (and it doesn't surprise that you would deny it), but that's just your own personal opinion. Even many corporatists acknowledge it, but see it as a necessary part of how business is done, to create jobs, develop new technology, blah, blah, blah.

Please, NOG, stop and look at the facts - That would be a nice change. And yes, we have talked about it often and you have never proved anything with your double-talk and distortions. I've asked you to put up the numbers, even in the past, and you never provide any data. And l would like to see all the data, like local taxes, property taxes for schools, sales taxes, metro taxes, all the taxes that are paid by average Americans everyday. Don't be a fool, every American is subjected to the burden of taxes, for a mulitude of purchases and activities, which go into the general revenues and treasuries of all our many governments (federal, state, county, city, etc). Until you can put up some real data, you aren't saying anything meaningful with your simple-minded fantasies about "taking from the rich and giving to the poor."

 

Sorry to go back a bit, but I have to comment on this:

I took out loans when I was in college 10-15 years ago. In fact, it took me until this past fall to pay them off. How is it welfare when you pay it back? I would consider welfare something where you receive money without having to pay it back. Have you taken out student loans NOG? I would imagine that anyone who ever has taken out college loans would know a lot more about them then you seem to be saying.

For example, while interest rates are relatively low (usually around 5%), it's not like it's a handout. You can defer the interest for many federally subsidized loans (like Stafford loans) while you are a full-time student. But there is only a limited amount you can get subsidized (it was around $3500 per semester when I was in school.) For loans made to you by the school itself or which exceed the maximum allowed by Stafford, there is no guarantee of getting it subsidized, and while you have no means of paying it back while you are in school, you are still acruing interest.

As for losing your job during the repayment phase, while it is possible to defer payments (usually they allow six months), interest continues to acrue while you aren't making payments. As someone who borrowed tens of thousands of dollars to go to school for six years (I have a graduate degree) I can tell you it's no handout.

If you were fortunate enough to get a scholarship for your education, good on you. (Actually that sounds more like welfare - that's a handout!) But to say those who don't have the financial means to pay up front are receiving welfare is rather insulting to anyone who has paid back a loan.

 

NOG income taxes constitute only a portion of the taxes collected. Corporations pay a huge amount of taxes -- who do you think pays for that? The CEO? Prices are raised to cover any taxes paid by a corporation -- and raised significantly. A typical company looks at the cost the manufacture a product (the entire cost, material, labor and taxes) and factor a multiplier to determine the price of the product ... yes, the company makes money on the taxes as well.

So while the wealthy pay a large portion of income taxes, those without as much money actually pay a higher percentage of their income to the government when you count in the corporate tax we are all paying for. Which is why I laugh when some poltician starts to say they will only increase taxes on business and relieve the tax burden on the individual.

 

And for most companies that I have worked for, that multiplier is between 2 and 2.5.

 

Look here for starters. Unfortunately, that's only comparing personal incomes and personal income taxes. I couldn't find anything similar for corporations or their taxes, which I find a little odd. I'm quite certian that large corporations pay a large portion of our taxes, though, simply because they have such a large portion of our money.

Oh, I never said anything to the contrary, I just pointed out that most taxes come from the few people who have most of the money.

Many people use the concept as an insult, but they use the term literally. To be more clear on what I mean, corporate welfare is no more actual welfare than a corporate fat-cat is an actual feline with an obesity problem or a crybaby is an actual collicy newborn. How can I prove this? Simple, no definition given for welfare by a reputable source matches corporate welfare. Sorry Chandos but, for definitions, you're not a reputable source. Neither am I. Webster's, however, is.

Chandos, are you even reading my posts? I'm not denying that corporate welfare exists, just that it's actual welfare.

I think you may be mis-remembering, Chandos. We've talked about it before, but I've never made any claims about it, nor have you challenged me to provide numbers. Others have, and they've provided numbers to prove their points, but I've just been a spectator.

As would I, but I can't find anything. Please remember, though, that rich individuals and corporations also pay property taxes, sales taxes, etc. And, again, since they tend to own more land than us, spend more money than us, and the like, I think it's safe to assume they pay more in those taxes than us.

I'm not saying all loans are welfare, of course. Just the some that are increadibly generous.

I looked into some college loans at one time. There were several government programs that I would have jumped at, but I or my parents made too much money to qualify. One of them even had an option to convert the loan to a grant if certain qualifications were met. Meaning you didn't have to repay it.

Actually, my grandparents (none too rich, but forward thinking) started investments for my college when I was born. They did it for all their grandchildren, starting small and building it up every year on their birthday. It payed for all undergrad and most of grad for me (at an in-state college). Grants can be welfare, when the criteria is that someone be poor. Most grants, however, are meant to promote particular fields and/or reward achievements, for example grants for people going into an engineering discipline with particular grades. That's not welfare, as it isn't specifically to those 'in need'.

And pay is leveled, in part, to pay for personal taxes. And benefits save you money, so are essentially cash bonuses. You can do this with everything in an economy, shifting the weight to someone else or converting it to an equivalent. Guess what, corporations get all their money from customers and investors (at some point or another), and all citizens get their money from corporations and organizations (at some point or another). To trace these things so is a useless exercize.

So you don't think the rich buy things from corporations? And in higher amounts/values?

 

Many of the large corporations are owned by shareholders. While some companies are private, many are collective. So the shareholders often pay for tax increases out of their profit checks.

American corporations don't pay as much as their counterparts in some other nations, such as Japan, Germany, or even Italy. And the CEOs are going to take their large cut regardless of what happens to the company, or the shareholders.

T2 is right that our economy is organic, everthing is connected, and not as neatly divided by "class," as Marx predicted.

---------- Added 0 hours, 31 minutes and 15 seconds later... ----------

Why? We are talking about corporate welfare. What does a personal tax rate have to do with anything?

I pointed that out about individuals already, and covered it, so at this point it is meaningless for our argument.

I've never seen any such a thing. Maybe I missed it, or was not a part of it. I don't know why are bothering to mention it, since you don't recall any of the data yourself and I wasn't a part of it that I can recall.

As I remarked, I don't really care if you think corporate welfare exists or not. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I've already posted the definition used by Cato and Wiki to describe it, and whether you agree with it or not, is your choice. It serves no purpose to continue to post it over-and-over again, or to belabor the point. So I will post it one last time:

We are not talking about rich individuals. Don't cloud the issue with more of your double-talk. How do you know the coporations own more land than private individuals? Let's see the data. Many businesses receive tax breaks on their properties and sales taxes.

 

NOG as I have progress up the professional ladder (and pay scale) I certainly buy more, and the things I buy are gerally higher quality that what I bought in college (so they cost more). However, the portion of my pay going to those purchases, even though I'm spending more, has dropped significantly. When I was living below the poverty line 40-50% of my income went to food and clothes. Now all my purchases (including my cars, but not the house) amount to maybe 20% of my income. For those at the top tax brackets might only spend 5% (at most) of their income on such purchases even though they are buying 80 in flat screens and $250,000 cars. The amount of their spending cash going to the government is a lower percentage of their income than for those below the poverty line.

Overall I think it's a wash and everybody is basically giving the government a significant portion of their income -- but the tax breaks are not as plentiful for the 'have nots.'

Chandos: I really think it's the customers who pay for any tax increases. Most corporation will raise costs to cover the taxes rather than short the stockholders. Dividends are the life's blood of a company, many of the senior executives get a significant portion of their compensation based on stocks they hold. Decreasing dividends can result in a rush to sell and seriously drop the stock value (which makes stock options worthless).

 

Good point. But I think market conditions have an impact on how far companies are willing to raise prices.

 

I know we've moved on, but I have to keep coming back to it...

I know a lot of people who have taken out student loans. I know a lot of people who have paid them back or are in the process of paying them back. I don't know anyone who took out a loan for college, and did not have to pay it back. (Sometimes, they have to stretch the payments out 30 years, but they pay them back.) Do you actually know people who got away without paying their loans? I'm sure it happens on occassion, but it would seem like that would utterly destroy your credit, and that the lender would go to extremes to see that you did pay it back.

 

How do you know if it's "need" or not? You keep making all these assumptions about need (and many other things). There are many middle-class families who may not be "poor," but still cannot afford to send all their kids to college. Do ever bother to consider that need and achievement converge at some point in grants, loans, etc? And that income level is not really a factor?

 

Going to university in France is almost free and students from low income families can actually get grants and cheaper housing accomodations. I hope it stays that way for a long time. We may pay a lot of money for taxes but at least everything is not wasted. Healthcare and education should be something everyone can have access to regardless of ideological debates.

Of course the French system is far from being perfect and our current administration is responsible for a seriously deteriorating situation (don't get me started on the French police).

I was only a kid when the Restaurants du Coeur were founded by a famous French comedian who insisted that this movement shouldn't be affiliated to any political or religious group but should serve hot meals to people who need them based on the assumption that if people come for a meal then it means that they need this meal. It also proved that initiatives like these could actually work.

 

We were speaking of corporate taxes:

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508-2,00.html#ixzz0fLTmuPKW

Oh, that's right! Welfare is only for "poor" people.

 

Since the issue has become so confused, I think it's time to clarify things a little. I started it all (sorry) by saying the Dems support welfare and making a joke about Robin Hood: taking from the rich and giving to the poor. From this the whole issue of who pays for what came up, so yes, we are talking about rich individuals. Furthermore, since the Dems often support raising taxes on the top X% of income (including Obama durring his campaign), we're definitely talking about rich individuals. We're talking about corporations, too, as they also frequently talk about raising corporate tax. The whole corporate welfare thing came up as you trying to defend your definition of welfare as the government giving out money (that seems to be a rough distillation of what you were saying, correct me if I'm wrong). My whole arguement on that was that it's not welfare. I never said, or even hinted, that it wasn't real, just that it wasn't actually welfare.

T2, you're missing the point. The point isn't what percent of their income they pay, but what percent of total tax income they pay. Whether their $X,000,000 of total taxes is 5%, 10%, or 50% of their income, it's still the same amount of the total tax income of the government, and it's still vastly more than I pay in taxes. Therefore, to say that they pay for welfare, especially when a hike in their taxes is coupled or closely followed (or preceeded) by an increase in welfare spending, is reasonable. Remember, this was a Dems taking money from the rich to give to the poor arguement.

Do you know many people who are below the poverty line? If not, it's no surprise you don't know people who got loans specifically targeted for people below the poverty line. As for me, I kned one girl who grew up very poor, got some sizable gov't loans to go to college, and was planning on seeing them converted to a grant once she graduated (or maybe it was getting a job in the field that was the condition, not sure). I'm not talking about people dodging loans, I'm talking about the debt being voluntarily forgiven (and remember, this is the government doing this), so no hit on your credit. I also knew two others who got loans that wouldn't even accrue interest until they graduated and the minimum payments were conditional on their current income.

I'll say this: what exactly qualifies as welfare may very well vary depending on how you define 'need'. Typically, though, it's defined as living below the poverty line.

If you want to admit a different definition of welfare, how about actually finding a dictionary that defines it so? Wanna try?

 

Exactly. I wasn't poor growing up, but I was one of three children, and there wasn't enough money to go around to send all of us to college. My parents helped each of us, but we all took out loans.

Admittedly, I know many more people living above the poverty line than below. There are many fields (including medicine) that if you are willing to work for a few years at below salary in a poor area, that your loans are forgiven. I knew a doctor who graduated with my brother that agreed to work in an Amish Mennonite community for three years, and he had his debts forgiven as a result. However, this was not a program offered to him because they felt he wasn't able to repay the loans - it was offered to everyone. The deal is that you have to put in three years, and you'll only be earning about 1/4 of what you could make otherwise. The other "pay" you receive is getting your loans paid off.

I think that you'll find that many people, even those who grew up poor, don't have that much of a problem paying off their student loans. Afterall, one of the main reasons for gonig to college is to get a higher paying job. Once you get a job in the relevant field, you usually can make your payments. The problems arise for those who fail to graduate, or who cannot (for whatever reason) find a job in their relevant field - a problem that is probably more common than usual in the present economy. They are in debt and cannot get a job within a field requiring a degree.

 

NOG, you want to play the dictionary game again? Chandos is obviously being ironic. Now being ironic, according to Meriam Webster:

It is rather obvious from the context of his post that what Chandos means is what is widely referred to as 'Welfare For The Rich' - usually referring to things like bailing out Goldman Sachs and Wall Street at taxpayer's expense while the respective CEO's are rewarded for their reckless gambling with soaring bonuses, or giving, as Bush did, tax breaks to corporations and the already wealthy and not to the middle class (who'd arguably rather need it; and who are incidentally as a group are a far greater number of people).

 

I've already given you the definition. As I commented, there is no point in belaboring it. You choose to reject the notion that corporate welfare exists, despite the fact that I've presented an accurate definition of the term and have demonstrated how it is "welfare" - A type of welfare that has been critically documented by sources such as Time and Cato. You choose to deny it. That's your choice.

And we are not speaking of "rich individuals." Don't try to cloud the issue, NOG.

 

I actually understand that NOG. What I'm trying to tell you is when you factor the taxes gained from sales of products each income bracket has about the same tax burden. The income tax data says something like "80% of income taxes comes from the top 2% of earners" (I made up the numbers because they're irrevelant to the argument and I'm feeling lazy) -- but that's misleading. A significant percentage of government income comes from business which gets it money from consumers -- the middle 50% of the population spends a hell of lot more money than the top 2%. So while millionaire X pays more personally in taxes than you, to say the people in the same tax bracket as millionaire X pay more to the government (in income tax, sales tax and taxes corporations pay for consumables purchased) than those in your tax bracket may not be correct.

 

That's not entirely true - the middle class also got a tax cut. (In fact, since the income tax is progressive, anything that applies to the lower income brackets must apply to those in higher income brackets. For example, if you give a break for those under $50K, that applies the the first $50K of earned income for everyone.) The issue is that those in the top tax brackets got a bigger cut (about 3%) compared to those in lower brackets (about 2%).

 

Here's more on the tax issue:

So it's about 25 percent.

http://www.corporations.org/welfare/#globe