Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Wal-Mart's Tax on Us

By Greg LeRoy, AlterNet. Posted November 6, 2005.


Wal-Mart's phenomenal growth is the result of sweetheart deals and taxpayer subsidies.
Advertisement

Wal-Mart, the Alpha Dog of discount stores, has also become the Alpha Hog at the public trough.

The phenomenal growth of the world's largest corporation has been supported by taxpayers in many states through economic development subsidies. A Wal-Mart official once stated that the company seeks subsidies in about a third of its stores, suggesting that more than 1,100 of its U.S. stores are subsidized. A national survey by Good Jobs First in 2004 looked at 160 stores and all of the company's distribution centers -- and found that more than 90 percent of them have been subsidized. Altogether, 244 subsidized facilities in 35 states received taxpayer deals of more than $1 billion.

The economic impact of these subsidies on small businesses is given a human face in one powerful segment of Robert Greenwald's new documentary, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price." The sweetheart deals given to two Wal-Mart Supercenters in Hamilton, Missouri undermined Red Esry's four family-owned grocery stores. Esry watched his sales plunge as soon as the Supercenters opened -- he couldn't compete with Wal-Mart's prices and lost almost half of his business virtually overnight.

In the film, Esry's wife ruefully recounts how her husband went to City Hall to ask for a property tax abatement to match Wal-Mart's subsidy, but was turned down. Esry cut costs, but refused to stop paying his employees a good wage and continued to provide them with full health-care benefits and a pension package. Red Esry's story is being played out in thousands of communities across America.

Wrong-headed Subsidies

Giving subsidies to suburban retailing is bad policy on many levels. The proliferation of far-flung stores contributes to sprawl and its many problems: undermining traditional downtown business districts and worsening traffic jams and air quality. The diversion of tax dollars into the coffers of developers and big retailers takes much-needed revenues away from public schools and other services. The low-wage jobs created in the malls do little to stimulate the economy and actually serve as a drag, given that workers with McJobs need more assistance from taxpayer-financed safety-net programs.

The subsidies Wal-Mart lobbies for run the whole gamut: free or reduced-price land, infrastructure assistance, tax increment financing (TIF), property tax abatements or discounts, state corporate income tax credits, sales tax rebates, enterprise zone tax breaks, job training funds, and low-interest tax-exempt loans. The most deals and dollars were found in Texas (30 deals worth $108 million) and Illinois (29 deals worth $102 million).

And because of poor disclosure in most states, this could be just the tip of the iceberg.

Of course, the real force driving Wal-Mart's site location behavior is its voracious appetite for more market share, not subsidies. The 2004 survey found cases in which the company had sought subsidies, didn't get them, and still built new sites.

In Chula Vista, California, a $1.9 million subsidy deal was successfully challenged in court in 1998, after citizens complained that local redevelopment agencies were awarding state money to big-box retailers for projects with little benefit to the public. The Chula Vista Wal-Mart ended up being built without public assistance.

In 2001, voters in Galena, Illinois rejected a $1.5 million sales tax rebate sought by the company for a planned Supercenter. Immediately after the vote, Wal-Mart said it would drop the plan, but later decided to move forward after getting the private seller of the land to agree to a lower price. Wal-Mart also proceeded with the construction of an unsubsidized Supercenter in Belvedere, Illinois, after its request for a $1.5 million sales tax rebate was opposed by local officials.

Such events are especially controversial in TIF deals, since the governing law often requires that the beneficiary of TIF affirm that the project would not occur "but for" the subsidy.


Digg!

Greg LeRoy is the author of "The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation" and executive director of Good Jobs First.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't forget about housing
Posted by: yoyoboy on Nov 7, 2005 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Park City, UT., Wal-Mart got tax-payer funded low-income housing built, right next door to the new Wal-Mart! Post 2002 Olympics, Park City is the most expensive place in Utah to live, except if you are willing to make less the $10k/Year and work at W-M... and I got to pay for it with a tax hike (too bad I don't have an estate or dividends to get those taxes back).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A better title for that Walmart movie
Posted by: NDnative on Nov 8, 2005 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Walmart's Stealthy Taxation without Representation

From there, we can gun down the company's hidden price tags on misnamed "low price" scheme.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupid..
Posted by: daniel1982 on Nov 8, 2005 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Subsidies are nothing new and what Walmart is getting is peanuts compared to argiculture, auto, textile and aero industries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: crusty
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: cacky
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: cacky
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: crusty
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: cacky
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: crusty
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Stupid.. Posted by: crusty
Tip of the Iceburg
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 8, 2005 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wal-Mart is just the largest and most successful perp of these tactics. Most of the 'Big Box' chains that litter the strip malls of our nation. I remember a story years ago on 60 Minutes about how Economic Development programs from the Feds were being lapped up by the chain stores instead of being used to finance business that actually made something and paid real wages.
I wonder what the total cost of all this welfare for the rich truly costs us-- not just from Wal-Mart. I am no apologist for the scum from Bentonville, Ar, I just would like to see what the total is in a time of half-trillion $ defecits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tip of the Iceburg Posted by: cacky
» RE: Tip of the Iceburg Posted by: Shehova
Every Wal-Mart is Subsidized. Target, Home Depot, too.
Posted by: LuisaO on Nov 8, 2005 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The subsidies go to the corporation as a whole, not one store. Every big box chain store in America is massively subsidized. Remember this whenever corporate hacks talk about "free market competition."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LeeAnnG
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Nov 8, 2005 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not just the subsidies, either. In many places, wages are so low, WalMart's "associates" get food stamps and other government assistance! The cost to taxpayers for Always Low Prices is hidden in many ways.

I agree with the posters who have mentioned that "free enterprise" as espoused by so many conservatives is not true capitalism. When the government subsidizes corporations, it's corporate welfare (some might say corporate Socialism), and when the big corporations begin running the government to the detriment of real people, it's Fascism.

WalMart is symptomatic of deep economic problems, not only in America, but worldwide. "What's good for GE (substitute the name of any huge multinational conglomerate) is good for America" is a myth. If it was ever really true, those days are gone. These large companies are labeled "multinational" for a reason. They are not loyal to any nation or to democracy; they are in thrall to power and excessive economic success.

The best way to combat the takeover of big name strip mall stores is to find small local dealers and do your best to shop there. Growing your own fruits and vegetables whenever possible and giving the overabundance to your friends and family is another great way to save money and undermine the WalMart way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feds: Wal-Mart Execs Knew Workers Illegal
Posted by: UnWalled on Nov 8, 2005 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feds: Wal-Mart Execs Knew Workers Illegal
By MARCUS KABEL, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 7, 7:30 PM ET

How much does this all cost us? Not just in prosecutions and investigations but lost jobs for residents at prevailing wages and the taxes that are paid with those jobs and the other corporations like Tyson (another Arkansas Wal-Mart buddy) who use illegals and use their illegal status to threaten the workforce and keep unions out because Wal-Mart does it and even when caught pays less than they saved.

Wal-Mart is an ugly monster and this is just one of the things they will stoop to and we should all be livid that we are all subsidizing this take over.

I'm thrilled though that someone actually put it in print that sales tax and income taxes aren't Wal-Mart's money as Wal-Mart has claimed over and over. Geez! Wal-Mart even gets a percentage of those taxes to process them and pass them on. The government (and the people) should insist that Wal-Mart has such great efficiencies they don't need to be paid as much for that processing. Insist they get paid lower! Do Wal-Mart on Wal-Mart!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet should be ashamed to give screed like this space.
Posted by: Gun Bunny on Nov 8, 2005 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author has demonstrated that he can Google up 'Wal-Mart", but his story is so full of amateurish holes that you ought to think thrice about giving him space. My comments are in brackets.
Here's why:

"A Wal-Mart official [OK, what Wal-Mart official? Give me a name, don't just believe that you can throw out fluff like this and hope I'll believe it.] once stated [OK, if you did the research, when did she say it, and where?] that Wal-Mart seeks subsidies in about a third of it's stores, suggesting that more than 1,100 of its U.S. stores are subsidized. [Ja, sure, you betcha, and just about any company that is planning to put a big box store, or a manufacturing facility does too. It's a pervasive practice that works in dead and dying inner cities and mid-western towns and about anywhere else, for that matter.

Second paragraph: it's true, and it's life. I don't like it any more than Red Esry did. That's why I don't shop at Wal-Mart, even if the prices are lower than at the local Safeway, or the local hardware store. Apparently other people are addicted to low food and clothing prices. My bottom line, though is that all that money flows directly back to Red China, and I don't want any of my monet to go to Red China.]

Go to rural america. It's dying. The locals are standing in line to give tax subidies to anything that will bring jobs. Everything the author writes is just a personal value jusgement.
OK, so what's the author's point?

- Wal-Mart is inherently bad because it plays hardball site location games that everybody else does too?

- That Wal-Mart leaves local downtowns and shopping malls dead because american consumers are addicted to cheap food and clothes from Red China?

- That "some people" say that Wal-Mart has a policy to play one city off against another to get the best economic terms for its self-interest?
- Ho-hum.

If you really want to fight Wal-Mart, join the Minutemen and turn in the illegal alien Wal-Mart customers and employees to the INS. Wal-Mart is nothing without customers. Suck it up and shop somewhere else. I do, except for one little thing... they sell this tomato sauce with mushrooms for forty nine cents a can, and it's good, damn it. It's got this green label, and can't make the stuff for the price that Wal-Mart will sell it for...
Well, you know what to do.
gun bunny

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Privatize Profits; Socialize Costs.
Posted by: tsarbeck on Nov 13, 2005 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to records of the early Congresses, America began subsidizing business in the 1790's. So-called free enterprise has long been subsidy enterprise.

If you live near a major public library (a federal depository library), see if it has the records of the 1787 convention, in which James Madison, on June 26, said "It [the government] ought to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

If we the people want to keep Ben Franklin's "republic", more of us will have to do what too few of us have been doing for many years: making government work for us, not for those who INVEST big money in elections and who want returns on their investments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]