thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:But again, the real problem is that most large businesses (as opposed to small businesses) have not been truly paying for their costs of doing business. They get tax breaks in the name of "creating jobs", and then the rest of us help subsidize the companies real expenses.
Again (ad infinitum), I have no idea where you're getting this from. Large businesses employ many people, they provide goods and services for others to purchase. Are there tax breaks for big companies? It depends. In many cases, tax breaks for big companies involve something that the government truly wants. For example, if a government of a state wants more jobs in a depressed area, they provide tax credits (in Pennsylvania these are called Keystone Opportunity Zones). The give tax credits to companies that create jobs in those depressed areas. I think that's okay, and it creates jobs. The governor of Pennsylvania seems to like it.
I think that a company passing on its expenses to its customers is just something that happens. If you don't want it to happen, don't buy things from that company. Like I said, I don't shop at Walmart (for non-tax reasons).
Walmart is just an example. They make a good symbol/target because they began with the hype of "buying American" and still like to brag about treating their employees well. The same really applies for just about any retail store you can name. Office staff in many offices still get paid low, though there is a huge range, partly tied to job titles. An "office assistant" may be a glorified receptionist or may be something like an assistant manager, and may be paid well or quite poorly, more based on the local economy and attitude of the employers than any real tie to skills/duties. In PA, a family of 4 can make 39,220, a family of 2 can make 25,900 and still qualify for public assistance such as WIC, reduced lunches, etc. That means you have a 2 income earning family OR you are on assistance.
Two incomes mean kids have to be in childcare. Childcare can be a good thing for kids in some situations, but around here, options are limited. Many people rely on family. Nice, if you have that option. Many others, like myself, stay at home because any job we can get plain pays less than we would have to pay out (not even counting that we would lose what assistance we do sometimes get). This means that while my kids can arguably benefit from having me here, the state loses out on the taxes I would be paying. Also, because my kids are not in paid childcare, there is another tax loss for the state.
I know you are aware of pollution. The worst cases, the "superfund" sites are more or less shut down (though NOT necessarily cleaned up). No PA river is really clean. There are a few clean enough that I would eat fish from them, but mostly ... no. That means you, me, my kids all have a hazard instead of a nice recreation and food source. But, again, much of that (not all) is in the past. Cleanup and prevention are 2 seperate things. Still, the money that was made off of those companies is still floating around, just not in taxpayer's hands.
A bigger issue is the lessor pollutions that still very much do exist. Part of this is homeowners, BUT .. its homeowners using products that are available quite cheaply. Pesticide companies are required to put all sorts of harsh-sounding penalties on their packages. However, studies show that the average homeowner uses 10 times as much pesticide/herbicide, etc as they need. That excess winds up in neighbor's yards and eventually into streams and rivers, even people's wells. It is up to the well owner to pay to get it tested. Then, if a toxin is found, the (private) well owner can be penalized. Lawsuits for point-based pollution, never mind the more ephemeral non-point sources (such as multiple houses each contributing small amounts) are very, very hard to get through in PA. I have one of the clearest cases ever, My neighbor flat out has ruined my garage and is harming my house, my kids directly, but it would cost me $15,000 just to bring the case to court and there is definitely no certainty I would win. My house is worth less than $50,000. We barely make ends meet as it is.
The we get to transportation. A large percentage of the products you buy come on roads. This is the cheap and easy way to transport things in the US, because trucks don't have to really pay for the damage they cost to roads, nor do they truly have to compensate for the various types of pollution they put out. Yes, I mean deisel fumes, but more importantly, I mean the transport of hazardous chemicals. Most people have no idea of the numbers and volumes of toxics that travel our roads every day (rails, too, but that is another story). Rail would be cheaper, but the collusion of GM, etc, in ensuring that system was not fully implemented has been extremely well documented. In fact, they were even taken to court early on and lost... followed by a change in government policies to favor the car and oil companies.
Health care has come up a lot. That ought to be a "no brainer". If you, as an employer don't provide medical coverage OR pay your employees enough that they can go out and get it on their own, then you are leaving that care up to the taxpayers. Yes, I realize health care is expensive. I fully realize that many employers legitimately cannot pay for health coverage and still make any kind of profit. That is the point. The profit they are taking is not really profit at all. Then when you add in the many (mostly larger) companies that could provide better coverage (some coverage is, of course, required for fulltime employees), that offer coverage that still winds up putting people on taxpayer rolls... then you realize that much of what is considered "profit" really is not.
Have I even mentioned this whole scam of hiring people for 29 hours a week? Or temporary agencies that conveniently hire people for 5 months, 27 days and then "sorry, we cannot move you to permanent". Of course, a few weeks later they may have another temp job (or another agency will, in a round -robin of musical employers). So, even required, supposedly mandated benefits are simply not paid. Yep, the US government is actually one of the worst abusers of this. The AVERAGE time it takes a natural resource employee to move from temporary (note -- this means 11 months, 28 days, 2 weeks of, then again..) was 5 years last I saw the statistics. There have been a few job classification changes, but its still about the same. At least those employees usually got reasonable wages. OH, and this is one reason why the government IS efficient. When I was a GS-5, I was actually doing the work of a GS-11 or 12. I was NOT unusual. That is pretty typical in natural resources/biology. There is a wide range. I can point you to plenty of over-paid people. However "over paid" in this case often translates to roughly equivalent to the better paid similar type jobs in private industry. (though I am sure there are plenty who truly ARE over paid).
This is plenty long enough already. The point is that all of the costs I refer to are externalities or tangential costs. The free market is great at controlling direct costs, but not the rest. That is where taxpayers carry the burden. That is where government control and yes, taxes, are legitimately and reasonably supposed to be employed.
