[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
If I was Wal-Mart I would give them the finger, close the doors, and move out of state. Hey Irish, do you really think it is a good idea for government to tell a business how to operate?
Oh yea that’s right, you’re a socialist. This probably does seem like a good idea to you.
Uhmm of course government has the ability to tell a business how to operate. Business shouldn’t be able to tell the government how to run things, which is what wal-mart does. Why am I paying for wal-mart’s healthcare? They can pay their own. Of course you’re a “conservative” so you believe very strongly in giving free money to rich companies.(corporate welfare)
[/quote]
What I know for a fact is that companies don’t pay taxes. They pass the bill onto you and I. So we as a nation can tax big business all we want. We’ll only see price increases on our part. Who does that affect?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
What I know for a fact is that companies don’t pay taxes. They pass the bill onto you and I. So we as a nation can tax big business all we want. We’ll only see price increases on our part. Who does that affect?
[/quote]
So we pay the taxes for companies and then the companies have the ability to charge us for their goods and services, thus giving them even more money. How fucked up is that?
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
So we pay the taxes for companies and then the companies have the ability to charge us for their goods and services, thus giving them even more money. How fucked up is that?[/quote]
What do you expect them to do, roll over and say “Gosh, we’re not making a profit anymore, but we’re such gawshdurn philanthropist types that we’re only in this to help people, anyway! Aw heck, let’s just give stuff away for free!”
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
So we pay the taxes for companies and then the companies have the ability to charge us for their goods and services, thus giving them even more money. How fucked up is that?[/quote]
We give corporations huge tax breaks and in turn, they hire more people who make money, spend money, fuel the economy, and pay taxes. Even Kerry knows this and - as part of his campaign promises - proposed a huge a huge corporate tax cut.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
When it comes to economic stuff I tend to side with the right. I don’t think the government should be telling Wal-mart how to run its business. Working at Wal-mart is a good stepping stone job - you work there, gain experience, move on to something else. Not every job needs to be the ideal job, nor should it be. [/quote]
The problem is that in smaller towns, there are very few other options.
[quote]haney wrote:
The latest stats that I read on Wal-mart and how much profit they make was
for every $100.00 spent in a Wal-Mart
they make a huge profit of 3-4.00
This is due to all the cost of store overhead, and to cover in store theft.
Things like this will only spure Wal-mart to close it doors, and become an E-tailer. Which will cost more jobs.
The only reason Wal-mart does so well is because they have so many stores, not because they make so much money off of their sales.[/quote]
That’s a fairly normal profit margin for any retail store after expenses. Hell, when I was a manager for Stop and Shop, the after expense margin was about 2 dollars per 100. You also have to remember that the average Wal Mart customer spends close to that each visit, and each store more than likely grosses at least $1-2 Million per week (a good supermarket grosses around 500k, so take it from there). After all that, $4 per $100 in straight up, after expense profit for the shareholders (of which the Waltons themselves still own well over 50% of the stock) is pretty damn good.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
So we pay the taxes for companies and then the companies have the ability to charge us for their goods and services, thus giving them even more money. How fucked up is that?
What do you expect them to do, roll over and say “Gosh, we’re not making a profit anymore, but we’re such gawshdurn philanthropist types that we’re only in this to help people, anyway! Aw heck, let’s just give stuff away for free!”[/quote]
Did you bother comprehending the statment before you replied? No, you didn’t. You just wanted to be an wiseass. Pay attention! The point is, we are paying for a company’s taxes as well as paying for their products. They are double-dipping on us! That’s the fucked up part! I’ve always known this, but I don’t have to be happy about it. Also, since we are paying their taxes, we have a right to effect how they do business. We are footing their bill.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
So we pay the taxes for companies and then the companies have the ability to charge us for their goods and services, thus giving them even more money. How fucked up is that?
We give corporations huge tax breaks and in turn, they hire more people who make money, spend money, fuel the economy, and pay taxes. Even Kerry knows this and - as part of his campaign promises - proposed a huge a huge corporate tax cut.
[/quote]
See, this is a response that makes sense and didn’t sound like a wiseass. Others need to take note of this. Thanks, RJ.
Why exactly will walmart have to raise its prices? The law enacted requires that the company spend 8 percent of its payroll on healthcare, it does not require an increase in the wages paid. This being the case, there is no economic reason to raise prices, wages can simply be adjusted to compensate for the healthcare expendature.
Wal-mart will most likely raise prices though as a punative measure against the state.
[quote]
In the long run the only people that will be better off will likely be the union bosses.[/quote]
I do not know how on earth the unions can benefit from this legislation as it takes away heathcare as one of the issues they lean on to gain the support of employees.
[quote]ALDurr scribbled:
Did you bother comprehending the statment before you replied? No, you didn’t. You just wanted to be an wiseass. Pay attention! The point is, we are paying for a company’s taxes as well as paying for their products. They are double-dipping on us! That’s the fucked up part! I’ve always known this, but I don’t have to be happy about it. Also, since we are paying their taxes, we have a right to effect how they do business. We are footing their bill. [/quote]
First of all, I don’t “want to be a wiseass.” I AM a wiseass. Moving on.
I comprehended your statement just fine, but you seem to be ignoring a basic economic principle, which is that overhead is always built into the cost of the product. Taxes are overhead. As we increase the cost of operating a business, if the prices of the products don’t also go up, then the profit goes down. Period.
And yes, you DO get to affect how the company does business. You can shop there, or not. You can start up a competing store, or shop at their competitor’s store. Hell, some areas won’t even grant Wal-Mart the zoning to build in their towns. So that’s an option, as well.
Why exactly will walmart have to raise its prices? The law enacted requires that the company spend 8 percent of its payroll on healthcare, it does not require an increase in the wages paid. This being the case, there is no economic reason to raise prices, wages can simply be adjusted to compensate for the healthcare expendature. [/quote]
So if I am paying you 1000 bucks/month, and the government orders me to spend 80 dollars/month on your medical insurance, then you would be totally okay with only making 920/month and letting me use the rest of your salary to pay for your insurance? Your logic makes no sense. People want to keep what they have and get more. No one wants to give up a red cent of their paychecks.
Walmart will have to spend an ADDITIONAL 8% for medical benefits - it will not come out of the employees pocket. retail prices will indeed increase as Walmart has a responsibility to the shareholders to maximize profits, and give them the best EPS they can.
No - they will likely sue the crap out of the state, and then move out of MD if they don’t win their case.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
So if I am paying you 1000 bucks/month, and the government orders me to spend 80 dollars/month on your medical insurance, then you would be totally okay with only making 920/month and letting me use the rest of your salary to pay for your insurance?
[/quote]
It does not matter what the employee feels about a percentage of their paycheck being diverted to pay for a portion of their benefits so long as there is no union. If that bothers an employee, they are free to leave and find a new job, if they are working at wal-mart though, it is not likely that the market value of their labor is going to bring them more money given their skillset.
What exactly would be the legal basis for such a lawsuit?
As far as Walmart moving out of MD is concerned, I think they will stay so long as they can turn a profit.
It looks like you really don’t understand how business works.
Walmart will raise prices in MD to compensate. Shoppers will go to other stores in MD or will drive across the border to get lower prices.
Why exactly will walmart have to raise its prices? The law enacted requires that the company spend 8 percent of its payroll on healthcare, it does not require an increase in the wages paid. This being the case, there is no economic reason to raise prices, wages can simply be adjusted to compensate for the healthcare expendature.
Wal-mart will most likely raise prices though as a punative measure against the state.
In the long run the only people that will be better off will likely be the union bosses.
I do not know how on earth the unions can benefit from this legislation as it takes away heathcare as one of the issues they lean on to gain the support of employees.[/quote]
The unions are behind this whole anti-Walmart push. The whole point of it is to drive up costs in Walmart so people will shop other (union) stores.
The heads of the anti-Walmart groups are the unions.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The unions are behind this whole anti-Walmart push. The whole point of it is to drive up costs in Walmart so people will shop other (union) stores.
The heads of the anti-Walmart groups are the unions. [/quote]
I don’t deny that the unions are involved in the push for unionization in walmart and elsewhere, and in politics wherever more worker benefits are contested. I’m just having difficulty recalling any anti-walmart groups existing, at least insofar as that being a stated objective, that are headed by unions and union people. I know of a couple groups that are firmly anti-walmart, but those are headed by a bunch of populists and socialists, not that these people are un-sympathetic to unions.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The unions are behind this whole anti-Walmart push. The whole point of it is to drive up costs in Walmart so people will shop other (union) stores.
The heads of the anti-Walmart groups are the unions.
I don’t deny that the unions are involved in the push for unionization in walmart and elsewhere, and in politics wherever more worker benefits are contested. I’m just having difficulty recalling any anti-walmart groups existing, at least insofar as that being a stated objective, that are headed by unions and union people. I know of a couple groups that are firmly anti-walmart, but those are headed by a bunch of populists and socialists, not that these people are un-sympathetic to unions.[/quote]
Wakeupwalmart.com and at least one other of the big anti-Walmart groups are union fronts.
They are run by Democratic campaign leaders and paid for by union money.
There are a lot more stories coming out about this.
[quote]nephorm spasmed:
First of all, I don’t “want to be a wiseass.” I AM a wiseass. Moving on.
[/quote]
Yes you are. I’m glad we can agree on something.
Ok, I am not an economist, but I do understand the basic economic principle of overhead being built into the cost of the product and part of overhead is taxes. I don’t have a problem with that. What you are missing from what I am saying is that not only are we paying for taxes for that company through purchasing their products, we are also paying for their taxes through our own taxes. If we were paying for their taxes either through purchase of their products OR through our own taxes, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. The fact is that we are paying for them twice. That’s double-dipping and that why I have a problem.
Also, the ability to do this only seems to extend to large corporations. The small businessman doesn’t get this type of break. Not only do these large corporate businesses get this break, but then they run the smaller mom and pop businesses out of business. Through taxes, our government is forcing us to use our own money to help fund this type of activity. So much for the spirit of entrepreneurship and the ownership society.
[quote]
And yes, you DO get to affect how the company does business. You can shop there, or not. You can start up a competing store, or shop at their competitor’s store. Hell, some areas won’t even grant Wal-Mart the zoning to build in their towns. So that’s an option, as well.[/quote]
What you are missing is that many towns are not given a choice of where to shop when one of these big corporate machines decides to move there. The political power that these giants wield is amazing. You mentioned starting up a competing store. How is a small business, that doesn’t have the corporate backing, going to compete against these giants? I’m not saying that there is no way to fight against them. It just seems that its much like using a slingshot against a tank.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote: Wakeupwalmart.com and at least one other of the big anti-Walmart groups are union fronts.
They are run by Democratic campaign leaders and paid for by union money.
There are a lot more stories coming out about this. [/quote]
Wakeupwalmart.com looks like an employee benefit advocacy group formed specifically to advocate increaing benefits for walmart employees.
The article does call the group and the United Food and Comercial Workers Union’s call for conscious consumption ‘anti-walmart’ but I do not see cause for such a characterization. The groups do not seem opposed to walmart as a business entity, simply opposed to its labor and compensation practices.