Ray, the extent of my political conversations with right wing people isn't that wide. Just because I don't hear directly from someone, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But then again, it's besides the point. So, the party of the rich doesn't complain about the rich..... but then some of those who do vote for the Republicans will complain about what happens.
What have the Republicans given the rich? Seriously?
Let's see, because I CAN answer this question.
The only issue here is that what you see as "giving" is different to what I see.
But, I'll try under your view of giving.
First - giving an unfair advantage.
Like I've said before. If you give an unfair advantage to one company over another, it's essentially corruption, favoritism, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. There are many ways of expressing this sort of thing.
Tax incentives get Amazon to build fulfillment center in Katy
"
Tax incentives get Amazon to build fulfillment center in Katy"
This is in Waller County, Texas. Represented in the Texas Senate by a Republican, represented in the Texas House by a Republican. Represented in Federal govt by three Republicans.
I'd say this place is Republican.
"As part of the deal, the county will refund at least 50 percent of the taxes Amazon pays on the facility if the combined value of its property and inventory exceeds $100 million. The agreement requires the company to employ at least 800 people there and hold an annual job fair."
So, Amazon gets to pay half the amount of taxes than other companies. How many people in the area will be able to compete with Amazon? How many businessmen and women will see their business fold because they cannot compete.
You might say this is Amazon's money. I say it's not. I say there money is there for the taking, but Amazon will take it because they have managed to bribe the county into giving them a deal that makes them uber competitive.
""There's no other deal that compares to this," County Judge Trey Duhon said. "This is Amazon, and when you have a Fortune 100 company, it's a whole different ball game.""
Essentially this guy is saying that unless you're a top 100 company, you aren't going to get this kind of deal.
And while Waller County might be sitting there looking good, because it's got jobs, how many jobs are going to be lost elsewhere? Lots. Lots of businesses in Texas and all over the US are going to be lost. Republicans are going to lose their businesses (from a previous thread, right, about Republicans getting screwed over by the rich) as well as Democrats, a monopoly is going to be closer and closer as each competitor dies off and Amazon takes another slice of the pie, adding more jobs their their stack, making their power even great, their money to bribe officials to give them a sweet deal.
This is what the Republicans are giving Amazon, a part share in a monopoly, an unfair advantage, a larger share of the market.
Now, Democrats do this too.
Amazon's Tax Breaks
"The Boston Globe has a report on how the internet retailer Amazon has negotiated state and local tax breaks for two warehouses in Massachusetts. Last year, Amazon got $600,000 in state tax credits and $2.89 million in local tax breaks for a facility in Stoughton, Mass. The second facility, in Fall River and Freetown, Mass., will benefit from $11.6 million in real estate and personal property tax breaks, along with a still undisclosed state tax credit."
Now, Norfolk County, MA is mostly Democrat. 35% to 11% officially registered. They haven't voted Republican in a Presidential election since 1984.
So, can we say that Democrats also hand out the cash in this way? Yes, we can. However the system whereby local counties, states etc pay companies to relocate is something very American, it doesn't happen within the EU, there are laws to stop it and I think Google had to pay money because Ireland tried to give them an unfair advantage deal.
Who keeps this sort of system in place? Well, probably the republicans, but maybe Democrats too. But those who do it, are almost certain in the pay of such companies. The companies are controlling this sort of thing.
Thank you for that typical liberal reply demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between "giving" somebody something and "taking less" away. So I'll try to explain this one more time:
If you snuck into your neighbors home once a week and stole $100.00 while he was walking his dog, but then felt guilty after a while and reduced your theft to $50.00 a week, did you give just your neighbor $50.00 a week? Of course not, you just stole less.
Tax incentives to attract new businesses (or keep existing ones) to your city or state is something politicians on both sides of the aisle do. It's a practice that works and is also an investment for the city or state because they will get much more in return. It's how cities and states compete against each other to draw those businesses. So don't say that it's Republicans that do it.
When you "give" somebody something, it means you provided them with something they didn't have before. Our welfare programs are a perfect example of that.
So, if you hand someone a monopoly, is this giving or taking?
If you give someone an unfair advantage, is this giving or taking?
Yes, you've given that nonsense analogy about ten times already, there's no point doing it again and again and again.
Tax incentives attract new businesses. Sure they do. I get what you're saying. You're just not looking BEYOND this.
Look at what the EU has done. It has said to all EU countries, you can set the tax rates however you like, we don't care, 0%, 50%, 150% who cares? But what you cannot do is have a tax rate for everyone, and then give special deals to companies. Simply said everyone in that country pays the rates that are going, or they don't.
The difference here is that in the US companies can get what they want. They can go to counties, they can go to states and basically be like "we'll come to you if we don't pay much in tax" and the counties will be like, "we need jobs".
What this does is it plays off different areas against other areas, within the same country. Essentially the country has rolled over like a useless ******* dog, bearing its nipples and asking to have all the milk sucked out of it.
The impact of this, which you conveniently ignore, is that large companies, like Amazon, will ALWAYS get a cheap deal. What it also means is that smaller companies are (how many times do I have to say this for you not to ignore it?) not playing on a level playing field.
What it also means is that the guys doing the deals with companies, like Amazon, get nice little kickbacks.
So, the politicians get their cash for allowing it to happen, the companies get an unfair competitive advantage, and for some ******* reason, you're loving it every step of the way.
You love politicians getting kickbacks from companies in order for the politicians to do the bidding of the companies, you somehow seem to think that by giving BRIBES (there is no other word to describe what this money is) is great, you seem to think that people who have been elected by THE PEOPLE to represent THE PEOPLE and then turn around and take BRIBES to do the bidding of companies is great.
You love large corporations being able to buy politicians
You love large companies getting unfair advantages
You love small companies getting fucked over on a daily basis because they can't compete with the larger companies
Yes, you have a lot of loving.
And then you come on here and tell me I don't know the difference between giving and taking as if I'm some dumb **** who hasn't been outside of his ******* village ever.
Then you write "When you "give" somebody something, it means you provided them with something they didn't have before. Our welfare programs are a perfect example of that."
And this is a perfect example of companies GIVING to politicians so politicians GIVE something to companies they didn't have before. Unless of course you're saying that companies had sweet deals before, so it's okay if they carry on bribing the hell out of politicians.
When you give an unfair advantage to companies like Amazon, is this not giving?
No, it's not giving. It's taking less. You say I told that story a dozen times, yet it still didn't sink into your head.
Yes, cities and states do compete against each other. That's how it's done in a free country. The city that takes the least will likely draw those businesses.
Either you watch too many television movies or you have evidence of these so-calle bribes you speak about. If so, I suggest you turn your evidence over to the FBI. Better still, turn that evidence over to your local news room. They may even offer to pay you for this evidence. Just make sure it's not against Bill or Hillary, otherwise you might end up committing suicide. Can't wait for the breaking news you provided the media any day now.
Big businesses put smaller businesses out of business by selling more to their customers. Larger companies can make better deals with vendors than can smaller companies because of volume. Therefore they can sell their items cheaper and make the same profit as smaller businesses who sell for more.
It's like that liberal urban legend how Walmart put mom and pop stores out of business. Walmart did no such thing. They opened up their store, and people decided they would rather shop at Walmart because they had cheaper prices. The customers put those mom and pop shops out of business--not Walmart.
Just because you tell me something, doesn't me I agree with you.
Again, they're not taking less, they're GIVING people the chance to be uber competitive.
You've completely ignored what I've said about this.
People buy at Walmart because of cheaper prices, how did they manage to get prices CHEAPER? Come on Ray? The govt gives you a massive tax break simply because you'll bribe the politicians, and you think this is fair game. Then they're uber competitive, and they take over the market.
And you LOVE THIS.
Walmart has lower prices because they fight to get lower prices. It doesn't have anything to do with government. In fact Walmart is one of our customers largest customers. We used to pick up material for our customer to make their products for Walmart, but Walmart complained they didn't make it cheap enough. So our customer had to get rid of their vendor here in Cleveland and we lost that delivery; that was about two to three trailer loads a week.
Prior to that they used a company for years that made plastic parts for them. The problem was the company never kept up with automation, so our customer went with another company that did so they could produce cheaper plastic parts. We still have the delivery from the new company (since they were a customer of ours already) but it's a much shorter haul and we make less money on it.
I know all about Walmart.
Walmart get lower prices because they BRIBE to get lower prices. The only reason it's not called "bribery" is because it's legitimate. It's legitimate because the govt says so. That doesn't make it MORAL.
It also has a LOT to do with the govt.
The issue here is "would Walmart be able to do what they do, if they were working on a level playing field?"
The answer is clearly "no".
That much should be perfectly clear.
Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study
"The report estimates that Walmart.....collectively profit from nearly $7.8 billion per year in federal subsidies and tax breaks."
Okay, that's $7.8 billion of govt money that's going to this one company.
Okay, so Walmart can pay their employees less than they should be earning. Why? Why do you support the govt giving handouts to people who are actually working?
Walmart pays its employees less, because they're getting govt help, this means they can charge less for their products. Meaning companies who pay their employees the correct wage are going to have to charge higher prices for their products.
All because of what the GOVERNMENT has done.
Subsidies the same, they can charge less and less.
Okay, in 2016 Walmart had an income of around $482 billion. Profit of $121 billion. So, you're looking at a profit of 1/4.
Walmart Income Statement, Annual, 2017, 2016 - Amigobulls
Let's do a little role play here.
There's a grocery store called "Ray's Groceries". It has a yearly revenue of $482,000 and profits of $121,000. It pays its staff the correct wage, it doesn't get any govt subsidies. Let's make up another number. The company pays 25% in Federal and State taxes. That means it paid $120,500 in taxes last year. That also means $24 million is being spent in the city on groceries.
Now, in this city there are 50 grocery stores, and they all earn exactly the same as "Ray's Groceries", they all pay the same tax, they all do the same thing, because it's an easier example than trying to find real stuff out and you wouldn't appreciate it anyway. That means the govts are making $6 million. Local people are making 6 million too. This money will go back into the local economy.
Now, Walmart moves in to the city. Walmart moves in because instead of paying 25% in federal and local taxes, Walmart gets to pay 5% in federal and local taxes (am I being generous?).
So this Walmart store is there. It's products are cheaper. It pays workers less. More people got to shop at the local Walmart store than in the other stores.
So, the amount "Ray's Groceries" earns is halved. They earn $241,000 in the first year Walmart is operating. Walmart takes in $12 million that year. Each of the other Grocery Stores loses money.
The Grocery stores are suddenly paying the governments $3 million a year. Walmart is paying the the governments $602,500. This means the governments have LOST $2.4 million a year, and Walmart has gained $2.4 million a year it's not paying in taxes.
It's also paying workers less. So the governments have to pick up the tab there too.
The Walmart profits are $3 million for what it took from the local stores, and $2.4 million from the govt not making it pay taxes. That's $5.4 million.
But the govts need money. So they charge the local people more in taxes to make up the $2.4 million they're losing. The $3 million they make in profits is NOT going back into the local economy.
This means the next year, instead of the 50 groceries stories making a combined $24 million, they're making $21 million. Walmart is taking 50% of this $21 million.
So, the 50 stories are making $10.5 million a year, that's $210,000 a year for the 50 stories, instead of $241,000 they made the year before. Profits are going down. Each year profits go down as less and less money goes back into the local economy. Suddenly Ray's Groceries former competitor shuts down. The people who shopped there go off to Walmart, who suck more money out of the economy, the govt puts up taxes again. The people who worked for the competitor then go work at Walmart, as they're busier than ever, they need more staff, who earn less, and go collect from the govt every so often.
Then Ray's closes down, and then there are only three left, trying to function in the shadow of Walmart.
Are you telling me this is because Walmart was "better"?
No, Walmart was not operating on a level playing field, it could sell its products CHEAPER because the GOVT gave them a sweet deal. Had it been a level playing field, Walmart would have opened into a competitive market, it might have gained a small share of the market, but as it was it sucked the blood dry.
So you know ALL about Walmart? Well that's not really the point. Walmart might have been able to increase its position in the economy being being efficient in the past, and it might very well be efficient now. But what we're talking about here Ray, isn't whether they're more efficient or not, it's whether the govt is giving them an unfair advantage over other competitors, and is destroying local businesses, so that everyone goes to work at Walmart, and then goes on the govt payroll too.
