MSNative Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Unions seem to have little political clout these days. Could you please explain your last statement? I am baffled.Unions are actually the biggest donors to political campaigns. 5 of the top ten donors are unions and they are well represented in the top 50. This is a very interesting list. I was surprised to see that the Las Vegas Sands was one of the top donors. I guess I knew that the realtors assn gaves a lot to campaigns I just didn't realize it gives so much. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php Ok now if you are really bored, take a look at the differences in giving based on diff election cycles. Hmm, now I want to go see which laws/regulations were being discussed/debated during each cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Unions are actually the biggest donors to political campaigns. 5 of the top ten donors are unions and they are well represented in the top 50. This is a very interesting list. I was surprised to see that the Las Vegas Sands was one of the top donors. I guess I knew that the realtors assn gaves a lot to campaigns I just didn't realize it gives so much. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php That is an interesting list. Thank you for the link. I still do not understand though how unions are "keeping inner city folks from having what other Americans have" which is what the previous poster claimed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 That is an interesting list. Thank you for the link. I still do not understand though how unions are "keeping inner city folks from having what other Americans have" which is what the previous poster claimed. I'll let her respond to that. ;). I was just responding to your statement about political clout. Thank you by the way. You are the inspiration for a research project for my middle schooler -researching the effects of donations in our political system. I think that will be very eye opening for both of us. He's interested in following NEA and the national beer association. Boys. Lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 That is an interesting list. Thank you for the link. I still do not understand though how unions are "keeping inner city folks from having what other Americans have" which is what the previous poster claimed. They fight against businesses that could create jobs and improve quality of life because they are not union jobs. They fight for policies that prevent non-union job-rich projects from locating there. They make improvement projects (which must use union labor) so expensive that they are infeasible. They are a major reason why many big employers have moved away from big cities. For starters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'll let her respond to that. ;). I was just responding to your statement about political clout. Thank you by the way. You are the inspiration for a research project for my middle schooler -researching the effects of donations in our political system. I think that will be very eye opening for both of us. He's interested in following NEA and the national beer association. Boys. Lol! And what can I say to that but :cheers2: ! Great project idea, by the way. They fight against businesses that could create jobs and improve quality of life because they are not union jobs. They fight for policies that prevent non-union job-rich projects from locating there. They make improvement projects (which must use union labor) so expensive that they are infeasible. They are a major reason why many big employers have moved away from big cities. For starters. Hey look--multi quote is back! And I guess that I will leave it at that since I could create a similar list for how unions have improved lives. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I have to wonder if those who say WM puts mom-and-pop places out of business in small towns are just repeating what they've heard rather than what they've observed. Sorry, personal observation of Walmart putting no less that 3 long-time local business out of business within the first year. Also, the local business tended to employ local workers. Most of the workers at our Walmart are from the big city 30 minutes away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Yeah, unions...not like they've ever done us workers any good...roll eyes... Thank you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Sorry, personal observation of Walmart putting no less that 3 long-time local business out of business within the first year. Also, the local business tended to employ local workers. Most of the workers at our Walmart are from the big city 30 minutes away. Idk. I grew up in a tiny town. One town over got a WM and it did put the sewing store and the shoe store out of business (maybe not single-handedly but for sure a factor). Together, the shoe store and the sewing store employed maybe 10 people?? WM employs hundreds in a town with not much else going for it. I don't love WM, my mom worked there and hated it, I hate shopping there, but I don't think they are responsible for the demise of civilization. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I think maybe some people may not realize that how much power unions have varies greatly by state. In the state I grew up in, all public school teachers and government employees MUST belong to the union, no matter how high the dues were. My FIL, who still lives in that state and was in a mandatory union for decades recently explained that for teachers (I think), when a contract is up, the old contract is still in effect while the union negotiates a new one. Since the old ones always specify a large raise, it virtually guarantees continual raises of 5-7%. Hence the high property taxes that are driving people away from the state. The school distict I grew up in spent $17,000 per student three years ago, and that is after almost completely eliminating the music program. While I think teachers are underpaid where I am, I am glad to not pay 6,000+ per year in property taxes in an area twenty miles north of most of the jobs. People living close to work must be paying $8-10,000 every year. There has to be some middle ground between underpaying employees and letting mandatory unions drive up spending so much that large numbers of people flee the state. ETA: Ok, I guess technically, they don't have to belong to the union, but the dues are mandatory. My FIL had to pay about $150/month. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Idk. I grew up in a tiny town. One town over got a WM and it did put the sewing store and the shoe store out of business (maybe not single-handedly but for sure a factor). Together, the shoe store and the sewing store employed maybe 10 people?? WM employs hundreds in a town with not much else going for it. I don't love WM, my mom worked there and hated it, I hate shopping there, but I don't think they are responsible for the demise of civilization. Walmart is just one part of the puzzle. I was just responding to the person who suggested maybe that doesn't really happen. As I mentioned, what really chapped me was that they didn't hire hardly anyone from our small town, and a ton of people applied. It was really odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Walmart is just one part of the puzzle. I was just responding to the person who suggested maybe that doesn't really happen. As I mentioned, what really chapped me was that they didn't hire hardly anyone from our small town, and a ton of people applied. It was really odd. It is possible that part of their financing or permit might have required them to hire low-income people (as defined and documented according to regulations). Or to have the workers referred by some government work training program or something like that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It is possible that part of their financing or permit might have required them to hire low-income people (as defined and documented according to regulations). Or to have the workers referred by some government work training program or something like that. That would make sense as a possibility. I know ours hires locally. I've seen oodles of students there. Some do it briefly before moving on to other things and some stay for years, often moving up. Then we also know adults who work there. It's very rare that I go shopping and don't see someone I know - esp if I add in other shoppers that hubby or I (or both) know. We often joke that it's the local meeting place. One phenomena is that the more quickly I want to get out, the more people I meet and need to talk with. ("Need" because that's the way things are around here.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I rarely go to Walmart since it's not walking distance. But I got a coupon for family photos, so we went to Walmart. Youngest needed new boots so we went to the large shoe section of the large Walmart. A total of three people were working in the area. All of them seemed surprised I wanted a foot measuring device. I got told/asked several times, "Well what size is he?" (Um, I wouldn't be asking for a foot measure if I knew) and "Well look in his boot to see what size he is". (Um, it's worn away, and it's to small. All it can tell me is that I need a size bigger then that.) It was very strange. The only other place I have ever been that sells footwear and doesn't have a foot measure is the thrift store. - - In the end I just told people I meet that Youngest needed new boots. The piano teacher said, "Oh, let's see what I have in my basement." So his new boots are a bit big, but they should do nicely for next winter. Can't say I ever thought about buying shoes (or boots) at Walmart. Very, very rarely do we think about Walmart for clothing either - other than socks (since they still carry some Made in the US). Our boots are dual focused for hiking and farm work. Walmart doesn't carry the quality we want/need. They do have decent hunting gear socks though (as well as basic socks - not all are Made in US though - one has to look carefully). We bought cheap sneakers at Payless one time for one of my lads to head off on a foreign work trip. The sneakers were literally falling apart 2 weeks later when he returned - AND they hadn't been used all that rigorously. We mainly wanted cheap in case they got cement or paint on them. That was the last time I bought cheap shoes from anywhere. They aren't worth the cost even for a short trip. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 With only about another month of winter left I was just hoping to get him something. We do buy shoes from a running store. I'm actually not sure where we usually get boots. They just usually show up from somewhere. :) Be in Gramma, hand me downs from the piano teacher. I'm not sure actually. I completely understand. Just in our situation with hiking and winter and the farm, what we need in boots takes on a completely different meaning than average. We need warm (but breathable), slightly taller for deep mud, waterproof boots that can handle rugged surfaces, last forever, and still be comfortable. We don't ask for much out of our footwear! :lol: Vasque was my super favorite up until recently. The last pair of those I had lasted 8 years and was suitable for deep(ish) mud on our farm or hiking on volcanic lava - or anything in between. They literally get worn pretty much daily since we're either doing chores daily or are out on trips and most of our trips require boots. Last year I finally had to replace them. I'm not as in love with the new ones and it took me a bit to find them. They're still ok. In a few years I might try something else though. We're already tried and nixed LL Bean, Columbia, and a few other "names." Again, they were good, but not as good as the Vasques we had starting in 2005/6. Of course, in the years since we tried them they might have changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I have been buying our shoes and boots online for years. I gave up. Even the shoe stores don't have what I'm looking for, and I don't have time to shop around. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It is possible that part of their financing or permit might have required them to hire low-income people (as defined and documented according to regulations). Or to have the workers referred by some government work training program or something like that. Oh trust me, we have plenty of low income people here! Glad to hear it is not the same everywhere though. I think it would be a good policy to hire locally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Walmart drove a local factory out of business here. They have a strategy of asking for more and paying less for it after they persuade the company to invest a high percentage of machine time on their account....by the time the company realizes it, they cant find new customers in time to meet payroll. Home Depot and Lowes follow the same strategy. A company I worked for almost went under that way. When the boss would (could) no longer meet their demands for lower prices and still stay in business, they were dumped quickly. Even though the reps at the Home Depot and Lowes retail stores loved our product and our customer service. Fortunately, the company was able to slowly rebuild business, but it was a long process. It's ugly. They use up companies and move on to the next one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It sounds like factories need to avoid letting most of their business come from one chain, especially if that chain is well known for being tightwads. I for one would like to see a chain that only sells stuff made in the US. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Business competition, like unionization, has its pros and cons. If it didn't exist, things would be a lot different, and not always in a good way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Low COL area here with a median income in our county of $40,000.00. So in this area, yah...that's high income. I think that the important thing with national averages is to consider that they are just that...averages. Obviously high COL areas require more income in order to live above poverty than low COL's. So, it would be fairly low for say D.C., and be quite modest given the cost of housing and utilities. But, around here, that would be the top half percent of wage earners in our county, and one lives "high off the hog" on that pretty much from the perspective of many. We are not at the level presently, but do very well, and dh is one of the highest earners in our county. Since this is a low COL, that means we do have money for extras such as our trip to Iceland, my recent trip to France, and nice summer vacations, or paying cash for a used car, etc. Meanwhile my parents are close to the median and live very modest lifestyles. As a matter of fact, they are close to falling below modest so dh and I are going to be doing some repairs on their house for them. Those that fall below that median have a very, very hard time hear because the safety net is quite small due to the precarious financial situation in Michigan. Assistance is now hard to get. I shudder to think what life is like for those that fall significantly below the median. If we were to move to say West Bloomfield Hills, Frankenmuth, Petoskey, Grosse Pointe, etc., our current income would be VERY tight for the cost of housing and property taxes in those areas. REALLY tight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I have been buying our shoes and boots online for years. I gave up. Even the shoe stores don't have what I'm looking for, and I don't have time to shop around. Skl, I hear you! I have a wide foot, and in the tri-county area, no one carries wides anymore. If I take the time to go to the malls in Detroit (two hours, possibly more depending on traffic), I might find after trying on 100 pairs of shoes, a single pair that will work. That's a LOT of wasted time. I'm sorry I can't support local businesses, but I have to have shoes and boots, that's not a whim. My middle boy has a very long foot, and very narrow heal so I also have to order online for him. Shoebuy.com has been a lifesaver for us! Time is money, and with the local stores stocking so little variety, we just don't have a choice in the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*lifeoftheparty* Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Home Depot and Lowes follow the same strategy. A company I worked for almost went under that way. When the boss would (could) no longer meet their demands for lower prices and still stay in business, they were dumped quickly. Even though the reps at the Home Depot and Lowes retail stores loved our product and our customer service. Fortunately, the company was able to slowly rebuild business, but it was a long process. It's ugly. They use up companies and move on to the next one. Home depot and Lowes are the next big chains I'm trying to cut out. Just this week, I chose to go to my local Sherwin Williams instead, to get paint. I want to research and see if this is actually better, or if I just think it is... I also try to go to my local ACE Hardware whenever I can... it's been owned by the same local family for over 50 years now. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It sounds like factories need to avoid letting most of their business come from one chain, especially if that chain is well known for being tightwads. The only thing that saved the company I worked for was that they continued nurturing other customers besides Home Depot and Lowes. So there was still a smidge of that left to build back up again after HD hit the road. It's hard though. They come in and promise all this volume (which they can deliver). We can give this to you if you can handle it. You may have to hire more people, add more machinery, etc. Our company did not take out loans or anything to do this. Other companies have done so, based on the promise of volume. For us, they started out with a pretty fair price. Hmm...volume, plus this nice price? Hooray! But EVERY YEAR, as goods and overhead were going up, they expected the price to DROP. You were lucky in a year that you got to keep the price the same. That was a fight. No way were you going to get an increase, no matter how much material costs were increasing. This went on for about 9 years for us. The first year that my boss finally had to say no, I cannot give you that price and still be able to run the business, they said, "okay, see ya'!" So yes, a smart business person would ride the train but know where it was headed and plan accordingly. Do not expect loyalty for providing quality goods and service. That means absolutely nothing to them. (Sorry, passionate about this...this company is a family operated business that treats its employees well. Not too many of those left. My boss was heartbroken when he had to let a number of people go after the big boxes left..) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The only thing that saved the company I worked for was that they continued nurturing other customers besides Home Depot and Lowes. So there was still a smidge of that left to build back up again after HD hit the road. It's hard though. They come in and promise all this volume (which they can deliver). We can give this to you if you can handle it. You may have to hire more people, add more machinery, etc. Our company did not take out loans or anything to do this. Other companies have done so, based on the promise of volume. For us, they started out with a pretty fair price. Hmm...volume, plus this nice price? Hooray! But EVERY YEAR, as goods and overhead were going up, they expected the price to DROP. You were lucky in a year that you got to keep the price the same. That was a fight. No way were you going to get an increase, no matter how much material costs were increasing. This went on for about 9 years for us. The first year that my boss finally had to say no, I cannot give you that price and still be able to run the business, they said, "okay, see ya'!" So yes, a smart business person would ride the train but know where it was headed and plan accordingly. Do not expect loyalty for providing quality goods and service. That means absolutely nothing to them. (Sorry, passionate about this...this company is a family operated business that treats its employees well. Not too many of those left. My boss was heartbroken when he had to let a number of people go after the big boxes left..) FTR we were a supplier to KMart, and they did the exact same thing. We fought for some protection before we would sign, so it was fine for a year, but then it was over. Thankfully we had the foresight to realize this would happen, and planned accordingly. The US Big 3 automakers do the same thing, and this is one of the reasons so much production has moved out of the USA. Interesting that a big union shop would act in ways that are obviously going to produce huge job losses. (Japanese, generally non-union companies are much more likely to work with suppliers to arrive at a mutually reasonable deal. They tend to have lower profit margins but succeed better over the long haul. There's more than one reason for that, but patience with suppliers is part of it.) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 In the big box craft and Hobby stores, when they find a great seller (designed and produced by one of their suppliers), they knock it off and private label it. Does it matter that they tell the company before hand? This kind of thing happens everywhere. And, you know why it's next to impossible to cut weapons programs the military doesn't want, and why the defense cuts are in the form of benefits, wages, and jobs? It's because the parts for the systems are produced in so many different states, and everyone is trying to protect their constituents. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaBearTeacher Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I heard on the radio that the GIFT BAGS the Oscar nominees took home last night were worth over $160,000 each! This is my idea of the 1%. For those of you who say you know lots of people in the 1%, are they getting, or giving out for that matter, gift bags of this value? Hmm ... The most recent gift bag someone in my family got was quite generous, I thought at the time, but it had stickers, cute erasers, lollipops and the like from the dollar store. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I heard on the radio that the GIFT BAGS the Oscar nominees took home last night were worth over $160,000 each! This is my idea of the 1%. For those of you who say you know lots of people in the 1%, are they getting, or giving out for that matter, gift bags of this value? Hmm ... The most recent gift bag someone in my family got was quite generous, I thought at the time, but it had stickers, cute erasers, lollipops and the like from the dollar store. There is a huge difference between the people at the top and bottom ends of that one percent! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edelweiss Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 There is a huge difference between the people at the top and bottom ends of that one percent! Exactly. The 1% is very different than the 0.1%. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I heard on the radio that the GIFT BAGS the Oscar nominees took home last night were worth over $160,000 each! This is my idea of the 1%. For those of you who say you know lots of people in the 1%, are they getting, or giving out for that matter, gift bags of this value? Hmm ... The most recent gift bag someone in my family got was quite generous, I thought at the time, but it had stickers, cute erasers, lollipops and the like from the dollar store. FWIW, that would not be the correct frame of reference, at least not if you mean 1% for income. IIRC, 1% for income for a person in their 40s is somewhere in the neighborhood of 340k annual income (someone please correct me if this figure is wrong). Indeed, 160k would be not far under net (after-tax) annual income for 340k gross. The people I know in the top 1% for income are mostly, but not all, professionals in their late 30s, 40s or older, who hold certain graduate degrees and work in large cities for certain types of firms, the income being salary. They are an entirely different group from the top 0.1%, who, in turn, are an entirely different group from the 0.01%. My guess is that the 160k gift bag thing is unique to the Oscars and not at all relevant even for those in the top 0.1% or 0.01%. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 So, in an article about childcare rebates yesterday, it was stated that only 14% of families earn over $160 000 in AU. Sounds like it's in the ballpark compared to the OP's figures. I think the difference is that the OP was saying a single income earner was making over $150 000, Whereas the AU figure you are quoting is families - probably mostly double income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Op said household income so I think that it's the same. $160k gift bags! Wow! That can buy you a decent house where I live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Is anyone else even wondering if they would like what is in those 160k bags? In general, I don't like pricey things (handbags, clothes, jewelry, expensive restaurants, etc). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Is anyone else even wondering if they would like what is in those 160k bags? In general, I don't like pricey things (handbags, clothes, jewelry, expensive restaurants, etc). I would probably turn around and sell it. I cannot imagine there is anything that would appeal to me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 That's a lot of money for a gift bag. You know what would have been nice? It would have been great if instead of handing out all those bags to people who are all by in large rich already anyway donate the money to a good and worthy cause. That would have been amazing. How many of those bags did they hand out? I don't know how many nominees there were but there are about 24 regular categories and 6 special ones so that's 30, and if there were 4 nominees per category culminating in three losers (these are consolation bags apparently), that's 90 x $168,000, that's over 15 million. I can think of some food banks, domestic violence shelters, and foster care systems that could do a lot with that money!!! Sigh....I just have a hard time relating. I don't want to be judgmental. I find it hard sometimes though. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 That's a lot of money for a gift bag. You know what would have been nice? It would have been great if instead of handing out all those bags to people who are all by in large rich already anyway donate the money to a good and worthy cause. That would have been amazing. How many of those bags did they hand out? I don't know how many nominees there were but there are about 24 regular categories and 6 special ones so that's 30, and if there were 4 nominees per category culminating in three losers (these are consolation bags apparently), that's 90 x $168,000, that's over 15 million. I can think of some food banks, domestic violence shelters, and foster care systems that could do a lot with that money!!! Sigh....I just have a hard time relating. I don't want to be judgmental. I find it hard sometimes though. It would have been an interesting touch if they had each nominee designate which charity they want their "share" donated to. Some may already have causes they support. Others might get to investigate (at least minimally) some causes and see what is out there. I agree that those who are already extremely wealthy hardly need gift bags of freebies. I googled... here's what was in them: :confused1: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/oscars-2015-gift-bags It is definitely not a lifestyle I covet in any way, shape, manner, or form. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 It would have been an interesting touch if they had each nominee designate which charity they want their "share" donated to. Some may already have causes they support. Others might get to investigate (at least minimally) some causes and see what is out there. I agree that those who are already extremely wealthy hardly need gift bags of freebies. I googled... here's what was in them: :confused1: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/oscars-2015-gift-bags It is definitely not a lifestyle I covet in any way, shape, manner, or form. Audi rentals???? Really??? These people don't get enough from running around in Limo's and SUV's??? Can't wrap my brain around it. I don't want to be judgmental, but I'm struggling with that in this case. And how about the companies that donated? "Today, we made a $12,000 donation on behalf of the nominees of category X to the local domestic violence shelter." Now that would have been inspiring. Maybe if they'd announced that this was how "consolation" was going to be handled, more regular people would have watched. I read that viewership was down 16.5%. That's a lot of loss for one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 That's a lot of money for a gift bag. You know what would have been nice? It would have been great if instead of handing out all those bags to people who are all by in large rich already anyway donate the money to a good and worthy cause. That would have been amazing. How many of those bags did they hand out? I don't know how many nominees there were but there are about 24 regular categories and 6 special ones so that's 30, and if there were 4 nominees per category culminating in three losers (these are consolation bags apparently), that's 90 x $168,000, that's over 15 million. I can think of some food banks, domestic violence shelters, and foster care systems that could do a lot with that money!!! Sigh....I just have a hard time relating. I don't want to be judgmental. I find it hard sometimes though. I agree with your sentiment. I don't think they were bags of cash, though. I think they were things that were probably either donated or given on discount as a way for the companies who make the things to advertise themselves. The nominees could choose to donate their gifts to raise money for a good cause, but that would be on the individual, not the organization as a whole. I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading about that one year, and it makes sense to me. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree with your sentiment. I don't think they were bags of cash, though. I think they were things that were probably either donated or given on discount as a way for the companies who make the things to advertise themselves. The nominees could choose to donate their gifts to raise money for a good cause, but that would be on the individual, not the organization as a whole. I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading about that one year, and it makes sense to me. You are right, they aren't bags of cash. I guess I just felt that the companies that donated these items, could just as easily make a difference by making donations to worthy causes in the amount of what the gifts would have been worth. It's tax deductible, and good press for them as well. But yes, they aren't just handing out a cash. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Audi rentals???? Really??? These people don't get enough from running around in Limo's and SUV's??? The free Audi rentals aren't what caught my eye and left me shaking my head in amazement... I sort of wonder what the "world's only luxury condom" is, but not enough to google it to find out or how much it's supposedly worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I sort of wonder what the "world's only luxury condom" is, but not enough to google it to find out or how much it's supposedly worth. :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: Don't want to know! Some about how the other side lives is just too much for me to consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I would assume that most of these "gifts" are in the forms of vouchers - probably many of which are never redeemed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 You are right, they aren't bags of cash. I guess I just felt that the companies that donated these items, could just as easily make a difference by making donations to worthy causes in the amount of what the gifts would have been worth. It's tax deductible, and good press for them as well. But yes, they aren't just handing out a cash. To me what it says is that the actual value of the gift bags, without the fancy brand names, is minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 The article someone linked to above said the celebs still have to pay tax on the value, even if they donate it to charity. They'd be better off refusing to take them than to have to pay $50,000 in income taxes on them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I just looked it up. All of the "items" are actually in the bags. There are gift certificates for the things like car rentals and vacations. BUT, because these are gift certificates and they are placed in the bag with actual gift items, the IRS rules are that they "received" the item thus must pay taxes on the value even if they do not redeem it. I did find out that they did not hand them out for the losers in every category, just the biggies plus the hosts. So 21 bags were available. These people, I would think, likely have enough income to buy these items for themselves if they choose. I cannot imagine the motivation to take the bag and then pay taxes on it as income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 These people, I would think, likely have enough income to buy these items for themselves if they choose. I cannot imagine the motivation to take the bag and then pay taxes on it as income. At least if they are paying taxes on it, that's something heading to the common good. It could be worse I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm sure the message is unintended, but "hey you lost, here's a gift certificate for liposuction, better luck next year" seems kind of . . . hmm, I can't think of the word. Free lipo would make me feel better!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 An interesting article: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129-it-001-who-are-really-getting-ahead-america-forget-1 And here's a reason people with something like $150K income (especially those in the high COL areas where that really doesn't go as far as you'd think) are not feeling all lucky - excerpt from the article above: The really, really rich get much, much richer On the other side of the spectrum, the fortunes of the wealthy have grown, especially at the very top. The 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01%, with an average net worth of $371m, now control 11.2% of total wealth—back to the 1916 share, which is the highest on record. Those down the distribution have not done quite so well: the top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and exactly the same share as the bottom 90% of the population. Meanwhile the share of wealth held by families from the 90th to the 99th percentile has actually fallen over the last decade, though not by as much as the net worth of the bottom 90%. Part of the problem with measuring "middle class" by the median is that as the income disparity grows, those who can attain what used to be a 'middle class' lifestyle is shrinking and shrinking. Is middle class just measured by the median? Then we could have the median living in poverty while those 160,000 families live it up, just like back in the days of feudal Europe. Ah, the good old days. At least back then there was the idea of 'noblesse oblige'. And what's going to happen when this generation "retires"? We've got smaller adjusted incomes than ever in living memory (well, except some really old people). And now there are no more pensions, healthcare costs have skyrocketed, college costs have moved into the stratosphere and now everyone's supposed to go. And we're supposed to somehow save for all that on those smaller-than-ever incomes. And interest rates are so low that the 'miracle' of compounded interest barely applies, especially when you can barely scrape enough savings together to have the compounding make much difference. And once you retire, that small interest rate means that forget trying to live off the interest. Even if you save hundreds of thousands of dollars for retirement and are debt-free (miraculous if you've had to send kids to college), how long will that last if you have to use the principal to live on, still pay property taxes and the increased medical bills that you get as you get older, not to mention the possibility of needing assisted living or long-term care (have you seen what those places cost per month)? And from what I've read the vast majority of Americans have nowhere near that saved, or are in debt. Yes, my plan is to work till I can't anymore - but at some point, you do get old. There really aren't tons of jobs for 70 and 80 year olds. There are going to be legions of retirees living in abject poverty. It's scary. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm sure the message is unintended, but "hey you lost, here's a gift certificate for liposuction, better luck next year" seems kind of . . . hmm, I can't think of the word. Yeah. "Hey, maybe if your thighs weren't so gosh-darned lumpy, you might have had a better chance at winning." If that's not motivational, I don't know what is. :rolleyes: But hey, at least they can all use that free astrology reading (a $20,000 value! :ack2:) to find out in advance whether or not they're going to win next year. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I just looked it up. All of the "items" are actually in the bags. There are gift certificates for the things like car rentals and vacations. BUT, because these are gift certificates and they are placed in the bag with actual gift items, the IRS rules are that they "received" the item thus must pay taxes on the value even if they do not redeem it. I'm skeptical. Unless they could redeem the discounts for cash, I don't see how they have any value if not used by anyone. So does that mean I need to pay taxes on the coupon packets we keep receiving in the mail, whether or not we use them? Why should some gift bag assembler get to decide what I pay tax on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm skeptical. Unless they could redeem the discounts for cash, I don't see how they have any value if not used by anyone. So does that mean I need to pay taxes on the coupon packets we keep receiving in the mail, whether or not we use them? Why should some gift bag assembler get to decide what I pay tax on? SKL, I read two articles going back to 2006 when the flap over the value began - google brought them up without any digging. The IRS was serious about it. So, then I read the IRS rules on this and basically, the $100.00 gift certificate for a mall three hours from here that we never frequent that dh got in a drawing at work was supposed to be declared on our taxes. We never redeemed that gift certificate before it expired, but should have paid taxes on it because we were awarded the gift whether or not we redeemed it. The rules were an interesting read. One time, low in value (and there are guidelines for that too) gifts such as flowers for a life event, fruit basket, pastries, a single one time sporting event or concert ticket, etc. were exempt. The use of a company care for more than one day per year was actually listed as income that was taxable. It appears that the Honey Baked Ham food basket sent to us by his coworkers was not taxable because they took up a collection for that personally, and it was related to a life event - ie we'd been in a car accident. The flowers we were sent by his employer officially were also okay because the bouquet was not worth very much, but if we'd received them more than once, or if it had been a high end arrangement, then possibly their value would have been taxable. It was actually quite discouraging to read the rules. The IRS is serious about calling just about everything income. Oh, but your employer can give you a low value item so long as it is never cash for birthdays and weddings. IF a cash gift is made, no matter how small, it is supposed to be declared. Given that, I can see that with the press advertising the value of the bags and listing the items in them, regardless of whether or not some of them might be certificates or vouchers, given the value and the amount of tax revenue lost, that they go after the celebrities that accept them. The Academy had quite a snark fest with the IRS over it in the early 2000's from what I read. I doubt it would have gone to that level if the only valiue was actually mailers and brochures stuck in the bag because I don't think they could make the tax collecting stick. I wanted to find out that the bags had pretty much nothing in them and that there was nothing for the IRS to collect. But, I was wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.