Corporate Welfare by state (salaries, lobbyists, lobby, Nebraska)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no problem with offering subsidies and incentives to business if it pays off in the long run--if they create jobs, hire here at home with decent salaries, and create new and stronger tax payers. That's an INVESTMENT. We're building a new arena in Lincoln, Nebraska that's tax payer funded, and it will bring in a ton of new revenues through tourism--it will pay for itself 10 times over through expanded business at hotels, restaurants, retail stores, etc.
I have a huge problem when we just throw money at companies that hire off shore and don't create a majority of their jobs here, just because they have lobbyists who give big bucks to politicians. That's crony capitalism, and it needs to stop.
Yes. Until a traumatic event occurs like it did in Germany and Italy.
We should end ALL government subsidies, both corporate and individual. Government bureaucrats should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.
RK2003 - the government is not there to pick "winners and losers" but only to protect the losing investors from taking a loss when their schemes fail. These people are not about to take any risk with their money are they? That is what the government is for. Why do you think crony capitalism exists and financiers spend so much money on political campaigns and direct bribes?
I have no problem with offering subsidies and incentives to business if it pays off in the long run--if they create jobs, hire here at home with decent salaries, and create new and stronger tax payers. That's an INVESTMENT. We're building a new arena in Lincoln, Nebraska that's tax payer funded, and it will bring in a ton of new revenues through tourism--it will pay for itself 10 times over through expanded business at hotels, restaurants, retail stores, etc.
I have a huge problem when we just throw money at companies that hire off shore and don't create a majority of their jobs here, just because they have lobbyists who give big bucks to politicians. That's crony capitalism, and it needs to stop.
Crony Capitalism is wrong even when the goal is admirable and/or profitable for the state.
If there were no Crony Capitalism, your stadium would be built with private investment funds and the tax increases would still occur.
Government investments in sports stadiums don't increase tax revenue. They just shift them from one city or venue to another.
RK2003 - the government is not there to pick "winners and losers" but only to protect the losing investors from taking a loss when their schemes fail. These people are not about to take any risk with their money are they? That is what the government is for. Why do you think crony capitalism exists and financiers spend so much money on political campaigns and direct bribes?
And that's the problem with Crony Capitalism. Not only do we have bureaucrats picking winners (their buddies) and losers, but they privatize the profits and socialize the risks. So the tax payers lose and the cronies win. Meanwhile, the politicians tell their lemmings that it's all good.
Crony Capitalism is wrong even when the goal is admirable and/or profitable for the state.
If there were no Crony Capitalism, your stadium would be built with private investment funds and the tax increases would still occur.
Government investments in sports stadiums don't increase tax revenue. They just shift them from one city or venue to another.
My arena example wasn't very good now that I think about it, because the arena is owned by the city of Lincoln and paid for with tax payer dollars. They're renting it to the University of Nebraska for basketball games, plus it will be used to bring major concerts into the area--it absolutely will be a money maker though. Still--why shouldn't a city or state give tax incentives to major manufacturers to entice them to move into an area? If they're really creating good paying jobs that will make up for or go beyond the tax incentives, I think it's a good plan. If they're not creating those jobs, then it's not a good plan.
And that's the problem with Crony Capitalism. Not only do we have bureaucrats picking winners (their buddies) and losers, but they privatize the profits and socialize the risks. So the tax payers lose and the cronies win. Meanwhile, the politicians tell their lemmings that it's all good.
Wow, we agree on something.
Which is why "too big to fail" is TOO BIG. The government needs to start breaking up companies that are deemed too big to fail.
I have no problem with offering subsidies and incentives to business if it pays off in the long run--if they create jobs, hire here at home with decent salaries, and create new and stronger tax payers. That's an INVESTMENT. We're building a new arena in Lincoln, Nebraska that's tax payer funded, and it will bring in a ton of new revenues through tourism--it will pay for itself 10 times over through expanded business at hotels, restaurants, retail stores, etc.
I have a huge problem when we just throw money at companies that hire off shore and don't create a majority of their jobs here, just because they have lobbyists who give big bucks to politicians. That's crony capitalism, and it needs to stop.
My arena example wasn't very good now that I think about it, because the arena is owned by the city of Lincoln and paid for with tax payer dollars. They're renting it to the University of Nebraska for basketball games, plus it will be used to bring major concerts into the area--it absolutely will be a money maker though. Still--why shouldn't a city or state give tax incentives to major manufacturers to entice them to move into an area? If they're really creating good paying jobs that will make up for or go beyond the tax incentives, I think it's a good plan. If they're not creating those jobs, then it's not a good plan.
Because that's not their job. And we don't need government picking winners and losers. When they pick a winner, they also pick losers by default.
If you own a business, do you really want your competitors to get government funding? Would that be fair to you? Of course not.
And also, it does not create jobs. It just moves them from another city or venue.
If there is a legitimate business opportunity, private investment funds are readily available to do the deal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.