Talk:Corporate welfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| B | rated as b-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the Project's priority scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
Time magazine (Special Report/Corporate Welfare. November 9, 1998. Vol 152. No 19.) offers this definition:
- any action by local, state or federal government that gives a corporation or an entire industry a benefit not offered to others. It can be an outright subsidy, a grant, real estate, a low-interest loan or a government service. It can also be a tax break -- a credit, exemption, deferral or deduction, or a tax rate lower than the one others pay
I think I'd like to word in at least part of this, but I can't right now. --Ryguasu 07:46 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] use of Wealthfare term
Cut from opening sentence:
- , also known as "wealthfare",
Who calls it this? --Uncle Ed 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to dispute the neutrality of this page. --Soulmaster
[edit] 2006 Federal Corporate Welfare Spending
Hi!
Do you know where I could find out how much of the 2006 federal budget was devoted to corporate welfare.
It seems like I've looked everywhere on the Internet, but haven't had any luck.
Thank you for your time!
Cordially, Mike P. Sinn rory_rocket@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rory rocket (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Objections to the term
"Thus, some people feel the term unfairly portrays welfare as a bad thing."
That "some people" seems weasily to me. On the contrary, I am quite certain that the term "Corporate Welfare" is a term of disapproval BECAUSE of the inclusion of the word "Welfare". That is, most people are already against Welfare, and so the term places it in the same negative context.
....
Those who receive government largesse because they are able to convince legislatures that throwing money at them with few strings attached contend as a rule that such stimulates the economy far better than does a free market that forces businesses to sink or swim as they satisfy or fail to satisfy customers. In effect it claims that some people do far more good than their unaided profit or loss suggests, even if they are for-profit entities. Such subsidy need not be cash; it can also be tax abatements, no-interest or low-interest loans, low rent of existing land or buildings, or the use of eminent domain laws to ensure cheap real estate. Add to this guaranteed purchase arrangements or suppression of competition on a national scale.
Aid such as extending a city water line or improving an abutting road has obvious potential for use by those who might locate nearby is a gray area -- a very light gray area.
Welfare directed at the poor often keeps people alive with some modicum of dignity. Life is precious, as is human dignity. Profit is not so precious. Special breaks to business entities that cannot compete without them imply either higher taxes for others (including other business capable of competing), reduced public services not related to the subsidy, larger public debt, and lower standards of living for those who derive no obvious benefit from the spending. On a national scale it often promotes the presence of uncompetitive business that pulls down the rest of the economy.
Welfare as poor relief may be a mandate of religious and philosophical systems. Aid to large-scale hustlers is an imperative for none but the corrupt. Welfare as relief for the poor is compatible with capitalism; corporate welfare degrades capitalism. Corporate welfare is a parody of aid to the poor.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
How about an examples section:
Stadiums for sports teams, Military contractors, etc.
[edit] Alternative terms
I am in the UK. I understand the meaning of the term "corporate welfare", and I'm sure it goes on in most countries to a certain degree. However, I can't think of a good alternative term for the UK. Can a fellow Brit tell me if they've heard the same basic idea referred to under another (catchy) name?
WikiReaderer 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Estimates of corporate welfare
There are plenty of estimates of corporate welfare besides that of Cato, and we should include some of those others as well. The Cato estimate is, IMO, highly ideological for its exclusion of tax expenditures from its estimate and for its inclusion of broad infrastructure such as airports. A comparison with other estimates would be helpful in identifying the ideological elements of each. It would also be useful to develop a definition that is internationally comparable. Finally, there have also been several estimates of corporate welfare by state and local governments that should be included in this article.Academic38 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
I am pretty sure it is correct that Nader coined the term, but I am not sure that either of the sources actually demonstrate that. I think I've read an interview where he says that. I also know that the New Democratic Party in Canada picked up the term for its federal election campaign of 1972, which would be worth mentioning in the introduction. I'll look around for a source as far as when the term was coined.Academic38 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Need a "definitions" section
I think that the "CW as corrupt subsidies" section should be expanded into a definitions section. I think we should start out with subsidies (I'm not so sure "corrupt" is NPOV) as that's common to all definitions. But we should note that some folks define it even more broadly. Nader comes immediately to mind, as someone who includes in the term alleged instances when government allows companies to avoid paying for externalities they create, especially pollution. Cato also seems to have a broader definition; one of its reports in the mid-nineties seemed to include virtually any government agency Stephen Moore thought should be privatized, adding the agencies' entire budgets into its subsidy estimate. Also, Cato estimates to this day do not include any tax deductions, credits, etc., though the most recent one cited in the article is willing in theory to consider targeted tax incentives to be subsidies, though it does not include any in its tally.Academic38 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
