Read more carefully, that’s  Other People’s Money, not OPiuM. This addiction is common to many business enterprises, whether business start-ups, real estate development, or plant expansions. It’s a normal part of doing business. Start-ups won’t start up without lines of credit from banks.  Bigger operations go to the public money markets with stock offerings or bond issues. It’s all perfectly legit

In these cases the lenders study the aspiring entrepreneur’s pro-formas, weigh the risks and take an ownership position. There are risks, of course. The operations may fold, in which case the bank earns no more interest and gets stuck with empty buildings or undeveloped land.

Stockholders, who are seldom in first position in a bankruptcy, will take a bath; but that’s a risk they know to expect.

When a municipality needs a hospital or library or a new slammer it issues long term municipal bonds (if the rating companies judge they can ‘service the debt.’) Municipalities rarely or never default on their bonds and the purchasers get a nice tax free cash flow.

So far we can live with all of this.

But there is a kind of OPM which is so one-sided that it ought to be avoided and that’s when it’s the people’s tax money. When the Magnifico Corp hits town with alluring tales of a job-creating factory or luxury hotel development it takes its dog and pony show to the city or the county or the state.

“Sounds great, go for it!” say the Pols.

“Well, there are certain conditions. We need sales tax forgiveness, or property tax forgiveness, and we’d like you to give us the property, too. Do you expect us to put in our own infrastructure? Hmm?”

The deals requested differ, but they are all the same in one respect: They expect the city, county, or state to spend future tax revenues…which are, after all, real money. And it never occurs to the pols that if these projects had a reasonable chance of success they would have obtained private financing.

I think we should be pretty skeptical of such deals. All across the fruited plain corporations use up their tax bennies and then move on.

But we may really really really need a new hotel. What to do? The next time one of these hustlers comes to town let’s offer to make a deal.  Demand an ownership position in the hotel corporation, or manufacturing corporation, or sales group.

The ownership position should be percentage of the company’s total capitalization “bought” with the future value of the offered tax benefits.

If the company pulls out we’d at least retain our partial ownership (and maybe some dividends) and we’d get back whatever it leaves behind.

Here’s a great way to participate in Occupy Wall Street that doesn’t involve sleeping in a tent. Sleeping in a tent gives OWS great public exposure so do it if you can. Next time a march is planned, join in. But, hey, some of you might not be into tenting; or perhaps you live in the boonies, where a “march” is a stroll in the woods with the wild life. This doesn’t mean you don’t have a voice.

Corporate America, particularly the financial wing, hasn’t been too keen on entering into a dialogue. Here’s a nifty way to get ‘em to hear you. Whether they’ll actually listen to you is another matter, but at least they’ll know you’re there!

Remember the old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me ?” Well, the corporations want to fool us again. Don’t let them do it.

There is a move afoot to “repatriate” huge sums of money currently held overseas by US-based multi-national corporations. Under US tax law those funds are not taxed until they’re brought back to the United States.

Congressional leaders and our wealthiest corporations want some help in bringing home the bacon. They are aggressively lobbying to bring those funds home for the modest tax rate of 5.2, rather than the usual 35 percent corporate tax rate.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) explains the effect of permanently deferring taxes on overseas holdings:

“This effectively allows such firms to defer payment of the U.S. corporate income tax on their overseas profits indefinitely, even though they may obtain an immediate tax deduction for many expenses incurred in supporting the same overseas investments. This can produce a negative U.S. corporate income tax—that is, a net government subsidy—for overseas operations. In addition to causing the federal government to lose tax revenue, this structure gives multinationals a significant incentive to shift economic activity—as well as their reported profits—overseas.

The argument for repatriation is that this would bring back billions of dollars to the US, which would then be virtuously employed to create jobs. Sure it would. We’ve been there and done that under a 2004 Bush Administration plan.

As CBPP points out,

“The evidence shows that firms mostly used the repatriated earnings not to invest in U.S. jobs or growth but for purposes that Congress sought to prohibit, such as repurchasing their own stock and paying bigger dividends to their shareholders. Moreover, many firms actually laid off large numbers of U.S. workers even as they reaped multi-billion-dollar benefits from the tax holiday and passed them on to shareholders.” Many economists and scholars believe that if corporations get their way and get another repatriation holiday, history will repeat itself—and once again the corporations and their shareholders, not American workers, families, and children, will be the only winners.”