Corporations get enough tax break why should they get financial handouts as well? We need to close these corporate tax holes. Society has become a greedy consumerism machine. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .
If we took a small amount of the corporate welfare we give as nation, we could easily pay for the social welfare we give. Many large corporations haven't been paying their fair share for years. We shouldn't be looking at the middle class and the little guy to pay big taxes, when we're leaving billions on the table each year.
At least with social welfare the funds help children and other vulnerable populations.When you are talking about corporate welfare nothing is gained but fatter pockets for the fatcats.If america is so proud of its capitalism then it should let capitalism take its course and let some of these large companies run their course and fail.
People are told to complain about social welfare taking their money, but not many mention that corporate welfare, which means corporations being given all sorts of tax breaks and such, is taking much more of public money. It is worse because it is insidious and makes already rich folk even richer.
Corporations are held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens because they have a social responsibility to deliver good products to consumers. If a corporation fails to make money, then it should do what ordinary people do when the bills get too expensive: declare bankruptcy. Social welfare happens when people can't take care of themselves. Corporations shouldn't get handouts because they can cause the lives of people to be in turmoil very quickly if they go under. The employees of corporations should get the handouts, not the company itself.
The definition of corporate welfare is government support or subsidy of private business, such as by tax incentives and the definition of social welfare is governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need. Honestly, the two different ideas are actually just different ways of infusing the economy with money that wasn't earned. I believe corporate welfare is worse however, because it allows corporations (or a small group of people) to use the government in ways that helps them become wealthier. If anything, corporate welfare supports the large income gaps we are currently talking about in politics.
Corporate welfare is worse than social welfare because there is no humanitarian component. A corporation is just an artificial construct; there is no human that will suffer directly if the corporation goes under. There are employees and such working for it who will lose their jobs, but then they can find new ones, and if they can't, the social (not corporate) welfare system can help them out.
Corporate welfare is the worst because corporations are interested in their own profit. Social welfare, although detrimental, seeks to redistribute wealth to the people. A welfare state is often a good thing for wealthy countries, because it raises the standard of living. Corporate welfare on the other hand has no benefit and it increases the wealth gap.
While both are bad the issue with corporate welfare is that it's less open than social welfare. With social welfare any person in need could, theoretically, go on welfare. On the other hand, corporate welfare is only available to certain businesses. It is hard for small businesses to get the same sort of welfare that is given to large businesses with social connections.
When corporations aren't financially solvent, it's time they do what individual Americans do to relieve pressure from debtors. Cutting back, selling assets and declaring bankruptcy are a part of corporate culture just like ordinary Americans. Businesses shouldn't have to be on the hook by American taxpayers in a free market economy when business turns sour.