In the aftermath
of the 2007-2008 economic crisis, virtually every politician has promised to
protect the business interests of Main Street against those of Wall Street. A
recent NY Times investigation reveals just how much our
representatives really do keep small local businesses in mind when allocating
funds and approving legislation. The bottom line? Politicians don’t. Instead,
they throw thousands and thousands at big companies making too-good-to-be-true
promises that go unfulfilled at the expense of social welfare.
I had no idea
that my tax dollars were giving subsidies to companies while the state was
approving budget cuts in public school systems. Students are losing out in
bigger classes with fewer opportunities and supplies so that Facebook will set
up shop nearby? I’m not just peeved; I’m livid.
According to the
Times report, more than $80 billion a year is handed out to companies spanning
every aspect of the corporate world by states, counties and cities. The cost of
such financial incentives is incalculable while few bother to track whether the
promised jobs were even created. This $80 billion stems from mayors and
governors who agree to such incentives out of fear that if they don’t provide
subsidies, the companies will move jobs out of the United States. This in turn
has fueled interstate and intercity competition to see who can lure the
companies in by providing the best financial packages. The packages typically
include an assortment of “cash grants and loans, sales tax breaks, income tax
credits and exemptions, free services, and property tax abatements.”
A November 2011 map illustrating which states spend the most and which spend the least in terms of film subsidies. Although we tend to think of manufacturing (ahem GM), oil, agriculture and technology as the big seekers of incentives, the film industry is right in there with them.
Photo credit: http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/actnow/subsidies.html
Texas awards
over $19
billion a year in incentives, the most of any state. Many government
officials and especially company officials view the incentives in a positive
light. In the long run, the incentives will pay themselves back from increased
tax revenues. Job creation puts money into consumers’ pockets, which
gets pumped back into the economy through consumer spending and taxpayers.
But what happens
when the jobs don’t materialize? Fifty properties on General Motors liquidation
list were located in states and towns that had given incentives to the
automaker in hopes to keeping factories open. Now the towns are out millions
and millions of dollars while GM did nothing to uphold its end of the bargain
in the creation and maintenance of paying jobs.
State and town offerings of incentive packages to big businesses began in the early 1990s with the automotive industry. Since then many other industries have followed suit, pursuing states that could give them the most lucrative incentive packages.
Photo industry: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/31/media-virtually-silent-about-10-billion-union-health-care-subsidy-built-
While Kansas cut
its education budget by $104 million, it turned around and promised $36 million
to AMC Entertainment. How can you tell your future generation that cultivating
its potential for tomorrow isn’t nearly as important as gambling on jobs? I
don’t pay my taxes so that my state can bribe some big company: I pay taxes so
that my state can provide services like a good public school education, safe
roadways, efficient transportation systems, adequate emergency preparations and
responses, a police force, firefighters, EMTs, etc.
States and towns
are relinquishing millions upon millions in tax revenues to attract or keep
companies. In a time where nearly every state has a major budget deficit and
when there’s talk of raising MY taxes, I cannot believe officials turn a blind
eye to a source of funds they are not just ignoring but they are actually
throwing anyway. Start-up incentives including deals on land and build up costs
I can understand but exemption from taxes? We all pay taxes. These companies
need to start paying their fair share. It is disgusting that they can get away
with this while asking for government handouts when things go bad and getting
funds at the expense of more important social expenditures.
At the end of the day, it's all about making money.
Photo credit: http://www.onenewspage.us/n/US/74rkhti23/Ag-Rakes-in-Most-State-Subsidies-in-Santa.htm
In 1996, the
Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers do not have legal standing to challenge a
state’s tax actions in federal court. Yet that’s my money. Those incentives
should not come at the cost of my job, my education, my health care, my roadways
and certainly not in the form of higher taxes.
I don’t approve
my tax dollars to do that: bribe big business.
This article is pretty interesting to me since we've been studying a few cases of financial transactions (and subsidies) between the government and big companies. The following fact illustrates a huge problem: "This $80 billion stems from mayors and governors who agree to such incentives out of fear that if they don’t provide subsidies, the companies will move jobs out of the United States." Often, such companies do move jobs out of the U.S. anyway. Also, too much of the savings is typically kept at the top positions of the company. This is one reason why the current system of "supply-side" economics is not working properly in the U.S. It's a shame public education is paying so much of the price to make up for the losses.
ReplyDelete