Comments on: Taxed by the boss Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:49:31 +0000 hourly 1 By: curleybrothers Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:22:31 +0000 Interesting that the study was partially funded by the Ford foundation and Ford Motors is #3 on the list of companies receiving the most benefits. This seems like a Auto Industry perk and a tool NJ uses to lure (bribe ?) new business.

This does not seem right and thanks for exposing it David. I hope it reminds some wealthy donors to not leave $$$ to your foundations. By the time the 3rd generation of layabouts take over, they have turned on your original goal and push the social justice agenda. Probably because they think everyone could be rich without earning it, like themselves.

By: txgadfly Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:13:51 +0000 This is theft, pure and simple. It is also theft by deception.

The reason it happens is that we do not have free and fair elections with proportional representation. Thus our system is gamed so that there never is a genuine set of choices presented on a ballot and that maintains the same coalition of the powerful in control. Allowing monopolies, especially in the media and communications areas, makes these manipulations possible.

The entire system has become incredibly corrupt, meaning people benefit through surreptitious means while maintaining an exterior show of honesty, to the extent possible. Nothing is as it seems. Those states are short money because they give it away to the powerful while claiming to serve their ordinary citizens. Then the powerful kick back a percentage of the take in “campaign contributions”. Say, are drug kingpins powerful? Corrupt.

By: Cvmace Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:20:02 +0000 It would seem that employees whose state taxes were withheld and not retained by the state that they might have a case to claim those funds.

By: John_Steinsvold Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:43:00 +0000 An Alternative to Capitalism (if the people knew about it, they would demand it)

Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: “There is no alternative”.
She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.

I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider.
Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: “Home of the Brave?”
which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:


John Steinsvold

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
~ Albert Einstein

By: Knine Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:06:15 +0000 @ matthewslyman & TobyONotoby, “If “such deals… are an inevitable result of the U.S. Constitution setting up competition between the states”

Congress constitutionally assigned duty is to make the trade between the states fair and equal. This is another assigned duty that congress has forsworn and is not doing (Federal Reserve being the best known of those congress isn’y doing to the detriment of the USA.)
Corporate welfare at state or federal level is NOT any of the duties assigned to any of the three branches since it creates an unequal base with favoritism by the government at all levels to only certain companies.

So we do not need amendments, nor do we need a rewrite, etc of the US Constitution. What is needed is for the three branches to do the duties assigned to them in the way the Constitution tells them to perform them. Not to take more power for themselves – which is also illegal and “void” (as the framers put it). They just need to do the jobs we voted them in for as the blueprint for our government describes their duties to be, no more, no less.

By: bsananda Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:40:36 +0000 We have to strike at the “roots” first, before we get to all the “secondary” problems. The root problem is the influence of “money” on Congress.

Perhaps by “public financing” or Larry Lessig thinks we need a Constitutional Convention, but it may be as simple as amending the 14th Amendment to define person as “naturally born” (of a human mother).

Please strike at the roots of the problem and Occupy the Ballot Box!

By: TobyONottoby Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:24:32 +0000 If “such deals… are an inevitable result of the U.S. Constitution setting up competition between the states,” then any remedy would require constitutional amendments or a complete rewrite of the constitution. Attempting such a remedy would aggravate the divisions (often manifested as differences of constitutional interpretation) that led to the Civil War, which claimed the lives of roughly 3% of the US population. So, is the devil we know worse than the devil of opening up the constitution to major revision? (No good answer expected on my part.)

By: sherlockohms Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:52:46 +0000 This is just one of the incentives that states resort to in order to get a company into that state, or keep companies in their state; that’s why they call it tax incentives and this is one way of accomplishing it. And BTW, Mr Press (consultant referred to in article), competition between states is a good thing; that’s how best practices are discovered.

But, isn’t it also interesting that nearly all the states giving these incentives were forced unionism states, or the incentive was given in a year before the particular state became a right-to-work state.

Listen! I think I just heard someones point backfire.

By: kenneththomas Tue, 17 Apr 2012 06:05:40 +0000 @matthewslyman, I’m not quite sure I get your EU comparison. But I can tell you that in the EU, subsidies to business are much more transparent than in the U.S. due to EU rules. Moreover, only poorer regions of the EU are allowed to give investment subsidies at all; richer regions are excluded from the bidding wars. The top subsidy for large firms is only 50% of the investment (compared to 99% for the Electrolux example mentioned in the article), and that maximum gets cut if the investment exceeds 50 million euros. All this adds up to EU Member States spending a lot less than U.S. state and local governments do.

By: CeterisParibus Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:36:16 +0000 From an accounting point of view it is not clear if the total tax liability or the total withholding is the amount that is being credited to the company. If the latter then the employees should stop withholding and make quarterly estimated tax payments. If the former, then the companies could be getting credit for taxes owed on income from a second job or from investments (well OK not of that lately!), which is hardly right. If the liability is prorated among the income sources then the accountants have way too much time on their hands.

No matter how it is done it is clearly an anti-competitive, industrial policy that once again attempts to pick or create winners from whiners.