Them brave

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/search.html

Subsidies for China Marts.

Andy,

Shoot me an email at MikeAtHRI@aol.com

Mike,

That was the week. Arrived from Michigan on the 4th and left on the 11th. We really want to get back there . . . not happening this spring. We'll see what the future holds . . .

Andy,

That "pretty sad", is exactly what I like about it. I'm thrilled that the development has stopped. I suspect you are talking about some of the developments, like "Ovation" that got halted in the middle of their development, anyway. I guess it is sad for the one paying for that development. The whole state is suffering from it in one way or another.

We would have been there at the same time if you were there the week prior to Easter. Love it there.

Mike,

We were down there for spring break 2009. Waaaaay cool place. We were amazed at the "house moving" industry that is thriving along the west shore of the cape. Seems to be routine that houses get moved back in advance of the natural erosion that happens. Quite a process. We dined at a beach side restaurant in Mexico Beach. Had that Jimmy Buffett Margaritaville ambiance . . . a pricey mediocre dining experience. But hey, it was vacation . . .

Pretty sad . . . lots of infrastructure in place but it was like someone shut the spigot off in the middle of the process. Streets laid in, sewer, water, electric and gas all in . . . then nothing but grass and weeds . . . and a few palm trees.

I still get on the beach cam once a week or so just to remind myself of how great the experience was though . . . Roofing in the snow makes a guy yearn for sun and sand.

I was born on Tyndal AFB but had not been there since I was 6 mos old, so no memories of the place.

Yes, Andy. Cape San Blas/St. Joseph Peninsula. 2001 Dr. Beach's "Best Beach in America".

Mike Hicks,

Is that beach on Cape San Blas, FL?

Mike, I just spit out my Kool Aid!!!!!! That particular item was rather dated, mentioning Bush and Clinton. I even remember a John Stossel piece on this that is rather old too.

Sorry if I gave out some dated, even wrong information, but I have decided to join the rest of America and shut off my political brain, take the cheap beads the government throws my way and quit caring, recite ideology and just drink the Dem/ Rep Kool Aid.

Don't know about the rest of the country, but on the stretch of beach I'm familiar with, beachfront owners pay $4,000/year in "restoration assessment" alone, plus all the other applicable property taxes, plus an 11% sales tax on any rental.

Based on a 13 mile project at a cost of $50 million, and an average lot frontage of 60', the total cost per owner was $45,0000. Most lots are 50' frontage, and some are 75'. This doesn't account for the 3 condo's on the cape either, so I'm probably being quite generous with the $45K/frontage lot figure.

The beach has been renourished ONCE in it's entire history, and only after the county passed the assessment. The Corps would not renourish the beach until the county residents approved the tax, and since almost 100% of beach-front owners are non-residents, the owners had little to no say-so on the vote. Just based on the beachfront taxes, and 11% sales tax, the one property I am familiar with will generate $66,500 in tax revenue in seven years, which is the Army Corp's estimate for endurance of the renourishment project. Now take into consideration that the rest of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc... tier homes pay tax too, although greatly reduced from the beach front rate, and all property owners in the county also pay a small assessment (and remember they had to approve the tax assessment in the first place by majority vote, so the locals all recognize the importance of the beach to their local economy), and all the added tax revenue generated by vacationers spending money in many different ways at many different establishments, and all the income taxes paid by those people working in the tourism trade..... and it's not to hard to do the math to figure out that beach renourishment represents a real TAX WINDFALL PROFIT for the government.

So while I can't speak for the rest of the country, owners ARE NOT getting a free ride on the little stretch of sand known as Cape San Blas, Florida, and there's a whole lot of general public benefiting from the project.

So yes Wal Mart gets a $37 mil road to "provide Jobs" (for China anyway). And this is much more than what is spent FOR ME getting mine built" Most of the jobs that walmart provides are low paying ones.Walmart employees have to apply for food stamps to make ends meet.

ALBA----What those who advocate for the Mega Rich fail to understand, is that cumalitively, they would be beneficiaries of a larger scale of government...... such as a War Profiteer. Or a Bankster simply skimming off of everything.. Or a professional sports team owner--- we have given up most of our education system to the owners of professional sports and their network affiliates. $billions!

So yes Wal Mart gets a $37 mil road to "provide Jobs" (for China anyway). And this is much more than what is spent for me getting mine built. I'd say we provide a pretty plush pillow for their tushes. (Sam is LONG GONE BTW)

I cannot say it any simpler than this: You taxpayers give me $10 mil and I'll gladly pay 30% in taxes :laugh:

http://ataxingmatter.blogs.com/tax/2010/02/how-much-do-the-wealthiest-americans-make-and-how-much-do-they-pay-in-taxes.html?cid=6a00d8341cf2a753ef0120a8b78b8f970b

WELFARE QUEEN:

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has benefited from more than $1 billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments across the United States, according to a new study by Good Jobs First, a Washington, DC-based research center. The study is freely available at www.goodjobsfirst.org. For the executive summary, click here (PDF format).

"Wal-Mart presents itself as an entrepreneurial success story, yet it has made extensive use of tax breaks, free land, cash grants and other forms of public assistance," said Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First and principal author of the study.

The study found more than 240 cases in which the construction of a new Wal-Mart facility was assisted by taxpayers. Apart from 160 retail outlets, the study found subsidies at 84 distribution centers, representing more than 90% of the network of huge warehouses Wal-Mart has built to facilitate its expansion. Mattera stressed that the $1 billion figure is necessarily an understatement, given that public disclosure of subsidies is severely limited.

The value of subsidies for individual distribution centers ranged as high as $48 million (with an average of $7.4 million), while for retail outlets the largest was $12 million (average: $2.8 million). Subsidy deals were found in 35 states, with the most in California, Illinois, Missouri, Texas and Mississippi. In dollar terms, Louisiana, Florida and New York also ranked high.

"That a company with $9 billion in profits can wrest subsidies from state and local governments shows that the candy store game is out of control," said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First. "The subsidies to Wal-Mart are particularly troubling, given that it uses taxpayer dollars to create jobs that tend to be poverty-wage, part-time and lacking in adequate healthcare benefits."

The study recommends that states prohibit subsidies to retailers except in distressed areas that lack adequate retail outlets for necessities such as food. It also recommends that any retailer -- like any corporation -- receiving subsidies should be required to pay a living wage.

My now deceased father in law owned property in Cape May, NJ. It no longer exists it is out in the ocean about a mile. Talking about beach erosion. PC

I read everything else you wrote but that destracted me. PC

Beach Budget Scandal As you dream about your summer vacation, imagine stopping at the bank on your way to the beach, taking out all of your money, and dumping it into the ocean. Sound crazy? Well, that's exactly what the Army Corps of Engineers does with millions of tax dollars every year under the federal beach renourishment program. America's beaches attract more than just sand crabs and surfers: they are also a magnet for the rich and famous. The American cultural elite have long flocked to the beach during the dog days of summer and increasingly, they have taken to buying beachside properties, building beachfront villas, and plastering up "No Trespassing" signs. At the same time that this building trend has intensified, America's beaches have been doing what they always did -- eroding and shifting. In an expensive exercise worthy of Sisyphus, these wealthy beach landowners have convinced Congress that pumping sand on beaches to keep their poorly placed houses from floating away should be a federal responsibility.

The Army Corps renourishment efforts are both costly and ineffective. Though it continues to seek federal funds for beach restoration year after year, the Corps knows very well that these projects are bound to fail. The agency dredges sand from offshore locations and pumps it onshore to rebuild eroded areas. But, beach erosion is a continual process, and replenishment projects serve only to temporarily keep sand from washing back out to sea.

Today, from Florida to New York to California, Corps restoration projects are increasingly becoming the primary "solution" to beach erosion -- which is a problem only when private developers built too close to the coastline and are at high risk for hurricane and storm damage. Beach rebuilding is now the fastest growing area of the Corps' work. In New Jersey, the Corps has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to dredge sand from the ocean floor and dump it on miles of coastline. Experts agree that virtually no beach replenishment program has lasted more than five years without costly rebuilding efforts -- in New Jersey, most of the Corps’ work eroded within three years. In one case, more than half of a 350-foot wide beach all but washed away.

Beach lovers might argue that the replenishment program is necessary so Americans can continue to spend summer vacations at the beach. But who really benefits from beach restoration? Homeowners benefit from increased property values and communities might benefit from increased property taxes and tourism. But, even though public access is the law on replenished shorelines and federal taxpayers have spent hundreds of million on beach renourishment, some cities and towns that willingly receive the federal subsidy are creatively blocking "outsiders" from using "their" beach.

Efforts by the Clinton and Bush administrations to reduce the federal beach building program have been met with fierce resistance by New Jersey and Florida lawmakers who are unwilling to give up millions in federal dollars. Both administrations argued that popular coastal areas can and should pay the majority of replenishment costs because they are the ones who benefit economically. The 2006 budget continues this trend by saying that repetitive renourishment of beaches should be a local responsibility. The Bush administration has requested only $46 million for these types of projects, less than half of what the Congress provided last year.

Them Brave Free Marketers

MORE LOW TAX REPUBLICAN SPENDING

"WAL-MART WELFARE" Americans love clear highways and are willing to pay billions of dollars for the chance that they might one day see what one looks like. Congress has done their best to bring this dream to fruition, and recently passed a $284 billion highway bill as proof of their dedication. The highway bill they passed is a 1,132 page mammoth that contains something for almost everyone in the nation. In fact, the legislation contained 4,128 political earmarks at a total cost of $12.4 billion. Nearly every member of the House got a few projects for their district, and the bill’s authors cashed in big.

Some of these projects that received earmarked funds are important, such as the $2 million for the rebuilding of the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati. But there’s one earmark tucked into the bill that will make your head spin. In our ten years of congressional oversight, we rate this as one of the worst examples of corporate welfare we’ve ever seen.

First, think about the following question. If there is one company that is so big, so rich, and so powerful that it should never get a federal dime, who would you name? A short list that might spring to mind would include GM, ExxonMobil, Microsoft and a few others. Did you think about Wal-Mart? If so, you get our gold star.

In our mind, there is no one that is less deserving of federal support than Wal-Mart, yet it gets $37 million from Uncle Sam in the transportation bill. Last year, Wal-Mart made $20,000 profit every minute of every day for a total of $10.3 billion dollars on the year. Other retail giants didn’t do nearly so well: Target’s profit per minute was $6,084, and Costco’s profit per minute was $1,711.

Here are the details. The federal highway bill contains $37 million for widening and extending the road in Bentonville, Arkansas that is the main access point to the headquarters of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Republican Representative John Boozman (R-AR), whose district includes Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s headquarters, was largely responsible for getting the earmark. He proposed an amendment to the highway bill to exempt retailers, such as Wal-Mart, from federal truck driving rules. To get this amendment to go away, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) offered Boozman an additional $34 million for the road in his final revisions to the bill

WE SHOULD KEEP TAXES DOWN SO WALMART WILL GET LESS (not happening....)