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 twilliamson@1889institute.org.


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

Oklahoma Mayors Acted Unlawfully With COVID-19 Orders

In response to COVID-19, the mayors of Oklahoma’s three largest cities subjected their citizens to draconian shelter in place orders, restricting their freedom, damaging them financially, and undermining their constitutional rights. The mayoral decrees were more restrictive than those of the Governor, and in significant ways contradicted his policy. To this day, city-mandated social distancing rules remain in place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman that are not required by the state’s reopening plan. The mayors claim that where their rules are more restrictive than the state’s, the city rules apply. Was any of this unilateral mayoral activity legally valid? For the reasons examined in my paper published today, An Argument Oklahoma’s Mayors Acted Unlawfully During COVID-19 , the short answer is no. (A summary of the paper can be found here .) A close examination of relevant city ordinances and state laws governing the mayors’ COVID-19 decrees forces the conclusion tha...
Read more

What’s So Bad About Occupational Licensing?

Why does accepting payment for a service make an otherwise-benign activity suddenly illegal? Accepting money is what distinguishes cutting a friend’s hair for free from a criminal mastermind who takes money for illegally performing cosmetology or barbering without a license. Have you ever paid for a bad haircut? Did the cosmetology license prevent it?  Have you ever had a bad meal in a restaurant (which is, by law, highly regulated)? Have you ever had an outstanding home cooked meal prepared by someone without a license? So how much do licensing and regulation do to ensure high standards?  Occupational licensing is something of a pet peeve for us here at the 1889 Institute. We devote a whole section of our website to it. Why do we care so much?  The Institute for Justice estimates that occupational licensing costs consumes an average of $203 billion per year nationally.  Licensing undeniably hurts the economy through deadweight loss - when the labor market...
Read more

Penmanship Fit for a King, Words Fit for a Free People

Penmanship Fit for a King, Words Fit for a Free People We all know that Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, but who wrote the Declaration? Who took pen to paper—actually, quill to parchment—and inscribed the words on the document displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.? The name Timothy Matlack has largely been lost to history, but in addition to having exceptional penmanship, Matlack actually played a significant role in the events we celebrate on the Fourth of July. More importantly, the words Matlack transcribed set into motion a conception of government completely new in world history. While Matlack’s elegant calligraphy appears fit for a king, Jefferson’s elegant prose—directed at a king—had far more lasting consequences. So what of these consequential words? We’ve all read them at some point, or perhaps been required to memorize them in school. Was the Declaration just a flowery way of saying “no taxation without representati...
Read more

Why Does Oklahoma License Polygraph Examiners?

Should polygraph examiners be licensed? In Oklahoma, a license is required to work as a polygraph examiner (a professional who applies lie-detector tests), and it is not at all obvious why. Generally, an occupation is licensed if it is obviously in the public’s interest to prevent potential bad actors from practicing. So, for example, it is argued that doctors must be licensed because, otherwise, some idiot might open a hospital in his garage and really hurt someone. And it is argued that accountants must be licensed because, otherwise, some college-dropout might offer to do accounting for an unsuspecting mom-and-pop shop, tell them their numbers look great (when, in fact, they don’t), and cause them to go bankrupt. In short, occupational licensing is supposed to either (1) prevent real, tangible harm, or (2) assure customers that their service-provider is trustworthy. However, interestingly, licensing polygraph examiners does not accomplish either of those goals because polygraph e...
Read more