Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Op-Eds

Cut food subsidies for wealthy CEOs, not needy families

Congress seems to be focusing its austerity efforts on America's most vulnerable citizens, including those who need help feeding their families. Meanwhile, large food subsidies that benefit the most affluent Americans aren't even on the table.

The House of Representatives recently voted to cut $4 billion a year from food stamps, known more formally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A cut of that level would mean 3.8 million Americans would lose the help they receive to put food on their families' tables, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Democrats have resisted that effort, but with President Barack Obama's call for Congress to turn its attention back to passing a farm bill in the wake of the recent government shutdown, the level of food subsidies will once again be at the center of debate.

What nobody in the House is talking about, though, is the fact that wealthy corporate executives will continue to enjoy food subsidies of another sort. When CEOs of major corporations host business dinners at 5-star restaurants, they get to deduct that expense from their income taxes.

Imagine that the tab for dinner and drinks for 10 executives comes to $1,600. Current tax law allows companies to deduct half of the cost of business meals — in this case, $800. With a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, each dollar of deductions yields 35 cents of tax savings — so that $800 deduction saves $280 in taxes. This means one dinner for 10 people provides more public food assistance than the $279 an average household receives in food stamps for the whole month.

The IRS doesn't publish data on meal deductions taken by America's businesses. Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-partisan public interest research and advocacy organization, last examined the issue a decade ago and at that time found that food subsidies for businesspeople cost the government $4 billion a year. Given inflation, and a lack of evidence that businesses have cut back on their food and entertainment tabs, it's likely that the cost of this tax break is even bigger now.

Can someone please tell me why American taxpayers should subsidize meals consumed by CEOs and other businesspeople at no risk of experiencing hunger?

Food stamps provide a subsidy of about $1.50 per meal to SNAP beneficiaries. If the same $1.50 per meal subsidy were applied to the CEO dinner party mentioned above, the corporation's tax bill would be cut by $15. That would be 95 percent less than the tax reduction allowed by current law.

Another way tax policies subsidize the food and beverages consumed by affluent Americans is the lavish marketing that pharmaceutical companies spend on physicians. Drug companies annually spend tens of millions of dollars taking physicians on cruises, ski jaunts and other free trips, where they learn about the drug companies' latest products — when they aren't indulging in lavish meals or otherwise enjoying themselves.

In many instances, drug companies spend far more on marketing their drugs than they spend on research and development. All of the expenses of physician trips and other marketing efforts are fully deductible from corporate taxes. For every $10 million a drug company spends this way, taxpayers pick up as much as $3.5 million of the tab.

Why do so many members of Congress feel obliged to curb federal spending for food subsidies for people with bare pantries? Ending tax subsidies for fancy corporate dinners would make far more sense.

Scott Klinger is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • No weather TLC without TWC
    No weather TLC without TWC

    People love to talk about the weather. And people listen to those who know what they're talking about — like meteorology guru Jim Cantore. But when Verizon FiOS unexpectedly dropped The Weather Channel (TWC) from its line-up on March 10, those voices went silent for the cable company's...

  • The conservative case for same-sex marriage
    The conservative case for same-sex marriage

    Before the current Supreme Court session ends this summer, the justices will make a landmark decision on same-sex marriage. But conservatives shouldn't wait to lose in court. They should accept same-sex marriage now.

  • The people's representatives should be elected
    The people's representatives should be elected

    Members of Congress don't always complete their terms due to factors like death, a new job and scandal. When a House seat becomes vacant, the Constitution requires an election to fill it, and every House member has been elected. The 17th amendment established direct election of Senators as...

  • More quality teachers, fewer administrators
    More quality teachers, fewer administrators

    Each year when it is time for executive central office school officials to present their proposed school budget to local government officials for approval, a funny thing happens. The needs of children anchor the plea for more funding. From a political perspective, this is a tough plea to...

  • Supergirl Power
    Supergirl Power

    About a year ago, I walked into Gotham Comics in Westminster with the intention of restarting my comic book collection after letting it lie dormant since the comic book boom of the early 1990s. Upon entering the store I was immediately confused.

  • Calls for a constitutional convention are reckless
    Calls for a constitutional convention are reckless

    There's a right way and a wrong way to amend the United States Constitution, and far too many current state legislators are trying to do it the wrong way: by attempting to call our first constitutional convention since 1787.

Comments
Loading