How did Wal-Mart?s passing their healthcare onto tax payers turn into a union argument?
F Wal-Mart for their passing the costs of anything to the tax payer.
RJ-
Supply Side Economics does not work…get over it.
Maryland is doing the right thing and the state will benefit if Wal-Mart closes all their stores in that state.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
Wakeupwalmart was started by and is funded by UFCWU. It is not the only anti Walmart group started and funded by the unions.
Of course if Walmart invited the unions in everything would be fine in the unions eyes.
I suspect we will see a lot more info come out on this subject in the next few days.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
RJ-
Supply Side Economics does not work…get over it.
[/quote]
Good thing someone forgot to tell President Reagan that!
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Al, I run a small home inspection business and I can assure you that when taxation increases, so do the price of my inspections. Every time.
Clients pay for my insurance, taxes, etc.[/quote]
Exactly my point. A small business owner doesn’t get the advantage of this tax break, only the big corporations, and we all pay for it. I much rather the small business owner get this break because they need it more. I support small businesses whenever I can.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Maryland is doing the right thing and the state will benefit if Wal-Mart closes all their stores in that state.
[/quote]
Because then the Maryland workers would get their healthcare from…
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
RJ-
Supply Side Economics does not work…get over it.
[/quote]
I’m going to have to have a lot more than the Marm’s word on that. Maybe you should get over yourself, huh?
I think it works a hell of a lot better than punitive tax rates for business. Of course being that you probably get a paycheck instead of signing one, I can forgive your ignorance.
[quote]kroc30 wrote:
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.
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]
No disagreements on the math, but people act like walmart is making out like bandits, and they are not. They do well because of one thing, and that is business volume. If so many people didn’t shop there they we not do as well as they have.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
…
Maryland is doing the right thing and the state will benefit if Wal-Mart closes all their stores in that state.
[/quote]
Let me excerpt a point from an article I posted on the other thread on this same topic:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011606A
EXCEPRT:
Although the motivation of the liberals was to raise the well-being of Wal-Mart workers, it is far from clear that this will be the consequence. Low-skilled workers cannot receive more in compensation than the value of their labor. If Wal-Mart is forced to increase the share of compensation that comes in the form of health benefits, then it will have to decrease take-home pay. If it cannot decrease take-home pay, then it will have to reduce its reliance on low-skilled labor or cut back on operations altogether.
I have rarely heard such drivel anywhere. If Walmart closes who is going to replace the jobs that are lost? I haven’t seen anyone talk about the disproportionate share of employees Walmart hires that are elderly, insured by Medicare and work at Walmart simply to supplement their income or because they want to work. What will they do when Walmart starts further mechanizing their supply chain. Doubt it will happen? I carry no brief for Wal-Mart – I don’t own its stock, I will always go to Target given the choice, and I am not unmindful of the impact that it has had on small towns across America (pro and con) – but there are several virtually inevitable consequences of this legislation that will not work out well for Maryland’s workers. When they unfold, there will be nobody to blame but the Democrats and “labor and liberal groups” of Maryland. Since, according to the Times, the Maryland law is considered to be an important precedent that “labor and liberal groups” hope to enact in other states, expect these consequences to compound with the reproduction of the Maryland law elsewhere.
First, this is a significant incremental tax on the wages Wal-Mart pays. What happens when you tax something? You get less of it. Wal-Mart has a new and powerful incentive to keep wages down, because it will pay this new tax on any wage increase in the state. What’s the best way to keep wages down? Find ways to do without the employee at all.
Second, by increasing the payroll tax on Wal-Mart, Maryland has increased the rate of return (and therefore lowered the investment hurdle) on strategies to shift labor expenses to employers with, er, fewer than 10,000 employees in the state. Who might these employers be? Wal-Mart’s vendors, meathead (meathead being a generic term to describe the Maryland legislators who voted for this law). The Wal-Mart dream is to put little RF tags into every product. That way, people can just wander around filling up their cart, and when they leave they walk under a scanner that dings their credit or debit card. You get the vendors to stock the shelves, and then you fire all the employees except for a couple of security guards. Wal-Mart will have reached its apotheosis as a logistics system. The day is coming, but the speed with which it comes depends on two things, really: the costs of RF tags, and the costs of labor. If the first goes down enough and the second goes up enough, it will be more lucrative for Wal-Mart to get to the future faster.
Third, this tax amounts to a new subsidy to the health care system, and reduces the incentive for the state’s largest employer to control health benefit costs (at least up to 8% of payroll). This will have the tendency to push up health care costs throughout the system – why should hospitals and doctors cut their fees if Wal-Mart’s benefits administrator is no longer motivated to beat up on them? Without Wal-Mart’s bargaining power, smaller employers are likely to face at least some incremental cost-push from providers.
If I were an economist, I could probably think of other problems with this law. Unfortunately, I am a mere corporate tool, armed with nothing but common sense.
Can’t get a job anywhere but Walmart because you didn’t pay enough attention to your education or you are waiting for the worker’s paradise to arrive? You just shoved the only job you were qualified to do out of your state or helped decrease the ROI to mechanizing into being an attractive alternative so that Walmart stays in the state but decreases its employee base by optimizing its supply chain and labor costs.
Welcome to the unemployment line. Now, say again who is evil? Goverment can cause you to lose your job but is not likely to supply you with one.
[quote]Mark Young wrote:
I have rarely heard such drivel anywhere. If Walmart closes who is going to replace the jobs that are lost? I haven’t seen anyone talk about the disproportionate share of employees Walmart hires that are elderly, insured by Medicare and work at Walmart simply to supplement their income or because they want to work. What will they do when Walmart starts further mechanizing their supply chain. Doubt it will happen? I carry no brief for Wal-Mart – I don’t own its stock, I will always go to Target given the choice, and I am not unmindful of the impact that it has had on small towns across America (pro and con) – but there are several virtually inevitable consequences of this legislation that will not work out well for Maryland’s workers. When they unfold, there will be nobody to blame but the Democrats and “labor and liberal groups” of Maryland. Since, according to the Times, the Maryland law is considered to be an important precedent that “labor and liberal groups” hope to enact in other states, expect these consequences to compound with the reproduction of the Maryland law elsewhere.
First, this is a significant incremental tax on the wages Wal-Mart pays. What happens when you tax something? You get less of it. Wal-Mart has a new and powerful incentive to keep wages down, because it will pay this new tax on any wage increase in the state. What’s the best way to keep wages down? Find ways to do without the employee at all.
Second, by increasing the payroll tax on Wal-Mart, Maryland has increased the rate of return (and therefore lowered the investment hurdle) on strategies to shift labor expenses to employers with, er, fewer than 10,000 employees in the state. Who might these employers be? Wal-Mart’s vendors, meathead (meathead being a generic term to describe the Maryland legislators who voted for this law). The Wal-Mart dream is to put little RF tags into every product. That way, people can just wander around filling up their cart, and when they leave they walk under a scanner that dings their credit or debit card. You get the vendors to stock the shelves, and then you fire all the employees except for a couple of security guards. Wal-Mart will have reached its apotheosis as a logistics system. The day is coming, but the speed with which it comes depends on two things, really: the costs of RF tags, and the costs of labor. If the first goes down enough and the second goes up enough, it will be more lucrative for Wal-Mart to get to the future faster.
Third, this tax amounts to a new subsidy to the health care system, and reduces the incentive for the state’s largest employer to control health benefit costs (at least up to 8% of payroll). This will have the tendency to push up health care costs throughout the system – why should hospitals and doctors cut their fees if Wal-Mart’s benefits administrator is no longer motivated to beat up on them? Without Wal-Mart’s bargaining power, smaller employers are likely to face at least some incremental cost-push from providers.
If I were an economist, I could probably think of other problems with this law. Unfortunately, I am a mere corporate tool, armed with nothing but common sense.
Can’t get a job anywhere but Walmart because you didn’t pay enough attention to your education or you are waiting for the worker’s paradise to arrive? You just shoved the only job you were qualified to do out of your state or helped decrease the ROI to mechanizing into being an attractive alternative so that Walmart stays in the state but decreases its employee base by optimizing its supply chain and labor costs.
Welcome to the unemployment line. Now, say again who is evil? Goverment can cause you to lose your job but is not likely to supply you with one. [/quote]
Very, very good post!
Is medical insurance a right defined in Maryland’s consitution. As I understand it, medical insurance is an incentive to draw employees to a business. Instead of forcing more and more onto employers, which is then covered by the consumer who’s dollar already taxed 3 or 4 times, work on fixing the health care system. Better yet stop raping the tax payers and straighten out the tax system so the worker has more money available to spend on things such as health care.
[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]
Shouldn’t mom&pop stores get tax breaks as well or is this only good for behemoths like Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart employees make an average of just over $13,000. They have the largest amount of employees on welfare, WIC and other government programs than any other company. So we get those low,low prices because Wal-Mart doesn’t give their employees health coverage. They just let the state(you and I) pay for that. Hmm… great deal for the Waltons.
I suppose your comment about Kerry is supposed to make us think that even “liberals” get it. This is a good example of how the propaganda of mass media has gotten to you.
Kerry works for the elite just like Bush. They may be different elite but elite nonetheless.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
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!”
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]
We are also paying for their health care and helping Scott Lee make that $27,000,000 a year.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
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]
You pay the taxes for each and every business out there, from the little guy up through Wal-Mart. If the revenues the business generates aren’t enough to cover its expenses, the business goes under. The revenues are the money it gets from its customers. Taxes are just one expense. Customers pay all expenses associated with the business - thus customers pay all taxes.
It’s the amount any particular business keeps after expenses that people want to fight about - but that will depend on the market price for whatever its selling and the business’ particular expenses.
BTW, small businesses do get tax breaks – but they tend to be a different variety. Many small businesses are sole proprietorships, or partnerships / LLCs (pass-through entities for taxation purposes). Cutting personal income tax rates gives small businesspeople tax cuts that corporations don’t receive – but those types of tax cuts are constantly demonized as “tax cuts for the rich.”
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Shouldn’t mom&pop stores get tax breaks as well or is this only good for behemoths like Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart employees make an average of just over $13,000. They have the largest amount of employees on welfare, WIC and other government programs than any other company. So we get those low,low prices because Wal-Mart doesn’t give their employees health coverage. They just let the state(you and I) pay for that. Hmm… great deal for the Waltons.[/quote]
Mom and Pop’s get pretty good tax breaks. I would say, on the whole, that small business gets more tax breaks than the big corps do. Section 179 allows for up to $102,000 in first year expensing of asstes pourchased in the current year. Bush raised that up from 24,000 under Clinton. There were some other special accelerated first year expensing provisions for NEW assets purchased from 9/12/2001 - 2004. This allowed for an additional 30% first year depreciation.
Those tax breaks were not designed for big business - especially sec. 179. It is specifically for those with total assets under $5 million, I believe.
[quote]I suppose your comment about Kerry is supposed to make us think that even “liberals” get it. This is a good example of how the propaganda of mass media has gotten to you.
Kerry works for the elite just like Bush. They may be different elite but elite nonetheless.
[/quote]
No - my disillusioned liberal friend. It is how to grow business, and grow the workforce, and grow the wealth. I would hate to see the state our country would be in if all the business haters out there got their way.
You should really get a job. maybe even start your own business. I’d be willing to bet that, were you the owner of your own paycheck, you would soon start singing a much different TUNE.
rainjack:
Small business gets nowhere near the tax breaks like the behemoth Wal-Mart.
Maybe I’ll take you up on your suggestion and start my own business. I’ll model it after Wal-Mart. I’ll illegally go into the computer system and erase the OT(beacuse I’m too cheap and greedy to pay). I’ll cut costs by not giving employees health insurance and have the taxpayers pick up the tab. And if I ever become mega-rich like the Waltons I’ll donate less than 1% of my wealth to charitable causes.
Man this sounds so ethical and moral I just can’t wait to get started.
Thanks a million(hopefully billion)!
This is all very simple to judge. Do you believe, like I do, in the free enterprise system OR do you prefer Socialism?
Maryland, pure and simple, has chosen a Socialist way to “fix” a percieved problem with the health care situation in their State. The only problem with this is that it is basically Unconsititutional since this encroaches on private enterprise. What next? Mandating that employers pay for car insurance? How about a %‘age of employees’ rent or housing cost. Surely everyone deserves a “decent” place to live – you know 2 bedrooms, a bath, etc. Oh, you don’t like those nasty corporate managers getting 5 weeks vacation when you only get 1 week – simple: pass a law saying that everyone gets 5 weeks. Forget about the “old fashioned” out of date idea of working hard to climb up the corporate ladder and then reaping the rewards of your success. Bah! Who needs that nonsense when we have legislators that will just mandate the rewards WITHOUT THE WORK?
Marx and Lennin would be very proud right about now with the Maryland Legislature…
It makes me want to puke!
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
rainjack:
Small business gets nowhere near the tax breaks like the behemoth Wal-Mart.
Maybe I’ll take you up on your suggestion and start my own business. I’ll model it after Wal-Mart. I’ll illegally go into the computer system and erase the OT(beacuse I’m too cheap and greedy to pay). I’ll cut costs by not giving employees health insurance and have the taxpayers pick up the tab. And if I ever become mega-rich like the Waltons I’ll donate less than 1% of my wealth to charitable causes.
Man this sounds so ethical and moral I just can’t wait to get started.
Thanks a million(hopefully billion)![/quote]
I’ve given you precise examples of small business tax breaks. And all you counter with is your opinion? Get real shithead - use real proof or go spew your bullshit somewhere else.
That’s the problem with feel good liberals - when pressed to actually prove their position - they are left stammering like a 10 year-old boy that has just seen his first real boob.
Yeah, I know consumers end up paying for the price of products, but I’d still rather pay upon purchase, than pay upon earning an income.
I can at least make purchasing decisions, or perhaps purchase after I’ve invested and earned money on ALL of my income.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yeah, I know consumers end up paying for the price of products, but I’d still rather pay upon purchase, than pay upon earning an income.
I can at least make purchasing decisions, or perhaps purchase after I’ve invested and earned money on ALL of my income.[/quote]
I’d prefer a flat tax, but I could be persuaded.