Big Companies Collecting State Taxes From Workers And Keeping The Money

[Barb]

Across the United States more than 2,700 companies are collecting state income taxes from hundreds of thousands of workers - and are keeping the money with the states' approval, says an eye-opening report published on Thursday.

The report from Good Jobs First, a nonprofit taxpayer watchdog organization funded by Ford, Surdna and other major foundations, identifies 16 states that let companies divert some or all of the state income taxes deducted from workers' paychecks. None of the states requires notifying the workers, whose withholdings are treated as taxes they paid.

Now we all know about how states or cities will give all sorts of incentives to companies to locate or stay in a particular place, yet I had no idea or clear picture of what exactly this includes.

AMC Entertainment announced a deal last year to move its corporate headquarters from Kansas City, Mo., to a nearby Kansas suburb. In return, Good Jobs First said, Kansas will let the multiplex chain keep $47 million of state income taxes withheld from its workers' paychecks, a drain on public finances that did not create any jobs, but does enrich the Wall Street firms that own AMC including arms of J. P. Morgan, Apollo Management, Bain Capital and the Carlyle Group.

So I wonder how much of this trickled on up into Mitt's pockets?

Promising to retain jobs can be lucrative. General Electric invested $126 million updating part of its Ohio operations. In return, GE gets a tax credit equal to $115.3 million of its worker taxes, recovering 92 percent of its investment. A sweet deal for GE, but not its competitors.

700 million dollars a year in payroll tax being taken out of paychecks as bribes.

And people have the nerve to call a poor person on Food Stamps a welfare queen. I think GE and the rest of these companies who extort our hard earned payroll tax are the true welfare queens.

[Lance in Manassas]

Hides the fact. If the money was going into the treasury and back out, people might notice.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by Barb

Now we all know about how states or cities will give all sorts of incentives to companies to locate or stay in a particular place, yet I had no idea or clear picture of what exactly this includes.

So I wonder how much of this trickled on up into Mitt's pockets?

700 million dollars a year in payroll tax being taken out of paychecks as bribes.

And people have the nerve to call a poor person on Food Stamps a welfare queen. I think GE and the rest of these companies who extort our hard earned payroll tax are the true welfare queens.

Miwingman, here's your welfare queens right here. How about you cry a river for them? Since you're not naive, can't you see what they're doing?

Let's make em pay their own way, up from bootstraps and all that.

[Miwingman]

First of all I never used the term "welfare queens".

I do agree that these practices are unacceptable, but I don't know why you are blaming the corporations. You should be blaming the politicians who are making these practices possible.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

First of all I never used the term "welfare queens".

I do agree that these practices are unacceptable, but I don't know why you are blaming the corporations. You should be blaming the politicians who are making these practices possible.

Well, yeah the corporations are utterly blameless here. Totally not part of the problem. LOL!!!!

It takes two to tango.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

First of all I never used the term "welfare queens".

I do agree that these practices are unacceptable, but I don't know why you are blaming the corporations. You should be blaming the politicians who are making these practices possible.

This could be a really interesting discussion here. This gets down to the two separate world views. We essentially are against the same things. People such as yourself see the pols as being the problem. People such as myself see the corps as the problem.

Normally a difference such as this would lead to conflict and disagreement on how to solve the problems. I think, if we (everyone) would put the country first we could actually solve the problem even if we disagree on the blame.
For example if we agree corporate welfare is wrong (a big if ), maybe we could agree cutting out corporate / government collusion could potentially solve the problem. We don't have to agree who is the lead in he collusion to solve it. This is just a tiny bit of one problem we might could get together on. To do so, however would require both sides to stop with the extreme rhetoric of "the _____is totally evil"

[Indiana_April]

Damn it! And here is my company paying state taxes every month!

Small business gets screwed again!

[Bigbenny]

Originally Posted by CMAC

This could be a really interesting discussion here. This gets down to the two separate world views. We essentially are against the same things. People such as yourself see the pols as being the problem. People such as myself see the corps as the problem.

Normally a difference such as this would lead to conflict and disagreement on how to solve the problems. I think, if we (everyone) would put the country first we could actually solve the problem even if we disagree on the blame.
For example if we agree corporate welfare is wrong (a big if ), maybe we could agree cutting out corporate / government collusion could potentially solve the problem. We don't have to agree who is the lead in he collusion to solve it. This is just a tiny bit of one problem we might could get together on. To do so, however would require both sides to stop with the extreme rhetoric of "the _____is totally evil"

using a horrible analogy governments don't make stupid rules, the corporate owners of government make stupid rules (guns don't kill people excuse). That seems like a conservative answer to me.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by Bigbenny

using a horrible analogy governments don't make stupid rules, the corporate owners of government make stupid rules (guns don't kill people excuse). That seems like a conservative answer to me.

?? Huh ?? If you're saying I made a horrible analogy, I'd have to disagree. Yes, I come from an other than conservative view, but I don't see government as some evil autonomous entity. I see government as representatives. We allow corporations to buy them off, so they represent the corporations. I think if Pols were more responsible to the actual citizens, they would try to curry favor with us.

I believe conservatives feel the opposite. They would be more likely to see government as evil autonomous entity. I guess corporations benefit because the pols are automatically going to do evil, and evil benefits corporations, maybe??

My post, however was trying to say, it shouldn't matter which view is correct, in some instances. If corporate money is related to bad government policies, and we correct that, it doesn't matter which entity is evil.

[Ian in Ohio]

It's funny that both sides use the same language about this too, but mean something different.

Getting special interests out of politics

For a Liberal means keeping corporations from making large donations.

For a Conservative means keeping unions (and others) from making large donations.

Neither side would be willing to do anything that would put a muzzle on their gift horse. I don't expect anything to happen to get special interests out of politics.

It is a sad fact that our political system can only be furthered through expensive ad campaigns, which mostly sell us lies.

[Barb]

See now I don't think we need to end all of the economic development tax breaks.

I think we need to see these deals done in the broad daylight. They should have strong claw-back provisions, and other safeguards.

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by Barb

See now I don't think we need to end all of the economic development tax breaks.

I think we need to see these deals done in the broad daylight. They should have strong claw-back provisions, and other safeguards.

What we need is a State Constitutional Amendment in all the states, if they don't already have one. That all taxes must be equally applied across the board. No special treatment for corporations or persons. Everyone should pay their fair share.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Tritium

What we need is a State Constitutional Amendment in all the states, if they don't already have one. That all taxes must be equally applied across the board. No special treatment for corporations or persons. Everyone should pay their fair share.

I remember living in Hamtramck/ Detroit a while ago. I remember having a Farmer Jack there that constantly had rotten food on it's shelves, a horrible sour smell coming from it's milk coolers, meat that came in all sorts of shades of green and brown, and bread stacked on top of shelves with mouse shit.

To give a tax credit for a decent grocer to locate within 5 miles of my old home would have been a decent use of tax dollars in my opinion. It sucked driving to the suburbs to find a grocery store that didn't make you throw up.

Though giving companies the money that comes out of payroll checks for state or cit tax sure crosses the line for me.

And the couple of deals listed in the article seem to be pretty shitty deals if you ask me.

[MrsPeabody]

Originally Posted by Ian in Ohio

It's funny that both sides use the same language about this too, but mean something different.

Getting special interests out of politics

For a Liberal means keeping corporations from making large donations.

For a Conservative means keeping unions (and others) from making large donations.

Neither side would be willing to do anything that would put a muzzle on their gift horse. I don't expect anything to happen to get special interests out of politics.

It is a sad fact that our political system can only be furthered through expensive ad campaigns, which mostly sell us lies.

Thats not the conservative position at all.

Liberals focus on campaign finance reform and I have to give them credit that they include unions in the mix. Liberals think if they can just reduce the amount of money given to pols then the problems will be solved. They see the problem as the private sector asking/lobbying/buying favors and not the govt granting favors.

Conservatives (not republicans but conservatives) see the problem is the govt. Campaign finance is the symptom not the problem. If the govt cant grant favors in the first place then there is no problem. Take away the govts power to give subsidies, bailouts, special tax breaks, ear marks, etc., and there is no reason for corporations/unions to lobby the govt so heavily.

I dont understand the liberal approach. Govt has shown it can be bought and bribed. Thats what this thread is about - state govt giving corps a bribe through the state taxes. The fed govt does the same thing through the fed tax system. Politicians play the favors game now, and they write the rules, and liberals think if these same pols had just a little more power they would write rules to stop themselves from taking favors? What fantasy land is that from? An honest person doesnt need a rule to be honest. A dishonest person can write a million rules that look good but are ineffective.

[Ian in Ohio]

MRs.Peabody.

That is an interesting thought. Let me see if I understand.

If the politicians were more honest they wouldn't use their position of power to grant favors - and there are no other realistic ways to keep politicians from acting honestly.

Is that right?

[Philosopher Dan]

Originally Posted by MrsPeabody

Thats not the conservative position at all.

Liberals focus on campaign finance reform and I have to give them credit that they include unions in the mix. Liberals think if they can just reduce the amount of money given to pols then the problems will be solved. They see the problem as the private sector asking/lobbying/buying favors and not the govt granting favors.

Conservatives (not republicans but conservatives) see the problem is the govt. Campaign finance is the symptom not the problem. If the govt cant grant favors in the first place then there is no problem. Take away the govts power to give subsidies, bailouts, special tax breaks, ear marks, etc., and there is no reason for corporations/unions to lobby the govt so heavily.

I dont understand the liberal approach. Govt has shown it can be bought and bribed. Thats what this thread is about - state govt giving corps a bribe through the state taxes. The fed govt does the same thing through the fed tax system. Politicians play the favors game now, and they write the rules, and liberals think if these same pols had just a little more power they would write rules to stop themselves from taking favors? What fantasy land is that from? An honest person doesnt need a rule to be honest. A dishonest person can write a million rules that look good but are ineffective.

Okay - but if the politicians can't write rules, because they can't be trusted, then how will we get new rules that keep politicians from writing rules?

If we elect new people to write new rules, why would they not become corrupted? In particular, if we elect people who want to deregulate everything, why wouldn't they write rules which favor deregulation in such a way as to allow companies, without regulation, to acquire any favors they want? Wouldn't they be in the pocket of the people who funded their campaigns in just the same way?

If this might not be the case, I wonder if you have any historical examples whereby people who wanted less regulations got into power and put in place a system with less political corruption than had been the case before hand?

If there are not such examples, could you work out a more detailed argument whereby people who like less regulation would set up a system with less obvious corruption than is the case now?

[Ian in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ian in Ohio

realistic ways to keep politicians from acting honestly.

That, of course, should have read, keep them acting honestly.

[MrsPeabody]

Originally Posted by Philosopher Dan

Okay - but if the politicians can't write rules, because they can't be trusted, then how will we get new rules that keep politicians from writing rules?

If we elect new people to write new rules, why would they not become corrupted? In particular, if we elect people who want to deregulate everything, why wouldn't they write rules which favor deregulation in such a way as to allow companies, without regulation, to acquire any favors they want? Wouldn't they be in the pocket of the people who funded their campaigns in just the same way?

If this might not be the case, I wonder if you have any historical examples whereby people who wanted less regulations got into power and put in place a system with less political corruption than had been the case before hand?

If there are not such examples, could you work out a more detailed argument whereby people who like less regulation would set up a system with less obvious corruption than is the case now?

Don't write more rules to fix the problems that resulted from the old rules (which were written to fix problems resulting from even older rules).

Just take away the power of the feds.

If there is no federal dept of education, then nobody lobbies tthe federal govt over education issues.

If the tax law is a simple flat tax with
no exemptions or loopholes, then nobody lobbies Congress over the tax code because Congress cant do anything about it.

etc.

If the federal govt is strictly limited in what it can spend money on (national defense, maintain navigable waterways, etc) then they have less flexibility to deviate from their required task. A smaller govt is easier to track and monitor.


And now the liberals will scream that people will die in the streets (except for those that are thrown off the cliff) and there will be no education and we will all be reduced to cannibalism. BS. The states will do what they decide needs to be done. Show me evidence that the only people with a heart and mind are liberals in DC. Liberals follow Hobbes.

[MrsPeabody]

Originally Posted by Philosopher Dan

Okay - but if the politicians can't write rules, because they can't be trusted, then how will we get new rules that keep politicians from writing rules?

If we elect new people to write new rules, why would they not become corrupted? In particular, if we elect people who want to deregulate everything, why wouldn't they write rules which favor deregulation in such a way as to allow companies, without regulation, to acquire any favors they want? Wouldn't they be in the pocket of the people who funded their campaigns in just the same way?

If this might not be the case, I wonder if you have any historical examples whereby people who wanted less regulations got into power and put in place a system with less political corruption than had been the case before hand?

If there are not such examples, could you work out a more detailed argument whereby people who like less regulation would set up a system with less obvious corruption than is the case now?

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

Everyone sees that the pols are corrupt and have been for 100 years. Why do liberals have even the vaguest assurance that if the pols are given their 100th chance and given even more power that they will stop the corruption?

Its the same cycle for 100 years. The pols get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, people scream, the pols say they are sorry and will fix it so it never happens again, the pols pass something that mollifies the people, and its back to business as usual. Democrats are just as guilty as republicans.

[Philosopher Dan]

Originally Posted by MrsPeabody

Don't write more rules to fix the problems that resulted from the old rules (which were written to fix problems resulting from even older rules).

Just take away the power of the feds.

If there is no federal dept of education, then nobody lobbies tthe federal govt over education issues.

If the tax law is a simple flat tax with
no exemptions or loopholes, then nobody lobbies Congress over the tax code because Congress cant do anything about it.

etc.

If the federal govt is strictly limited in what it can spend money on (national defense, maintain navigable waterways, etc) then they have less flexibility to deviate from their required task. A smaller govt is easier to track and monitor.


And now the liberals will scream that people will die in the streets (except for those that are thrown off the cliff) and there will be no education and we will all be reduced to cannibalism. BS. The states will do what they decide needs to be done. Show me evidence that the only people with a heart and mind are liberals in DC. Liberals follow Hobbes.

Okay - but if state government is the problem, as this thread maintains, then how will giving more power to state governments be the answer?

And no one ever claimed that only liberal people in DC (whomever these people are) are the only ones who can do any thing of any kind. Some of us have maintained that without a coherent set of government rules, private enterprise will have no accountability. But to go from that to "only government can do it" is to commit a fallacy of straw man, and as the man says:



Also, Hobbes is typically considered to be a conservative political philosopher. Those people you paint with the broad brush of "liberals" (at some point, I wonder if you might not say a bit more about what you think a "liberal" is) typically believe in a host of rights. For Hobbes, citizens have no rights, but are under the thumb of the Sovereign.

The fact that some people we might identify, or who might self-identify as liberals, would like to have a progressive tax system in order to fund education does not mean said people do not care about rights. The right to an education happens to one which many such people care about, and so they want to guarantee that right via a method such as progressive taxation.

You may not like this, but that doesn't make it Hobbsian.

Now something like a flat tax might be viable. But if you cause a significant hamstringing of the government to collect revenue, then how will they enforce any laws or set any rules in the first place?

And if you want to say that, for some reason, people don't need laws to be honest (which again, no one ever said they did), that's fine. But it's not the honest people one has to worry about. If there aren't rules in place, or the ability to enforce rules, and one bad actor tries a one-off profit grab at the expense of the community, where will the recourse be?