Editing Corporate welfare (section)

== By country ==
=== United States ===
[[File:Transfer payments as a percent of federal revenue.webp|thumb|325px|Transfer payments to (persons) as a percent of Federal revenue in the [[United States]]]]
[[File:Transfer payments to persons + business.webp|thumb|325px|Transfer payments to (persons + business) in the United States]]

==== Background ====
[[Subsidies]] considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by [[lobbying]] are often called corporate welfare.<ref name="NYT-20140327">{{cite news|last=Kristof|first=Nicholas|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/opinion/kristof-a-nation-of-takers.html|title=A Nation of Takers?|date=March 27, 2014|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=March 27, 2014|author-link=Nicholas Kristof}}</ref> The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or [[anti-competitive]] ways. For instance, in the United States, [[agricultural subsidy|agricultural subsidies]] are usually portrayed as helping independent farmers stay afloat. In actuality, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs has gone to large [[agribusiness]] corporations such as [[Archer Daniels Midland]], as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter3.htm |title=USDA: American Farms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070210035144/http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter3.htm |archive-date=February 10, 2007 |work=[[United States Department of Agriculture]] }}</ref>

Alan Peters and Peter Fisher, Associate Professors at the [[University of Iowa]],<ref>{{cite conference |url=https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/neer/neer297f.pdf |title=Tax and Spending Incentives and Enterprise Zones |last1=Fisher |first1=Peter S. |last2=Peters |first2=Alan H. |date=March–April 1997 |publisher= [[Federal Reserve Bank of Boston|Boston Fed]] |pages=109–137 |location=Boston |conference=New England Economic Review}}</ref> have estimated that state and local governments provide $40–50 billion annually in economic development incentives,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fisher |first1=Peter |last2=Peters |first2=Alan |date=March 2004 |title=The Failures of Economic Development Incentives |url=http://www.crcworks.org/cfscced/fisher.pdf |journal=Journal of the American Planning Association |volume=70 |issue=1 |pages=27–37 |doi=10.1080/01944360408976336 |access-date=April 13, 2018 |citeseerx=10.1.1.661.6308 }}</ref> which critics characterize as corporate welfare.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://baltimorebrew.com/2011/07/14/tax-breaks-for-developers-economic-development-or-corporate-welfare/ |title=Tax breaks for developers – economic development or corporate welfare? |first=Mark |last=Reutter |date=July 13, 2011 |website=Baltimore Brew |access-date=November 3, 2019 }}</ref>

Multiple economists have considered the [[Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008|2008 bank bailouts in the United States]] to be a form of corporate welfare.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.smh.com.au/business/us-could-cut-deficit-and-gain-but-thats-unlikely-20101207-18oew.html |access-date=December 22, 2010 | title=US could cut deficit and gain, but that's unlikely |work=Sydney Morning Herald |first=Joseph |last=Stiglitz |date=December 8, 2010 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/welfare-for-bankers/ | title=Welfare for Bankers  |first=Nancy |last=Folbre | work=[[The New York Times]] |date=April 20, 2009 | url-access=limited}}</ref> U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the [[Federal Reserve System]] to financial institutions during and after the [[2008 financial crisis]] were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://thehill.com/policy/finance/131487-sanders-uses-fed-disclosures-to-call-for-further-inquiry |access-date=December 15, 2010 | title=Sanders uses 'jaw-dropping' Fed disclosures to call for further inquiry |work=The Hill |first=Peter |last=Schroeder |date=December 1, 2010 }}</ref> The term gained increased prominence in 2018 when Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] introduced a bill, singling out [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] and [[Walmart]] in particular, to require a company with 500 or more employees to pay the full cost of welfare benefits received by its workers.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17819450/bernie-sanders-stop-bezos-amazon-worker-pay-corporate-welfare-tax-bill |title=Bernie Sanders introduces "Stop BEZOS" bill to tax Amazon for underpaying workers |first=Adi |last=Robertson |website=The Verge |date=September 5, 2018 |access-date=September 14, 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-amazon-walmart-with-100-tax/ |title=Bernie Sanders targets Amazon, Walmart with 100% tax |first=Kate |last=Gibson |publisher=CBS |date=September 5, 2018 |access-date=September 14, 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/5/17822810/bernie-sanders-bill-bezos-amazon-ro-khanna |title=Bernie Sanders's BEZOS bill takes aim at how Amazon pays workers |first=Emily |last=Stewart |publisher=Vox |date=September 5, 2018 |access-date=September 14, 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-amazon_n_5b8eecade4b0511db3dcfd55 |title=What the Bernie Sanders Amazon welfare fight is really about |first1=Arthur |last1=Delaney |first2=Dave |last2=Jamieson | work=[[HuffPost]] |date=September 5, 2018}}</ref>

==== Comprehensive analyses ====
===== Independent =====
Daniel D. Huff, [[professor emeritus]] of [[social work]] at [[Boise State University]], published a comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare in 1993.<ref name='Huff 1993'>{{cite journal|title=Phantom Welfare: Public Relief for Corporate America |journal=Social Work |date=May 1993 |first=Daniel D. |last=Huff |author2=David A. Johnson |volume=38 |issue=3 |pages=311–316 |doi=10.1093/sw/38.3.311 |url=http://web1.boisestate.edu/socwork/dhuff/Nasw.htm |access-date=November 6, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509043654/http://web1.boisestate.edu/socwork/dhuff/Nasw.htm |archive-date=May 9, 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Huff reasoned that a very conservative estimate of corporate welfare expenditures in the United States would have been at least {{US$|170 billion}} in 1990.<ref name='Huff 1993'/> Huff compared this number with [[social welfare]]:
{{blockquote|In 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.<ref name='Huff 1993'/>}}

Huff argued that deliberate [[obfuscation]] was a complicating factor.<ref name='Huff 1993'/>

=== United Kingdom ===
In 2015, Kevin Farnsworth, a senior lecturer in [[Social Policy]] at the [[University of York]] published a paper in which he claimed that the government was providing corporate subsidies of £93 billion.<ref name=farnsworthpaper>{{cite web|url=http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SPERI-Paper-24-The-British-Corporate-Welfare-State.pdf |title=The British Corporate Welfare State: Public Provision for Private Businesses|date=November 7, 2022 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake |title=The £93bn handshake: businesses pocket huge subsidies and tax breaks}}</ref> This amount includes the role of the government in increasing trade, tax relief for businesses that invest in new plants and machinery (estimated by Farnsworth at £20 billion), not charging fuel duty on fuel used by railways or airlines, green [[energy subsidies]], a lower corporation tax rate for small companies, [[regional development]] grants and government procurement for businesses (which Farnsworth suggests often favours British businesses even when these are not the best value option available).<ref name=farnsworthpaper /> However, ''[[The Register]]'' wrote that Farnsworth's figure for tax relief for investment was incorrect and that he had made mistakes in his calculations, noting that he was not an accountant. It also stated that not charging businesses taxes under certain circumstances (when the reliefs applied) was not the same as giving them a subsidy.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/12/political_memes_economics_corporate_welfare/?page=1 |title=Taxpayers are NOT giving businesses £93bn|website=[[The Register]]}}</ref> Fuel duty is not charged on airlines due to the [[Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation|Convention on International Civil Aviation]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx |title=Convention on International Civil Aviation}}</ref> (a [[United Nations|UN agency]]) which specifies that aeroplanes should be exempt from fuel duties.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fullfact.org/factchecks/airline_industry_subsidies_green_taxes-3256 |title=Does the government subsidise airlines by £10 billion?|date=January 24, 2012}}</ref>

==== Political discussion ====
In 2015, [[Leader of the Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party leader]] [[Jeremy Corbyn]] said he would "strip out" the £93bn of "corporate tax relief and subsidies" Farnsworth referred to and use the proceeds for public investment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-allies-accuse-chris-leslie-of-deliberately-misrepresenting-labour-leader-contenders-economic-policies-10436258.html|title=Jeremy Corbyn allies accuse Chris Leslie of deliberately misrepresenting Labour frontrunner's economic policies | location=London | work=The Independent|first=Andrew|last=Grice|date=August 3, 2015}}</ref> Corbyn did not say which specific policies he would change. ''[[The Guardian]]'' wrote the policy "sounds wonderful, but careful scrutiny of 'corporate welfare' shows that it includes capital allowances designed to persuade companies to invest, regional aid to boost growth in rundown parts of the UK, and subsidies to keep bus and rail routes open – none of which Corbyn would presumably like to see stopped."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-tory-economy-plans |title=Jeremy Corbyn has the vision, but his numbers don't yet add up|newspaper=The Guardian|date=August 20, 2015|last1=Elliott|first1=Larry}}</ref>

=== Canada ===
The [[New Democratic Party]] in [[Canada]] picked up the term as a major theme in its [[1972 Canadian federal election|1972 federal election]] campaign. Its leader, [[David Lewis (Canadian politician)|David Lewis]], used the term in the title of his 1972 book, ''Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums''.<ref>{{cite book|title=Louder voices: the corporate welfare bums|last=Lewis|first=David|publisher=James Lewis & Samuel |year=1972 |isbn=9780888620316 |location=Toronto}}</ref>

The [[Reform Party of Canada|Reform Party]] and its successor the [[Canadian Alliance]] were known for opposing most business subsidies, but after their merger with the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada candidates, 1997 Canadian federal election|Progressive Conservative]] party, they dropped their opposition.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zxjshaowfeYC&pg=PT66 |title=A Nation of Serfs: How Canada's Political Culture Corrupts Canadian Values|last=Milke|first=Mark|date=January 14, 2010|publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9780470675175 }}</ref>

=== India ===
It was observed by ''[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]]'' that the [[effective tax rate]] was low for the larger corporations which meant companies making smaller profits are competing in an unequal environment against bigger companies with substantial taxation benefits, with the gap in effective tax rates widening over the years.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://thewire.in/economy/why-52911-profitable-indian-companies-pay-0-tax|title=Why 52,911 Profitable Indian Companies Pay 0% Tax |website=The Wire|access-date=March 25, 2018}}</ref> [[Prime Minister of India]] [[Narendra Modi]] criticised this practice, saying:
{{blockquote| "Why is it that subsidies going to the well-off are portrayed in a positive manner? Let me give you an example. The total revenue loss from incentives to corporate tax payers was over Rs 62,000 [[crore]]... I must confess I am surprised by the way words are used by experts on this matter. When a benefit is given to farmers or to the poor, experts and government officers normally call it a subsidy. However, I find that if a benefit is given to industry or commerce, it is usually an 'incentive' or a 'subvention'."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/modi-calls-for-targeted-subsidies-questions-corporate-tax-breaks/story-IP1WX17PvJeyOfyLf0ZXxJ.html |title=Modi calls for targeted subsidies, questions corporate tax breaks|date=2016-01-30|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|access-date=2018-03-25|language=en}}</ref>}}