In addition to being totally unsuitable for hn, there is a bunch of funny math here.
First, dividing the total corporate welfare by the number of families and claiming that the result is what an "average family pays" is highly misleading. Most importantly, because of the progressive nature of our tax system, the median family pays much less than an average share of the tax burden.
Second, business incentives granted by localities in the form of, say, reduced property taxes, are not necessarily "costs". If a city has an empty field, and incentivizes MegaCo to build a factory there with $50M in tax breaks, but the resulting jobs and remaining taxes end up being worth $50M, then the city has gained not $0, but $50M, assuming the field would have otherwise remained empty. Obviously there are questions of how effective different incentives are and whether they're ultimately worthwhile, but simply adding up the dollar value of incentives and calling them taxpayer costs is silly.
I could keep going, but enough. commondreams.org links do not belong on hn. If I had a flag button I'd use it, but I lost it during the Great Snowden Hunt.
Indeed, the funky math does hide a true story. Yes, there are insane tax breaks to farmers and businesses and wealthy. Placing the entire blame of drug overcharges on our patent system is a stretch, and hurts the spots where he has legit points.
This logic is flawed. Using this kind of math, I could determine that the average U.S. family pays: (US Govt annual revenue) / (# taxpayer families) - which would most certainly be far more money than the average family pays in taxes. This is because a large fraction of govt revenue comes from a smaller fraction of tax payers. Not saying I condone these sorts of uses of taxpayer dollars.
Since when is 'mean' not a reasonable way of averaging fungible goods like tax funds? They're directly comparable in that corporate welfare and a $6,000 annual check to every household in the US are directly competing goods.
I don't see why people should be complaining about this. After all, in return they get so many great products, services, and... beautiful architecture to look at while driving to the nearest mall.
The article uses a different definition of the word "subsidy" than I would. Specifically, I would hardly call $350 in Retirement Fund Bank Fees a "subsidy".
Checking the references, I also don't see how the 1268 in increased prescription costs can be directly attributable to patents. A portion perhaps. And again not what I would call a subsidy. It also certainly does not come without a price (R&D) to the company.
First, dividing the total corporate welfare by the number of families and claiming that the result is what an "average family pays" is highly misleading. Most importantly, because of the progressive nature of our tax system, the median family pays much less than an average share of the tax burden.
Second, business incentives granted by localities in the form of, say, reduced property taxes, are not necessarily "costs". If a city has an empty field, and incentivizes MegaCo to build a factory there with $50M in tax breaks, but the resulting jobs and remaining taxes end up being worth $50M, then the city has gained not $0, but $50M, assuming the field would have otherwise remained empty. Obviously there are questions of how effective different incentives are and whether they're ultimately worthwhile, but simply adding up the dollar value of incentives and calling them taxpayer costs is silly.
I could keep going, but enough. commondreams.org links do not belong on hn. If I had a flag button I'd use it, but I lost it during the Great Snowden Hunt.