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 11
    More: Asinine, Americans, deadbeat parent, trade restriction, investment return, free market economy, welfare  
•       •       •

3772 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Sep 2013 at 6:34 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-23 09:37:51 PM
2 votes:

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 09:28:20 PM
2 votes:
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.
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-09-23 06:07:15 PM
2 votes:

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 10:41:23 PM
1 votes:
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 09:01:08 PM
1 votes:

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 08:45:47 PM
1 votes:

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 07:54:57 PM
1 votes:
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 07:01:41 PM
1 votes:

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 06:51:56 PM
1 votes:

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 06:50:38 PM
1 votes:
Deadbeatmultinational corporations.
2013-09-23 06:47:31 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report