Forum Thread

Corporate Welfare:

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 24 of 24 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    All judges have political bias. To think otherwise is naive. When it comes to electing judges I want to know why and how they ruled on various issues before casting a vote. As for the SCOTUS? Elimination of lifetime appointments is appropriate.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    No Lonely, they should have no "bias" if they claim to have the highest standing in this country which consist of just about any type of "human being" walking around on this globe. Then you have to stick to the "laws" as written without "bias". If these "laws" were written with an "bias" that is also wrong. So it is time we clean up our laws and make our "base" law an "living" document adapted to the times and not update it, only if it suits the then sitting government once in a while in a hundred years. Yes I know that this country is an very complicated piece of the world, but "fair" and "honest" justice should be possible. I suggest to get rid of the "British" model and try the Canadian one for a change; they have also an melting "pot" of "immigrants", but it seems to work there better than the "unbelievable mess" here with an two party system which is 2000 miles apart in their way of thinking; no wonder you need a "zillion lawyers" to fight everything here with "case laws". This system here is bound to fail, as I wrote a million times; you can't govern with "bandaids" all the time. Just look on how the "Second Amendment" is written; it is pure stupid and ignorant. This country still has lots to learn.

    How can you govern an country with an "broken" system and "hillbilly's without education and an "leader" who knows nothing and is only interested in "collecting" money for himself. I pity Biden if he gets elected; the "fixes" which this country needs are just about impossible within this polarized system. Amen.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    TG,whatever way, they should not be "political" but "impartial"; I don't care who elects them as long as the church or idiots with guns are not allowed to have an say. If not done with "brains" and "qualifications" then we get the types like Barr, Gorsuch, and the crying ass Kavanaugh. All is created by this "non-structured" ridiculous outdated British clothed cream brain system here. Sorry people this convoluted antique "system" of governing belongs in the garbage bin, ask Putin. ha ha.

    Better ask, Merkel.

    In a democracy, even those who disagree with us deserve a say. What they are getting and do not deserve, is a disproportionate amount of say. I still say judges should not be, in any way ELECTED. It opens them up to corruption. To pandering. To out and out bribery, if you will. The previous rules, of Presidential appointment, with advice and consent of the Senate (requires 60 votes) would work just fine...but there would need two changes:

    1. Appointments are to be for ten years, not lifetime.
    2. If the President is of the opposite Party of the Senate Majority Leader, then 40 members of that Party can force a vote on the nominee. Endless delays are not permitted. No more Merrick Garlands.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TG Tarheel Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:

    TG,whatever way, they should not be "political" but "impartial"; I don't care who elects them as long as the church or idiots with guns are not allowed to have an say. If not done with "brains" and "qualifications" then we get the types like Barr, Gorsuch, and the crying ass Kavanaugh. All is created by this "non-structured" ridiculous outdated British clothed cream brain system here. Sorry people this convoluted antique "system" of governing belongs in the garbage bin, ask Putin. ha ha.

    Better ask, Merkel.

    In a democracy, even those who disagree with us deserve a say. What they are getting and do not deserve, is a disproportionate amount of say. I still say judges should not be, in any way ELECTED. It opens them up to corruption. To pandering. To out and out bribery, if you will. The previous rules, of Presidential appointment, with advice and consent of the Senate (requires 60 votes) would work just fine...but there would need two changes:

    1. Appointments are to be for ten years, not lifetime.
    2. If the President is of the opposite Party of the Senate Majority Leader, then 40 members of that Party can force a vote on the nominee. Endless delays are not permitted. No more Merrick Garlands.

    The hearings were already corrupted by McConnell before it started; at that time the Dem's had the minority in the Senate and still were treated as dirt by certain pieces of filth as Jordan, Collins, Gaetz and others. This had nothing at all to do with an "honest" selection, but just "bully" your way to get what you want by the Senate who are fully into the ass of Trump. So the setup of the "system" is asking for more of this.

    No more Kavanaugh's or Gorsuch'es either. Let alone an Barr. By the way "ten" years is way too much; in "ten" years" lots can change nowadays with our situation in technology or world status. This country never has caught up with the times and is still using things written an century ago , like the "second amendment", which allows the "militia" (which one?) to have an "blunderbus" with one "round". As long as the Constitution is an "dead duck" and not an "living" document which is updated on an daily basis as is done in other countries then "case laws" never will catch up with the times we live in. The "mess" here is created by not starting at "A" but only using "bandaids" to fix things in the outdated "base law" which should actually be re-written to fit modern times. Such as how to do an "impeachment process" which had to be totally re-invented by McConnell the wrong way. You can't walk forever on worn out shoes; but here the "soles" are long gone. Amen

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Bearontap Wrote: If corporations are people, and Republicans are against welfare, then corporations should not be getting any handouts from the government. bear on tap

    Back to the thread topic,

    Well, republicans are for corporate welfare. Even though they call for an end to entitlements and welfare for citizens, they look for tax loopholes that'll help their millionaire and billionaire friends in the corporate world.

    In everyday matters, corporations and companies e.g. Walmart, Walgreens, Target, and other retailers possibly have received or were promised tax incentives to build their stores in areas of different municipalities and then later close those stores they have built and build another one in the same municipality and after it's been built and been doing business in that area, lobby the municipality (hire prominent lawyers) or a city in efforts to lower their tax burden/s. It's called "dark stores".
    It's a real problem because cities are sometimes forced to take less money for the property values than they should. I view it as a form of corporate welfare.

    “Dark Store Theory” and Property Taxation

    Legal interpretation could cost states millions

    comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-no...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dock:

    Another good example is Foxconn, which has a lot of empty sites in Wisconsin, despite the fact that Wisconsin gave the company $4.5 billion in incentives.

    https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/12/21217060/foxconn-wisconsin-innovation-centers-empty-buildings

    In a recent paper on the issue, my Mercatus Center colleagues Matthew Mitchell and Michael Farren did the math and found that "the $3.6 billion in taxes needed to fund the subsidies will likely decrease Wisconsin's long-run GDP by about $20 billion over the 15-year life of the handout. And this estimate doesn't include the local utility infrastructure, and federal subsidies that total another $1.4 billion." These numbers are harder to sell to taxpayers than the la-la land ones we hear about before every big subsidy deal.

    Burying

    https://reason.com/2020/01/09/study-says-foxconn-deal-cost-wisconsin-20-billion-in-lost-economic-growth/

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    My post is not about Corporate Welfare but the thread has discussed a number of things. This is an article from 1 year ago about African American voting habits. If Joe Biden is going to have a chance this year, people of all demographics must actually vote. Hopefully we have record turnout resulting in favorable results.

    brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2019/09/...

    -----

    Regarding the previous comments about term limits for the Supreme court. I think there should be a set of limits considered. Age and health as well as mental fitness are important. However some are in better shape at 78 than others are at 68.

    ------

    A meme from yesterday said 60 % of Americans are tired of Donald Trump's shit. 40% love the taste of it.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:
    Bearontap Wrote: If corporations are people, and Republicans are against welfare, then corporations should not be getting any handouts from the government. bear on tap

    Back to the thread topic,

    Well, republicans are for corporate welfare. Even though they call for an end to entitlements and welfare for citizens, they look for tax loopholes that'll help their millionaire and billionaire friends in the corporate world.

    In everyday matters, corporations and companies e.g. Walmart, Walgreens, Target, and other retailers possibly have received or were promised tax incentives to build their stores in areas of different municipalities and then later close those stores they have built and build another one in the same municipality and after it's been built and been doing business in that area, lobby the municipality (hire prominent lawyers) or a city in efforts to lower their tax burden/s. It's called "dark stores".
    It's a real problem because cities are sometimes forced to take less money for the property values than they should. I view it as a form of corporate welfare.

    “Dark Store Theory” and Property Taxation

    Legal interpretation could cost states millions

    comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-no...

    Hummm...that gave me an interesting idea, though. Couldn't these big box stores that have gone dark be reopened as a huge food hall, and maybe some retail kiosks?? Several businesses operating under one roof. Maybe even as an indoor farmer's market or indoor flea market?

    My point being...if they would like the lower valuation for tax purposes...then they should also rent the space at that lower valuation! If they want to rent it at the higher valuation, then the taxes should be assessed accordingly. Sorta boxes them in a bit, yaknow? By the way, that pun was very intended.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Everything you write sounds good in theory, but I know of at least 2 or 3 thrift stores that pulled their plug where I reside, one even downsized to less than half the space they originally operated out of.

    Part of the trouble is that these big box places are/were in high rent districts / areas, and the little one (little guy) or entrepreneur doesn't have the green stamps to open up and operate in those high rent districts.

    The old big box stores abandoned and still owned by them will sit vacant for many years. No tax revenue for the city at all to speak of. One Walmart location which closed recently sold for $1M, I was sort of shocked it sold for that much because the area has basically turned from a good/great retail commerce area to a near ghetto setting.

    And BTW, the area (uptown) of where the riots happened here were to be gentrified by our city council. The method they used was that any property that had numerous police calls, fire calls, complaints about building codes, were deemed as problems, and the city made people move from those houses/apartments, and then condemned those properties with intentions of razing them into vacant lots. The city was also in the planning stages of rehabbing the entire uptown area with redesigned floral/tree arrangements, parking arrangements and so forth to "beautify" a run down 100+ year old tacky part of the city. Shame on them.