If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   The average American family pays over $6000 a year in welfare to deadbeat parents. Ha, just kidding -- we pay that much to multinational corporations   (alternet.org) divider line 40
    More: Asinine, Americans, deadbeat parent, trade restriction, investment return, free market economy, welfare  
•       •       •

3770 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Sep 2013 at 6:34 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-23 05:45:57 PM
Alternet and the Cato Institute, strange bedfellows.
 
2013-09-23 05:56:26 PM
subsidizing Walmart, big Pharma etc. is our duty as Americans.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-09-23 05:56:43 PM
We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.
 
2013-09-23 06:00:08 PM
Businesses, not multi-national corporations. This includes things like family farms (large or small, rich or poor) as well as single branch banks and local credit unions.

And I don't believe allowing patents for drugs should be on the list.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-09-23 06:07:15 PM

wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.


Math ain't your strong suit, is it?

$75B/300M people=$250 per head (if and only if everyone paid the same amount in taxes.)
 
2013-09-23 06:10:45 PM

wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.


Home schooled?
 
2013-09-23 06:21:13 PM

wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.


You are...wow. Just wow. It's like how much more wrong could you be? The answer is none. None more wrong.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-09-23 06:44:49 PM

jbc: Math ain't your strong suit, is it?


I wasn't making an attempt at coming up with an actual figure or whatever, just basing my made-up number on the article's made-up number.  Like, if SNAP is 75 billion and corp aid is the 100 billion the article claims, then SNAP is 3/4 of the $6000 every family is supposedly paying. (Though the article goes on to list more than just corp aid. I didn't bother reading that far.)
 
2013-09-23 06:45:24 PM
Corporations following the law on taxes = welfare paid by the American family. Right, got it.
 
2013-09-23 06:47:31 PM

wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.


With a chunk of that going to employees of multinational corporations that pay shiat.
 
2013-09-23 06:50:38 PM
Deadbeatmultinational corporations.
 
2013-09-23 06:51:56 PM

12349876: wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.

With a chunk of that going to employees of multinational corporations that pay shiat.


It's amazing that people actually believe this shiat.

TFA is either written by a moron or a liar trying to fool morons.
 
2013-09-23 06:54:04 PM
EVIL CORPORATIONS!images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-23 07:01:41 PM

12349876: wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.

With a chunk of that going to employees of multinational corporations that pay shiat.


Why can't you left wingers understand a tax is an "expense" to a corporation. Expenses are passed through to consumer. That's how it works, get over it. Add up SNAP, Affordable Rents (Section 8), straight up Welfare and free Obamaphones (just to list a few) and see what it costs the taxpayer. But even further, why is there some governmental central committee involved? You think it's because of some bleeding heart is crusading for humanity, hope and change?

/aaahahahahahahahahaha
 
2013-09-23 07:01:46 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: 12349876: wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.

With a chunk of that going to employees of multinational corporations that pay shiat.

It's amazing that people actually believe this shiat.

TFA is either written by a moron or a liar trying to fool morons.


I hope you appreciate the irony of a moron pointing that out.
And of having yet another moron point out the irony of a moron pointing it out.
 
2013-09-23 07:04:16 PM

wee: I wasn't making an attempt at coming up with an actual figure or whatever


We found Jon Kyl's Fark handle!  Hi Jon!
 
2013-09-23 07:49:00 PM

Tyee: Alternet and the Cato Institute, strange bedfellows.


Alternet thinks it's way too much, Cato?  Not nearly enough.
 
2013-09-23 07:54:57 PM
I like how they use the mean income instead of the median of the distribution to determine what to call the average...

/ skewed distributions, how do they work?
 
2013-09-23 08:45:47 PM

Spare Me: 12349876: wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.

With a chunk of that going to employees of multinational corporations that pay shiat.

Why can't you left wingers understand a tax is an "expense" to a corporation. Expenses are passed through to consumer. That's how it works, get over it. Add up SNAP, Affordable Rents (Section 8), straight up Welfare and free Obamaphones (just to list a few) and see what it costs the taxpayer. But even further, why is there some governmental central committee involved? You think it's because of some bleeding heart is crusading for humanity, hope and change?

/aaahahahahahahahahaha


10/10, the addition of "obamaphone" and working in "hope and change" seals the deal
 
2013-09-23 08:45:49 PM

wee: jbc: Math ain't your strong suit, is it?

I wasn't making an attempt at coming up with an actual figure or whatever, just basing my made-up number on the article's made-up number.  Like, if SNAP is 75 billion and corp aid is the 100 billion the article claims, then SNAP is 3/4 of the $6000 every family is supposedly paying. (Though the article goes on to list more than just corp aid. I didn't bother reading that far.)


Worst. Back. Peddle. Evar.
 
2013-09-23 08:50:35 PM
I disapprove of this message.
 
2013-09-23 09:01:08 PM

Spare Me: Why can't you left wingers understand a tax is an "expense" to a corporation. Expenses are passed through to consumer. That's how it works, get over it.


Back up a bit.

The first people who get the passalong are the company's own employees - which stands to reason since they're the least likely to jump ship because of lost compensation in amount they can't detect, no matter how sizeable it is.

The next people who get the passalong are the company's investors (if the company is publicly traded).

And then come the consumers, who are most likely to bail if the price of the company's product goes up due to taxes.

Late last year the NY Times ran a feature (my search-fu is weak, sorry) on how to calculate how the federal budget drama and tax code changes were going to affect people, and one little line noted something along the lines of "corporate tax as percentage of household income" - that is, how much of what a household grosses is going to pay the tax nut of all corporations, large and small. The Times had it down as fluctuating over the past decade or so in the 1.4-3.1% rate, iirc.

Consider that a nice fat undeductible sales tax, and as such it hits the poor the hardest. Take a two-income family scraping by on 50 grand a year - 2% of their income lost to corporate taxes is a thousand bucks. That's a month's worth of groceries, a couple months' worth of travel expenses, a rent check, or even a mortgage payment in much of the country. And again, that lost thousand doesn't include the salary and benefits lost if the worker's boss had to give Uncle Sam his pound of flesh first.

Blow up the taxes and subsidies for businesses, and we'll have a hell of a friendly environment for business, not as many DC fingers on the scales, and still have the regulatory code which is what's supposed to be used to ensure a business acts as a responsible member of the community. Is there too much bullshiat in federal regulations? My hunch is probably yes, but even if I'm wrong we can now have an honest examination of the cost of regulations without the additional factor of taxes and tax compliance making things needlessly opaque.

I don't necessarily mind a sales tax - it's good for getting money back from people working off the books because they're dodging child support, in the country illegally, and so forth. But a hidden sales tax, which is what the corporate tax is, is nothing more than a farking without so much as a reacharound.
 
2013-09-23 09:12:15 PM
Well, somebody's gotta bail out the struggling bootstrap industry.
 
2013-09-23 09:28:20 PM
The difference between SNAP and corporate welfare is that the SNAP goes directly into the U.S. economy.  The corporate welfare goes directly into a Swiss bank account.
 
2013-09-23 09:37:51 PM

mrlewish: The difference between SNAP and corporate welfare is that the SNAP goes directly into the U.S. economy.  The corporate welfare goes directly into a Swiss bank account.


Most of it goes to the Swiss bank account of the corporation. Some of it goes back into the campaign coffers of the politicians that voted for the corporate welfare.

That's the real problem - Congresscritters don't get kickbacks from the poor, so the poor simply won't be represented anywhere near as well as the rich, who understand to tip the friggin' waiter.
 
2013-09-23 10:31:31 PM

wee: jbc: Math ain't your strong suit, is it?

I wasn't making an attempt at coming up with an actual figure or whatever, just basing my made-up number on the article's made-up number.  Like, if SNAP is 75 billion and corp aid is the 100 billion the article claims, then SNAP is 3/4 of the $6000 every family is supposedly paying. (Though the article goes on to list more than just corp aid. I didn't bother reading that far.)


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-23 10:33:00 PM

FormlessOne: mrlewish: The difference between SNAP and corporate welfare is that the SNAP goes directly into the U.S. economy.  The corporate welfare goes directly into a Swiss bank account.

Most of it goes to the Swiss bank account of the corporation. Some of it goes back into the campaign coffers of the politicians that voted for the corporate welfare.

That's the real problem - Congresscritters don't get kickbacks from the poor, so the poor simply won't be represented anywhere near as well as the rich, who understand to tip the friggin' waiter.




SNAP is run by the Department of Agriculture. SNAP is another welfare program for farmers and ranchers, along with WIC.
 
2013-09-23 10:37:57 PM

FormlessOne: mrlewish: The difference between SNAP and corporate welfare is that the SNAP goes directly into the U.S. economy.  The corporate welfare goes directly into a Swiss bank account.

Most of it goes to the Swiss bank account of the corporation. Some of it goes back into the campaign coffers of the politicians that voted for the corporate welfare.

That's the real problem - Congresscritters don't get kickbacks from the poor, so the poor simply won't be represented anywhere near as well as the rich, who understand to tip the friggin' waiter.


We're a nation run by lawyers and business owners. You really can't expect much else.
 
2013-09-23 10:38:29 PM

Tyee: Alternet and the Cato Institute, strange bedfellows.


Did the Cato institute manage to avert Koch takeover?
 
2013-09-23 10:41:23 PM
HempHead:

SNAP is run by the Department of Agriculture. SNAP is another welfare program for farmers and ranchers, along with WIC.

The problem with that is the money that goes into SNAP goes through the hands of the poor person receiving the benefit, to the hands of the grocery store, and then to the hands of a distributor before Con-Agra gets its cut for the can of Chef Boyardee. It would be much more efficient to give that money straight to Con-Agra than involving all of those middlemen and their mooching employees.
 
2013-09-23 11:15:43 PM

buzzcut73: The problem with that is the money that goes into SNAP goes through the hands of the poor person receiving the benefit, to the hands of the grocery store, and then to the hands of a distributor before Con-Agra gets its cut for the can of Chef Boyardee. It would be much more efficient to give that money straight to Con-Agra than involving all of those middlemen and their mooching employees.


LOL, good point.  Think of all the jobs they could create if they didn't have to pay their employees.
 
2013-09-23 11:28:56 PM

buzzcut73: HempHead:

SNAP is run by the Department of Agriculture. SNAP is another welfare program for farmers and ranchers, along with WIC.

The problem with that is the money that goes into SNAP goes through the hands of the poor person receiving the benefit, to the hands of the grocery store, and then to the hands of a distributor before Con-Agra gets its cut for the can of Chef Boyardee. It would be much more efficient to give that money straight to Con-Agra than involving all of those middlemen and their mooching employees.




Dude, write that up with some fancy language and I think Harvard would award you an MBA!
 
2013-09-24 04:12:09 AM
Bank fees are now corporate welfare, eh?

I guess when I bought new tires I was giving "corporate welfare" to Toyo.
 
2013-09-24 06:30:44 AM

SevenizGud: Bank fees are now corporate welfare, eh?

I guess when I bought new tires I was giving "corporate welfare" to Toyo.


To a man with his penis in his hand, everything looks like porn.
Midget, amputee porn.
i18.photobucket.com
The Tea-Master & the Assassin

Taiko, a warrior who lived in Japan before the Tokugawa era, studied Cha-no-yu, tea etiquette, with Sen no Rikyu, a teacher of that aesthetical expression of calmness and contentment.
Taiko's attendant warrior Kato interpreted his superior's enthusiasm for tea etiquette as negligence of state affairs, so he decided to kill Sen no Rikyu. He pretended to make a social call upon the tea-master and was invited to drink tea.
The master, who was well skilled in his art, saw at a glance the warrior's intention, so he invited Kato to leave his sword outside before entering the room for the ceremony, explaining the Cha-no-yu represents peacefulness itself.
Kato would not listen to this. "I am a warrior," he said. "I always have my sword with me. Cha-no-yu or no Cha-no-yu, I have my sword."
"Very well. Bring your sword in and have some tea," consented Sen no Rikyu.
The kettle was boiling on the charcoal fire. Suddenly Sen no Rikyu tipped it over. Hissing steam arose, filling the room with smoke and ashes. The startled warrior ran outside.
The tea-master apologized. "It was my mistake. Come back in and have some tea. I have your sword here covered with ashes and will clean it and give it to you."
In this predicament the warrior realized he could not very well kill the tea-master, so he gave up the idea.
 
2013-09-24 09:06:01 AM

flucto: Corporations following the law on taxes = welfare paid by the American family. Right, got it.


So... paying off a politician to write a new law that gives your corporation a tax cut is OK
Got it
 
2013-09-24 02:41:20 PM

flucto: Corporations following the law on taxes = welfare paid by the American family. Right, got it.


The inability to understand that legal is not always good and illegal is not always bad is one of the shining examples of why conservatives suck long and hard.
 
2013-09-24 02:42:04 PM
All I know is I'm completely obsessed over what someone else pays in taxes.  It matters a lot...
 
2013-09-24 02:48:28 PM

jbc: wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.

Math ain't your strong suit, is it?

$75B/300M people=$250 per head (if and only if everyone paid the same amount in taxes.)


Meh, it's Republican math.  What do you expect?
 
2013-09-24 04:10:05 PM
I'm not sure why anyone would make the comparison between funding companies and welfare....as if they are essentially the same thing.  They aren't.

If you took advantage of a tax deduction to install energy efficient something or other - you paid less in taxes.  Let's say that amount was $1,000 USD.  That's not quite the same as you getting a check for $1,000 - it means your tax burden was reduced by $1,000.  You might have paid $12,000 in taxes.

If a city gives a company a tax incentive - that doesn't imply that the company is paying 0% and getting paid an incentive.  It means, they are paying taxes, offset by an incentive.

Multinational companies are, multinational.  And they are happy to go where the tax laws suit them.  The multinational company I work for has full-time staff who are tax experts, whose sole job is to be aware of tax laws and ensure we are maximizing our profit.  We've moved offices because of tax law changes.  We have no affiliation or loyalty.  It started as a US company, they wanted an EU branch, so they picked the place that they felt would maximize profit.  They went to IE because of 'corporate welfare' - and Irish people are now upset that all these multinationals that are supporting the Irish economy.....aren't paying their fair share of taxes.  But the only reason they ended up in IE is because of the taxes.  Raise them too much and they'd move.

People on welfare are an entirely different thing.  For any given tax year, their net contribution/cost to the country, at least financially, is almost certainly negative.  There are a lot of reasons to have welfare, I'm not against the concept of it, but there isn't a strategic argument for keeping welfare recipients in the US.  We aren't risking out standing as a global leader in industry X by not having more welfare recipients in the country.
 
2013-09-24 04:47:21 PM

mediablitz: wee: We only spend $75 billion on SNAP, so only $4500/year on welfare.

Home schooled?


Public school, home schoolers are either the creme of the crop or kids who cant count to potato.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report