A legitimate argument for increasing taxation on the wealthy?

[ModernDiogenes]

While I am, in general, a flat tax advocate I present a notion for what might be a legitimate reason for increasing the levels of taxation on the wealthiest of us.

That notion is based on the idea that much of what is increasing government spending is corruptive practice. Corporate welfare alone is ponderous. How it may be calculated can change it to massive.

Example: Walmart gets over a BILLION dollars a year in corporate welfare from state and federal government. However, if you include the over SIX BILLION in various social welfare paid to their employees because Walmart doesn't pay a living wage and their employees, even if working full time, still qualify for energy and food subsidies, etc. Well, if you count that welfare against Walmart that is over EIGHT BILLION A YEAR subsidy given to one of the richest, most profitable, corporations in the world by our government.

And the lion's share of the money that corrupts our state and federal governments, on the decisions on spending that drive up the cost of governing? It's not unions anymore. Nope. Unions are mostly dead, and those that aren't aren't spending remotely what they use to on lobbying efforts. Corporate spending on purchasing influence though has done nothing but increase.

So if it is the case that they get a great deal of the government pie, and since it is their money that is driving the majority of the corruptive practices that are raising the cost of governing, couldn't a legitimate argument be made that they should pay a greater percentage in footing that bill?

Just a notion for consideration...

 

[Jay59]

I'm still waiting for the legitimate argument. Indeed, was there any argument at all in that post?

The notion of corporate welfare is problematic. It is not a given that Walmart, to use your example, gets any welfare. Even allowing that, what has it to do with the tax rates on individuals?

BTW Unions are alive and well and living in the government sector.

 

[Craig234]

There are many and better arguments for increasing taxes on the rich, which is the single most important thing we can do.

Our society is moving toward plutocracy. Plutocracy is incompatible with democracy, and results in a permanent state of oppression by a few of the many, who exist at the pleasure of and for the pleasure of the few.

It happens little by little so people don't recognize it well. But estimates are that plutocratic policy changes, lowering taxes on the rich, have had effects including redistributing $50 trillion in wealth to the rich, and causing average incomes to be half what they would have.

Along with the economic inequities and systemic harms caused by this, you get permanent political corruption, because money is power, and it's needed to protect the rich, to make the people powerless.

In short, from Reagan to now has seem radical transformation of the country into more of a plutocracy, with a greatly weakened democracy and greatly increased corruption, and we're on a path for it to get worse in a vicious cycle until our problems resemble the hopeless tyranny of China or an equivalent. We can fix it now far more than we can later.

Plutocracy has a fuel of money, and the best thing we can do to have a society in which everyone matters and has more prosperity and we have democracy, is to reduce the extreme amount of fuel of the plutocrats, and undo the redistribution of wealth to the rich. This is the #1 need. Everything else follows.

 

[Crovax]

However, if you include the over SIX BILLION in various social welfare paid to their employees because Walmart doesn't pay a living wage and their employees, even if working full time, still qualify for energy and food subsidies, etc.

"Today, the average total compensation and benefits for hourly U.S. associates exceeds $19"

How much do Walmart associates make?

Walmart offers good jobs and advancement opportunities through investments in wages, benefits and training.

corporate.walmart.com

How much welfare does someone making ~$40,000 a year get?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

"Today, the average total compensation and benefits for hourly U.S. associates exceeds $19"

How much do Walmart associates make?

Walmart offers good jobs and advancement opportunities through investments in wages, benefits and training.

corporate.walmart.com

How much welfare does someone making ~$40,000 a year get?

Benefits are included in thar, which means health care, dental, retirement, etc. The actual wage would be 2/3rds that. I wonder if the $19 includes managers in the calculation

 

[Crovax]

Benefits are included in thar, which means health care, dental, retirement, etc. The actual wage would be 2/3rds that.

Most positions at Walmart start at $15 so it's likely they are only talking about direct pay benefits like PTO and bonuses

I wonder if the $19 includes managers in the calculation

It literally said that it doesn't.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I'm still waiting for the legitimate argument. Indeed, was there any argument at all in that post?

The notion of corporate welfare is problematic. It is not a given that Walmart, to use your example, gets any welfare. Even allowing that, what has it to do with the tax rates on individuals?

BTW Unions are alive and well and living in the government sector.

The very Libertarian argument that they who are responsible for a mess be the ones required to pay the price to clean it up.

The corruptive effect of MONEY purchasing influence on our government is a key component of why the cost of running our government is getting ridiculously out of hand. The reason why we spend far more than we take in.

The sources of that money purchasing that influence do so for profit at the government tit.

I merely suggest that it might be a legitimate argument that they who are responsible for purchasing the influence be the ones who pay the lion's share of the cost of it.

 

[Craig234]

Benefits are included in thar, which means health care, dental, retirement, etc. The actual wage would be 2/3rds that. I wonder if the $19 includes managers in the calculation

My impression is that Wal-Mart is unusually harsh and stingy all the way up its chain, with fits that we've seen numerous of news stories of executives in various money-making crimes. I visited Wal-Mart's executive suite and it was like cheap cement block level style like I've never seen. (My camera was also stolen by a Wal-Mart employee while there). It's the Walton family who gets the money, even the execs seem to be just hired help.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

There are many and better arguments for increasing taxes on the rich, which is the single most important thing we can do.

Our society is moving toward plutocracy. Plutocracy is incompatible with democracy, and results in a permanent state of oppression by a few of the many, who exist at the pleasure of and for the pleasure of the few.

It happens little by little so people don't recognize it well. But estimates are that plutocratic policy changes, lowering taxes on the rich, have had effects including redistributing $50 trillion in wealth to the rich, and causing average incomes to be half what they would have.

Along with the economic inequities and systemic harms caused by this, you get permanent political corruption, because money is power, and it's needed to protect the rich, to make the people powerless.

In short, from Reagan to now has seem radical transformation of the country into more of a plutocracy, with a greatly weakened democracy and greatly increased corruption, and we're on a path for it to get worse in a vicious cycle until our problems resemble the hopeless tyranny of China or an equivalent. We can fix it now far more than we can later.

Plutocracy has a fuel of money, and the best thing we can do to have a society in which everyone matters and has more prosperity and we have democracy, is to reduce the extreme amount of fuel of the plutocrats, and undo the redistribution of wealth to the rich. This is the #1 need. Everything else follows.

We do not, it appears, differ on the nature of the problem. We both seem to agree that a minority has purchased enough influence into our governing that they now control what our government does and how it does it. A plutocracy.

We might disagree on how to correct that. You seem to lean to classic socialism [please correct me if I am wrong] while I believe we need to turn from plutocracy back to a representative democratic republic by getting the money out of our politics. That our economics be addressed by forcing the corporatist current leanings back to pure, unabridged, capitalism.

 

[KevinKohler]

Benefits are included in thar, which means health care, dental, retirement, etc. The actual wage would be 2/3rds that. I wonder if the $19 includes managers in the calculation

Yes.

Which is why averages suck. The MEDIAN hourly wage is more like 15 and change.

 

[KevinKohler]

My impression is that Wal-Mart is unusually harsh and stingy all the way up its chain, with fits that we've seen numerous of news stories of executives in various money-making crimes. I visited Wal-Mart's executive suite and it was like cheap cement block level style like I've never seen. (My camera was also stolen by a Wal-Mart employee while there). It's the Walton family who gets the money, even the execs seem to be just hired help.

They say that Walmart gms get hired in at 200k, plus the possibility of a 150% bonus based on performance. If true, that's on the upper end for general managers, in retail.

I think they just like to take advantage of their entry level workers.

 

[Craig234]

We do not, it appears, differ on the nature of the problem. We both seem to agree that a minority has purchased enough influence into our governing that they now control what our government does and how it does it. A plutocracy.

We might disagree on how to correct that. You seem to lean to classic socialism [please correct me if I am wrong] while I believe we need to turn from plutocracy back to a representative democratic republic by getting the money out of our politics. That our economics be addressed by forcing the corporatist current leanings back to pure, unabridged, capitalism.

We may well have a lot of agreement, but I find your suggestion of 'classic socialism' to be pretty nonsensical and suggest you are overly ideological trying to force things into containers that fit your dogma. You're coming across like a naive Libertarian who just says how things should be while opposing what can actually do it.

I'll repeat some things I said. Money is power, and there is a vicious cycle to plutocracy, a machine that runs on the fuel of money, and the way to get toward more representative democracy, the best thing we can do, is to reduce the fuel in the plutocracy machine by undoing the tax cuts for the rich. It's the only thing IMO that will help. The benefits - debt reduction, prosperity for the masses, societal investments - are extras. Money in their hands is a weapon.

 

[Jay59]

The very Libertarian argument that they who are responsible for a mess be the ones required to pay the price to clean it up.

The corruptive effect of MONEY purchasing influence on our government is a key component of why the cost of running our government is getting ridiculously out of hand. The reason why we spend far more than we take in.

The sources of that money purchasing that influence do so for profit at the government tit.

I merely suggest that it might be a legitimate argument that they who are responsible for purchasing the influence be the ones who pay the lion's share of the cost of it.

You are mixing apples and applets. Corporate and personal tax are vast different things.

Your prejudices are showing. The lobbying power of corporate money is not corruptive. It's just how the system works. While it is not complete BS to claim that companies lobby for more federal money, that is a small fraction of where the money is dedicated. Business advantage is a much more common and profitable pursuit. Walmart does not lobby for tax dollars but for protection from Amazon and access to previously closed venues.

In any event, what you offer is not even an argument, just an opinion.

 

[KLATTU]

the honest argument is simple. The Dems want money to give away more free stuff to get votes. Wealthy people have it. All the rest is just dishonest class warfare BS.

 

[HIP56948]

The very Libertarian argument that they who are responsible for a mess be the ones required to pay the price to clean it up.

The corruptive effect of MONEY purchasing influence on our government is a key component of why the cost of running our government is getting ridiculously out of hand. The reason why we spend far more than we take in.

The sources of that money purchasing that influence do so for profit at the government tit.

I merely suggest that it might be a legitimate argument that they who are responsible for purchasing the influence be the ones who pay the lion's share of the cost of it.

"they who are responsible for purchasing the influence be the ones who pay the lion's share of the cost of it."
Excellent!

 

[ModernDiogenes]

We may well have a lot of agreement, but I find your suggestion of 'classic socialism' to be pretty nonsensical and suggest you are overly ideological trying to force things into containers that fit your dogma. You're coming across like a naive Libertarian who just says how things should be while opposing what can actually do it.

I'll repeat some things I said. Money is power, and there is a vicious cycle to plutocracy, a machine that runs on the fuel of money, and the way to get toward more representative democracy, the best thing we can do, is to reduce the fuel in the plutocracy machine by undoing the tax cuts for the rich. It's the only thing IMO that will help. The benefits - debt reduction, prosperity for the masses, societal investments - are extras. Money in their hands is a weapon.

I don't have a dogma, unless you define that as not having one.

Though simple I agree with. The world is a complex place. I have been witness to it in the greatest social science lab class. hired as a social janitor cleaning up after social breakdowns in the most densely populated city of our nation. I was witness to the same mistakes, over and over, handled correctly and incorrectly by every class, race, gender, sexual orientation... you name a way to segment society I was witness to its members conducting their business under our system and coming in behind with the broom, the mop and the pail to clean up the residual mess.

If one had an open ear, eye and mind one couldn't help but learn a thing or two along the way. What I learned is we are more alike than different. I learned that we all, even the most egalitarian and altruistic of us, operate out of self-interest. "How do I benefit from this.", is how human beings function the majority of the time. Pretending otherwise is fiction.

It suggests to me that the way we resolve our most complex problems is to break them down to their simplest components, resolve for them, and do so in ways that treat us all equally and benefit us each individually. In that we all see the benefit to ourselves in the doing of it. In that way we see the highest likelihood for success.

It is, indeed, simplistic. However, when it comes to dealing with complex human problems I have found, though observation, trial and error that the only thing that works is making the resolutions as simple as possible. The more complex you make them the more you segment us into winners and losers and none of us wants to lose. We aren't built that way.

The other problem is that some small minority of us become lost. That winning isn't sufficient anymore unless someone else losses. They no long calculate in terms of how they are advantaged, but how many others are disadvantaged in the process. That is the definition of GREED.

When you want to achieve that is ambition. Ambition is good. When it is not only important to you that you achieve, but that others get less, that is greed. Greed is not good. If I have a dogma that is it: GREED is NOT good.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Some folks present have either forgotten what it is like to try an operate in this nation, any part of it but especially in the North East and South West with the highest cost of living issues, or never had those problems to begin with.

$19 hour is a median for Walmart.

Here is the current breakdown for Walmart for a Jersey City Walmart employee by job courtesy of "Payscale.com"...

Walmart.com Hourly Pay in 2023 | PayScale

The average hourly pay for Walmart.com is $13.80 in 2023. Visit Payscale to research Walmart.com hourly pay by city, experience, skill, employer and more.

www.payscale.com

Your average associate makes :$13.24/hr. You can add to that some small benefits adjustments IF the employee is full time but, as we all know [or ought to know] many major corporations, especially those without union representation, shift away from hiring full time specifically to avoid paying benefits.

So $13.24 x 40 = $529.60 before taxes. That is $27,539.2/yr or $2294.93/mo BEFORE taxes.

Average rent for an average, under 800 sq ft, one bedroom apartment in Jersey City, NJ: $3318

https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/nj/jersey-city/

Before you even adjust for federal and state taxation the entry level associate of Walmart can't afford a place to live. Food, heating/cooling, clothes, nothing else considered... can't even afford a roof over their head. Not without social net propping up.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You are mixing apples and applets. Corporate and personal tax are vast different things.

Your prejudices are showing. The lobbying power of corporate money is not corruptive. It's just how the system works. While it is not complete BS to claim that companies lobby for more federal money, that is a small fraction of where the money is dedicated. Business advantage is a much more common and profitable pursuit. Walmart does not lobby for tax dollars but for protection from Amazon and access to previously closed venues.

In any event, what you offer is not even an argument, just an opinion.

Not the case. I am simply following the concept of the "Citizens United" finding. Corporations are people. People need to be treated as people. Corporate money has free speech, just like everyone else. Corporate money purchasing influence through lobbying efforts should be responsible just like anyone else for its actions. People behind corporate decision making, paying taxes as individuals, should be responsible for the effects of their decisions, just like anyone else.

Libertarian thinking on the matter of personal responsibility being placed in play. Nothing more.

 

[Crovax]

They say that Walmart gms get hired in at 200k, plus the possibility of a 150% bonus based on performance. If true, that's on the upper end for general managers, in retail.

I think they just like to take advantage of their entry level workers.

A walmart store manager starts at 80k with a max bonus of up to 120% depending on sales volume.

 

[Individual]

Taxation and Federal spending, IMO are and have been for many years THE major issue we need to focus attention on.
Personally, I don't think a reasonable solution is possible without FIRST repealing BOTH the 16th and 17th amendments.

 

[Individual]

While I am, in general, a flat tax advocate I present a notion for what might be a legitimate reason for increasing the levels of taxation on the wealthiest of us.

That notion is based on the idea that much of what is increasing government spending is corruptive practice. Corporate welfare alone is ponderous. How it may be calculated can change it to massive.

Example: Walmart gets over a BILLION dollars a year in corporate welfare from state and federal government. However, if you include the over SIX BILLION in various social welfare paid to their employees because Walmart doesn't pay a living wage and their employees, even if working full time, still qualify for energy and food subsidies, etc. Well, if you count that welfare against Walmart that is over EIGHT BILLION A YEAR subsidy given to one of the richest, most profitable, corporations in the world by our government.

And the lion's share of the money that corrupts our state and federal governments, on the decisions on spending that drive up the cost of governing? It's not unions anymore. Nope. Unions are mostly dead, and those that aren't aren't spending remotely what they use to on lobbying efforts. Corporate spending on purchasing influence though has done nothing but increase.

So if it is the case that they get a great deal of the government pie, and since it is their money that is driving the majority of the corruptive practices that are raising the cost of governing, couldn't a legitimate argument be made that they should pay a greater percentage in footing that bill?

Just a notion for consideration...

Where to find the source and details of the numbers above?

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

While I am, in general, a flat tax advocate I present a notion for what might be a legitimate reason for increasing the levels of taxation on the wealthiest of us.

That notion is based on the idea that much of what is increasing government spending is corruptive practice. Corporate welfare alone is ponderous. How it may be calculated can change it to massive.

Example: Walmart gets over a BILLION dollars a year in corporate welfare from state and federal government. However, if you include the over SIX BILLION in various social welfare paid to their employees because Walmart doesn't pay a living wage and their employees, even if working full time, still qualify for energy and food subsidies, etc. Well, if you count that welfare against Walmart that is over EIGHT BILLION A YEAR subsidy given to one of the richest, most profitable, corporations in the world by our government.

And the lion's share of the money that corrupts our state and federal governments, on the decisions on spending that drive up the cost of governing? It's not unions anymore. Nope. Unions are mostly dead, and those that aren't aren't spending remotely what they use to on lobbying efforts. Corporate spending on purchasing influence though has done nothing but increase.

So if it is the case that they get a great deal of the government pie, and since it is their money that is driving the majority of the corruptive practices that are raising the cost of governing, couldn't a legitimate argument be made that they should pay a greater percentage in footing that bill?

Just a notion for consideration...

Legitimate argument for taxing the wealthy? The fact that the 1950s was the most prosperous time period for the middle class in this country's history, when the wealthiest 1% of Americans was paying a 90% tax rate?

I would say that's a very legitimate reason.

Maybe you should try coming up with a legitimate reason for a flat tax.

 

[KevinKohler]

A walmart store manager starts at 80k with a max bonus of up to 120% depending on sales volume.

Then they are hard on the low end. I wouldn't do that job for less than 150, plus bonus.

 

[KevinKohler]

Legitimate argument for taxing the wealthy? The fact that the 1950s was the most prosperous time period for the middle class in this country's history, when the wealthiest 1% of Americans was paying a 90% tax rate?

I would say that's a very legitimate reason.

Maybe you should try coming up with a legitimate reason for a flat tax.

Other causal factors in the 50s. Namely, a lack of competition. Everywhere had was catered by war. The US was basically the only manufacturing game in town, so tax rates didn't matter, because demand was constant, regardless of price. It's why most all of Europe began adding taxes or tarrifs to our products, especially cars. Which is why Ford opened its own division in europe.

 

[Jay59]

Not the case. I am simply following the concept of the "Citizens United" finding. Corporations are people. People need to be treated as people. Corporate money has free speech, just like everyone else. Corporate money purchasing influence through lobbying efforts should be responsible just like anyone else for its actions. People behind corporate decision making, paying taxes as individuals, should be responsible for the effects of their decisions, just like anyone else.

Libertarian thinking on the matter of personal responsibility being placed in play. Nothing more.

Finally, we get an argument. It's unsound and in dreadfully bad taste but still an argument.

Were you deliberately trying a Rush Limbaugh approach, illustrating absurdity by being absurd?