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

Uncle Kingpin

No Relation
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
3,642
Reputation
1,550
Daps
14,675
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.

The subsidies generally apply to 1.Energy 2.Emerging Technology 3.Agriculture 4. Research (mainly Medical) 5. Depletion Allowances

As a small business owner, I can assure you we work long hours because we're never really "off the clock", but if your working hard as an owner you have a delegation-micromanagement issue and are misusing your time. As a large business owner(Stockholder) I can assure you I do not work hard at all, unless you consider research and buying/selling hard. Subsidies are welfare, their purpose is to benefit the greater good, and i am for most of them that i know of. I just think it's ludicrous to never question welfare for corporations, yet always demean and threaten welfare for individuals.
 

Blackking

Banned
Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
21,566
Reputation
2,486
Daps
26,224
The subsidies generally apply to 1.Energy 2.Emerging Technology 3.Agriculture 4. Research (mainly Medical) 5. Depletion Allowances

As a small business owner, I can assure you we work long hours because we're never really "off the clock", but if your working hard as an owner you have a delegation-micromanagement issue and are misusing your time. As a large business owner(Stockholder) I can assure you I do not work hard at all, unless you consider research and buying/selling hard. Subsidies are welfare, their purpose is to benefit the greater good, and i am for most of them that i know of. I just think it's ludicrous to never question welfare for corporations, yet always demean and threaten welfare for individuals.
:ehh:

I agree with you... but I just wanted that 1 point about business owners to be made. They worker harder than average. I'm a business owner as well... I don't work 'hard' .. but I do work 24/7... who knows what might come up. And "2.Emerging Technology" - shyt that should get all the credits in the world, should even come w food stamps as far as I'm concerned.
 

Domingo Halliburton

Handmade in USA
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
12,616
Reputation
1,370
Daps
15,451
Reppin
Brooklyn Without Limits
very misleading stats. I'm not disagreeing with the premise of the article just the way they arrive at some of these figures


edit:
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.

this is assuming only american families pay taxes. obviously more entities than families pay taxes.

They cite research that calculates a nearly 1 percent benefit to banks when they borrow, through bonds and customer deposits and other liabilities.

this isn't a subsidy. it's related to the belief that they are too big to fail (ie. the govt will bail them out).

4. $350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees
this is a cost a money manager charges you. why this is in this article is beyond me. manage your own money if you don't like it. there is a fee with any investment vehicle you choose.

It also includes fossil fuel subsidies, which could be anywhere from $10 billion to $41 billion per year for research and development.
another one I don't get. There are no fossil fuel subsidies. We offer relatively small tax breaks for unconventional fuel production as we do for most new technologies, the subsidies specifically target clean fuel sources. There are no general fossil fuel subsidies at all on the production end.

"the effects of energy consumption on global warming [and] on public health through the adverse effects on local pollution."
describing this as a subsidy is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,751
very misleading stats. I'm not disagreeing with the premise of the article just the way they arrive at some of these figures


edit:


this is assuming only american families pay taxes. obviously more entities than families pay taxes.

From the article:

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.

My household income is more than $72,000. I'm paying more.

this isn't a subsidy. it's related to the belief that they are too big to fail (ie. the govt will bail them out).

If you don't like the word subsidy, it's still your tax dollars going to prop up big corporations. That's what's relevant here.

this is a cost a money manager charges you. why this is in this article is beyond me. manage your own money if you don't like it. there is a fee with any investment vehicle you choose.

Come on man. Everybody doesn't have the resources to put all their money with a private brokerage. 401K is the sensible way to go for anyone that isn't rich. Here's the original article from EPI where they came up with that. It's a good read.

http://www.epi.org/publication/retirement-inequality-chartbook/


another one I don't get. There are no fossil fuel subsidies. We offer relatively small tax breaks for unconventional fuel production as we do for most new technologies, the subsidies specifically target clean fuel sources. There are no general fossil fuel subsidies at all on the production end.

:usure:

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

And this is the global estimate. Not directly relevant to the article, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

http://skepticalscience.com/IMF-fossil-fuel-subsidies-estimate.html
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,751
@Domingo Halliburton looks like in the President's 2014 budget, there are no direct subsidies for fossil fuels, but I seriously doubt it will end up that way.

As of now, 3/4ths of energy subsides are going to non-fossil fuel sources according to the CBO.

http://washingtonmerry-go-round.blogspot.com/2013/04/obama-budget-trades-fossil-fuel.html

proposal would slash $4 billion in subsidies to fossils fuels while increasing support for renewable energy programs, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency measures.
“As we continue to pursue clean energy technologies that will support future economic growth, we should not devote scarce resources to subsidizing the use of fossil fuels produced by some of the largest, most profitable companies in the world,” reads the budget proposal. “That is why the Budget proposes to eliminate unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies that impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to address the threat of climate change.”

However, the president’s budget plan increases funding for various programs that promote green energy use, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency.

Obama promises $2.8 billion to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for research and development to increase the use of clean energy technologies.

“The [EERE] udget increases funding by 75 percent above 2012 levels for development and demonstration of the next generation of advanced vehicles and by 42 percent for the next generation of advanced biofuels and biorefineries,” reads the budget proposal. “It increases funding by 29 percent for innovative projects to make clean, renewable power, such as solar energy and off-shore wind, more easily integrated onto the electric grid and as affordable as electricity from conventional sources, without subsidies.”

“[The EERE] more than doubles funding for energy efficiency and advanced manufacturing activities to help reduce energy use and costs in commercial and residential buildings, in the industrial and business sectors, and in Federal buildings and fleets,” the budget continues. “These investments will support progress toward the President’s goal of cutting in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses, doubling our energy productivity over them next 20 years.”

The budget also includes $615 million “to increase the use and decrease the costs of clean power from solar, wind, geothermal, and water energy.” During Obama’s first term, he came under fire for the high profile failures of government-backed renewable energy companies, such as Solyndra and Abound Solar.

Obama proposes investing “$575 million in cutting-edge vehicle technologies, $282 million in the next generation of advanced biofuels, and $2 billion of proposed mandatory funding for an Energy Security Trust to transition our cars and trucks off of oil.”

The DOE would get $28.4 billion in discretionary funds — an 8 percent increase from 2012 — to help the administration meet its clean energy goals, improve energy security, address the issue of climate change, and modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons systems.

President Obama has been at odds with the oil and gas industry over eliminating tax subsidies enjoyed by the industry. However, the oil and gas industry has argued that the “cost-recovery benefits ” they receive aren’t actually subsidies.

“The oil and gas industry gets no subsidies, zero, nothing,” said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. “We get cost-recovery benefits, much like other industries. You can go down the road of allowing economic activity, generating hundreds of billions to the government, or you can take the alternative route by trying to extract new revenue from industry by increasing their cost to do business.”

The Congressional Budget Office reported that tax benefits for renewable energy and energy efficiency make up three-quarters of more than $16 billion in energy-related tax subsidies the U.S. for 2013.

“Now months overdue, President Obama’s budget represents the administration’s desire to double down on bad energy policy,” said American Energy Alliance president Tom Pyle. “The same week that the U.S. Comptroller General identified scores of fragmented, duplicative and wasteful renewable energy programs, the Obama budget calls for even more spending on these and other initiatives, including permanent taxpayer-funded subsidies for century-old industries like wind and solar.”
[/URL]
 

LordTaskForce

All Star
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
3,242
Reputation
410
Daps
8,872
Reppin
Atlanta
foodstamps/welfare are scapegoats. and the american people are too dumb to really pay attention as a whole. Welfare/foodstamps are such a small percentage of taxes its laughable.
 

Trip

slippery slope
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
21,396
Reputation
262
Daps
18,338
Reppin
FL
foodstamps/welfare are scapegoats. and the american people are too dumb to really pay attention as a whole. Welfare/foodstamps are such a small percentage of taxes its laughable.

Id agree. The politicians enabling the status quo are the at the top of the list.
 
Top