Posted on 01/13/2012 3:32:54 AM PST by Minus_The_Bear
What Romney doesn't mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company's first mill was built.
The story of Bain and Steel Dynamics illustrates how Romney, during his business career, made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider to be "corporate welfare." It is a commitment that carried over into his term as governor of Massachusetts, when he offered similar incentives to lure businesses to his state.
Yet as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination, he emphasizes government's adverse effects on economic growth.
"Fundamentally, what happens in America that creates jobs is not government. It has its role. But by and large, it gets in the way of creating jobs," he said during a debate Saturday sponsored by ABC News and Yahoo.
Bain Capital began looking at investing in the steel start-up in late 1993. At the time, Steel Dynamics was weighing where to locate its first plant, based in part on which region offered the best tax incentives. In June 1994, Bain put $18.2 million into Steel Dynamics, making it the largest domestic equity holder. It sold its stake five years later for $104 million, a return of more than $85 million.
As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents.
"I'm very pro-business, but I'm not pro-business-welfare," said DeKalb County resident Suzanne Beaman, 58, who fought the incentives. Steel Dynamics "would have done fine without our tax dollars, I have no doubt."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That is absolute nonsense. Letting someone keep more of THEIR OWN money is NEVER welfare.
Start criticizing Romney for his health insurance mess -- not his business.
If this isn't Corporate Welfare, then there is no such thing as Corporate Welfare. The taxpayers certainly didn't get to keep more of THEIR money, did they?
Which is why my comment dealt only with that part of the article calling tax breaks corporate welfare. And tax breaks are NEVER welfare. Allowing someone to keep more of their own money cannot be welfare. Direct transfer payments by the Govt. taking money out of the pocket of one and giving it to another IS welfare and to the extent any corporate subsidies do this I am against it.
That's why my comment dealt ONLY with the tax breaks = welfare part of the article. Your comment is totally inapplicable. Sounds like you have a really (sic) comprehension problem.
Giving special tax breaks is still government interference in the market, since it obviously influences who the winners and losers get to be. Not a fine example of free-enterprise.
Imposing any taxes in the first place is also government interference in the market.
This deal by Romney and government is additional proof that our forefathers were so wise in their understanding of taxation. Property and Income taxes are a pathway to serfdom, and part of the reason is that they allow government to pick winners and losers.
In this instance, the government picked Romney as a winner and it picked its own citizens as losers.
It truly is Corporate Welfare in that the corporation received incentives not granted to the citizens.
If all had been required to pay taxes on purchases and all at the same tax rate, then we wouldn’t be discussing this corporate welfare. Make no mistake, though. It IS Corporate Welfare, and Romney exhibited all the traits of a Vulture Capitalist.
We repeat that government and business in partnership is fascism.
Indeed. Though if we’re going to unfortunately have taxation in the 1st place, it’d be better if the rates were flat and not loaded with policies that play favoritism. So we shouldn’t be holding up tax breaks as something virtuous.
Right. But we are throwing all all the candidates pushing the flat tax, and now all the candidates favoring orthodox capitalism.
Makes me ill. Whether it’s by vultures like Romney multiplied times many all over this country, or welfare cheats, the taxpayer doesn’t have a CHANCE.
There will be the ultra rich, and then there will be the poor. This is our future with Romney and/or Obama. It doesn’t really matter which.
Yup. Obama and Romney are both corporatists. And corporatism is really just “backdoor socialism”, as Gingrich has rightfully suggested. Corporations are creatures of the state and not embodiments of free-market capitalism, as a lot of morons here and elsewhere seem to believe.
So yeah, as you say, there’ll little difference for us serfs regardless of which one gets in office.
Okay. It may not be welfare. What it is is corrupt, big government, crony capitalism.
Targeted tax cuts, where government picks winners and losers instead of the free market picking winners and losers is corrupt, statist and NOT free enterprise.
Agreed but that is a very, very old phenomenon and includes targeted taxes (sin taxes, gas taxes) as well as targeted tax cuts. This has existed since the beginning of the country as demonstrated by the whiskey rebellion. Of course today it has expanded to an inconceivable level.
Your problem is rightly with government interference in the free markets, not with those who are risking capital in pursuit of profit. I’m sure you take every tax credit and deduction available to you regardless of how ridiculous the public policy purposes of the credit/deduction may be. The home mortgage interest deduction played a part in the housing bubble because it artificially inflated housing prices. Most “conservative”, or “free market” supporters take the deduction nonetheless. The same thing applies to the child tax credit. If it is available, you take it. If you win the lottery, you do not refuse the money. I disagree with state-run lotteries, but would not refuse payment of winnings.
So, why should private business forego benefits offered to them if the benefit increases profit? Business owners will take whatever advantage legally afforded them. The real problem is the power wielded by the federal government. If we returned power to the people, there would be no reason for business to approach government for special favor.
Your problem is rightly with government interference in the free markets, not with those who are risking capital in pursuit of profit. I’m sure you take every tax credit and deduction available to you regardless of how ridiculous the public policy purposes of the credit/deduction may be. The home mortgage interest deduction played a part in the housing bubble because it artificially inflated housing prices. Most “conservative”, or “free market” supporters take the deduction nonetheless. The same thing applies to the child tax credit. If it is available, you take it. If you win the lottery, you do not refuse the money. I disagree with state-run lotteries, but would not refuse payment of winnings.
So, why should private business forego benefits offered to them if the benefit increases profit? Business owners will take whatever advantage legally afforded them. The real problem is the power wielded by the federal government. If we returned power to the people, there would be no reason for business to approach government for special favor.
I think you’ve answered you’re own question.
Taxes should be a last resort for govt, but when they exist they should be low and flat, not high for me and special breaks for you. Using the tax code in that way is just a reverse subsidy of a govt engaging in socialistic protectionism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.