Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

No, I believe in equality. Not equality by policy but by opportunity, meaning we shouldn't force a part society to be more equal with the rest of society. Instead every American should pay as much as every other american, with exception of the poor (do we really need the 18% of those who make less than say 40,000 a year?) However the ultra rich (billionaires) have ways of getting around paying their fair share of taxes (not obamas definition of fair share which is actually unequal and more by his definition). The millionaires and the rich that Obama speaks of (those who make 250,000) are more of the new rich or nuvo-riche, the up and comers. Generally the small business owners and the employers of most Americans. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why, and get angry when companies like ford and Nabisco go to Mexico to conduct business. But the billionaires, the ones who can influence our politicians the most with money, power, and campaign donations keep getting regulation and laws passed in their favor, and get the blind eye from our politicians on the right and left.

This is why I support flat tax, you get taxed at 14.5% no matter who you are (except on your first 50,000 you make, or unless your a non-profit company). We get the ultra rich to pay an actual fair share, we don't over burden our new rich and small business, and those who make less than 50,000 (I just had 900$ taken out of my last pay check, thought I was the little guy) can have room to breath. Why does this not make sense?

Flat taxes ARE regressive. The US ranks on the bottom of ACTUAL Corp taxes paid EVEN if you want to conflate tax RATE with EFFECTIVE rates

Corps don't move to Mexico for tax purposes, but to build a better bottom line for the capital gains and dividends that only the top 1/10th of 1% of US receive!

HINT GOOD GOV'T POLICY COULD CHANGE IT, BUT VOTE FOR GOPers who don't "believe in" Govt and are shocked the system is rigged?

Small Biz BS huh? lol




Taxes on ‘Small Businesses’


Tim Scott’s Misleading Tax Claims

14.5% Good for you Bubs, you want to gut Gov't to about a third it's current size, THAT will not put US back into ANOTHER right wing depression *shaking head*

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN

The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
These programs directly affect us in a negative way.

More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households



Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.

Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH


Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO

I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.

 

[Dad2three]

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE


Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs


Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats



US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense

WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!

People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Will business owners higher more entry level positions when the min wage is raised to 15.00? Or will they stop/have less hiring and have the current entry level positions do more work? Minimum wage raising has always been known as a job killer, except until recently. If not then why has every president not raised it when they've been in office? Because they're bought out? They definitely are not bought out by small business who this will undoubtably effect negatively the most (please explain how this is good for small business). So who really benefits from a raise in minimum wage? Id say this is one of many ways that help the ultra rich can close the door on their smaller sleeker competition. It's nothing but a bandaid on a flesh wound

I THOUGHT GOOD BIZ HIRES WORKERS BECAUSE THEY NEED HELP? IT'S ONLY IF THE HELP IS CHEAP THEY HAVE EXTRA MONEY TO THROW AT THEM??? lol



Min wages increases kills jobs? lol

HINT, COSTS ALWAYS GO UP, A GOOD BIZ WORKS WITH IT'


The Job Loss Myth

The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.

The Job Loss Myth


Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash


Jeepers Media/Mike Mozart
Economy
The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage



Like ATTN: on facebook for more content like this.

On Thursday, Senate Democrats plan on introducing the Raise the Wage Act. If passed, the bill would raise wages to $12 an hour by 2020, index the minimum wageto the median wage after 2021, and lift the minimum wage for tipped workers. The act is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress. It is likely, however, to help galvanize support for the raised wage -- and voter support for politicians who support a raised wage.

There are several key myths surrounding this once-uncontroversial policy. ATTN: took a moment to look into them:

Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash.



Myth #2: Raising the minimum wage will raise prices. (After all, businesses will pass along the cost of more expensive labor to consumers by raising the prices of their products.)

Myth #3: Raising the wage kills jobs.

The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage

 

[Dad2three]

GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN

The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
These programs directly affect us in a negative way.

More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households



Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.

Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH


Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO

I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.

Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!

Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!

 

[sakinago]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

No, I believe in equality. Not equality by policy but by opportunity, meaning we shouldn't force a part society to be more equal with the rest of society. Instead every American should pay as much as every other american, with exception of the poor (do we really need the 18% of those who make less than say 40,000 a year?) However the ultra rich (billionaires) have ways of getting around paying their fair share of taxes (not obamas definition of fair share which is actually unequal and more by his definition). The millionaires and the rich that Obama speaks of (those who make 250,000) are more of the new rich or nuvo-riche, the up and comers. Generally the small business owners and the employers of most Americans. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why, and get angry when companies like ford and Nabisco go to Mexico to conduct business. But the billionaires, the ones who can influence our politicians the most with money, power, and campaign donations keep getting regulation and laws passed in their favor, and get the blind eye from our politicians on the right and left.

This is why I support flat tax, you get taxed at 14.5% no matter who you are (except on your first 50,000 you make, or unless your a non-profit company). We get the ultra rich to pay an actual fair share, we don't over burden our new rich and small business, and those who make less than 50,000 (I just had 900$ taken out of my last pay check, thought I was the little guy) can have room to breath. Why does this not make sense?

Flat taxes ARE regressive. The US ranks on the bottom of ACTUAL Corp taxes paid EVEN if you want to conflate tax RATE with EFFECTIVE rates

Corps don't move to Mexico for tax purposes, but to build a better bottom line for the capital gains and dividends that only the top 1/10th of 1% of US receive!

HINT GOOD GOV'T POLICY COULD CHANGE IT, BUT VOTE FOR GOPers who don't "believe in" Govt and are shocked the system is rigged?

Small Biz BS huh? lol




Taxes on ‘Small Businesses’


Tim Scott’s Misleading Tax Claims

14.5% Good for you Bubs, you want to gut Gov't to about a third it's current size, THAT will not put US back into ANOTHER right wing depression *shaking head*

So you disagree with Kennedy's tax policy? And the results that brought?

The Venezuelan model works I guess?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.
those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
These programs directly affect us in a negative way.

More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households



Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.
Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.

Got it, you''l stick with the right wing hammock BS despite the FACT that it's a MYTH


Hint, CONservatives fought ALL those things you named ALSO

I know they did but HINT, they are at least earned by contributing. Welfare is NOT earned or a right. Its free money for the terminally stupid or lazy or both.
I would be happy to get a lump sum back of what Ive paid into SS and medicare all these years, not interest, just the actual dollar for dollar amount. Then have those programs cease to exist too.
My investments have done me much better than social security, imagine how much better off I would have been if I could have been investing that money too.
My theory is work and earn it, or starve. Y'all anti religious people should appreciate Darwins theory over religion.

Weird, I though there was a FIVE YEAR LIFETIME CAP ON THOSE LAZY WELFARE LEECHES? Dumbass!

Weird how the US looked like a fukn Darwin/Randian wet dream when the US didn't have the PROGRESSIVE policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class!

how many of those leeches return to welfare within a year?
how long have you been on it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you're saying that a store which saves people money compared to other stores should be given a free ride by the government?

What the hell are you talking about?
They employ 1.4 million Americans.
Last year they paid $8 billion in income taxes, $7 billion in dividends, $10s of billions in sales taxes, billions more in payroll taxes. Free ride? LOL!

I'll pay my employees $1 an hour...
"I'm saving these people loads of money because I pay my employees peanuts, so, give my employees $10 for every hour that they work in welfare"

As usual, liberal math is way off. Assume the stupid study by the anti-WalMart group was correct and each WalMart employee gets $2,103 in government benefits. If every employee works 30 hours a week, the government is adding $1.40 an hour.

What I'm talking about is that you're saying that they pay a lot of tax. But they're not paying their fair share of tax. There's a big difference.

You seem to think that people who earn more should be able to get out of paying tax on things they should be paying tax on.

You talk about "liberal math" but your ignoring most of what I'm saying in the first place. It's not MY math that's off.

What I'm talking about is that you're saying that they pay a lot of tax. But they're not paying their fair share of tax. There's a big difference.

What is their fair share? How does that differ from the statutory tax rate?

You seem to think that people who earn more should be able to get out of paying tax on things they should be paying tax on.

You seem to be good at imagining, incorrectly, what I think.
WalMart has lots of employees, sells lots of stuff, pays lots of taxes and saves consumers lots of money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They are? Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare? It doesn't benefit them. But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?

I didn't think so.

Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.

For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.

This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.

Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.

Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.

California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.

Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04

"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:

• $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.

• $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.

• $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.

• $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.

• $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.

• $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."

Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.

The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.

Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?

Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.

Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.

It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.

Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.

Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.

What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.

It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.

Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.

I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?

Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.

Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.

Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.

Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.

Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits

What is their profit margin?

pay such little wages

They pay the market rate or a bit higher.

cost the country money

LOL!

 

[OnePercenter]

Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?

Consumer Price Index: Unreliable Measure of Inflation | Vanderbilt Business

 

[OnePercenter]

Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
Distribution Centers

Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.

Walmart Logistics

LOL!

Read the door. LOL!

List of assets owned by Walmart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Walmart Stores, Inc. is the largest retailer in the world and one of the five largest corporations in the world by sales.

• Walmart Stores U.S. - 4,921 total units as of July 31, 2014[1] (This unit count includes locations in Puerto Rico)
  • Walmart Discount Stores (498)
  • Walmart Supercenters (3,348)
  • Neighborhood Markets (381)
  • Small Format Stores (63) - includes Supermercados Amigo, Super Ahorros, Walmart Express, Walmart on Campus and Walmart To Go stores
  • Walmart.com

• Sam's Club (640)

• Logistics
  • Walmart Transportation
  • Distribution Centers/Transportation Offices (130)

• Walmart Realty

• Claims Management.

• Walmart Portrait Studios was rebranded as PictureMe! Portrait Studios in late 2006. The Portrait Studios are operated by CPI Corp, Inc. under an agreement with Walmart. Space is leased and they are independently owned and operated and only pay rent to Walmart and a license fee to use the Walmart brand. Also, most Doctors of Optometry are independent contractors and are not employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. but instead pay rent to use space in Walmart and Sam's Club Vision Centers.

• The Walmart Money Center (Formerly Wal-Mart Financial Services Network) is a tradename for financial services provided in their stores, including the Walmart Money Card™, Money Transfers, Bill Payments, Money Orders, Check Cashing and Check Printing.

List of assets owned by Walmart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL!

Sure, they're assets to someone, but they're LLC's NOT disclosed on SEC filings. So Walmart Stores, INC. doesn't own them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ever wonder how the products you see on our shelves get there? It all comes down to logistics, and it's how Walmart works. Every year, we move millions of products from manufacturers to Walmart distribution centers, and from distribution centers to the shelves in our stores.
Distribution Centers

Walmart’s 158 distribution centers are hubs of activity for our business. Our distribution operation is one of the largest in the world. Walmart logistics has a fleet of 6,500 tractors, 55,000 trailers and more than 7,000 drivers.

Walmart Logistics

LOL!

Read the door. LOL!

List of assets owned by Walmart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Walmart Stores, Inc. is the largest retailer in the world and one of the five largest corporations in the world by sales.

• Walmart Stores U.S. - 4,921 total units as of July 31, 2014[1] (This unit count includes locations in Puerto Rico)
  • Walmart Discount Stores (498)
  • Walmart Supercenters (3,348)
  • Neighborhood Markets (381)
  • Small Format Stores (63) - includes Supermercados Amigo, Super Ahorros, Walmart Express, Walmart on Campus and Walmart To Go stores
  • Walmart.com

• Sam's Club (640)

• Logistics
  • Walmart Transportation
  • Distribution Centers/Transportation Offices (130)

• Walmart Realty

• Claims Management.

• Walmart Portrait Studios was rebranded as PictureMe! Portrait Studios in late 2006. The Portrait Studios are operated by CPI Corp, Inc. under an agreement with Walmart. Space is leased and they are independently owned and operated and only pay rent to Walmart and a license fee to use the Walmart brand. Also, most Doctors of Optometry are independent contractors and are not employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. but instead pay rent to use space in Walmart and Sam's Club Vision Centers.

• The Walmart Money Center (Formerly Wal-Mart Financial Services Network) is a tradename for financial services provided in their stores, including the Walmart Money Card™, Money Transfers, Bill Payments, Money Orders, Check Cashing and Check Printing.

List of assets owned by Walmart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL!

Sure, they're assets to someone, but they're LLC's NOT disclosed on SEC filings. So Walmart Stores, INC. doesn't own them.

WalMart says they own them.
Find proof that they don't.

 

[OnePercenter]

Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
You're lying.

I didn't write taxable income.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Taxable income of $36.5 million would not give you a 4% tax rate.
You're lying.

I didn't write taxable income.

Are you confusing revenue with income again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?

Consumer Price Index: Unreliable Measure of Inflation | Vanderbilt Business

Yes, I agree your earlier claim of "food, shelter and transportation" inflation was inaccurate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.

Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.

Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.

Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.

Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE


Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs


Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats



US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense

WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!

People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Because it doesn't help and I have given several personal experiences to prove it.

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent whereas conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

Wanna hear about good government policy? Let's take the housing bubble for instance.

Back in the day, Democrats pushed for higher home ownership for minorities and poor people. These people were too irresponsible to secure a home loan, and petitioned Democrat politicians for a solution.

Democrats and various agencies pushed banks to make these loans. It took it's worst turn when 0% down and little credit check came into play.

What that did is draw all the lowlifes into my suburb from the inner-city. These people didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of. They came in droves, and with them, the crime.

Our police became so busy we often had to summon help from police departments from surrounding suburbs. We went from one murder every ten years or so to three to four every year. Businesses closed down, good people moved out in fear, housing values plummeted, the rental market was nearly destroyed, the remaining businesses that stayed open had to close much earlier in the evening, people couldn't take evening walks in safety any longer, gang fights not only common, but several incidents per night.

This is a prime example of what happens when you help "those on the bottom." If it's one thing our government hasn't (or refuses) learned, it's that if you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that is one cup of rotton milk.

Government policy destroyed my suburb. It wasn't until government got out of the way and allowed banks to foreclose on the lowlifes sending them back to the inner-city when things started to turn back around. Industry had it right all along: only people that are credit worthy enough to live in the suburbs belong in the suburbs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.

Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.

Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.

Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.

Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.

Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.

Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.

Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.

But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.

Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.

Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.

The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.

Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.

If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.

What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.

GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD

GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.

YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN

Yes, I do think government benefits are too generous. I have several articles to prove it as well, some claiming that people on welfare do better (dollar for dollar) than those working. Just ask, and I'll post them.

As for free trade, it was Bill Clinton that signed legislation for that. Yes, Republicans were behind it, but don't call it Republican efforts entirely. And who lowered the tax burden on the Chinese job creators?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?

Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....

One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.

Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!

Oh, so that's where you get your economic education from.

 

[sakinago]

If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?

Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....

One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.

Right wing Klowns don't understand the concept of the game of monopoly, the basis of "free market capitalism", EVERYONE goes BK except 1 big winner!

Haha so every monopoly was created without the help of government?

 

[Papageorgio]

Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2015 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

Did you ever find the real CPI number for this period?

Consumer Price Index: Unreliable Measure of Inflation | Vanderbilt Business

Lol! You are a funny guy!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?

Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.

After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.

To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE


Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs


Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats



US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense

WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!

People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.

Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.

Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.

Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.

Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.

MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.

Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?

Will business owners higher more entry level positions when the min wage is raised to 15.00? Or will they stop/have less hiring and have the current entry level positions do more work? Minimum wage raising has always been known as a job killer, except until recently. If not then why has every president not raised it when they've been in office? Because they're bought out? They definitely are not bought out by small business who this will undoubtably effect negatively the most (please explain how this is good for small business). So who really benefits from a raise in minimum wage? Id say this is one of many ways that help the ultra rich can close the door on their smaller sleeker competition. It's nothing but a bandaid on a flesh wound

I THOUGHT GOOD BIZ HIRES WORKERS BECAUSE THEY NEED HELP? IT'S ONLY IF THE HELP IS CHEAP THEY HAVE EXTRA MONEY TO THROW AT THEM??? lol



Min wages increases kills jobs? lol

HINT, COSTS ALWAYS GO UP, A GOOD BIZ WORKS WITH IT'


The Job Loss Myth

The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment

The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.

The Job Loss Myth


Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash


Jeepers Media/Mike Mozart
Economy
The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage



Like ATTN: on facebook for more content like this.

On Thursday, Senate Democrats plan on introducing the Raise the Wage Act. If passed, the bill would raise wages to $12 an hour by 2020, index the minimum wageto the median wage after 2021, and lift the minimum wage for tipped workers. The act is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress. It is likely, however, to help galvanize support for the raised wage -- and voter support for politicians who support a raised wage.

There are several key myths surrounding this once-uncontroversial policy. ATTN: took a moment to look into them:

Myth #1: Minimum wage jobs are primarily for teenagers or part-time workers who are just trying to score some extra cash.



Myth #2: Raising the minimum wage will raise prices. (After all, businesses will pass along the cost of more expensive labor to consumers by raising the prices of their products.)

Myth #3: Raising the wage kills jobs.

The 3 Biggest Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage

Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs
James Sherk / @JamesBSherk / February 18, 2014

Surprise, surprise: An analysis released today found that a proposed minimum wage hike would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced it agreed with the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of President Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase. Of course the CBO did not put it that way. But the agency came to the same conclusion Heritage did: a $10.10 minimum wage has no historical precedent and would jettison hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The Heritage Foundation found this analysis questionable. The most accurate inflation measures show that the minimum wage has never stood much above $8 an hour. So the President actually proposes hiking the minimum wage one-seventh above its all-time high. That would strongly encourage employers to hire fewer less skilled workers. Heritage Foundation analysis concluded that—even accounting for any stimulus effects—the proposed minimum wage hike would cost 300,000 jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office’s new report concurs. The CBO finds the minimum wage has never stood much above $8 an hour—if analysts use the best available measure of inflation (as CBO and Heritage did). The CBO also found the effects of hiring cutbacks overwhelm any “stimulus” effects from the minimum wage. The agency concluded a $10.10 minimum wage would cost 500,000 jobs—with less than a fifth of those getting higher pay coming from families below the poverty level. If anything, Heritage’s estimates were conservative.

Minimum Wage Hike Would Eliminate 500,000 Jobs