No, I'm holding you to account for not understanding the difference between a genuine
subsidy and an
abatement. Spare me the Wiki-deep level of knowledge I'm sure you're keen to link. A
true subsidy is one that is afforded to a specific business or sector of businesses, and not to all companies. That would be like the TARP bailout money aimed at the banks and automotive industry following the crash of the Great Recession.
You alleged that Trump "paid" the corporations in tax-payer money. That would be a direct subsidy, not even a so-called indirect subsidy, and pertaining to the weakest of the latter, our Treasury doesn't refer to those as subsidies. We here in the USA call them "tax expenditures". Here was your original assertion.
You have now pointed to COVID relief as your example of Trump subsidizing "mega-corporations" when previously you cited tax abatement programs that are normal under everyday conditions, and not part of emergency bills. You're all over the map. First, you're aware that every pandemic-relief bill originates in Congress, specifically the House, not on the desk of the President, right?
Of course you're not. You don't know how our government works.
Second, you're aware the first pandemic relief bill you're condemning was sponsored by a Democrat, right?
Of course you don't. That's why you're blathering about Trump when he was just the last guy in the line to sign the damn paper.
Third, you're aware every relief bill was passed by a strong majority of our Congress, aren't you, and that the last one approved by Trump was actually far more strongly supported in both the House by Democrats (230 vs. 2) than Republicans (128 vs. 50/17), and in the Senate by Democrats/Independents (48 vs. 0) than Republicans (44 vs. 6/2)?
Of course you're not. You didn't even realize the Congress was the one sponsoring and passing these Bills, so how would you know vote breakdowns?
Fourth, you're aware that every pandemic relief bill was enacted by a Congress with a strong Democrat majority in the House, right? Only the Senate possessed a Republican majority before that final bill, and the Republicans did not enjoy a Senate majority for that final bill-- sitting just 50 Senators.
Of course you're not. Yet again, you're blissfully oblivious to the mechanics of our government. We have Saturday morning cartoons that would do you a world of good.
Fifth, you're aware that the pandemic relief bills afforded subsidy relief not just to "mega-corporations", but to everyone, right? Everyone but wealthy individuals, of course. Citizens, small companies, and large companies were all originally afforded relief money because the government
forced shutdowns of normal business operations. So it only made sense. If government dictates a business cannot do business, it only makes sense to subsidize them, and I would opine this is a remuneration by opportunity cost rather than a true subsidy. I actually agree that large corporations were afforded more money than they should have gotten, and also companies that were far too large were covered by the relief aimed at "small businesses", but again, this has nothing to do with partisan slant. In fact, the Democrats weren't arguing against bloated relief for large corporations. They simply wanted
more relief for everyone; more "tax-payer" free money for you, and you, and you! The Oprah-on-her-daytime-show party. You know this, right?
Of course you didn't.
Sixth, you're aware you just linked a Reuters article of a small-business targeted relief program, right? Sure, some large businesses abused it, but again, these programs were supported by the Democrats. The retroactive criticism doesn't spare them. Yes, we have a problem with tax avoidance, but so does the EU. That's what resulted in the Irish "double tax" imbroglio involving Apple nearly a decade ago that humiliated the EU. Even laws intended to address avoidance issue often ultimately prove ineffective. That's why they sued the whole damn country. Meanwhile, Ireland prospered thanks to their initiative in providing an effective tax shelter to Apple. This is why the U.S. and EU are working together towards a global corporate tax minimum; so corporations can't shirk tax burdens and qualify for government loans not intended for them through complicated offshore haven strategies.
Seventh, let's get back to your original abatement links. I knew Amazon would come up because the MSM fed a blitzed out a million headlines about Amazon not paying any federal income tax when, suspiciously, prior to the 2016 election, they
defended the tax schemes that produced the same problem, with CNN calling it a "
war on Jeff Bezos, Amazon, and the Washington Post". In fact, it was far worse under Obama's July 2014 tax reform bill. One can observe this from their own public filings, here. Trump didn't pass his own tax reform bill until 2017. Know what the same income tax burden was on Amazon that CNN used to defend them? We'll put it in red & blue for you.
Amazon: Income Tax Cash Paid in USA
- 2020: $1,173m
- 2019: $957m
- 2018: $1,184m
- 2017: $881m
- 2016: $412m
- 2015: $273m
- 2014: $177m
- 2013: $169m
As far as abatement aka tax expenditures, including credits, this misconception that Republicans are the only ones pushing huge government relief reflects mind-boggling ignorance. Historically, Democrats were always the bigger spenders, and that includes indirect subsidy. It's only tax scaling where they're bigger takers, not "spenders" (i.e.
"paying" companies by not collecting as much of what they earn through various abatement schemes). It wasn't until Bush Jr. that the Republicans joined their ranks. Here's an example of that from March-2016 before Trump had affected any tax revenue collections at all. Mainstream liberal media only starts caring about this when a Republican is seated in the White House:
27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes (Mar-2016)
By all means, bloviate some more about things you don't understand at all. It's Tito-level ignorance.
