Average American family pays $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,751
Let's cut food stamps! We wouldn't want Atlas to shrug. :troll:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/average-american-family-pays-6000-year-subsidies-big-business

September 22, 2013 |




The average American family pays $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business.

That's over and above our payments to the big companies for energy and food and housing and health care and all our tech devices. It's $6,000 that no family would have to pay if we truly lived in a competitive but well-regulated free-market economy.

The $6,000 figure is an average, which means that low-income families are paying less. But it also means that families (households) making over $72,000 are paying more than $6,000 to the corporations.

1. $870 for Direct Subsidies and Grants to Companies

The Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. federal government spends $100 billion a year on corporate welfare. That's an average of $870 for each one of America's 115 million families. Cato notes that this includes "cash payments to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries...It does not include tax preferences or trade restrictions."

It does include payments to 374 individuals on the plush Upper East Side of New York City, and others who own farms, including Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, and Ted Turner. Wealthy heir Mark Rockefeller received $342,000 to NOT farm, to allow his Idaho land to return to its natural state.

It also includes fossil fuel subsidies, which could be anywhere from $10 billion to $41 billion per year for research and development. Yet this may be substantially underestimated. The IMF reports U.S. fossil fuel subsidies of $502 billion, which would be almost $4,400 per U.S. family by taking into account "the effects of energy consumption on global warming [and] on public health through the adverse effects on local pollution." According to Grist, even this is an underestimate.

2. $696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels

The subsidies mentioned above are federal subsidies. A New York Times investigation found that states, counties and cities give up over $80 billion each year to companies, with beneficiaries coming from "virtually every corner of the corporate world, encompassing oil and coal conglomerates, technology and entertainment companies, banks and big-box retail chains."

$80 billion a year is $696 for every U.S. family. But the Times notes that "The cost of the awards is certainly far higher."

3. $722 for Interest Rate Subsidies for Banks

According to the Huffington Post, the "U.S. Government Essentially Gives The Banks 3 Cents Of Every Tax Dollar."They cite research that calculates a nearly 1 percent benefit to banks when they borrow, through bonds and customer deposits and other liabilities. This amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion, or about $722 from every American family.

The wealthiest five banks -- JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs -- account for three-quarters of the total subsidy. The Huffington Post article notes that without the taxpayer subsidy, those banks would not make a profit. In other words, "the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders."

4. $350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees

This was a tough one to calculate. Demos reports that over a lifetime, bank fees can "cost a median-income two-earner family nearly $155,000 and consume nearly one-third of their investment returns." Fees are well over one percent a year.

However, the Economic Policy Institute notes that the average middle-quintile retirement account is $34,981. A conservative one percent annual management fee translates to about $350 per family. This, again, is an average; many families have no retirement account. But many families pay much more than 1% in annual fees.

5. $1,268 for Overpriced Medications

According to Dean Baker, "government granted patent monopolies raise the price of prescription drugs by close to $270 billion a year compared to the free market price." This represents an astonishing annual cost of over $2,000 to an average American family.

OECD figures on pharmaceutical expenditures reveal that Americans spend almost twice the OECD average on drugs, an additional $460 per capita. This translates to $1,268 per household.

6. $870 for Corporate Tax Subsidies

We've heard a lot about tax avoidance and tax breaks for the super-rich. With regard to corporations alone, the Tax Foundation has concluded that their "special tax provisions" cost taxpayers over $100 billion per year, or $870 per family. Corporate benefits include items such as Graduated Corporate Income, Inventory Property Sales, Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, Accelerated Depreciation, and Deferred taxes.

Once again, it may be even worse. Citizens for Tax Justice cite a Government Accountability Office report that calculated a loss to the Treasury of $181 billion from corporate tax expenditures. That would be almost $1,600 per family.

7. $1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens

U.S. PIRG recently reported that the average 2012 taxpayer paid an extra $1,026 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost from offshore tax havens by corporations and wealthy individuals. With 138 million taxpayers (1.2 per household), that comes to $1,231 per household.

Much More Than an Insult

Overall, American families are paying an annual $6,000 subsidy to corporations that have doubled their profits and cut their taxes in half in ten years while cutting 2.9 million jobs in the U.S. and adding almost as many jobs overseas.

This is more than an insult. It's a devastating attack on the livelihoods of tens of millions of American families. And Congress just lets it happen.
 

Uncle Kingpin

No Relation
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
3,642
Reputation
1,550
Daps
14,675
The average taxpayer pays $100 a year for foodstamps, thats like giving a bum a dollar every 3 days for a year...

While the defense department has multibillion dollar contracts WE ARENT EVEN ALLOWED TO KNOW WHAT FOR
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Bushed
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
102,485
Reputation
13,685
Daps
299,379
Reppin
NULL
While the defense department has multibillion dollar contracts WE ARENT EVEN ALLOWED TO KNOW WHAT FOR
while our fukkin veterans sleep in the streets

thats why i question anyone who signs up for this fukkin army; how are we the worlds leader in military spending (by leaps and bounds), but so many veterans get treated like shyt?
 

Blackking

Banned
Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
21,566
Reputation
2,486
Daps
26,224
how do u get in on this??? or if ur using business tax credits, r u already set up on this welfare? business owners work hard as fukk - doesn't feel like a welfare.


i don't even care any more..... shyt, i buy hoes bridge cards all the time. 1k in food for 600 = only shopping at whole foods.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,691
Reputation
4,889
Daps
68,686
At the risk of catching flack for this, I don't really like how this article is written. You see this is why I say that I don't like AlterNet despite agreeing with the general premise of a lot of what they say. This particular writer frequently posts up articles that are essentially filled with a power point slide's worth of information and argumentation. He never actually goes in-depth. This article is based on a very liberal usage of the word "subsidy." Many of these subsidies are indirect as opposed to the direct subsidy one would get from SNAP (which I do believe is justified). While many of these things are arguably unjustified, they require further inspection and for him to provide the basis on which they exist for them to properly and effectively criticized. Basically, we are not provided with the premise on which many of these "subsidies" occur, so we cannot undermine the premise. It devolves into "this doesn't look right." (which is fair)

I'm studying, but for argument's sake let's just take corporate subsidies for example. Many of those funds, particularly under this administration, have gone towards attempting to develop infant industries and alternate energy sources. Many projects would not be able to move forward without government funding. The idea is that, if successful, they will increase social welfare in general. So while it may benefit "big business", it is arguably towards the end of benefiting society as a whole. Now, that does not apply in many circumstances, and the author would do well to point that out. To be fair, the places he cites provide significant information, that if properly vetted and compared directly with something like SNAP would make the point we've been arguing about for awhile in the other thread. But on it's face, few things are definitively proven and it will just serve to appease people like us who already find those things wrong (or know the background history). Basically, this is the power point slide you have up behind you as you start your presentaton.
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,751
At the risk of catching flack for this, I don't really like how this article is written. You see this is why I say that I don't like AlterNet despite agreeing with the general premise of a lot of what they say. This particular writer frequently posts up articles that are essentially filled with a power point slide's worth of information and argumentation. He never actually goes in-depth. This article is based on a very liberal usage of the word "subsidy." Many of these subsidies are indirect as opposed to the direct subsidy one would get from SNAP (which I do believe is justified). While many of these things are arguably unjustified, they require further inspection and for him to provide the basis on which they exist for them to properly and effectively criticized. Basically, we are not provided with the premise on which many of these "subsidies" occur, so we cannot undermine the premise. It devolves into "this doesn't look right." (which is fair)

I'm studying, but for argument's sake let's just take corporate subsidies for example. Many of those funds, particularly under this administration, have gone towards attempting to develop infant industries and alternate energy sources. Many projects would not be able to move forward without government funding. The idea is that, if successful, they will increase social welfare in general. So while it may benefit "big business", it is arguably towards the end of benefiting society as a whole. Now, that does not apply in many circumstances, and the author would do well to point that out. To be fair, the places he cites provide significant information, that if properly vetted and compared directly with something like SNAP would make the point we've been arguing about for awhile in the other thread. But on it's face, few things are definitively proven and it will just serve to appease people like us who already find those things wrong (or know the background history). Basically, this is the power point slide you have up behind you as you start your presentaton.
At the risk of catching flack for this, I don't really like how this article is written. You see this is why I say that I don't like AlterNet despite agreeing with the general premise of a lot of what they say. This particular writer frequently posts up articles that are essentially filled with a power point slide's worth of information and argumentation. He never actually goes in-depth. This article is based on a very liberal usage of the word "subsidy." Many of these subsidies are indirect as opposed to the direct subsidy one would get from SNAP (which I do believe is justified). While many of these things are arguably unjustified, they require further inspection and for him to provide the basis on which they exist for them to properly and effectively criticized. Basically, we are not provided with the premise on which many of these "subsidies" occur, so we cannot undermine the premise. It devolves into "this doesn't look right." (which is fair)

I'm studying, but for argument's sake let's just take corporate subsidies for example. Many of those funds, particularly under this administration, have gone towards attempting to develop infant industries and alternate energy sources. Many projects would not be able to move forward without government funding. The idea is that, if successful, they will increase social welfare in general. So while it may benefit "big business", it is arguably towards the end of benefiting society as a whole. Now, that does not apply in many circumstances, and the author would do well to point that out. To be fair, the places he cites provide significant information, that if properly vetted and compared directly with something like SNAP would make the point we've been arguing about for awhile in the other thread. But on it's face, few things are definitively proven and it will just serve to appease people like us who already find those things wrong (or know the background history). Basically, this is the power point slide you have up behind you as you start your presentaton.
Yeah I thought about the fact the it includes grants for alternative energy startups and tech companies when I first read it.

It's a minor but valid criticism that it didn't go into depth explaining each subsidy. And you will see that type of lack of specificity in Alternet and various political sites of the like regardless of their political slants. I only challenged your criticism of Alternet in that other thread because you compared it disfavorably to Salon, which I don't see. They're pretty much the same and use a lot of the same contributors and funding sources and they cross-reference each other and they had some sort of joint ventures worked out. You often seem the same articles on both sites. I'm sure if you search for the author of that article on salon, you'll see his work come up there.

As far as original pieces, Salon has its share of half ass and specificity-lacking "Republicans are dumb" pieces as well. Joan Walsh herself writes some pretty banal shyt. And I've read some pretty bad stuff there regarding foreign policy and social issues in particular. They're usually better with domestic economic policy stuff, but it's still a mixed bag.
 

Meta Reign

I walk the streets like, ''say something, n!gga!''
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reputation
-3,576
Daps
6,588
Reppin
Franklin ave.
At the risk of catching flack for this, I don't really like how this article is written. You see this is why I say that I don't like AlterNet despite agreeing with the general premise of a lot of what they say. This particular writer frequently posts up articles that are essentially filled with a power point slide's worth of information and argumentation. He never actually goes in-depth. This article is based on a very liberal usage of the word "subsidy." Many of these subsidies are indirect as opposed to the direct subsidy one would get from SNAP (which I do believe is justified). While many of these things are arguably unjustified, they require further inspection and for him to provide the basis on which they exist for them to properly and effectively criticized. Basically, we are not provided with the premise on which many of these "subsidies" occur, so we cannot undermine the premise. It devolves into "this doesn't look right." (which is fair)

I'm studying, but for argument's sake let's just take corporate subsidies for example. Many of those funds, particularly under this administration, have gone towards attempting to develop infant industries and alternate energy sources. Many projects would not be able to move forward without government funding. The idea is that, if successful, they will increase social welfare in general. So while it may benefit "big business", it is arguably towards the end of benefiting society as a whole. Now, that does not apply in many circumstances, and the author would do well to point that out. To be fair, the places he cites provide significant information, that if properly vetted and compared directly with something like SNAP would make the point we've been arguing about for awhile in the other thread. But on it's face, few things are definitively proven and it will just serve to appease people like us who already find those things wrong (or know the background history). Basically, this is the power point slide you have up behind you as you start your presentaton.
I agree. . . But still. . .
 
Top