Thank God For All Those Burger Flipper Jobs

[red states rule]

The US economy added 244,000 private sector jobs last month, and the number would have 50,000 fewer if not for the jobs McDonalds added

I remember well how the Dems and liberal media bashed Pres Bush when a good jobs number came out. They dismissed it as "burger flipper" jobs, and "not the right kind of jobs"




U.S. private employers shrugged off high energy prices to add jobs at the fastest pace in five years in April, pointing to underlying strength in the economy, even as the jobless rate rose to 9.0 percent.

Private sector hiring, including a big jump in the retail sector, boosted overall nonfarm payrolls by 244,000, the largest increase in 11 months, the Labor Department said Friday. Economists had expected a gain of only 186,000.

The private sector created 268,000 new jobs, the most since February 2006, while government payrolls shrank.

The data suggested the economic recovery would regain speed this quarter after stumbling in the first three months of the year, a view that had suffered setbacks earlier this week as other reports pointed to a slowing in the labor market.

"We're getting close to the point where we are seeing sustainable job growth. That creates income that generates spending and, hopefully, more jobs," said Gary Thayer, chief macro strategist at Wells Fargo Advisors in St. Louis, Missouri.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/06/economy-adds-244000-jobs-april-topping-estimates/?test=latestnews

[gabosaurus]

You forgot to include that the economy rose for the third straight month. And that several sectors of the economy added jobs.
You should be thankful for all those minimum wage jobs. If not for fast food and other such places, conservatives in middle America would have any work. :)

[red states rule]

You forgot to include that the economy rose for the third straight month. And that several sectors of the economy added jobs.
You should be thankful for all those minimum wage jobs. If not for fast food and other such places, conservatives in middle America would have any work. :)

and unemployment went UP to 9% Gabby

More hope and change?

[DragonStryk72]

You forgot to include that the economy rose for the third straight month. And that several sectors of the economy added jobs.
You should be thankful for all those minimum wage jobs. If not for fast food and other such places, conservatives in middle America would have any work. :)

Gabs, you just proved his point, you know that, right? He just commented on how under Bush, your side said how the burger-flipping jobs weren't the "right kind of jobs". What change between the two presidencies?

[red states rule]

Gabs, you just proved his point, you know that, right? He just commented on how under Bush, your side said how the burger-flipping jobs weren't the "right kind of jobs". What change between the two presidencies?

Maybe one has a "D" at the end of his name?

[DragonStryk72]

Maybe one has a "D" at the end of his name?

Pretty much.

[red states rule]

Pretty much.

I mwopuld say case closed

[gabosaurus]

and unemployment went UP to 9% Gabby



Making that huge jump from 8.9 to 9.0 worries me intensely.

[Kathianne]

Making that huge jump from 8.9 to 9.0 worries me intensely.

How about the huge double dip in housing prices? Underemployment? Gas prices and inflation putting the knife into those just hanging in there? Any of those give you pause, Gabby?

[red states rule]

Making that huge jump from 8.9 to 9.0 worries me intensely.

Or how about the $45,000 (or so) your daughter owes?

That number is rising and continues to rise every day

Or the million or so people that will lose their home to the bank because they cannot find a job to earn the oney to make the mnortgage payment?

Do any of there worry you Gabby?

[red states rule]

How about the huge double dip in housing prices? Underemployment? Gas prices and inflation putting the knife into those just hanging in there? Any of those give you pause, Gabby?

Probably not

Gabby still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and that Obama will fix everything

[SpidermanTUba]

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2005/unemployment.png

[SpidermanTUba]

Probably not

Gabby still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and that Obama will fix everything

I love how the right projects themselves onto everyone else.

George W Bush was the best president in 50 years, right?

[Missileman]

I love how the right projects themselves onto everyone else.

George W Bush was the best president in 50 years, right?

I don't see anyone saying that, but Obama sure as shit is the WORST ever.

[Trigg]

Making that huge jump from 8.9 to 9.0 worries me intensely.

I'd think the fact that Cali is at 12% would worry you intensely since every time someone looses their job they need to apply for government assistance in a state that is already going bankrupt at a staggering pace.

As others pointed out, add increased unemployment to $4.25 gas prices (average country wide is $3.99 I believe) and rising food prices and the outlook isn't rosy. Remember that bambam's stimulus package was supposed to keep unemployment BELOW 8%.

[SpidermanTUba]

I don't see anyone saying that....

Well not anymore, that's for sure.

[SpidermanTUba]

I'd think the fact that Cali is at 12% would worry you intensely since every time someone looses their job they need to apply for government assistance in a state that is already going bankrupt at a staggering pace.

As others pointed out, add increased unemployment to $4.25 gas prices (average country wide is $3.99 I believe) and rising food prices and the outlook isn't rosy. Remember that bambam's stimulus package was supposed to keep unemployment BELOW 8%.

I got a color printer/scanner/copy machine for 80 bucks. How much were those 5 years ago? Probably only 60 bucks I'd think.

[Missileman]

I got a color printer/scanner/copy machine for 80 bucks. How much were those 5 years ago? Probably only 60 bucks I'd think.

Have wages gone up 33% in the last 5 years?

[SpidermanTUba]

Have wages gone up 33% in the last 5 years?

Nope, and neither has the CPI.

[Trigg]

Nope, and neither has the CPI.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm


The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased
0.5 percent in March on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all
items index increased 2.7 percent before seasonal adjustment.

Gasoline and food prices continued to rise and together accounted for
almost three quarters of the seasonally adjusted all items increase
in March. The gasoline index posted its ninth consecutive increase
and has now risen 14.4 percent over the last three months. The
household energy index rose as well, with advances in the fuel oil
and electricity indexes more than offsetting a decline in the index
for natural gas. The food at home index continued to accelerate in
March, rising 1.1 percent as all six major grocery store food groups
increased.

unless I'm reading this wrong, the CPI HAS gone up.

[SpidermanTUba]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm



unless I'm reading this wrong, the CPI HAS gone up.

Not 33% in 5 years. Reading comprehension problems?

[red states rule]

I love how the right projects themselves onto everyone else.

George W Bush was the best president in 50 years, right?

Amazing how when the topic is Obama's record, the left wants to talk about former Pres Bush

I admit, if I voted for Obama, I would not want to talk about either

[red states rule]

I got a color printer/scanner/copy machine for 80 bucks. How much were those 5 years ago? Probably only 60 bucks I'd think.

When Obama took office I was able to gas up my care for about $20

Today it takes about $41 to gas up the same car

[red states rule]

The liberal media dismissed these jobs during the Reagan years as well.

NOW, these are great jobs under Obama


http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/APon1988economy12301987.png


and






Also during the mid-1980s:

•At the New York Times on September 7, 1986, Barbara Ehrenreich asked "Is the Middle Class Doomed?" while claiming that, "Most of us are 'middle class,' or so we like to believe. But there are signs that America is becoming a more divided society: over the last decade, the rich have been getting richer; the poor have been getting more numerous, and those in the middle do not appear to be doing as well as they used to. If America is 'coming back,' as President Reagan reassured us in the wake of the economic malaise of the early 1980's, it may be coming back in a harsh and alien form."
•On September 3, 1984, two months before the November elections (/surprise), CBS Evening News anchor emeritus Walter Cronkite narrated what was in the words of Steven Greenhouse at the New York Times, a "probing" and "timely" hourlong documentary called, "High Tech: Dream or Nightmare?" Greenhouse's key questions: "By destroying many high-paying factory jobs, are high-tech production techniques going to turn the United States into a nation of $50,000-a-year systems managers and $3.50-an-hour janitors and hamburger flippers? In other words, is high tech going to polarize the United States and cause its great middle class to disappear?"
•Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, based on this August 1988 AP report, was clearly anchoring his candidacy to the idea that the economy under Reagan had generated nothing but low-paying jobs.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/04/05/mcdonalds-hiring-50000-media-ridicule-hamburger-flippers-notably-absent#ixzz1LqWgubgF

[Missileman]

Not 33% in 5 years. Reading comprehension problems?

The printer in your example did...are you disowning it now?

[SpidermanTUba]

The printer in your example did...are you disowning it now?

It was sarcasm you moron. An $80 printer/scanner/copier today would probably have cost at least twice as much 5 years ago.

[SpidermanTUba]

The liberal media dismissed these jobs during the Reagan years as well.

NOW, these are great jobs under Obama

The Republicans have for decades been on a systematic campaign to reduce the level of benefits that employees receive. After you've done everything possible to ensure low wage workers have no health care, no sick days, no living wage, and no workplace safety - you have no fucking right to bitch when those are the only jobs around. Take your hypocrisy and stuff it up your ass.

[fj1200]

The Republicans have for decades been on a systematic campaign to reduce the level of benefits that employees receive. After you've done everything possible to ensure low wage workers have no health care, no sick days, no living wage, and no workplace safety - you have no fucking right to bitch when those are the only jobs around. Take your hypocrisy and stuff it up your ass.

Well that's a completely baseless statement. Seems right up your alley though.

[Missileman]

It was sarcasm you moron. An $80 printer/scanner/copier today would probably have cost at least twice as much 5 years ago.

There wasn't anything in your words or context to indicate sarcasm, asshole!...:slap:

[fj1200]

There wasn't anything in your words or context to indicate sarcasm, asshole!...:slap:

His words/context do indicate blind-partisan ignorance however. :beer:

[sundaydriver]

When Obama took office I was able to gas up my care for about $20

Today it takes about $41 to gas up the same car

Is that a Geo Metro? I just paid $50 for almost 12 gallons of premium. Two out of four vehicles are high horsepower motors and need it.

[red states rule]

The Republicans have for decades been on a systematic campaign to reduce the level of benefits that employees receive. After you've done everything possible to ensure low wage workers have no health care, no sick days, no living wage, and no workplace safety - you have no fucking right to bitch when those are the only jobs around. Take your hypocrisy and stuff it up your ass.

The only hypocrisy is from the left that dismissed jobs at McDonalds during the Bush/Reagan years

Now that McDonalds was responsible for about 25% of the private sector jobs last month - they are great jobs

[red states rule]

Is that a Geo Metro? I just paid $50 for almost 12 gallons of premium. Two out of four vehicles are high horsepower motors and need it.

My car is a Toyota Echo.

and here where I live. yesterday we were 5 cents a gallon away from 'hope and change' and $4/gal gas

[SpidermanTUba]

Well that's a completely baseless statement. Seems right up your alley though.

Why the fuck do you think they hate unions? Because unions mean jobs with benefits. Health care. Sick leave. Family leave. Vacation. Pensions. Life insurance. ALL THINGS THAT PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT DO NOT THINK THE COMMON WORKING MAN DESERVES.

[SpidermanTUba]

There wasn't anything in your words or context to indicate sarcasm, asshole!...:slap:

The utter absurdity of the statement maybe?

[red states rule]

Why the fuck do you think they hate unions? Because unions mean jobs with benefits. Health care. Sick leave. Family leave. Vacation. Pensions. Life insurance. ALL THINGS THAT PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT DO NOT THINK THE COMMON WORKING MAN DESERVES.

Because unions a killing business. Here is what unons are demanding of Wal Mart and they do NOT represent the workers

Talk about trying to kill the cow that gives the milk!!





Among the demands, the group wants Walmart to:

Pay every employee the D.C. living wage, currently $12.50 per hour.

Provide $50 a month in public transportation subsidy to every employee.

Employ at least 65 percent of its D.C. employees on a full-time basis.

Not ask job applicants about previous criminal convictions.

Use project labor agreements to construct its stores.

Fund all infrastructure improvements made necessary by its stores.

Provide free shuttle transportation to and from the nearest Metro station to each D.C. store every 10 minutes.

Commit to traffic alleviation studies.

Provide up to 2.5 free or low-priced parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space.

Provide secure, accessible bicycle parking, car sharing and bike sharing for workers and shoppers.

Not sell firearms or ammunition.

Employ no less than two off-duty D.C. police officers on its premises at all times.

Abide by a "code of conduct with regard to its employees' freedom to choose a voice on the job without interference."

Fund workforce training programs for D.C. residents, and use training programs as its primary avenue for hiring D.C. residents.

Hire at least 40 percent of its employees at each store from the ward in which the store is located.

Make "ongoing contributions to a fund managed by a council of community stakeholders" that will provide incentives and support to local small businesses.

Make ongoing payments for community funds controlled by "community advisory councils" for education and faith-based programs.

Read more: Walmart D.C. foes release demands | Washington Business Journal

[fj1200]

Why the fuck do you think they hate unions? Because unions mean jobs with benefits. Health care. Sick leave. Family leave. Vacation. Pensions. Life insurance. ALL THINGS THAT PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT DO NOT THINK THE COMMON WORKING MAN DESERVES.

Well that's a completely baseless statement. Seems right up your alley though.

[logroller]

Is that a Geo Metro? I just paid $50 for almost 12 gallons of premium. Two out of four vehicles are high horsepower motors and need it.

How so? Perhaps if one hauls a lot of weight they need high-torque, but 50% needing high horsepower....I just don't see it. Only if they need to drive fast; but then, one could leave earlier too. I watched a cool vid on the Bugatti Veyron, it said to get to 155mph required 270hp; to get from there to its top speed of 253mph required another 730HP. Check it out.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LO0PgyPWE3o?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LO0PgyPWE3o?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[Trigg]

Why the fuck do you think they hate unions? Because unions mean jobs with benefits. Health care. Sick leave. Family leave. Vacation. Pensions. Life insurance. ALL THINGS THAT PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT DO NOT THINK THE COMMON WORKING MAN DESERVES.

This statement is so full of BS I don't even know where to start.


The UAW is losing its edge in pay compared with non-unionized U.S. assembly plant workers for foreign companies, even as Detroit automakers aim for deeper benefit cuts to trim their losses.

In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies.
http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boo st_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_str uggle.aspx

and guess what? Toyota offers vacation, sick time AND health care just like the union guys.

[sundaydriver]

How so? Perhaps if one hauls a lot of weight they need high-torque, but 50% needing high horsepower....I just don't see it. Only if they need to drive fast; but then, one could leave earlier too. I watched a cool vid on the Bugatti Veyron, it said to get to 155mph required 270hp; to get from there to its top speed of 253mph required another 730HP. Check it out.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LO0PgyPWE3o?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LO0PgyPWE3o?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

I only drive fast at the track. A 450 hp Camaro that is just a toy and a 300hp 4 cyl. AWD sedan for semi daily use.

[logroller]

I only drive fast at the track. A 450 hp Camaro that is just a toy and a 300hp 4 cyl. AWD sedan for semi daily use.

Sweet, I love the late model camaros! Track racing is fun, I have a friend who races his '02 Z06(405hp factory) and '06 ZO6 twin turbo(1000hp, 3rd engine)-- but that's more of a want than a need. You don't need 300hp for commuting and grocery shopping, but I can understand why you'd want it.:thumb:

[fj1200]

... and a 300hp 4 cyl. AWD sedan for semi daily use.

That's a short list. Evo? STI?

[sundaydriver]

That's a short list. Evo? STI?


Nope. Mazdaspeed6 GT, 274hp stock with a couple of minor upgrades added.

[fj1200]

Nope. Mazdaspeed6 GT, 274hp stock with a couple of minor upgrades added.

Oop forgot about that one. I figured it needed a little more than stock. Nice.

[red states rule]

This statement is so full of BS I don't even know where to start.


http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boo st_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_str uggle.aspx

and guess what? Toyota offers vacation, sick time AND health care just like the union guys.

and here we see the union auto workers caught red handed and yet they are protected by the union

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hzyRjX_pX5c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[SpidermanTUba]

Because unions a killing business.

Well since your #1 priority is business profits at the expense of job quality - YOU STILL HAVE NO BASIS TO COMPLAIN.

[SpidermanTUba]

Well that's a completely baseless statement. Seems right up your alley though.

Sure bub. The Republicans just love unions. Got it.

[SpidermanTUba]

This statement is so full of BS I don't even know where to start.


http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boo st_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_str uggle.aspx

and guess what? Toyota offers vacation, sick time AND health care just like the union guys.

Oh well shit, I guess there's only one union job and one non-union job available for comparison, and since you've compared the solitary example from each of those, all two of them, well then that's proof enough. Certainly if Toyota didn't have to compete with union shops for labor they would have the exact same wages and benefits package.
Everyone have fun making cars today.

[fj1200]

Sure bub. The Republicans just love unions. Got it.

Non-responsive to your earlier ridiculous statements.


Oh well shit, I guess there's only one union job and one non-union job available for comparison...

At least as valid as your statements.

[SpidermanTUba]

Non-responsive to your earlier ridiculous statements.



At least as valid as your statements.
I've already admitted that you are correct, Republicans are very pro-union.

[fj1200]

I've already admitted that you are correct, Republicans are very pro-union.

It's a shame you don't know what I'm correct about.

[logroller]

I believe trade unions remain useful, pursuant of a highly skilled workforce, as they are a benefit to both employee and employer alike. But its a misconception that unions alone promote job quality, job security perhaps, but not job quality.

I worked for a non-union company where our main competitor, UPS, a union shop, did receive higher wages, but had the same or lesser benefits package including retirement, health insurance etc; but they worked far harder and had to deal with a management that was derisive of employee satisfaction.

A hundred years ago there weren't the employee protections in place like OSHA or wrongful termination laws. Today we have these, and unions have struggled to create value for their continued usefulness, which has led to unfair competition, where only union workers qualify for certain job positions; which seems unfair to me and cruelly ironic given unions were created to protect working class citizens, and yet dually serve to give advantage to only a certain class of worker, especially based solely on time served, as though time=skill.

What if I'm a better worker than someone else, shouldn't I get paid more?

Where's the incentive to improve if time alone is the basis for my pay?

People are quick to exemplify the walmart model as indicative of the need for unions when, in reality, a far greater number of non-union shops don't abusive their employees and offer the same benefits, and I would argue even greater opportunity for advancement. Maybe I'm just a better worker, so I favor individual vs collective bargaining, but in a world of increasingly global competition, labor unions serve more to subvert our collective ability to compete than protect the worker.

[fj1200]

... where only union workers qualify for certain job positions; which seems unfair to me and cruelly ironic given unions were created to protect working class citizens...

Excellent post. Unions are not about expanding the pie for everyone but rather expanding benefits for their current constituency. Examples abound such as WV coal workers and Big 3 auto workers where union employees retained excellent benefits while the business environment evolved around them; the companies either moved to a capital intensive model that limited opportunity for those not working for the company (coal) or the companies were dying from the inside due to work rules/too high wages (auto).

I've worked for three financial services companies, two large banks among them, and each one structured competitive wages and benefits while still retaining the ability to reward employees where necessary and the shock is that unions had nothing to do with it. Where businesses needs to compete for labor, they will provide benefits to attract that labor.

[logroller]

Where businesses needs to compete for labor, they will provide benefits to attract that labor.

I think what is too often overlooked in union discussions is the worker awareness. The union workers I talk with are pretty much clueless to the capitalist model, its benefits and pitfalls. They just figure their union will protect them, which they do, but they protect them not only from the abuses, but also the benefits. Especially the concept of growth, or "growing the pie"; like the proverbial glass half-full vs half empty -- how about filling the glass up, getting a bigger glass and doing it all over again-- Not just arguing over who gets the bigger share. Its not rocket science, workers can understand that-- unions just don't want them to because worker ignorance preserves their antiquated existence.

[SpidermanTUba]

Where businesses needs to compete for labor, they will provide benefits to attract that labor.

So the reason people have less benefits as opposed to 30 years ago now is because there is less economic competition between businesses than there was 30 years ago?

Has your theory been tested?

[Nukeman]

So the reason people have less benefits as opposed to 30 years ago now is because there is less economic competition between businesses than there was 30 years ago?

Has your theory been tested?

I am curious as to what benefits are less, compared to 30 years ago? Mine has improved and so has everyone I know. The only one that readily comes to mind is a pension, you know those things that are bankrupting this country!!!!!

[fj1200]

So the reason people have less benefits as opposed to 30 years ago now is because there is less economic competition between businesses than there was 30 years ago?

They do?


Has your theory been tested?

No theory, it's called the free market and it provides superior living conditions than the alternative. Look around for the evidence.

[logroller]

So the reason people have less benefits as opposed to 30 years ago now is because there is less economic competition between businesses than there was 30 years ago?

Has your theory been tested?
I think you're wrong about lesser nationwide benefits now, do have statistical evidence of this? BLS stats only go back to '83. And 2010 statistics show the larger the business (an indication of decreased competition, a few large co's vs many small co's) the greater the prevalence of benefits.
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2010/ownership/civilian/table40a.pdf
Haven't you ever been asked in a job interview what you expect to be paid? The more skill you bring to the organization the more they're willing to agree to. Do you think this is unfair-- being paid what you're worth to them?

I mean, nobody argues there aren't better benefits for the unionized worker; but those benefits aren't free, right? Somebody pays for it, and in the end its not the company--its society.
Given that: union workers receive higher pay/benefits and there are threefold(by %) the number of union employees in the public sector than in the private, do you think its right for taxpayers (union and non-union alike) to pay for benefits they themselves don't have?

What are arguing for-- union ownership of labor capital-- how very bourgeoisie. :laugh:
Maybe you favor unionizing the entire workforce, well that's been tried by a host of countries with a variety of socialist and nationalist strategies-- can you name one that has sustained a higher standard of living than a free-labor market?

[DragonStryk72]

People are quick to exemplify the walmart model as indicative of the need for unions when, in reality, a far greater number of non-union shops don't abusive their employees and offer the same benefits, and I would argue even greater opportunity for advancement. Maybe I'm just a better worker, so I favor individual vs collective bargaining, but in a world of increasingly global competition, labor unions serve more to subvert our collective ability to compete than protect the worker.

Actually, the Wal-Mart model, speaking from personal experience, was pretty damned good. They generally paid $1-2 than any other stores in the area they're in, their part-time hours are almost always 24-32 hours a week, unless you have availability problems. They allow easy cross-training for all of the positions, they promote from within with a management training program available to all associate who have been employed for at least six months.

There's also the regular system of raises, the yearly MyShare benefits, health, vision, and dental, and more. As well, there's an open door policy so you can talk to anyone on up the chain if you're having a problem.

[red states rule]

Well since your #1 priority is business profits at the expense of job quality - YOU STILL HAVE NO BASIS TO COMPLAIN.

You ignored this part of the post. Want to try for the best 2 of 3?

How much will this cost Wal Mart if they cave to union demands for workers the unions is NOT representing?




Among the demands, the group wants Walmart to:

Pay every employee the D.C. living wage, currently $12.50 per hour.

Provide $50 a month in public transportation subsidy to every employee.

Employ at least 65 percent of its D.C. employees on a full-time basis.

Not ask job applicants about previous criminal convictions.

Use project labor agreements to construct its stores.

Fund all infrastructure improvements made necessary by its stores.

Provide free shuttle transportation to and from the nearest Metro station to each D.C. store every 10 minutes.

Commit to traffic alleviation studies.

Provide up to 2.5 free or low-priced parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space.

Provide secure, accessible bicycle parking, car sharing and bike sharing for workers and shoppers.

Not sell firearms or ammunition.

Employ no less than two off-duty D.C. police officers on its premises at all times.

Abide by a "code of conduct with regard to its employees' freedom to choose a voice on the job without interference."

Fund workforce training programs for D.C. residents, and use training programs as its primary avenue for hiring D.C. residents.

Hire at least 40 percent of its employees at each store from the ward in which the store is located.

Make "ongoing contributions to a fund managed by a council of community stakeholders" that will provide incentives and support to local small businesses.

Make ongoing payments for community funds controlled by "community advisory councils" for education and faith-based programs.

Read more: Walmart D.C. foes release demands | Washington Business Journal

[red states rule]

Actually, the Wal-Mart model, speaking from personal experience, was pretty damned good. They generally paid $1-2 than any other stores in the area they're in, their part-time hours are almost always 24-32 hours a week, unless you have availability problems. They allow easy cross-training for all of the positions, they promote from within with a management training program available to all associate who have been employed for at least six months.

There's also the regular system of raises, the yearly MyShare benefits, health, vision, and dental, and more. As well, there's an open door policy so you can talk to anyone on up the chain if you're having a problem.

I have said this before and I will say it again. Wal Mart has done more to help working families make thru good times and bad then any government program on the books

130 million people walk into a Wal Mart store each week to get what they want and they get it a a fair price.

Unions and Dems are pissed because they see a huge cash cow in the form of union dues taken from the workers that will make they way into the election campaigns of Dems

That is the reason they hate Wal Mart so much

[SpidermanTUba]

I am curious as to what benefits are less, compared to 30 years ago? Mine has improved and so has everyone I know.
Great. So you've gotten better compensation as you've gotten older. That's so not surprising, and completely irrelevant.



The only one that readily comes to mind is a pension, you know those things that are bankrupting this country!!!!!

Really? That's what responsible for the national debt? Pension plans? Got it.

A pension plan is only as good as its managers. Lots of people lose money in the stock market, too, so I guess we should get rid of that as well?

[SpidermanTUba]

They do?



No theory, it's called the free market and it provides superior living conditions than the alternative. Look around for the evidence.

The free market is an economic model. You have to verify it with actual data from the real world. Based on the free market model, you made the claim was that business competition results in more benefits for employers. Now please provide real world data that supports that claim, or admit your claim is merely a theory on a black board. Thanks.

[Kathianne]

The free market is an economic model. You have to verify it with actual data from the real world. Based on the free market model, you made the claim was that business competition results in more benefits for employers. Now please provide real world data that supports that claim, or admit your claim is merely a theory on a black board. Thanks.

What are you looking for? Benefits to Walmart, groceries, McD's what? They are all readily available online. When the test is, "Pass the piss drug test" and if you do, here's what we offer, seems decent enough.

[SpidermanTUba]

What are you looking for? Benefits to Walmart, groceries, McD's what? They are all readily available online. When the test is, "Pass the piss drug test" and if you do, here's what we offer, seems decent enough.

Sorry I was asking fj to provide evidence to back his claim

[red states rule]

Great. So you've gotten better compensation as you've gotten older. That's so not surprising, and completely irrelevant.



Really? That's what responsible for the national debt? Pension plans? Got it.

A pension plan is only as good as its managers. Lots of people lose money in the stock market, too, so I guess we should get rid of that as well?

Still no comment on the union thugs demands on Wal Mart? OK

Now we have this report showing how public sector union workers earn more then the people paying the tab - i.e the taxpayers

No wonder many states are going broke





Today, the Center for Union Facts released a new analysis proving that public sector employees, on average, earn five percent more in wages and benefits than their counterparts in the private sector. This flies in the face of data from the Economic Policy Institute (EcPI), a “think tank” that has taken millions from labor unions and has released a series of studies making the counterintuitive claim that public sector employees are underpaid by four percent when compared to those in the private sector.

Redoing the same analysis from EcPI’s study, the Center for Union Facts controlled for two key factors that EcPI improperly accounted for: private sector business size and the treatment of full-time, part-year workers (a category that includes roughly one quarter of all teachers). When those two factors are properly considered, the results reverse themselves: public sector, taxpayer-funded employees actually enjoy a compensation bonus of at least five percent.

“We have been hearing for months now about the underpaid public sector workers from outfits that are funded by public sector unions, an obvious conflict of interest,” said Rick Berman, the executive director of the Center for Union Facts. “Unfortunately, the study’s author made two key errors, both of which coincidentally skew the results in the direction that labor unions support.”

The argument that public workers are underpaid has been made in order to deflect attention from public pay in states that are experiencing multi-billion dollar budget gaps.

“The Economic Policy Institute study assumes that every state employee would otherwise be working in a large private sector business with 1,000 employees or more,” Berman explained. “Using this assumption is like saying that every computer tech in the state capital would qualify for a job at IBM – it’s bogus, and it creates a fictitious gap in wages that EcPI was more than happy to exploit for political gain. They also excluded full-time, part-year workers like certain teachers and recent retirees, another move that inflated that false deficit.”

http://laborpains.org/2011/02/22/public-sector-employees-earn-more-than-their-counterparts-in-the-private-sector/

[Kathianne]

Great. So you've gotten better compensation as you've gotten older. That's so not surprising, and completely irrelevant.



Really? That's what responsible for the national debt? Pension plans? Got it.

A pension plan is only as good as its managers. Lots of people lose money in the stock market, too, so I guess we should get rid of that as well?

Unless you are a state, then the state is supposed to make good on the backs of people that have lost their jobs.

[SpidermanTUba]

Still no comment on the union thugs demands on Wal Mart? OK

Now we have this report showing how public sector union workers earn more then the people paying the tab - i.e the taxpayers

No wonder many states are going broke

If you think public jobs are such a great deal instead of whining like a little baby go apply for one

Then again maybe its not a great idea to make such an import decision based on a report from a bunch of hacks

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Union_Facts

[SpidermanTUba]

Unless you are a state, then the state is supposed to make good on the backs of people that have lost their jobs.
Depends on how the pension funds were invested and where your state gets its tax base. If its tax revenues come mostly from income tax - then obviously there is a lower burden on those without income. If your state relies more heavily on sales and/or property taxes, then yes, those without incomes will be bearing a heavier burden and I'd encourage you to encourage your state representatives to shift the tax burden from sales and property to income.

[Nukeman]

Great. So you've gotten better compensation as you've gotten older. That's so not surprising, and completely irrelevant.?
How do you figure YOU made the comment that benefits have gotten worse over the last 30 years and I say they haven't. You have offered NO proof to back up your statement!!!




Really? That's what responsible for the national debt? Pension plans? Got it.

A pension plan is only as good as its managers. Lots of people lose money in the stock market, too, so I guess we should get rid of that as well.

Ya dip shit when I lose money in MY 401K or my stocks I am the one that takes the hit. However when a pension plan does poorly in the market who gets stuck with the bill? Let you in on a little secret, all the freaking tax payers. The "UNIONS" have negotiated such a lucrative deal that they are bankrupting the states, don't believe me just goggle it.. Some states are on the verge of declaring bankruptcy to get out from under the MASSIVE dept incurred by these union mandated pensions.....

[fj1200]

The free market is an economic model. You have to verify it with actual data from the real world. Based on the free market model, you made the claim was that business competition results in more benefits for employers. Now please provide real world data that supports that claim, or admit your claim is merely a theory on a black board. Thanks.

Is private enterprise required to provide benefits? No. Do they? Yes --> Evidence

Were they required to provide HC insurance back in the '50s? No. Did they begin to provide it? Yes --> Evidence.

Now you can start to back up all of your statements.

[Nukeman]

Depends on how the pension funds were invested and where your state gets its tax base. If its tax revenues come mostly from income tax - then obviously there is a lower burden on those without income. If your state relies more heavily on sales and/or property taxes, then yes, those without incomes will be bearing a heavier burden and I'd encourage you to encourage your state representatives to shift the tax burden from sales and property to income.

Why on Gods green earth would you want to shift that to the people that already pay their fair share. Your telling me that someone who is a little poorer doesn't need to help contribute to the greater good of the country, they should just be allowed to drift through and rely on the work of others?? Wow just wow...

Ohh thats right your an Obama man.. Tax the rich even though 45% of the people in the US pay NO INCOME tax!! if they were all paying their fair share we wouldn't be in quite the mess we currently are!!! Before yo go off on a tangent about big business I will add they should ALL have to pay their taxes as well eliminate the loop-holes FOR EVERYONE!!

[SpidermanTUba]

How do you figure YOU made the comment that benefits have gotten worse over the last 30 years and I say they haven't. You have offered NO proof to back up your statement!!!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146492/employer-based-health-coverage-continues-decline.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600124.html







Ya dip shit when I lose money in MY 401K or my stocks I am the one that takes the hit. However when a pension plan does poorly in the market who gets stuck with the bill? Let you in on a little secret, all the freaking tax payers. The "UNIONS" have negotiated such a lucrative deal that they are bankrupting the states, don't believe me just goggle it.. Some states are on the verge of declaring bankruptcy to get out from under the MASSIVE dept incurred by these union mandated pensions.....[/QUOTE]

[SpidermanTUba]

Is private enterprise required to provide benefits? No. Do they? Yes --> Evidence

Were they required to provide HC insurance back in the '50s? No. Did they begin to provide it? Yes --> Evidence.

Now you can start to back up all of your statements.

You've not addressed your claim. Your claim was that competition resulted in more benefits offered. There is nothing in your evidence which suggest businesses which face more competition tend to offer more benefits.

Nor has the United States been a 'free market' - ever - according to the idealized model of a free market. In fact one of the driving forces behind the initial rise in employer provided health care were the tax benefits. Offering an employee a benefit package instead of the money to buy that benefit package himself resulted, and still does, in lower taxes. Unfortunately other effects are beginning to dominate, namely, the skyrocketing of health care costs. Even though you have to pay a bit more in taxes to just pay the cash instead of the benefits, 5 years from now, if the benefits cost you tons more, you lose in the long run.

[SpidermanTUba]

Why on Gods green earth would you want to shift that to the people that already pay their fair share.

Its pretty much the same people, its just a different way to levy the tax.


Your telling me that someone who is a little poorer doesn't need to help contribute to the greater good of the country, they should just be allowed to drift through and rely on the work of others?? Wow just wow...
No, that's not what I'm telling you.




Tax the rich even though 45% of the people in the US pay NO INCOME tax!! They pretty much have no incomes, either, so I fail to see the problem.



if they were all paying their fair share we wouldn't be in quite the mess we currently are!!!
If the Bush tax cuts hadn't been passed the deficit would be almost half as big.



Before yo go off on a tangent about big business I will add they should ALL have to pay their taxes as well eliminate the loop-holes FOR EVERYONE!!

Oh really? You want to eliminate the capital gains loophole? Great idea. I agree 100%. Would you do it for all capital gains or up to a certain amount?

[fj1200]

You've not addressed your claim. Your claim was that competition resulted in more benefits offered. There is nothing in your evidence which suggest businesses which face more competition tend to offer more benefits.

I see the problem, you don't even know what I said. I said that businesses competing FOR LABOR would offer more benefits/wages to attract labor.


Nor has the United States been a 'free market' - ever - according to the idealized model of a free market.

Oh, the claim we're not a free-market huh? I guess you'll never claim that the free market failed then. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

If the Bush tax cuts hadn't been passed the deficit would be almost half as big.

You think so huh?


Oh really? You want to eliminate the capital gains loophole? Great idea. I agree 100%. Would you do it for all capital gains or up to a certain amount?

What CG loophole?

[Nukeman]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146492/employer-based-health-coverage-continues-decline.aspx
Uhh gee only covers 3 years.. NOT 30, I would personally expect a variance in a RECESSION!!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600124.htmlDoesn't say a damned thing about benefits being worse than they were 30 years ago. Only talks about pensions and that they have gone away from fully company payed to matched 401K plans and such.

Did you read your articles??????

[SpidermanTUba]

I see the problem, you don't even know what I said. I said that businesses competing FOR LABOR would offer more benefits/wages to attract labor.



Oh, the claim we're not a free-market huh? I guess you'll never claim that the free market failed then. :rolleyes:

Do you disagree with the wiki definition?


A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce taxes, private contracts, and the ownership of property
Sorry but this hasn't ever been true in the U.S. Or most anywhere in the world.

[Nukeman]

Its
Oh really? You want to eliminate the capital gains loophole? Great idea. I agree 100%. Would you do it for all capital gains or up to a certain amount?Capital gains at a FAIR rate is fine by me but it must be a FAIR rate, not in excess of what all others pay on any other income!!! or do yo think because I invest my money and help a company expand I should somehow have to pay more on the returns for the risk I took?!?!!?

[SpidermanTUba]

What CG loophole?

????? I can't figure out if you're stupid or you're just being sarcastic, so I'll go with the former.

Income from capital gains is taxes at a preferentially lower rate than earned income. This is how the top 400 earners on average actually pay a lower total tax rate than you and I and probably almost everyone on this message board.

[SpidermanTUba]

Capital gains at a FAIR rate is fine by me but it must be a FAIR rate, not in excess of what all others pay on any other income!!!

Should be taxed the same as income. Any more or any less would be unfair.

[fj1200]

Do you disagree with the wiki definition?

Sorry but this hasn't ever been true in the U.S. Or most anywhere in the world.

I didn't say I disagreed, only hope you don't ever claim the free-market failed then.

[SpidermanTUba]

I didn't say I disagreed, only hope you don't ever claim the free-market failed then.

OK. Don't think I ever had. The policies of people who espouse a free market as the only possible solution have failed.

Clearly, like everything in life, the best approach is often in between extremes.

[fj1200]

????? I can't figure out if you're stupid or you're just being sarcastic, so I'll go with the former.

Considering your ignorance...


Income from capital gains is taxes at a preferentially lower rate than earned income. This is how the top 400 earners on average actually pay a lower total tax rate than you and I and probably almost everyone on this message board.

CG should be taxed at a lower rate. It's not only economically beneficial but it's fair given that the source of those funds were taxed previously. Add in the fact that CG are NOT subject to inflation indexing gains due to nothing more than an increase in the price level are taxed.

[SpidermanTUba]

Considering your ignorance...



CG should be taxed at a lower rate.
What you should really be explaining to me is why work should be taxed at a higher rate.


It's not only economically beneficial but it's fair given that the source of those funds were taxed previously.
The principal isn't taxed by capital gains tax or by income tax, you have no point.


Add in the fact that CG are NOT subject to inflation indexing gains due to nothing more than an increase in the price level are taxed.

So what? If you invest in a bond the interest is fully taxed as income with no inflation figured in, I don't see you complaining about that. Income is income. If you buy at X and sell at Y your income is Y-X. At what point in time that income should be assessed is a matter for debate, but its still income. A mark to market assessment might result in lower tax bills, perhaps people should be allowed to choose between the two. If you make $1,000,000 on a 30 year investment all in one year the tax will generally be higher (unless you are already in top bracket) than if you asses that income bit by bit over those 30 years.

[fj1200]

What you should really be explaining to me is why work should be taxed at a higher rate.

Lower the rates on income, you'll get no argument from me. But I already answered that anyway.


The principal isn't taxed by capital gains tax or by income tax, you have no point.

I said nothing about principal, I said gains. You're not smart enough to get the point apparently.


So what? If you invest in a bond the interest is fully taxed as income with no inflation figured in, I don't see you complaining about that. Income is income. If you buy at X and sell at Y your income is Y-X. At what point in time that income should be assessed is a matter for debate, but its still income. A mark to market assessment might result in lower tax bills, perhaps people should be allowed to choose between the two. If you make $1,000,000 on a 30 year investment all in one year the tax will generally be higher (unless you are already in top bracket) than if you asses that income bit by bit over those 30 years.

Bonds pay current income and inflation expectations are built into the yield so your point is moot.

Mark-to-market? You just hate the rich don't you?

[SpidermanTUba]

I said nothing about principal, I said gains.


It's not only economically beneficial but it's fair given that the source of those funds were taxed previously.
OK dude.



Bonds pay current income and inflation expectations are built into the yield so your point is moot.

Inflation expectations are built into everything dude.



Mark-to-market? You just hate the rich don't you?
I don't really see how wanting the taxpayer to get to CHOOSE between being taxed either on mark to market gains for a particular asset OR on realized gains implies anything about my emotional feelings towards the well-to-do. Maybe since you appear to be an armchair psychiatrist as well as economist, you can explain it to me.

[DragonStryk72]

Great. So you've gotten better compensation as you've gotten older. That's so not surprising, and completely irrelevant.



Really? That's what responsible for the national debt? Pension plans? Got it.

A pension plan is only as good as its managers. Lots of people lose money in the stock market, too, so I guess we should get rid of that as well?

Here's one- give actual answers. He asked you what benefits have gone down in the last 30 years? Now, do you have an answer for it, a real one, not just being flippant.

[fj1200]

OK dude.

You should reread those again and attempt to understand.


Inflation expectations are built into everything dude.

You want to tax inflation, accept it and it being contrary to job growth.


I don't really see how wanting the taxpayer to get to CHOOSE between being taxed either on mark to market gains for a particular asset OR on realized gains implies anything about my emotional feelings towards the well-to-do. Maybe since you appear to be an armchair psychiatrist as well as economist, you can explain it to me.

It's a stupid idea. Have investors make cash payments on non-cash gains and next year take a cash payment on a non-cash loss. Sheer brilliance. :rolleyes: I'm guessing you'll be wanting homeowners to pay taxes based on the imputed rent of their homes next... or give them the choice of paying higher taxes. It's great, they can CHOOSE.

Your issues? It doesn't take a professional psychiatrist to read between the lines on your posts.

[SpidermanTUba]

You want to tax inflation, accept it and it being contrary to job growth.
I want to tax income.





Sheer brilliance. :rolleyes: I'm guessing you'll be wanting homeowners to pay taxes based on the imputed rent of their homes next... or give them the choice of paying higher taxes. It's great, they can CHOOSE.


I just want people to pay taxes based on their incomes, that's all. You want to punish work in favor of rewarding investment. I don't see why either one is more virtuous than another. $1 earned by labor is just as virtuous as $1 earned by risk. The whole reason the cap gains loophole was invented was as a way for the very rich to pay income tax rates lower than their servants do, it has nothing to do with investment. If anything it distorts the market by making a $1 earned in the market somehow different than a $1 earned from actual work. Certainly you can't even argue that the mere fact there are different cap gains rates depending on when you sell your asset doesn't distort the market! What business does government have in making rational investors have to take absurd tax considerations like that into account? If its time to sell its time to sell, but hey, Uncle Sam has an opinion, you shouldn't sell within the 1st year, no matter what. How dumb is that?

By your absurd logic someone who takes their hard earned cash - which has already been taxed - and buys a business, should get to pay capital gains rates on their profits. You want to explain to me why someone who take all their savings from work - which has already been taxed - and invests it in a business - should pay a higher tax rate on their profits than someone who takes all their savings and invests it buying stocks? How does the latter benefit the economy more than the former? The former is actually creating jobs - the latter is in most cases just buying stock from other investors, he's not really doing anything but pumping up stock prices and providing other investors with just that much more profit. The former gets taxed more (given the same income) - unless of course he decides to sell his business. But then he's got all that depreciation recapture bullshit so he gets fucked compared to the stock investor even then.


Your issues? It doesn't take a professional psychiatrist to read between the lines on your posts.
Of course not. It takes someone far dumber and less qualified like yourself.

[red states rule]

If you think public jobs are such a great deal instead of whining like a little baby go apply for one

Then again maybe its not a great idea to make such an import decision based on a report from a bunch of hacks

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Union_Facts

The facts are states are going broke funding the unions. Even NY had to cut back on the benefits they were funding

When the person paying you earns less then you do - the payer will go broke

[red states rule]

I want to tax income.





I just want people to pay taxes based on their incomes, that's all. You want to punish work in favor of rewarding investment. I don't see why either one is more virtuous than another. $1 earned by labor is just as virtuous as $1 earned by risk. The whole reason the cap gains loophole was invented was as a way for the very rich to pay income tax rates lower than their servants do, it has nothing to do with investment. If anything it distorts the market by making a $1 earned in the market somehow different than a $1 earned from actual work. Certainly you can't even argue that the mere fact there are different cap gains rates depending on when you sell your asset doesn't distort the market! What business does government have in making rational investors have to take absurd tax considerations like that into account? If its time to sell its time to sell, but hey, Uncle Sam has an opinion, you shouldn't sell within the 1st year, no matter what. How dumb is that?

By your absurd logic someone who takes their hard earned cash - which has already been taxed - and buys a business, should get to pay capital gains rates on their profits. You want to explain to me why someone who take all their savings from work - which has already been taxed - and invests it in a business - should pay a higher tax rate on their profits than someone who takes all their savings and invests it buying stocks? How does the latter benefit the economy more than the former? The former is actually creating jobs - the latter is in most cases just buying stock from other investors, he's not really doing anything but pumping up stock prices and providing other investors with just that much more profit. The former gets taxed more (given the same income) - unless of course he decides to sell his business. But then he's got all that depreciation recapture bullshit so he gets fucked compared to the stock investor even then.


Of course not. It takes someone far dumber and less qualified like yourself.

Strange how everytime the capital gains tax rate is cut - MORE revenue flows into the government

It increases investment, and allows people to be willing to take on more risk

Also, it is funny how once Obama extneded the Bush tax cuts, the private secot started to hire and add workers

Damn that free market!!!

[fj1200]

I want to tax income.

And inflation apparently, your words speak for themselves.


I just want people to pay taxes based on their incomes, that's all. You want to punish work in favor of rewarding investment. I don't see why either one is more virtuous than another. $1 earned by labor is just as virtuous as $1 earned by risk. The whole reason the cap gains loophole was invented was as a way for the very rich to pay income tax rates lower than their servants do, it has nothing to do with investment. If anything it distorts the market by making a $1 earned in the market somehow different than a $1 earned from actual work. Certainly you can't even argue that the mere fact there are different cap gains rates depending on when you sell your asset doesn't distort the market! What business does government have in making rational investors have to take absurd tax considerations like that into account? If its time to sell its time to sell, but hey, Uncle Sam has an opinion, you shouldn't sell within the 1st year, no matter what. How dumb is that?

Yup, different CG rates are stupid, capital is capital but there is the genius of Congress for you. :rolleyes:

There is economic benefit to lower CG rates as they lead to jobs which of course leads to income and hence income taxes for revenue. I consider the double taxation of investment taxes as something that should be discouraged.


By your absurd logic someone who takes their hard earned cash - which has already been taxed - and buys a business, should get to pay capital gains rates on their profits. You want to explain to me why someone who take all their savings from work - which has already been taxed - and invests it in a business - should pay a higher tax rate on their profits than someone who takes all their savings and invests it buying stocks? How does the latter benefit the economy more than the former? The former is actually creating jobs - the latter is in most cases just buying stock from other investors, he's not really doing anything but pumping up stock prices and providing other investors with just that much more profit. The former gets taxed more (given the same income) - unless of course he decides to sell his business. But then he's got all that depreciation recapture bullshit so he gets fucked compared to the stock investor even then.

You're trying to argue absurd tax law to make your point? Don't be ridiculous. Your scenario is precisely how most of the super-wealthy end up paying lower overall rates; they pay a high rate of income, which is now limited to how much can be deducted from corporate taxes ($1mm thanks Bill Clinton), and then pay a lower amount on their risk capital. I don't have a problem with that because low CG rates are good. Your example is nothing but scale and they should be treated equally, the small business owner will pay higher rates on salary and lower on risk capital. At some point your virtuous small business guy is going to be a greedy big business guy (if he makes it big); Have you identified the point where he becomes evil?

Now I see you hate stock investors, you know the rich ones, and don't understand how jobs are created via capital market efficiency.


Of course not. It takes someone far dumber and less qualified like yourself.

Actually you don't even need to read between the lines. Your ignorance and hate speaks for itself.

[SpidermanTUba]

Strange how everytime the capital gains tax rate is cut - MORE revenue flows into the government

Actually that's not strange at all. A cut in the cap gains promotes more sales of capital assets in the short term. Investors who are unsure as to whether or not the cap gains cut is really permanent or just temporary will have incentive to sell their capital assets and take the gain under the new lower rate, rather than wait for the possibility of having to pay a higher rate later.





It increases investment, and allows people to be willing to take on more risk



It encourages investment in paper assets while discouraging investment in real assets than can produce real jobs and profit. Say you've got $1,000,000 to invest. You could buy a restaurant and create jobs - or you could dump it all in the stock market. In the former case you'll be taxed more on your profits than in the latter. Wanna explain to me how that's fair? Both investors are risking $1,000,000 - but one has to put actual sweat equity into his investment as well.





Also, it is funny how once Obama extneded the Bush tax cuts, the private secot started to hire and add workers

Its funny how the Bush tax cuts are responsible for 100% of all jobs created and 0% of all jobs destroyed, isn't it? Sort of like how God is responsible for all the good stuff and Satan for all the bad stuff - by definition - no need to demonstrate an actual causal relationship!

[SpidermanTUba]

There is economic benefit to lower CG rates as they lead to jobs which of course leads to income and hence income taxes for revenue. I consider the double taxation of investment taxes as something that should be discouraged.


Its not double taxation - you only pay taxes on the profits from a capital investment, not from the principal that you invested and already paid taxes on.



I don't have a problem with that because low CG rates are good. You've yet to demonstrate that an X dollar tax cut in the capital gains is any better or worse than an X dollar tax cut on earned income.


Your example is nothing but scale and they should be treated equally, the small business owner will pay higher rates on salary and lower on risk capital.


At some point your virtuous small business guy is going to be a greedy big business guy (if he makes it big);

This is pretty much the premise of the right wing - taxes should be higher on the poor and middle class than on the rich, because hey, the poor and middle class might be rich one day. Sorry but if you want to promote job creation and expansion of the economy you'll give the SMALL businessman a better tax deal than big business.



Have you identified the point where he becomes evil?

No, maybe you can identify that point since it appears to be a concern to you.



Now I see you hate stock investors, you know the rich ones, and don't understand how jobs are created via capital market efficiency.

Actually you don't even need to read between the lines. Your ignorance and hate speaks for itself.

You seem to be obsessed with my emotional state.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually that's not strange at all. A cut in the cap gains promotes more sales of capital assets in the short term. Investors who are unsure as to whether or not the cap gains cut is really permanent or just temporary will have incentive to sell their capital assets and take the gain under the new lower rate, rather than wait for the possibility of having to pay a higher rate later.

Yes, that's sort of the exact point he was making. People invest more when they are confident in getting more back on the investment.





It encourages investment in paper assets while discouraging investment in real assets than can produce real jobs and profit. Say you've got $1,000,000 to invest. You could buy a restaurant and create jobs - or you could dump it all in the stock market. In the former case you'll be taxed more on your profits than in the latter. Wanna explain to me how that's fair? Both investors are risking $1,000,000 - but one has to put actual sweat equity into his investment as well.

So I can either invest it in starting a business that will create jobs that may not even be there in a year (Most businesses failing in this timeline), or invest it in a business that has already created jobs, and likely see them expand their employee roster? Exactly what's the difference?


Its funny how the Bush tax cuts are responsible for 100% of all jobs created and 0% of all jobs destroyed, isn't it? Sort of like how God is responsible for all the good stuff and Satan for all the bad stuff - by definition - no need to demonstrate an actual causal relationship!

Okay, this one confuses me, because it has nothing to do with the section you're quoting from RSR. He's merely stating that your own side is even acknowledging that the tax cuts were helpful

[SpidermanTUba]

So I can either invest it in starting a business that will create jobs that may not even be there in a year (Most businesses failing in this timeline), or invest it in a business that has already created jobs, and likely see them expand their employee roster? Exactly what's the difference?

Sorry bub but buying a stock from the secondary market doesn't create any jobs, all it does is convert another investors stock position into cash.

Small businesses create most new jobs


Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420

[fj1200]

Sorry bub but buying a stock from the secondary market doesn't create any jobs, all it does is convert another investors stock position into cash.

And where does that money go? :eek:
:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

It encourages investment in paper assets while discouraging investment in real assets than can produce real jobs and profit.

False premise. Paper assets don't involve "real jobs"? News flash, people work at those companies and IPOs come out all the time for business expansion which :eek: create more jobs.

[fj1200]

Its not double taxation - you only pay taxes on the profits from a capital investment, not from the principal that you invested and already paid taxes on.

Yup, double taxation. Corporate income tax rates are also a back door tax on capital. I think we should eliminate those first, I'm even flexible on CG rates. I would even favor bumping them to 25% if we could institute inflation indexing.


You've yet to demonstrate that an X dollar tax cut in the capital gains is any better or worse than an X dollar tax cut on earned income.

I've demonstrated that far more than you've demonstrated the crap you spew. The late '90s are the perfect example, CG rates were cut and income tax revenues, and CG revenues, soared as a percent of GDP; Why do you think we were paying down the debt back then? Higher revenues than historically generated and holding down the growth of spending.

But I'll meet you halfway and we'll cut the income rates to 25% as I've noted above. See I'll treat both types of "income" equally. Win/win unless of course you hate the rich.


This is pretty much the premise of the right wing - taxes should be higher on the poor and middle class than on the rich, because hey, the poor and middle class might be rich one day. Sorry but if you want to promote job creation and expansion of the economy you'll give the SMALL businessman a better tax deal than big business.

BS. If you want job creation of expansion you'll treat them equally, they don't need a "better deal."


No, maybe you can identify that point since it appears to be a concern to you.

I'm not the one who's concerned.


You seem to be obsessed with my emotional state.

I'm concerned about my fellow man, you should get your anger issues looked into.

[SpidermanTUba]

False premise. Paper assets don't involve "real jobs"? News flash, people work at those companies and IPOs come out all the time for business expansion which :eek: create more jobs.

You don't create jobs by buying stock in the secondary market. Those jobs have already been created.

[SpidermanTUba]

Yup, double taxation. Corporate income tax rates are also a back door tax on capital. I think we should eliminate those first, I'm even flexible on CG rates. I would even favor bumping them to 25% if we could institute inflation indexing.

Sure. We should give corporations all the benefits of person-hood but none of the downsides, that makes perfect sense. Sorry but if a corporation is a legal person then taxing its income and then taxing the income of its owners - two separate legal entities - isn't double taxation.


The late '90s are the perfect example, CG rates were cut and income tax revenues, and CG revenues, soared as a percent of GDP;
Well no shit. A cut in the CG rate encourages investors to sell. Of course it will produce a short term rise in the revenues from CG taxes.



Why do you think we were paying down the debt back then? Higher revenues than historically generated and holding down the growth of spending.

A combination of a better economy, less spending, and higher taxes. In the same tax act capital gains freebies were thrown to homeowners as well, helping to jack up the price of homes.



But I'll meet you halfway and we'll cut the income rates to 25% as I've noted above. See I'll treat both types of "income" equally.
25% probably isn't that far from what the actual number would need to be revenue neutral. The top 400 earners would be paying 25% instead of an average of 17% - that's an increase on them.

I used to be opposed to a flat tax but I think if a) there is a sizable deduction, say 20k, and b) the flat tax applies to CG as well, the system would actually work. It may even be more progressive than the present system. Practically though we might need to just add one more bracket. With just one and a 25% rate, salaries would be heavily distorted once the deduction was met. Perhaps 12.5% on everything between 10k and 30k and 25% above that.



Win/win unless of course you hate the rich.
There you go again. Its all about emotions with you.


BS. If you want job creation of expansion you'll treat them equally, they don't need a "better deal."


Great. lets do it then. Reduce upper bracket taxes on earned income, raise them on CG to be the same. I'm for that.


I'm concerned about my fellow man, you should get your anger issues looked into.
Sure you are.

[fj1200]

You don't create jobs by buying stock in the secondary market. Those jobs have already been created.

You clearly don't understand how the markets work then.

[fj1200]

Sure. We should give corporations all the benefits of person-hood but none of the downsides, that makes perfect sense. Sorry but if a corporation is a legal person then taxing its income and then taxing the income of its owners - two separate legal entities - isn't double taxation.

Yeah, I didn't expect you to understand. Corporate personhood? Do you have a kitchen sink you want to throw in the conversation too? Also, and hold your breath, corporations don't pay taxes anyway... people do; You know, owners, customers, employees.

There's also empirical research that shows that one of the primary beneficiaries of a DOMESTIC corporate tax is FOREIGN labor. Isn't our rate the second highest in the world?


[QUOTE=SpidermanTUba;469127]Well no shit. A cut in the CG rate encourages investors to sell. Of course it will produce a short term rise in the revenues from CG taxes.

Doubling in 4 years is a short term rise? :laugh: It helps when you ignore the economic benefits as well.


A combination of a better economy, less spending, and higher taxes. In the same tax act capital gains freebies were thrown to homeowners as well, helping to jack up the price of homes.

Yup, higher revenues which typically occurs after a recession. You do know that income tax rates have little to do with Federal revenues don't you?


25% probably isn't that far from what the actual number would need to be revenue neutral. The top 400 earners would be paying 25% instead of an average of 17% - that's an increase on them.

You forgot the inflation indexing.


I used to be opposed to a flat tax but I think if a) there is a sizable deduction, say 20k, and b) the flat tax applies to CG as well, the system would actually work. It may even be more progressive than the present system. Practically though we might need to just add one more bracket. With just one and a 25% rate, salaries would be heavily distorted once the deduction was met. Perhaps 12.5% on everything between 10k and 30k and 25% above that.

You just can't help but fall for that progressivity BS can't you? The standard deduction is your progressivity. Salaries wouldn't be distorted, you don't pay zero until your deduction is met.


There you go again. Its all about emotions with you.

If the shoe fits ya.


Great. lets do it then. Reduce upper bracket taxes on earned income, raise them on CG to be the same. I'm for that.

Excellent. Index CGs, eliminate the corporate tax, and away we go.


Sure you are.

'Tis true.

[DragonStryk72]

Sorry bub but buying a stock from the secondary market doesn't create any jobs, all it does is convert another investors stock position into cash.

Small businesses create most new jobs

http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420

Stock= capital for corporations. When stock goes up, businesses most usually expand, and create jobs. Also noticed the skipping the point that most new businesses fail in their first year. "Creating" new jobs is completely irrelevant if 90% of those jobs will just be gone in a year.

[SpidermanTUba]

Also noticed the skipping the point that most new businesses fail in their first year. "Creating" new jobs is completely irrelevant if 90% of those jobs will just be gone in a year.



Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

Do you understand that word?

http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420


Stock= capital for corporations. When stock goes up, businesses most usually expand, and create jobs.

So essentially you believe the CG tax is a tool to artificially inflate stock prices. That's a brilliant free market idea.


What do you think people will do with their money if they aren't artificially encouraged by government to invest it in certain enterprises?

[DragonStryk72]

Do you understand that word?

http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420

Okay, first that's not even a study. It's the advert on the homepage for the small business Advocacy. You might want to find find an unbiased group for that claim

So essentially you believe the CG tax is a tool to artificially inflate stock prices. That's a brilliant free market idea.

Stock is capital for corporations. It's partial ownership as well, but that doesn't mean I'm a fascist. Stop putting words in my mouth.

What do you think people will do with their money if they aren't artificially encouraged by government to invest it in certain enterprises?

Okay, I've been respectful to you, Spidey. I would appreciate the same in kind. I am not an idiot, and your continuing to insult everyone on this thread is getting more than a little bit tiresome. They'll do the same things they did before the government jumped in: They'll invest. The CG only helps in getting people to invest when they otherwise would try to save more of their capital, and sometimes, saving is better long term.

[SpidermanTUba]

The CG only helps in getting people to invest when they otherwise would try to save more of their capital, and sometimes, saving is better long term.

Save it in what? Like a bank or something? What does the bank do with the capital? Do they stuff it all in their safe where its no good to anyone?

Can't corporations also raise money - and create jobs - through bond sales? Why do you want to encourage stock investment in corporations over debt investment - shouldn't the market determine which is more favorable to whom at a particular time and circumstance - not tax law? Do you not see that differing the tax rate based on the particular income method adds artificial government induced influence to the market?

[DragonStryk72]

Save it in what? Like a bank or something? What does the bank do with the capital? Do they stuff it all in their safe where its no good to anyone?

Can't corporations also raise money - and create jobs - through bond sales? Why do you want to encourage stock investment in corporations over debt investment - shouldn't the market determine which is more favorable to whom at a particular time and circumstance - not tax law? Do you not see that differing the tax rate based on the particular income method adds artificial government induced influence to the market?

Can you not see that stock investment bestows a form of ownership that bonds do not? Bonds have a term, meaning that your money is tied up into it until that term comes to pass. With stocks, you are able to pull your money back out, and at least recoup some of the investment funds.

As for taxation, our entire system is screwed three ways to Sunday. We need a different system, which is why I support the Fair Tax.

[fj1200]

Save it in what? Like a bank or something? What does the bank do with the capital? Do they stuff it all in their safe where its no good to anyone?

:rolleyes:


Can't corporations also raise money - and create jobs - through bond sales? Why do you want to encourage stock investment in corporations over debt investment - shouldn't the market determine which is more favorable to whom at a particular time and circumstance - not tax law? Do you not see that differing the tax rate based on the particular income method adds artificial government induced influence to the market?

They do raise money through bond sales. Tax law? Bonds are deductible business expenses, dividends are not... double taxation when dividends are paid or a CG is realized. Government already has their hand in determining what needs to be favored over other options. CG rates were lowered in the '90s which gave them an advantage over dividends, they were finally lowered in the double-ouhgts... I think bond income should be put on a level playing field too.

[SpidermanTUba]

Can you not see that stock investment bestows a form of ownership that bonds do not?

They both create jobs by allowing corporations to expand. Whether or not a corporation obtains additional funds through bond sales or stock issues should be a matter that the corporation determines based on their own particulars as well as the market in general - tax considerations shouldn't play a role.



Bonds have a term, meaning that your money is tied up into it until that term comes to pass. With stocks, you are able to pull your money back out, and at least recoup some of the investment funds.

Dude wtf are you talking about?

??? You can sell the bond on the open market anytime you want just like the stock HELLO!!!

[SpidermanTUba]

:rolleyes:



They do raise money through bond sales. Tax law? Bonds are deductible business expenses, dividends are not... double taxation when dividends are paid or a CG is realized. Government already has their hand in determining what needs to be favored over other options. CG rates were lowered in the '90s which gave them an advantage over dividends, they were finally lowered in the double-ouhgts... I think bond income should be put on a level playing field too.

There's no double taxation. The corporation is a separate person. If you earn $50 and are taxed on it, then you pay me $40 to cut your grass, I too have to pay taxes on that money. That's two people - you and I - and two taxations of income. That's not double taxation.

If person Corporation XYZ earns $50 and distributes it to you - another legal person - then again we have two people and two taxations of income. That's not double taxation either.


Do you seriously expect corporate entities should only get the ADVANTAGES of legal person hood and none of the DISADVANTAGES? Can you explain why that should be true? Do you think the Founders intended us to create a legal entity which has all the privileges of a person but none of the responsibilities?

[fj1200]

There's no double taxation. The corporation is a separate person. If you earn $50 and are taxed on it, then you pay me $40 to cut your grass, I too have to pay taxes on that money. That's two people - you and I - and two taxations of income. That's not double taxation.

The concept is not that hard to understand and your analogy is wrong.


If person Corporation XYZ earns $50 and distributes it to you - another legal person - then again we have two people and two taxations of income. That's not double taxation either.

Your corporation earned $100 and was then taxed at 35% leaving $65 to be distributed; you were then taxed on that $65 at 25% (our previously agreed on flat tax rate ;) ) leaving you with $48.75. The net result of those taxes is over 50%. Now tell me those profits weren't taxed twice. That two separate entities paid two different taxes is moot.


Do you seriously expect corporate entities should only get the ADVANTAGES of legal person hood and none of the DISADVANTAGES? Can you explain why that should be true? Do you think the Founders intended us to create a legal entity which has all the privileges of a person but none of the responsibilities?

Corporations can vote? Voting is an advantage. But no, your premise is incorrect, I just think that the taxation should be paid by people and not entities. A corporate tax is just a back door attempt to tax capital and it's destructive to jobs and economic growth.

Personhood is a separate issue.

[SpidermanTUba]

The net result of those taxes is over 50%. Now tell me those profits weren't taxed twice. That two separate entities paid two different taxes is moot.
If that's true then double taxation happens all the time. I earn $100. I pay $15 in taxes. I spend that money on beer. The store owner keeps some of the money as profit and its taxed on it. By your definition - double taxation.


Corporations can vote? Voting is an advantage.

Great. No actual poll voting. All but one advantage. But they can now vote with the most powerful vote available in our society - money.
They can't be drafted - one disadvantage of being a real person. So there - one each, even steven.




But no, your premise is incorrect, I just think that the taxation should be paid by people and not entities.

Great. Then if you ever form a company, organize it as a pass through tax entity. There's no law requiring that a company become a corporation - you're free to form your business as an LLC or other pass through entity.



A corporate tax is just a back door attempt to tax capital and it's destructive to jobs and economic growth.

Personhood is a separate issue.

Bullshit. If a corporation has legal personhood they should pay taxes like a legal person (but if you said their tax should be the same 25% tax as a real person, I'd agree with you). If your business doesn't want to become a legal person that pays taxes like a legal person and is solely responsible for its actions like a legal person it doesn't have to.

[fj1200]

If that's true then double taxation happens all the time. I earn $100. I pay $15 in taxes. I spend that money on beer. The store owner keeps some of the money as profit and its taxed on it. By your definition - double taxation.

No, like before it's a faulty analogy


Great. No actual poll voting. All but one advantage. But they can now vote with the most powerful vote available in our society - money.
They can't be drafted - one disadvantage of being a real person. So there - one each, even steven.

The draft? Your stretching. Citizens have a right to lobby their government, that they freely associate to do so via corporate interest, lobbying interest, union interest, etc. doesn't change that right. And unions don't have to pay taxes... UNFAIR ADVANTAGE AAAAAAAH!!!!!


Great. Then if you ever form a company, organize it as a pass through tax entity. There's no law requiring that a company become a corporation - you're free to form your business as an LLC or other pass through entity.

When my business goes global and requires listing on the major capital markets and must go C corp then I'll just have to accept the job killing aspects ensured by our tax code. Because that's the issue, not how I form my firm.


Bullshit. If a corporation has legal personhood they should pay taxes like a legal person (but if you said their tax should be the same 25% tax as a real person, I'd agree with you). If your business doesn't want to become a legal person that pays taxes like a legal person and is solely responsible for its actions like a legal person it doesn't have to.

This isn't about an antiquated personhood debate, it's about creating growth and jobs, what's so hard to understand about that?

[SpidermanTUba]

When my business goes global and requires listing on the major capital markets and must go C corp then I'll just have to accept the job killing aspects ensured by our tax code. Because that's the issue, not how I form my firm.

yeah I'm sure you'll have to lay so many people off when your business goes global



This isn't about an antiquated personhood debate, it's about creating growth and jobs, what's so hard to understand about that?
It isn't about creating jobs, its about tax cuts for the wealthy. The government taking tax dollars and spending it into the economy destroys as many jobs as me choosing to buy domestic beer instead of food - in both cases its money taken from one part of the economy and spent in the other.

[fj1200]

yeah I'm sure you'll have to lay so many people off when your business goes global

You still have your thinking backward, it's about how many more jobs were NOT hired... and I'm more like to :eek: outsource.


It isn't about creating jobs, its about tax cuts for the wealthy. The government taking tax dollars and spending it into the economy destroys as many jobs as me choosing to buy domestic beer instead of food - in both cases its money taken from one part of the economy and spent in the other.

Man you've got it bad. Does continuing to "stick it to the rich" make you any better off? Besides if our previously agreed upon flat tax of 25% on all types of income is instituted then it won't matter where it's taxed, at the corporate level or investor level... unless you are now admitting to the double taxation of corporate income.

I'm glad you now see that government taking tax dollars "destroys jobs." ;)

[SpidermanTUba]

You still have your thinking backward, it's about how many more jobs were NOT hired... and I'm more like to :eek: outsource.

Right right. The central evidence in almost any right wing argument is evidence that can in no way ever be verified. Evidence that would appear in some hypothetical reality that doesn't actually exist. So in other words, not evidence at all. More conjecture, actually.


Doesn't even really make sense. Corporate tax is levied on your profits, not your labor costs.

[logroller]

If that's true then double taxation happens all the time. I earn $100. I pay $15 in taxes. I spend that money on beer. The store owner keeps some of the money as profit and its taxed on it. By your definition - double taxation.

That's two separate people with two separate incomes, of course they'd be taxed individually-- the same way stockholders in a corporation are taxed individually on their own income.

I f you really want to get picky on taxation, you'd mention that beer is a taxable purchase, paid for with an already taxed income. Though I'm pretty sure sales tax is deductible from income for that very reason.



Bullshit. If a corporation has legal personhood they should pay taxes like a legal person (but if you said their tax should be the same 25% tax as a real person, I'd agree with you). If your business doesn't want to become a legal person that pays taxes like a legal person and is solely responsible for its actions like a legal person it doesn't have to.

Just because you enjoy legal personhood doesn't mean you pay income taxes. If one doesn't earn income, they don't get taxed on it. The point to corporations not being taxed is they, in and of themselves, don't earn money-- they're merely a shell. But corps do pay taxes(property, sales etc), just not on income, because they don't actually own the profits, the stakeholders/shareholders do, the corp just takes care of it for them.

I had the same view as you at onetime, but I came to realize a corp can't enjoy its profits without an equal and direct income contribution to another. here's a little analogy:

Say you and I plant a money tree. When that tree produces money, did the tree earn money? Its there, plain for all to see, should the tree be taxed? Of course not, we would be taxed on what money we harvested because we own the tree. If I sell my interest in the money tree back to you, has the money tree generated income on the sale, or have I? If you left that money on the tree to fall to the ground and seed more money trees, you haven't actually made money, but rather increased your money tree assets. Its not until one pockets money that they have earned income. Conversely, if the money tree dies, the owner is out whatever money was invested into it, a loss, and this too affects the owners income and not that of the tree.

[fj1200]

Right right. The central evidence in almost any right wing argument is evidence that can in no way ever be verified. Evidence that would appear in some hypothetical reality that doesn't actually exist. So in other words, not evidence at all. More conjecture, actually.

I referenced before studies that suggest that one of the beneficiaries of a domestic corporate tax is foreign labor. You didn't ask for a link then besides you just gave me an argument for any left wing suggestion you make... Thanks for that.

However, you're completely ignoring our highest in the world, save Japan ( and how long have we been talking about the Japan problem, think '90s), corporate tax rate as other countries have been lowering their's over time. We're also the only country that taxes overseas profits. You don't think that adds up?


Doesn't even really make sense. Corporate tax is levied on your profits, not your labor costs.

Two different things, keep up.

[DragonStryk72]

I referenced before studies that suggest that one of the beneficiaries of a domestic corporate tax is foreign labor. You didn't ask for a link then besides you just gave me an argument for any left wing suggestion you make... Thanks for that.

However, you're completely ignoring our highest in the world, save Japan ( and how long have we been talking about the Japan problem, think '90s), corporate tax rate as other countries have been lowering their's over time. We're also the only country that taxes overseas profits. You don't think that adds up?



Two different things, keep up.

What gets me is that the companies don't end up really paying the taxes. I do, because they embed the cost in the everything they sell. Almost a third of what you buy the store these days is just all the various taxes on all the parts for the stuff you're buying off the shelf.

[fj1200]

What gets me is that the companies don't end up really paying the taxes. I do, because they embed the cost in the everything they sell. Almost a third of what you buy the store these days is just all the various taxes on all the parts for the stuff you're buying off the shelf.

Apparently that's quite a difficult concept to embrace for some. I don't even think we've touched on the massive compliance costs incurred by companies to either be sure they're accounting properly or to lobby government to lower their tax bill. Personhood is a complete distraction against that last point because we complain about business lobbying for their interest but then virtually force them to do so by the complexities of the tax code.

[SpidermanTUba]

What gets me is that the companies don't end up really paying the taxes. I do, because they embed the cost in the everything they sell. Almost a third of what you buy the store these days is just all the various taxes on all the parts for the stuff you're buying off the shelf.


If corporation weren't really paying the taxes then they'd be indifferent to them.

[DragonStryk72]

If corporation weren't really paying the taxes then they'd be indifferent to them.

Of course they're not indifferent to them, because the higher the price goes due to the taxes, the less business they get. The money supply of any area is not infinite.

[logroller]

Of course they're not indifferent to them, because the higher the price goes due to the taxes, the less business they get. The money supply of any area is not infinite.
Tell that to the people in this area.
http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/7/76/State_of_the_Union.jpg

[red states rule]

If corporation weren't really paying the taxes then they'd be indifferent to them.

So what company does NOT pay attention to their cost of doing business?

When the cost of doing business increases, the company looks for ways to offest the increased cost

Usually it means trimming the payroll

[fj1200]

If corporation weren't really paying the taxes then they'd be indifferent to them.

Possibly, if there was consistency in application but compliance is a major issue and the ability to lobby for preferential treatment. And then there are global differences in corporate taxation that will affect corporate decisionmaking.

[SpidermanTUba]

Of course they're not indifferent to them, because the higher the price goes due to the taxes, the less business they get.
I thought they just got to pass the difference down to consumers.

[SpidermanTUba]

So what company does NOT pay attention to their cost of doing business?


But I thought the consumer paid the taxes? So how is it THEIR cost of doing business if they aren't the one paying the tax?

Make up your mind as to who pays the corporate tax, then get back to us.

[fj1200]

I thought...


But I thought...

Now you're just being obstinate. Why do you prefer a tax policy which benefits foreign labor?

[SpidermanTUba]

Now you're just being obstinate. Why do you prefer a tax policy which benefits foreign labor?

There are ways to encourage the use of the domestic labor force without having to give handouts to corporations. Ways in which the right wing typically opposes, revealing the fact they aren't really concerned at all with labor.

[logroller]

There are ways to encourage the use of the domestic labor force without having to give handouts to corporations. Ways in which the right wing typically opposes, revealing the fact they aren't really concerned at all with labor.

Like what? Certainly not handouts to unions.

[fj1200]

There are ways to encourage the use of the domestic labor force without having to give handouts to corporations. Ways in which the right wing typically opposes, revealing the fact they aren't really concerned at all with labor.

Such as? And perhaps if you had been paying attention I don't consider eliminating the corporate tax a "handout" simply because the burden would merely shift to the individual who is actually paying it. Isn't that more transparent and by extension preferred?

[DragonStryk72]

I thought they just got to pass the difference down to consumers.

Okay, clearly you're just acting stupid for sake of it now, so okay I'll play to the level you are: See, there are these things called people, like you and me. Now these people have to pay taxes as well, and these taxes are taken from their paychecks. When more taxes are put in place, they don't make as much.

No, if you're done acting brick stupid, here we go: Why do people shop Wal-Mart? Because the prices are cheap. Now, follow me on this one: If higher taxes are charged to the companies, then they have to raise their prices to maintain profitability. When prices are higher than they are at another store, people go to the cheaper store, in general. As well, when the price is raised to meet the new taxes, people cannot buy as much as they used to (Remember when $20 was enough to see a movie, with drinks and snacks?), and this means less money for Wal-Mart, since obviously they remit the taxes to the government.

Now, since they embed the taxes they pay into the product, on top of every other companies taxes that are embedded into the various parts and such along the way that make up the products that Wal-Mart sells, they just remit that section off to the government, and keep the rest. This means that, in the end, they do not pay the tax, but the consumer does. If you levy a tax against all the shareholders controlling Wal-Mart, guess what? They're either going to stop investing as much or sell, mean that Wal-Mart's influx of shareholder money goes down, and so you have a problem at that point because they again have to alter prices in order to maintain profitability or lose even more shareholders.

Do you have infinite funds? You don't? Well, neither do I, and that's true of pretty much everyone. That means that when the prices rise, we either have to go somewhere else, or we buy less. That's pretty much it, and of course, no store, from mom & pop to Wal-Mart wants that.

Income tax is just flatly outdated, and we would far better off to stop punishing success.

[DragonStryk72]

Oh wait, there is another way for companies to retain profitability: They can cut hours, benefits, and lay off workers.

[red states rule]

But I thought the consumer paid the taxes? So how is it THEIR cost of doing business if they aren't the one paying the tax?

Make up your mind as to who pays the corporate tax, then get back to us.

You ignored my post on what unions are demanding from Wal Mart that shows unions (and government) can add to the cost of doing business - thus the company needs to find ways to offset those increased costs.

They will either raise their prices, layoff workers, or move to a cheaper location

It is Economics 101