Everything I've read that wal-mart gets is the same as other companies get should they ask.
Wal-mart didn't get major incentives when they opened their stores in Lexington because they wanted to come in to compete with the existing stores. If you do the math, I bet the amount of money that wal-mart put back into the economy and pays in taxes more than makes up for the amount of money they may receive or the tax breaks they may receive. Wal-mart has a clear business model, if when wal-mart came in to MD, the local and stage officials made those deals based on them spending so much in healthcare then it would be one thing. But they didn't, any deal they made, the should have done the math. The officials in MD made a mistake by giving wal-mart any breaks if it was going to cost them more in the long run. I would hope that governments that give wal-mart these breaks or grants do the math to make sure they aren't going to end up losing money, if the didn't then those people need to be removed from office come election time. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:02 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Wal-Mart > > Okay, let me get this straight: > > Bad: > - Gov't forcing wal-mart to give workers a certain level of healthcare. > > Good > - Gov't using emminent domain to take land from citizens and > small-businesses to give to wal-mart. > - Gov't giving subsidies and incentives to wal-mart that they don't > give to other businesses. > - Gov't redoing roads, highways and interstates in order to accomodate > wal-mart, which they don't do for smaller businesses. Note that taxes > have to be raised to do this. > - Gov't supporting morality legislations to appease wal-mart's business > model. > > See, the point isn't that free-market capitalism is bad and leads to > companies like wal-mart. If that's what you think we're saying, then > we're talking past each other. This isn't about ultra-left liberalism. > The point is that wal-mart isn't playing free-market capitalism. > They're playing corporate owned government. The people are supposed to > be the government, but when they're locked out of the process like > happens here then you just have corporations running the show and > people are just mere vassals. > > I understand why you, Gruss, would support this. But I don't > understand why Tim does. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:192572 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
