Support NeoGAF

[goodcow]

http://www.newszap.com/articles/2005/01/17/dm/eastern_shore_of_maryland/sports/crs01.txt

$1.3M grant may aid Wal-Mart
By Jason Rhodes, Special to the Crisfield Times

PRINCESS ANNE - Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s newest planned distribution center could receive up to $1.3 million in federal aid following approval of a Community Development Block Grant application by Somerset County Commissioners this month.

The bulk of the grant - $810,000 - would help fund Wal-Mart's purchase of land for the proposed center on Revells Neck Road in Westover. Currently, the land is owned by Mitchell Bonneville Jr., who operates a borrow pit on the site.

According to the proposal, $500,000 from the grant would help fund street improvements between Sign Post Road and the entrance to the Eastern Correctional Institution. Wal-Mart's trucks likely would use this stretch of the road to access the center. Another $30,000 would cover the county's administrative costs in connection with the project.

With the grant application, approved following a public hearing, county officials upheld a vow to assist Wal-Mart in gaining financial support to place a distribution center in Somerset. Commissioners also have borrowed $500,000 as a loan that will allow water and sewer installation at the proposed center's site.

Last month, commissioners approved a rezoning of the proposed 178-acre site for light industrial use. While the approval was good news for Wal-Mart officials, who hope to hire some 450 local employees at the center, it went against the wishes of some property owners and residents of Revells Neck Road.

Those who opposed the rezoning expressed concerns during a public hearing that the increased traffic and lighting associated with the center could affect their way of life. However, Wal-Mart officials have said they typically locate their distribution centers at least 400 feet from the road and direct lighting downward onto the facility grounds to help offset some of those potential problems. At the Somerset center, a built-up dirt buffer and trees could screen the facility - and any noise that may accompany it - from the road.

Wal-Mart could hire as many as 250 employees for the Somerset center this year, though the center is not expected to open officially until fall 2006.

By 2007, Wal-Mart is expected to become the county's fourth largest employer behind the Eastern Correctional Institution, the University of Maryland Eastern Shore and Lankford-Sysco Food Services. Construction of the 450,000-square-foot distribution center is expected to start this summer.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Wal-mart is building a second store in my area, and this is like a carbon copy of all the whiny neighbors in my area.


I just love how 800k of federal money is lining the pocket of some guy named Mitchell Bonneville, Jr. Nice work, junior.

 

[Loki]

Corporate welfare such as this (and this is but a minor example) is a joke, and should be done away with. It costs taxpayers over $40 billion per year, less than 10% of which can actually be justified.


The rejoinder from "pro-business" types is always that, "hey, these companies create jobs, and so the community should help fund them since it's ultimately in their best interests."


Here's why that rationale is unpersuasive: Last I checked, WalMart was one of the most profitable companies in America, and is in fact the richest company in America. The fact that WalMart "creates jobs" in nice and all, but that ultimately redounds to their benefit-- a new location almost always ends up being profitable for the company (and keep in mind that "profitable" means income minus expenses such as labor). So if the creation of a new store (with the necessary accompanying job growth) ultimately benefits them, regardless of whether or not they get state/federal aid, then why do they get aid at all? So it can benefit their bottom lines even more? That's ridiculous.


Paying for labor is part of a business' projected costs. The fact that they, in spite of this cost, choose to proceed with the construction of a new location is indicative of the fact that their internal cost-benefit analyses have concluded that the costs associated with the endeavor will be more than recouped through the eventual sales realized by the new outlet. They've already decided that it's going to be (absurdly, in the case of WalMart) profitable for them, so why are we helping them realize even more exorbitant profits via taxpayer subsidization? Can anyone explain this to me? Anyone?

 

[Jak140]

Hey, corporations are people too; well according to US law anyway.

 

[AstroLad]

Hey, corporations are people too; well according to US law anyway.

Wah, that's double taxation!

I've been tremendously surprised by the volume of email I've already received on the "Can You Spot the Double Taxation?" comic. I wanted to make a particular point about the dividend tax issue, but the comic was sort of complex and wonky, so I didn't expect this much of a splash.
Some of the emails have been in agreement with the comic, but some have expressed disagreement (generally respectful, thankfully), so I thought I'd get even wonkier and respond to the criticisms.
The dominant theme of the retorts is that unlike scenarios A, B, C, D and F, scenario E involves two entities that are essentially the same person. The argument is: STOCKHOLDER is the owner of BANK, so when BANK, a corporation, is taxed on profit, and then STOCKHOLDER is taxed on a dividend, there really is a double taxation of the same income.
But the whole point of corporations, as set up by our legal system, is that they are separate legal entities -- the law treats them as fictitious "people", distinct from their owners. This isn't an esoteric point -- it's the essential aspect of corporations that has fostered their proliferation across the globe. Through this separateness, corporations' shareholders enjoy the privilege of "limited liability," meaning that shareholders can lose nothing more than their investment in a corporation and cannot be sued for its liabilities.
Members of certain pro-corporation political organizations seem to want to have it both ways, relying on the fundamental principle of legal separateness and limited liability, but arguing that corporations and their owners are really the same thing for the purposes of taxation.
When the taxman says they owe tax on the dividends paid to them by Nerrex, Inc., their response is, "But I'm THE SAME THING as Nerrex, Inc. -- I own it -- and you already taxed ITS income."
But when Nerrex is insolvent due to a wave of horrible business decisions and financial scandals, what would those shareholders say when creditors and lawyers show up at their doorstep? "What are you doing here? Your beef is with Nerrex! I'm just an investor! Hey, watch it -- you're knocking over my lawn jockey!"
The original decision to tax both corporate profits and dividends was not an oversight made by bureaucrats too stupid to see the brilliant arguments of today's conservatives. It was obviously a conscious decision that was in full keeping with the essential nature of corporations.
Look, getting rid of the tax on dividends will just relieve a primarily wealthy class of people of a tax burden, placing it on others. Like calling the estate tax a "death tax," the use of the term "double taxation" is a grossly misleading, yet admittedly brilliant, marketing ploy. How brilliant? It took me a very wordy comic strip, and then a multiple-paragraph web site entry that most people will give up reading halfway through, to explain my opposition to it!

 

[Loki]

I've been tremendously surprised by the volume of email I've already received on the "Can You Spot the Double Taxation?" comic. I wanted to make a particular point about the dividend tax issue, but the comic was sort of complex and wonky, so I didn't expect this much of a splash.
Some of the emails have been in agreement with the comic, but some have expressed disagreement (generally respectful, thankfully), so I thought I'd get even wonkier and respond to the criticisms.
The dominant theme of the retorts is that unlike scenarios A, B, C, D and F, scenario E involves two entities that are essentially the same person. The argument is: STOCKHOLDER is the owner of BANK, so when BANK, a corporation, is taxed on profit, and then STOCKHOLDER is taxed on a dividend, there really is a double taxation of the same income.
But the whole point of corporations, as set up by our legal system, is that they are separate legal entities -- the law treats them as fictitious "people", distinct from their owners. This isn't an esoteric point -- it's the essential aspect of corporations that has fostered their proliferation across the globe. Through this separateness, corporations' shareholders enjoy the privilege of "limited liability," meaning that shareholders can lose nothing more than their investment in a corporation and cannot be sued for its liabilities.
Members of certain pro-corporation political organizations seem to want to have it both ways, relying on the fundamental principle of legal separateness and limited liability, but arguing that corporations and their owners are really the same thing for the purposes of taxation.
When the taxman says they owe tax on the dividends paid to them by Nerrex, Inc., their response is, "But I'm THE SAME THING as Nerrex, Inc. -- I own it -- and you already taxed ITS income."
But when Nerrex is insolvent due to a wave of horrible business decisions and financial scandals, what would those shareholders say when creditors and lawyers show up at their doorstep? "What are you doing here? Your beef is with Nerrex! I'm just an investor! Hey, watch it -- you're knocking over my lawn jockey!"
The original decision to tax both corporate profits and dividends was not an oversight made by bureaucrats too stupid to see the brilliant arguments of today's conservatives. It was obviously a conscious decision that was in full keeping with the essential nature of corporations.
Look, getting rid of the tax on dividends will just relieve a primarily wealthy class of people of a tax burden, placing it on others. Like calling the estate tax a "death tax," the use of the term "double taxation" is a grossly misleading, yet admittedly brilliant, marketing ploy. How brilliant? It took me a very wordy comic strip, and then a multiple-paragraph web site entry that most people will give up reading halfway through, to explain my opposition to it!

This is an excellent (and entirely correct) analysis.

 

[MrAngryFace]

WALMART DOESNT NEEED FUCKING MORE MONEY JESUS FUCK!

 

[Shinobi]

No different to billionaire owners getting multi-million dollar arenas and stadiums built for them by local and state/provincial tax money. And then sports fans have the nerve to side with these motherfuckers in labour disputes, the dumb fucks...

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Am I the only person who thought this would be tied into tsunami relief and a Walmart being built for them?