Skip to main content

Robbing the Poor to Give to the Rich: Corporate Welfare in Oklahoma

Imagine that someone forcibly takes your hard-earned money and then simply gives it to a multi-billion dollar corporation such as Home Depot, Wal-Mart, or Boeing. You receive no benefit from this forcible redistribution of wealth, and the sole beneficiary is the corporation. You would most likely be outraged, and justifiably so. Unfortunately, this forced redistribution of wealth happens in Oklahoma (and the nation as a whole) all the time via a variety of state and local corporate welfare schemes. 

Policymakers either take your hard-earned money (via taxes), and directly subsidize large corporations or give those corporations tax breaks nobody else can get. All of this is done in the name of jobs and economic development, but these favors bring very little (if any) benefit to you. This is tyranny, plain and simple. In fact, it is not unlike the sort of advantage nobility took of commoners before the American Revolution, only the modern nobility is just very good at lobbying. In the 1889 Institute’s most recent publication, Policymaker’s Guide to Corporate Welfare, we condemn the practice of corporate welfare, offer policymakers a simple guide to evaluate proposed and existing instances of corporate welfare, as well as offer a list of solutions and alternatives.

The guide asks five basic questions in order to help policymakers ascertain what constitutes corporate welfare. To over simplify, if the answer to Question 1 is Yes, and the answer to Questions 2 through 5 is No, a policymaker can be very nearly certain that the policy in question is corporate welfare. 

Let’s walk through an example. Suppose Amazon is looking for a new distribution center location. This entails dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of jobs to the state blessed with Amazon’s presence. Elected policymakers, anxious to claim they helped to “create” jobs, jump at the opportunity to bribe Amazon to locate in Oklahoma. The likely truth is that Amazon will locate wherever is best suited for them, regardless of any incentives offered by government. However, from Amazon’s perspective, if it helps the bottom line, why not? So, in an effort to make themselves appear to accomplish something, policymakers supposedly entice Amazon to bring its distribution center to Oklahoma. The Governor offers Amazon a $3.5 million direct grant from the Quick Action Closing Fund. In addition, the state offers a tax rebate for the first ten years that the distribution center is located in Oklahoma. 

Question 1: Is this a direct grant of funds or reduction in taxes to a private entity without an expectation of direct consideration (performance of services or provision of goods) to the government making the grant? 

A “Yes” answer means that this program or initiative is very likely corporate welfare. After all, giving money to a corporation with essentially no strings attached looks a whole lot like a gift. Of course, policymakers argue this isn’t a gift since the company is expected to create jobs and pay taxes. There’s only one problem, that’s literally what companies do, regardless. Is that really something we should pay them for? Lots of small businesses create jobs and pay taxes without government giving them refunds.

Question 2: Does a grant of funds or tax consideration apply to every similarly situated business? 

Our guide states that a “No” answer means the program or initiative could very likely be corporate welfare. Exclusivity is a major indicator of corporate welfare, as the government is simply picking winners and losers by granting a competitive advantage to certain businesses over others. By contrast, those businesses that the state did not bless with your tax dollars might have to make major changes or shutter their doors as a result of the competitive advantage given to rivals. Government officials should not substitute their political judgment for that of citizens expressed through markets. 

Question 3: Does an apparent tax advantage put businesses on an equal footing?

If the answer is “No” the policy is likely corporate welfare. There is absolutely no indication that the governor handing $3.5 million to Amazon places it on an “equal footing” with other businesses in the state. Any contention to the contrary would be absurd. Amazon is already a multi-billion dollar corporation that likely has an advantage over other businesses given its size and profitability, and gifting Amazon large sums of money or tax abatements artificially exacerbates those differences.

Question 4: Is the purpose of this policy to avoid tax pyramiding? 

If a policy is intended to avoid tax pyramiding, then it is sound tax policy, not just according to our guide, but according to experts of any ideological stripe. Tax pyramiding occurs when a product is taxed at multiple stages of production, meaning the final sales tax will be partially a tax on taxes from earlier production stages. This inflates the cost of the final product, distorts consumer purchasing decisions, and distorts production chains. In the case of the hypothetical Amazon giveaway, there is no pyramiding avoidance, so that cannot be used as an excuse for the policy.

Question 5: Is the policy compensating a company for public infrastructure the company provided? 

A “No” answer to this question could indicate that it is corporate welfare. There is no argument to be made here. Public infrastructure consists of roads, sewers, and other public investments that benefit everyone, none of which are created by Amazon bringing a distribution center to Oklahoma. A distribution center does not fall into the realm of public infrastructure, thus rendering another “No” answer. 

In sum, in our Amazon hypothetical, the answer to Question 1 is Yes and the answer to Questions 2 through 5 is No. As a result, a policymaker can be fairly certain that the policies like the Amazon giveaway are corporate welfare. These policies should be rejected entirely. 

Given this information, and the academic research that indicates expansion decisions made by businesses are not substantially impacted by state-offered subsidies, the question must be asked: why do policymakers continue to offer economic incentives? The answer is political capital. Granting favored status to big businesses allows policymakers to rub shoulders with the rich and powerful, while also getting their chance for ribbon-cutting photo opportunities that give these policies the appearance of success. These opportunities are so politically beneficial that policymakers are willing to waste taxpayer money and frustrate honest consumer choices to reap those benefits. That or they think Jeff Bezos needs your money more than you do. Regardless, it is a complete and utter disgrace. A better question might be: why do we continue to tolerate such behavior from our elected representatives?

Tyler Williamson is a Research Associate at 1889 institute and can be reached at

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each episod

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best