waas
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 2,432
- Reaction score
- 451
- Location
- Riding a tapir
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No one has said that Wal-Mart doesn't owe this country. But who ever said that they don't do anything for their country? They pay taxes don't they? That is all that is required of them to pay back the country that allowed them to prosper. Yet they also give to lots of charities they also have great...well...maybe not GREAT...but close, medical benefits plus give thier employees 10% discount on most items in thier stores. They also promote healthy life styles and even attempted to get me to quit smoking. Funny how you seem to forget all those good things that they do.
Exactly. Which is why the US needs to extend the level of guaranteed, free education. Back when we promised a free high school education, that was sufficient. But, now that the world's become so technically advanced, folks need more.
Why should they pay thier employee's above your poverty line?
I've presented my definition of the poverty line. If WalMart cannot provide their employees with a wage that puts them above it, we have a problem. That's all there is to it.
Sorry, I meant civic duty. And I wasn't talking about WalMart this time - though I suppose it's still applicable.
Civic duty refers to the basic responsibility we all have to those around us. It refers to the responsibility a CEO has to the folks who earn for him/her. To the responsibility a person has to their countrymen. It refers to the compassion that is the foundation of democratic socialism.
I disagree, with both your ad hom and the bridge you try to build between Democrats and myself.
Whiter you choose to agree or not, the idea that government should have it's hand in the economy has been primarily positive.
Kal'stang said:No one has said that Wal-Mart doesn't owe this country. But who ever said that they don't do anything for their country? They pay taxes don't they? That is all that is required of them to pay back the country that allowed them to prosper. Yet they also give to lots of charities they also have great...well...maybe not GREAT...but close, medical benefits plus give thier employees 10% discount on most items in thier stores. They also promote healthy life styles and even attempted to get me to quit smoking. Funny how you seem to forget all those good things that they do.
I worked for Wal-Mart for about 6 months. I started out at $9.50/hr. Not a bad wage around these parts. In those 6 months that I worked that I got three raises and by the time I left Wal-Mart I was making $11.10. Yeah,, it may not be no $30 bucks an hour but for the cost of living in these parts it was pretty damn good. Wal-Mart is one of the highest paying jobs you can have in this area for the most basic worker around here. Outside of logging or working at a saw mill or working for the government it is among THE highest in this area.
As for working conditions, they're pretty top notch really. So long as you stay out of the politics that is. They demanded that you use the buddy system for anything over 40lbs. Required you to take multiple tests to get certified for working any type of machine. Seperate tests for produce and chemicals on safety and cleanliness.
The only reason that I don't work there anymore is because I got sick a few times and couldn't make it to work along with a few things from nature that also made it to where I couldn't get to work. I exceeded my 10 days allowance per 6 months so they let me go. Understandable to a degree.
Sure there is nothing illegal about it because Uncle Sam doesn't know anything about it, but I have to report every dime I get paid to the IRS. And it's not raiding wealth; it's paying taxes on your money like everyone in the USA has to do.Well, both of these articles talking about an opinion from the same place, shows nothing illegal in this. Romney just like nearly every 401K, or divested mutual fund has money invested in foreign entities. Funny how progressives love to use the meme of a 'global economy' until it comes to raiding wealth that others have made.
I'm referring here to the big picture--who pays the most taxes. When one considers all factors the whole problem becomes elementary.In this article they are talking about Romney, in relation to State and local taxation to which Romney, or Obama has any authority to change. You want change in that arena? Vote local issues. But to tie that to anything concerning national policy is disingenuous.
I worked for Wal-Mart for about 6 months. I started out at $9.50/hr. Not a bad wage around these parts. In those 6 months that I worked that I got three raises and by the time I left Wal-Mart I was making $11.10. Yeah,, it may not be no $30 bucks an hour but for the cost of living in these parts it was pretty damn good. Wal-Mart is one of the highest paying jobs you can have in this area for the most basic worker around here. Outside of logging or working at a saw mill or working for the government it is among THE highest in this area.
As for working conditions, they're pretty top notch really. So long as you stay out of the politics that is. They demanded that you use the buddy system for anything over 40lbs. Required you to take multiple tests to get certified for working any type of machine. Seperate tests for produce and chemicals on safety and cleanliness.
The only reason that I don't work there anymore is because I got sick a few times and couldn't make it to work along with a few things from nature that also made it to where I couldn't get to work. I exceeded my 10 days allowance per 6 months so they let me go. Understandable to a degree.
Are you aware of the reason WalMart gives that discount? Well, simply put, it's because, in most cases, if one works at WalMart, they can only afford to shop there. This discount only enforces that.
Funny how you make this company out to be some kind of humanitarian icon.
I wish.
Walmart is known for pretty good tax dodging - legal tax dodging, but still...
Many Wal-Mart employees qualify for food stamps.
j-mac said:This is an interesting phrase "tax dodging"..... It connotes something shady, while there is a form of avoiding taxes that is fully legal, and indeed promoted by the IRS.
Why? Because the workers fill the pockets of the business owners. Do you not find it difficult to swallow that the creators of wealth don't own that said wealth?
Sure there is nothing illegal about it because Uncle Sam doesn't know anything about it, but I have to report every dime I get paid to the IRS. And it's not raiding wealth; it's paying taxes on your money like everyone in the USA has to do.
I'm referring here to the big picture--who pays the most taxes. When one considers all factors the whole problem becomes elementary.
Oh, it's shady. I prefaced my comment by saying that it was legal (and it is), even though dodging tends to create the illusion of illegal behavior. Having said that, if people knew exactly how much Walmart was being floated along at all levels of the public, it'd make most of you sick. Walmart isn't a monopoly, but a monopolistic competition. However, given that the fact that they can choose to charge lower prices simply given the fact that they're receiving so much help, it could one day become a pseudo-monopoly. It's no coincidence that when a Walmart sprouts from the ground, approximately one-third of all local mom-and-pops have to close shop due to financial difficulties.
If they truly wanted to put themselves on the open market, the government could allow for it. In fact, I hope for that day. I support their right to exist, but damned if I'll say that I can stand the sight of them.
And without those buisness owners the workers wouldn't have money either. It works both ways. But like ANY buisness be it small or large they only have to pay thier workers what they are willing to work for. If the workers don't like the pay rate then they can go elsewhere. No buisness has an obligation to pay thier employee's more than minimum wage.
Oh, it's shady. I prefaced my comment by saying that it was legal (and it is), even though dodging tends to create the illusion of illegal behavior. Having said that, if people knew exactly how much Walmart was being floated along at all levels of the public, it'd make most of you sick. Walmart isn't a monopoly, but a monopolistic competition. However, given that the fact that they can choose to charge lower prices simply given the fact that they're receiving so much help, it could one day become a pseudo-monopoly. It's no coincidence that when a Walmart sprouts from the ground, approximately one-third of all local mom-and-pops have to close shop due to financial difficulties.
If they truly wanted to put themselves on the open market, the government could allow for it. In fact, I hope for that day. I support their right to exist, but damned if I'll say that I can stand the sight of them.
MaggieD said:All companies that pay lower wages are "subsidized" in the exact same way WalMart is subsidized. What are you talking about? All the mom-and-pop stores . . . you name the entry-level type positions -- they're all subsidized. WalMart is no different than any of them. But WalMart?? THEY are a nice and juicy union target.
It makes me wonder why they're against it so much.
This is an interesting phrase "tax dodging".....as a truck driver, I am extended $53. per day per diem, write off on my gross income for every day I am driving. It is set by the IRS, and legal to take, and allows me to lessen my taxable income by about $13K per year. I also...........
Not to the level that Walmart is. Now, I'm aware that the SBA and other government organizations exist to help businesses get off the ground, but once you get to a certain point, you're cut off. Walmart is far beyond that point.
They're also a big union target because they essentially ask for it. I've seen Walmart recruitment and employee training videos, and I've met many employees. I've never seen a company work so hard to prevent unions. Hell, I...well, we'll say "dated" for politically correct purposes...a girl who said that she was hanging out in the parking lot after hours with a couple other employees. They were smoking, chit-chatting, just carrying on like normal people do. Apparently a manager saw this on tape and called Bentonville to the HQ (as required by company policy) and reported it as "union creation activity". Apparently a few weeks later, some stuffed shirt flew in from Arkansas and droned on some anti-union rant. Seems like slight overkill for such a situation, but the vitriol Walmart has against unions is bordering paranoia. It makes me wonder why they're against it so much.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?