Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
. Third, that five dollar an hour raise is a better use of Walmart's profits than stock buybacks .
Dude, the math was already done. They would still turn a profit. You not got a calculator?
yes it comes to $19 billion, enough to bankrupt company and economy!!! Are you a communist?
What, at two thousand hours a year? Do you really thing the average employee works two thousand hours a year. Try it at a thousand and tell me what Walmart's profits were last year.
I figure 1560 hours per year x 2.3 million =$18 billion. Enough to wipe out company and profits. Its liberal and Stalinist.
Funny. Walmart's profit last quarter last year was 4.57 billion. Almost exactly an 18 billion dollar a year rate. Not exactly going to bankrupt them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/business/walmart-q4-earnings.html?_r=0
. As I stated here, in my opinion, higher tax rates can lead to more investment. After all, one way a person who owns a business (large or small) can reduce the taxes they pay on profits is to reinvest the profits, which in turn leads to faster economic expansion. Furthermore, the incentive to avoid taxes and reinvest increases as tax rates increase. Of course, at some point, tax rates get high enough to encourage individuals to reinvest even though the “benefits” from more reinvestment, at the margin, are negative. Where that happens, I don’t know, but based on Figure 1, my guess is that it takes a top marginal tax rate above 50%.I understand this much. I am a businessman. I have not seen a W2 this century. If I can invest a dollar and get more than a dollar back, I do it. Then I sort out the tax thing. In fact, like most investors, I am more concerned about the return of my dollar than the return on that dollar. Which speaks to that whole inverse relationship between the marginal tax rate and the cost of capital. I am more likely to make a risky investment if the government is willing to take a larger part of that risk. At a fifty percent tax rate the government takes on fifty percent of the loss. But at ten percent the government is only going to give me ten cents on the dollar.
great so the more we raise taxes the more the economy will boom!!! Is there another person on earth who agrees with you? Is this called the communist school of economics???
Yes, if taxes were one hundred percent the economy would grind to a halt. But I doubt government revenues would be spilling over if tax rates were zero. The Laffer curve is called a curve. Perhaps that is over your head as well.
nice try but for 5th time are you going to name the one idiot on earth who agrees with you that the more we raise taxes the more the economy will boom????? you said its fact but apparently its a fact that only you know. can I ask how old you are?
How Tax Rates Affect Investment and Consumption - A Look at the Data
dear, the govt could pass a law requiring at gun point that 50% or 100% of profits be invested but it does not do it because conservatives know liberal govt is far too stupid to know how much should be invested. Do you understand?
I simply want to construct an environment
it would be more PROFITABLE than sitting on cash and collecting rent.
Of course, it would be prudent to initiate any action with the elimination of company stock buybacks. .
FUND an expansion of demand.
FUND an expansion of demand.
In econ 101 you learn there are 2 choices: 1) hand out welfare so folks can churn the existing economy by demandiing more cheese doodles or, 2) supply more new Republican inventions to make our standard of living, wages and demand rise or expand.
Do you know which is better?
It is time to turn that equation around, encourage earned income, not unearned income.
, where is the funding going to come from?
.
But again, you ignore the demand problem.
Liberals would destroy Walmart just as Stalin destroyed soviet economy:
Walmart by the numbers:
Revenue $482 Billion
profit $14 Billion
$5 raise $11 billion
profit after raise $ 3
Cut retail profits by 80% and cause another liberal Great Depression tomorrow!! And lets never be tricked, this is but one of 10001 interventions a liberal will want because the liberal will lack the ability to understand capitalism!!
Wow. Amazing that Walmart could afford a five dollar raise for everyone and still turn a profit. So lets take a moment and look at the microeconomics of the five dollar raise. Quite literally, we are taking away eleven billion dollars from the stockholders and giving it to the workers. With our current economy, which would be better?
Obviously, with the eleven billion in the hands of the workers. More than likely, they would spend every single dime of that eleven billion. They would increase DEMAND. And DEMAND is what drives the economy. It is doubtful the stockholders would spend any of the eleven billion, let alone the majority. And nope, they wouldn't invest a penny of it either. What the hell are they going to invest it in, what could they produce without DEMAND.
So, they would SAVE it. Or worse, they would use it to SEEK RENTS. Both do not result in an expansion of the frontier curve. In fact, both result in the exact opposite, a CONTRACTION. As the economy shuffles money away from consumption to pay either the interest on the saved money, or the RENTS. The end result, the rich get richer and the rest of the population has to kick harder just to stay afloat.
The sad part, all this is covered by the time you get to Fall break in an intro Macroeconomics course. Or at least it used to be. Now, I guess the students spend that time reading Atlas Shrugged.
Demand on what?
Cocaine?
Weed?
Heroin?
Budlight instead of natural light?
More cheap shit made in china?
.
Look, I know this is hard but you can do it. So, we got 15 billion dollars every two years going to purchase already existing Walmart stock. The company takes 15 billion dollars in profits and purchases 15 billion dollars of their company stock and then BUILDS A BIG BONFIRE AND BURNS THE STOCK.
OK, now we are going to take that same 15 billion dollars and give it to the employees in the form of higher wages. Yep, they are going to buy more cocaine, and more pot, and more heroin after they take all the pain meds. Yep, they going to up their beer game from PBR to Sierra Nevada. They are going to buy more cheap shit from China, and more cars, and furniture, and appliances, and all kinds of SHIT. At least if someone decides to make or provide those things.
So tell me, which of those two scenarios do you think is better for the economy? Better yet, tell me which one has a possibility of providing more than 3% GDP growth. I will give you a hint. Walmart has been doing the stock buyback for almost four years, how's that growth been looking?
Don't try to spin it.. Again answer my question... Anyways Walmart already gave them a raise, this is not about Walmart this is about foolish liberal economics thinking a across the board nationally raising the MW to $15 bucks an hour is going to do anything good.. Except just trickle up poor.
.
.
But again, you ignore the demand problem.
supply creates its own demand!! Do you understand?
I think I've identified your problem. You missed the part where the MW increase has to be large and sudden. If you push it up a little at a time over a long period of time, the damage is done gradually enough that people don't really notice it. After a while, they start to realize that it's harder for teenagers to break into the job market than before, and they start to wonder, but then it's too late.But I thought prices for stuff would skyrocket and there would be mass layoffs at Walmart with a minimum wage increase?
I guess JP Morgan is about to bust too. They upped their minimum pay as well
if your customer can't pay for it the product is going to sit on the shelf .
. After a while, they start to realize that it's harder for teenagers to break into the job market than before, and they start to wonder, but then it's too late.
if your customer can't pay for it the product is going to sit on the shelf .
think back to the stone age so it will be simple enough for you to understand. If the first farmer's plow invented cost more than you could benefit by using it there would in effect have been no farmers plow invented. It is only when the new Republican invention is ingenious and affordable that we get a higher standard of living and higher wages. Got it now? We grew from the stone age to here because of affordable new Republican inventions, not because Democrats crippled people with welfare to create meaningless demand churn.
[/QUOTE]if your customer can't pay for it the product is going to sit on the shelf .
Just what the hell does it do other than suck money out of the economy?
