That stinging rebuke has convinced me to end my sorry life in the face of your monumental genius.

Again: $1.5 million is a mere 3 minutes of WalMart revenue. You are missing the point. And WalMart does not use the same analysis as a Mom and Pop. Mom and Pop's don't cover payroll with a hedge fund.

Walmart systematically challenges property tax assessments to chip away at its property tax bills, costing local governments several million dollars a year in lost revenues and legal expenses.

In New York State, for example, at least eight Wal-Mart locations have challenged their property tax assessment, recouping about $766,000.

A national study examined a 10 percent random sample of Walmart’s 2,833 Supercenters and discount stores as of the beginning of 2005, and found that at least one assessment challenge had been filed at 35 percent of the stores. If that rate applies to all Walmart stores, the company has brought challenges at more than 1,000 retail outlets nationwide.

Recent studies have shown that the tax revenue big box stores like Walmart produce is often vastly overstated.

A study conducted in Asheville, NC found that a downtown mixed-use development would generate $83,600 per acre per year in retail taxes, vs. $47,500 for a Walmart. Similarly, the mixed-use development would generate $634,000/acre per year in total property taxes vs. $6,500 for a Walmart.

Another study by the organization Smart Growth also concluded that mix-used developments are generally more productive tax-generating spaces.

A study by the organization Smart Growth revealed that big box stores only contribute slightly more in taxes than single family homes. Single family homes generate roughly $8,200 per year, and big box stores about $150 to $200 more.

Making Change at Walmart

20 Facts About Wal-Mart

#1 The average U.S. family now spends more than $4000 a year at Wal-Mart.

#2 In 2010, Wal-Mart had revenues of 421 billion dollars. That amount was greater than the GDP of 170 different countries including Norway, Venezuela and the United Arab Emirates.

#3 If Wal-Mart was a nation, it would have the 23rd largest GDP in the world.

#4 Wal-Mart now sells more groceries than anyone else in America does. In the United States today, one out of every four grocery dollars is spent at Wal-Mart.

#5 Amazingly, 100 million customers shop at Wal-Mart every single week.

#6 Wal-Mart has opened more than 1,100 ”supercenters” since 2005 alone.

#7 Today, Wal-Mart has more than 2 million employees.

#8 If Wal-Mart was an army, it would be the second largest military on the planet behind China.

#9 Wal-Mart is the largest employer in 25 different U.S. states.

#10 According to the Economic Policy Institute, trade between Wal-Mart and China resulted in the loss of 133,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States between 2001 and 2006.

#11 The CEO of Wal-Mart makes more in a single hour than a full-time Wal-Mart associate makes in an entire year.

#12 Tens of thousands of Wal-Mart employees and their children are enrolled in Medicaid and are dependent on the government for healthcare.

#13 Between 2001 and 2007, the value of products that Wal-Mart imported from China grew from $9 billion to $27 billion.

#14 Sadly, about 85 percent of all the products sold at Wal-Mart are made outside of the United States.

#15 It is being reported that about 80 percent of all Wal-Mart suppliers are in China at this point.

#16 Amazingly, 96 percent of all Americans now live within 20 miles of a Wal-Mart.

#17 The number of “independent retailers” in the United States declined by 60,000 between 1992 and 2007.

#18 According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wal-Mart spent 7.8 million dollars on political lobbying during 2011. That number does not even include campaign contributions.

#19 Today, Wal-Mart has five times the sales of the second largest U.S. retailer (Costco).

#20 The combined net worth of six members of the Walton family is roughly equal to the combined net worth of the poorest 30 percent of all Americans

Is Wal-Mart Destroying America? 20 Facts About Wal-Mart That Will Absolutely Shock You

I direct you to a recent report generated for Denver.

Title: ARE WE GETTING OUR MONEY'S WORTH? Tax-Increment Financing and Urban Redevelopment in Denver

Part II: Who Profits from Tif Subsidies? National Chains, Local Businesses and Our Private Developer Partners

Some Key Findings:

Based locally, and with more complete integration into the metro economy, local businesses deliver almost three times the local economic impact through their secondary spending as national chain stores. This also means they generate more local tax revenue, particularly in the context of TIF projects, where on-site taxes are diverted to pay TIF subsidies and only secondary off-site spending generates public tax revenue.

TIF subsidies are meant to help realize private projects at blighted sites at minimum cost to the taxpayer. Yet the data and calculations used to establish the need for TIF subsidies, the amount of TIF necessary to realize a project, and likely developer profit rates, are all permanently hidden, not only from public view but also from the elected leaders responsible for approving such subsidies in the first place. Neither the public nor our representatives have any way of holding TIF projects accountable, either for maximizing public value or for minimizing public costs, even long after TIF deals are concluded

A bias toward well-known and reliable revenue-generating businesses may be dictating a TIF investment strategy that favors projects attractive to large-scale national chains. This bias reduces the potential public revenue and private economic benefits from utilizing local businesses. It also promotes potentially damaging competition to local businesses by proliferating national chains in the Denver economy. Denver’s TIF investment strategy needs to be reoriented with a view toward supporting smaller-scale, neighborhood projects that are more appropriate and hospitable to local, small business tenants.

With no access to the financial data that establishes either the need for TIF or the amount of TIF necessary to win developer participation, neither the public nor our elected leaders has any way of reviewing or holding accountable the key “but for” calculations that justify the diversion of millions of dollars of tax revenue to private, for-profit projects. Denver should expand the transparency of TIF transactions, at least retrospectively. Some financial information may justifiably be kept confidential for “proprietary reasons” during the negotiation of a TIF deal, but the public should be able to review key data and the decision-making process after the deal is concluded and the project built. Further, Denver should consider the establishment of regular performance audits for our TIF system to ensure that its use of diverted tax revenue is as efficient and effective as possible.

Front Range Economic Strategy Center

You are trying to express a complex phenomenon with a simple metaphor, and you are accusing me of not making my case?

Anyhow, large things behave differently than small things, even though they may resemble each other. A galaxy looks like an atom, but they behave very differently. A WalMart behaves toward money as your checkbook behaves toward money very differently. Your logic fails the identity test. This, through the garden path, is my point.

I really an going to try to leave it alone after this, but...

"trying to express a complex phenomenon with a simple metaphor"

"A galaxy looks like an atom, but they behave very differently."

Hmm. Interesting. Simple metaphors should not be used to explain complex things. Check.

But really, the main thing I note is that you have, once again, stated that I am wrong, but declined to explain your own case. Logic would dictate that even if I am, in fact, wrong, that does not necessitate you being right.

If you would care to explain why a large corporation should not be given incentives like TIFFs or PILOTs you may still do so. I'll head you off a couple of paths, though. "Because you're wrong" and "Because they're different" are not sufficient explanations.

Have at it, or don't.

So, governmetn actions are now subject to your personal whims? What if another citizen thinks that you don't deserve to have a home? Is that OK simply because another citizen says so?

BTW, you weren't talking about if they "deserved" it (even though that is as subjective as it gets), you were saying that they didn't "need" it, as if you have the right to determine what others can or can't afford.

That's awfully arrogant.