Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
MD, you say we're quickly approaching the cliff and that more and more people are relying on government handouts to make ends meet. We've been giving huge tax breaks and incentives to companies for years. Why are you against attempting to make the regulations more favorable for consumers?
Those of us in favor of limiting the support of big business don't want more people relying on subsidies. We want more people employeed and keeping more of their money. I want businesses to be succesful and do well. I want entrepreneurs to be rewarded for their risk and hard work. They still will be under a system that favors the consumer. I believe that allowing more money to flow from the people, to businesses, and back is what develops a healthy economy. Allowing these mega corporations to horde massive profits does nothing to reinvest in our economy.
You want to get people off food stamps? Me too. I would love to have entitlement reform. Problem is, you have to give your populace the means to support themselves. Having a class of people who are destitude and unable to feed themselves, find shelter, and purchase the necessities leads to a culture with signficantly more crime and social unrest. That's not good for any country.
We've been propping up big business and giving them benefits for a long time now. We've seen companies make record profits while paying historically low tax rates on that profit. We've also seen the disappearance of the middle class in this country and we're seeing the first generation who isn't off then their parents in perhaps the history of our country. Big business subsidies and tax breaks are not single handedly responsible for these issues, but they are a primary factor.
The difficult part is ensuring small businesses can be competitive with the giant mega corporations we have now. The most critical component in capitalism is the pressence of true competition.
|
Agree with most, if not all, of what you said. Bolded part is a +100
Subsidies and corporate tax breaks, in and of themselves, are not inherently bad. When they stop being effective tools for economic stimulus, I would suggest they become bad. Since 1980, corporate executive pay has increased at a rate 40% (I think that was the number feel free to Google), there have been lots of reasons for this (not the least of which is the accounting methods used). To me, this reflects a disconnect between the corporate wealth being created through public funding and it's distribution.
Subsidies at both ends of the wealth spectrum have their purpose. The problem, of course, is that once given to either end they NEVER EVER go away without huge political battles.