Relative wealth... Being middle class

[SKL]

If disparity per se causes massive unrest even when most people are able to meet their families' basic needs (and when there is much being done by individuals, charities, businesses, and government to help people do so), then IMO the reason for the unrest is an unhealthy concern over how much more the other guy has.  Some of this is natural up to a point, but encouraging people in their anger is a whole different thing.  Are there historical examples of people revolting over economic disparity and coming out materially better?  Or is it satisfying enough just to bring the other guy down a notch?

 

What I'm reading here is that if I meet my family's basic needs and the richest guy does moderately better, I am supposed to be happy; but if I have the exact same material situation and the richest guy has 1000x as much, I'm supposed to be angry.  I honestly don't see the logic in allowing my happiness to be dependent more on what others have than what's happening in my own home.

 

I think our country could do a better job of making sure basic needs are met.  I never denied that.  For all the money we redistribute, it doesn't get this basic stuff accomplished, not because of the amount of redistribution, but because of flaws in the design of "assistance."  For example, some of the entitlements require people to NOT try to better themselves.  But this isn't the doing of successful business owners.  Why would business owners want to keep paying taxes into a system that discourages the development of a competent work force?

[Χά�ων]

PSA. DON'T TEXT AND DRIVE!!!!

 

You are a lethal road enemy if you do. Pull over, take your call, or give your message, then get back on the road.

Yep.

[Scarlett]

If disparity per se causes massive unrest even when most people are able to meet their families' basic needs (and when there is much being done by individuals, charities, businesses, and government to help people do so), then IMO the reason for the unrest is an unhealthy concern over how much more the other guy has. Some of this is natural up to a point, but encouraging people in their anger is a whole different thing. Are there historical examples of people revolting over economic disparity and coming out materially better? Or is it satisfying enough just to bring the other guy down a notch?

 

What I'm reading here is that if I meet my family's basic needs and the richest guy does moderately better, I am supposed to be happy; but if I have the exact same material situation and the richest guy has 1000x as much, I'm supposed to be angry. I honestly don't see the logic in allowing my happiness to be dependent more on what others have than what's happening in my own home.

 

I think our country could do a better job of making sure basic needs are met. I never denied that. For all the money we redistribute, it doesn't get this basic stuff accomplished, not because of the amount of redistribution, but because of flaws in the design of "assistance." For example, some of the entitlements require people to NOT try to better themselves. But this isn't the doing of successful business owners. Why would business owners want to keep paying taxes into a system that discourages the development of a competent work force?

We have talked for years about what basic needs means. It means different things to different people. But to me every person should have the same quality of food, health care and the ability to stay warm and dry in their home ( and cool in those brutally hot states) . They should have the same access to clean water, ability to heat it for cleaning. Ability to pay all utilities without worrying. They should be able to afford clean clothes that are not embarrassing to wear because of fashion or how worn out they may be. The should be able to treat their family to something once in a while....a movie, a good meal out, a camping trip once in a whole, a play.....

 

So basic needs is one thing.

 

Disparity is another. No one needs 100 times basic needs. It drives a wedge between humans. No matter how much the have nots claim to not care and the haves claim to be good old simple people.....the two just do not do exist in any meaningful way over time. Birds of a feather flock together and all of that. I have first hand, very real experience with how this goes down...and I have read it time and time again on these boards how a sibling bond is broken because one leaves the economic and social norm of the family.

[SKL]

No one needs 100 times basic needs.

 

No, but some people may have good use for that money.  They may have a great project that beautifies a city, creates jobs, makes life easier for others, inspires the uninspired.

 

There's only so much one person can consume.  The haves are not consuming significantly more than the average person.  They are doing something else with that money.  Sometimes foolish things, yes, but sometimes wonderful things.  I don't believe politicians would be wiser about investing all of that money.  We have given the politicians plenty to play with, and have seen very mixed results.

[Scarlett]

No, but some people may have good use for that money. They may have a great project that beautifies a city, creates jobs, makes life easier for others, inspires the uninspired.

 

There's only so much one person can consume. The haves are not consuming significantly more than the average person. They are doing something else with that money. Sometimes foolish things, yes, but sometimes wonderful things. I don't believe politicians would be wiser about investing that money.

Oh I don't either. I am not on a political soap box. Doesn't change how I feel about it.

[Joanne]

I don't have "the answer." But I do believe this:

 

 

Use this list for the next part:

 

1. food insecure
2. medically uninsured
3. unable to secure reliable transportation
4. unable to "leave work" to train for better work - unable to find a job that pays bills AND allows for additional school/training
5. families that have to make weekly decisions about doctor visit vs. stocking up at grocery store, filling up a tank of gas vs. incidentals at children's school, new socks/underwear vs. glasses for kids.............
6. late car insurance payment vs. late rent (or mortgage)

The above list is common. It happens every day, in every middle class neighborhood.

The impact of lifting the burden on these people would have much more profound effects on individual and collective lives than if the top 1% had a slight reduction of their 1%. I AM NOT SUGGESTING that is the answer. Just that the life impact that mitigates my life is profoundly different than the life impact of losing a bit of a signficant amount of money.

 

It's something many people appear to not understand. The % of disposable income used by ONE co-pay in a lower income/middle class home can be a significant % of that budget. The same co-pay for a 1% is meaningless.

I remember, within the last 12 months, having to make most of the choices I listed. Changing THAT for the working class would, indeed, be a panacea.

 

[Scarlett]

I was thinking about this.....

 

Say you have two children. Child A and child B. The grandparents say they love both girls equally....but they seem to really LOVE child A. They give her 10 dolls when they come to visit and they give child B one doll. The grandparents take the kids out and feed child A Lobster and child B McNugguts. As the kids grow the Grandparents give child A opportunities for work....they pay her well for running errands, cleaning their home etc. child B isn't offered work at all. It goes on and on. They buy child A a sports car and Child B a beater. They send child A to Ivy League school.....child B to trade school. Even though their abilities and intellect are the same.

 

As parents of these two children how do you feel? I mean after all Child B has her basic needs met right? The truth is most parents would be so outraged by the disparity they would demand it stop and if it didn't they would cut off all contact with the grandparents....which means Neither child benefits......but your heart would break to continue to witness this uneven treatmenant between your two children who have equal value.

[3in9th]

Hmm.

 

I have not seen a denial that wealth and income inequality exisit. It has always existed. And it always will. I have seen a few deny that it's really all that bad for the bottom 80% bc well at least we aren't in a third world country. (Uh. 'Kay. Talk about low bars for social goals. Damn us for expecting more I guess?)

 

However, I'm not sure what you mean by double down and blame liberalism.

 

I live in the Midwest. I don't see a denial of the disappearing middle class. I see a huge disconnect and frustration with feeling like (Tho it is not always actually the case) the coastal states to the east and west get to make laws that are culturally and politically and sometimes physically at odds with the states in the middle.

 

You lump a lot into your post. Immigrants, religion in history, and gay marriage... All of which is rather off topic.

 

Civil war and Revolution are the same thing. For example, the American Revolution was actually a civil war. The colonist were British citizens.

 

I don't see any arguments from the right (both those in power and those who vote conservative (at least that I personally know)) that lay the blame for the massive inequality and diminishing middle class on the economic and political policies of the past 4-5 decades. Instead, they argue it's because of entitlements- "some of the entitlements require people to NOT try to better themselves.  But this isn't the doing of successful business owners.  Why would business owners want to keep paying taxes into a system that discourages the development of a competent work force?" or because of Obama or because of the liberal media.

 

I made the point about the legislation/judge rulings regarding immigration, AP American History, and gay marriage because I see it as a sign of very conservative states breaking away from national laws.

 

Agreed civil war and revolution, in a way, are one in the same. However, I once believed in a revolution in that the 99% would fight to topple the government policies that favor the Kochs and Gates and Adelsons and Waltons and the PACs and what have you. Now, however, I believe conservatives will be fighting against liberals, Wisconsin right wingers and Vermont hippies shooting it out, for instance.

 

[Χά�ων]

Scarlett, I understand what you are saying.

[Scarlett]

And further, I find it helpful to acknowledge this disparity and the gross unfairness of it. I don't think it is helpful to explain the disparity with excuses and or justifications and blame.

 

And before someone starts saying I am a hater.....I am not. I do not hate anyone because they have more materially than I do.....but I will never think it is a desirable situation to have such disparity.

[SKL]

And further, I find it helpful to acknowledge this disparity and the gross unfairness of it. I don't think it is helpful to explain the disparity with excuses and or justifications and blame.

 

And before someone starts saying I am a hater.....I am not. I do not hate anyone because they have more materially than I do.....but I will never think it is a desirable situation to have such disparity.

 

FTR, I didn't say extreme disparity is better.  I just said it isn't as important as people make it out to be.

 

I do believe that giving every person exactly equal income and wealth would be wrong.  Some people are better stewards and some are worse.  Those who prove themselves good stewards should have the opportunity to benefit the community by managing more money than average.  Not to the extent that most people don't have any wealth at all.  I think it would be great if every family had, at a minimum, the equivalent of equity in one small family home plus a little more to invest.  Even though some people would eventually lose it.

[Scarlett]

FTR, I didn't say extreme disparity is better. I just said it isn't as important as people make it out to be.

 

I do believe that giving every person exactly equal income and wealth would be wrong. Some people are better stewards and some are worse. Those who prove themselves good stewards should have the opportunity to benefit the community by managing more money than average. Not to the extent that most people don't have any wealth at all. I think it would be great if every family had, at a minimum, the equivalent of equity in one small family home plus a little more to invest. Even though some people would eventually lose it.

Important? Not sure I understand that description in the context of what I was talking about.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And further, I find it helpful to acknowledge this disparity and the gross unfairness of it. I don't think it is helpful to explain the disparity with excuses and or justifications and blame.

 

And before someone starts saying I am a hater.....I am not. I do not hate anyone because they have more materially than I do.....but I will never think it is a desirable situation to have such disparity.

Agreed. We also need to quit pretending that the playing field is level and that disparity is due simply to "hard work" alone.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Withou diving too much into politics, I do find it interesting that the true elite have done a masterful job of 1.) purchasing influence in both major political parties, and 2.) convincingly "othering" certain group in an effort to get certain segments of the population to vote against their own interests.

[SKL]

Oh, there are bad things I want to type about the 'some people are good stewards and should have more money to manage'. I am a ****ing awesome steward of the money we have, which is why we manage on little. I promise you, I have fantastic stewardship skills to bring to managing a large amount of money, as do many of the poor.

 

This idea that people are poor only because they can't manage their money is obnoxious.

 

Again, I didn't say that, nor was I thinking that.  Poor goes back a ways in my family too.  I know what it is to manage on practically nothing.  It is a skill one should be able to leverage, given the opportunity.  That said, can you deny that there are people who suck at money management?  Rich or poor or in-between, they are not good stewards.

[Scarlett]

Oh, there are bad things I want to type about the 'some people are good stewards and should have more money to manage'. I am a ****ing awesome steward of the money we have, which is why we manage on little. I promise you, I have fantastic stewardship skills to bring to managing a large amount of money, as do many of the poor.

 

This idea that people are poor only because they can't manage their money is obnoxious.

My mom is legendary for the way she could stretch a dollar when she was raising us.

[SKL]

Withou diving too much into politics, I do find it interesting that the true elite have done a masterful job of 1.) purchasing influence in both major political parties, and 2.) convincingly "othering" certain group in an effort to get certain segments of the population to vote against their own interests.

 

I agree that some of the richest people have done this on both sides of the aisle.

 

[HRAAB]

Oh, there are bad things I want to type about the 'some people are good stewards and should have more money to manage'. I am a ****ing awesome steward of the money we have, which is why we manage on little. I promise you, I have fantastic stewardship skills to bring to managing a large amount of money, as do many of the poor.

 

This idea that people are poor only because they can't manage their money is obnoxious.

 

I wish you would just because I want to like it.

[3in9th]

Withou diving too much into politics, I do find it interesting that the true elite have done a masterful job of 1.) purchasing influence in both major political parties, and 2.) convincingly "othering" certain group in an effort to get certain segments of the population to vote against their own interests.

 

Would love to hear how the left gets certain segments of the population to vote against their own interests. I'm not being facetious, I just haven't seen that and feel ignorant as to how it's happening.

[Scarlett]

So my philosophy in this and what I am teaching my son is we have to do our best even though life is not fair. We have to work hard, spend wisely, keep expenses low, and contribute to those with less than us when we reasonably can.

[marbel]

Again, I didn't say that, nor was I thinking that.  Poor goes back a ways in my family too.  I know what it is to manage on practically nothing.  It is a skill one should be able to leverage, given the opportunity.  That said, can you deny that there are people who suck at money management?  Rich or poor or in-between, they are not good stewards.

 

For sure.   I've known people who started out with a lot of money, had many advantages, etc., and blew it all, ending up in poverty.  And I've known people who had little and whenever they got a bit ahead, spent it foolishly, and stayed in poverty.  And of course I've known people who started out with nothing and ended up wealthy because they managed their money well.

 

Really, every possibility exists. To say that all the poor are simply poor because they don't manage money well would be foolish, which is why no one is saying it.  

[hornblower]

 

 

What I'm reading here is that if I meet my family's basic needs and the richest guy does moderately better, I am supposed to be happy; but if I have the exact same material situation and the richest guy has 1000x as much, I'm supposed to be angry.  I honestly don't see the logic in allowing my happiness to be dependent more on what others have than what's happening in my own home.

 

It is not logical but humans are not logical.

 

Have you read much of Daniel Ariely? They go out &  prove over and over again that humans have a strong sense of fair & get really upset when rules of fairness are violated.

 

this is one example: "a classic economics game known as the ultimatum game, in which a “sender†(in this case, Eduardo and I) has $20 and offers a “receiver†(the movie watcher) a portion of the money. Some offers are fair (an even split) and some are unfair (you get $5, we get $15). The receiver can either accept or reject the offer. If he rejects it, both sides get nothing.

Traditional economics predicts that people—as rational beings—will accept any offer of money rather than reject an offer and get zero. But behavioral economics shows that people often prefer to lose money in order to punish a person making an unfair offer."

 

The ultimatum game can be played in many different ways & time & again, people will choose what's colloquially called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' - turn down a small amount of money because they perceive it as *unfair*

 

http://danariely.com/tag/rationality/

 

Daniel Ariely's book Predictably Irrational is excellent btw....

 

 

[regentrude]

It is not logical but humans are not logical.

 

Have you read much of Daniel Ariely? They go out &  prove over and over again that humans have a strong sense of fair & get really upset when rules of fairness are violated.

 

It's not just humans. Even monkeys have it. I am linking the excerpt from a TED talk because he explains the experiment and does not just show the monkeys as other youtube videos.

 

[Scarlett]

I love that video

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Would love to hear how the left gets certain segments of the population to vote against their own interests. I'm not being facetious, I just haven't seen that and feel ignorant as to how it's happening.

 

In general it isn't happening.  Reread what I posted as it relates more to there being a more narrow divide in our two party system than what is generally portrayed. 

 

[Greta]

What I'm reading here is that if I meet my family's basic needs and the richest guy does moderately better, I am supposed to be happy; but if I have the exact same material situation and the richest guy has 1000x as much, I'm supposed to be angry. I honestly don't see the logic in allowing my happiness to be dependent more on what others have than what's happening in my own home.

 

My concern is that if the change in disparity continues on its current track, there is soon going to be a whole lot more families whose basic needs are not being met.

[Murphy101]

FTR, I didn't say extreme disparity is better. I just said it isn't as important as people make it out to be.

 

I do believe that giving every person exactly equal income and wealth would be wrong. Some people are better stewards and some are worse. Those who prove themselves good stewards should have the opportunity to benefit the community by managing more money than average. Not to the extent that most people don't have any wealth at all. I think it would be great if every family had, at a minimum, the equivalent of equity in one small family home plus a little more to invest. Even though some people would eventually lose it.

No one has said to give everyone the same amount.

What is being argued is that everyone should be given the opportunity to attain it.

And they aren't. That's the bottom line there for me.

 

Take Joanne's list of basic needs not met.

She isn't saying give everyone a rental house and a car.

She is saying everyone should have the opportunity and ability to attain it for themselves.

And they aren't.

All the talk about how everyone can succeed if they just work harder is BS.

Yes, work hard. It matters and it's vital.

But people can only work with what they have.

And it's ridiculous how little many have to work with. And more often than not, it has nothing to do with their character or choices. The education they receive, their health, and so much more is not their choice. But even so. Rich people screw up all. The. Time. But it rarely destroys their life to the point of casting them down the socioeconomic ladder.

 

Again.

 

This is not about redistributing wealth to me.

This is about redistributing opportunities.

[jennynd]

$50,000 is on the high end of normal to me. My school, a regional state school, cost around $19,000 to attend (incuding room and board and tuition and fees). MU costs about $25k / year, then take a look at the fees. If you go into engineering or health care those PER CREDIT HOUR fees increase dramatically. My school has those too, not quite that high though.

 

Washington University's published cost per year is $60k.

 

I kind of lose my breath thinking about school actually being advertised as that much per year (true cost of attendance is another topic altogether), but yes, if my school, the second cheapest in the state, is $19k/ year, I don't see $50k as totally ridiculous either.

Ann Arbor , that got to be univ Michigan. They do have fantastic engineering program. They are known to charge extra extra for out of state. By.. If she has the freedom to choose UM instead Berkeley or UCLa.. I think she is richer than she gave herself credit for.. North face an't cheap brand either

[Rosie_0801]

When you say "the left" you mean the Democrats? 

 

 

It always weirds me out when Australians say they would consider themselves Republicans if they got a vote in the US elections, even though your Democrats are further to the right than our right-wing party.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

When you say "the left" you mean the Democrats? 

 

 

It always weirds me out when Australians say they would consider themselves Republicans if they got a vote in the US elections, even though your Democrats are further to the right than our right-wing party.

 

The US doesn't really have progressive representation on the national level. at least in regards to economic issues.  We do have some individuals that would qualify, but both major parties are funded to a large degree by the same sources.

[3in9th]

But people can only work with what they have.

And it's ridiculous how little many have to work with. And more often than not, it has nothing to do with their character or choices.

 

I always think of Wal-Mart workers when these inequality issues come up. They are paid so little they qualify for government assistance. The US pays out billions to Wal-Mart employees as a result.

 

Seems wrong that the Walton heirs are all billionaires, yet they won't pay their employees enough to live off of. Instead, they'll allow the American taxpayers to fill in the gaps, a unique form of corporate welfare.

[Murphy101]

When you say "the left" you mean the Democrats?

 

 

It always weirds me out when Australians say they would consider themselves Republicans if they got a vote in the US elections, even though your Democrats are further to the right than our right-wing party.

Honestly I have no idea wth people are talking about with left, right, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat...

 

As far as I can tell they're all full of crap. Elephant crap or donkey crap. It's still crap and I'm not signing up for any of it.

[Scarlett]

Honestly I have no idea wth people are talking about with left, right, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat...

 

As far as I can tell they're all full of crap. Elephant crap or donkey crap. It's still crap and I'm not signing up for any of it.

LOL.....hilarious.

[3in9th]

FWIW- Wal-Mart

 

"Christy Walton: $41.3 billion

Christy Walton married into the Wal-Mart family fortune. Her husband, John Walton, was one of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton’s four children. John died in a private plane crash in 2005, leaving his stake in the company to his wife, according to CBS Money Watch. She’s not only the wealthiest Walton and the wealthiest woman in the United States, but the wealthiest woman in the world, Forbes reported."

 

"Alice Walton: $38.5 billion

Christy Walton’s sister-in-law, Alice Walton, is the second wealthiest woman in the world. However, she seems less interested in the family business and more interested in art. In 2011, she founded the Crystal Bridges Art Museum in Bentonville, Ark., and recently said she plans to purchase a house in New Jersey designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and move it there."

 

 

I don't think it's wrong to be angry that the Walton heirs are so wealthy and mistreat their employees so egregiously.

[SKL]

FWIW- Wal-Mart

 

"Christy Walton: $41.3 billion

Christy Walton married into the Wal-Mart family fortune. Her husband, John Walton, was one of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton’s four children. John died in a private plane crash in 2005, leaving his stake in the company to his wife, according to CBS Money Watch. She’s not only the wealthiest Walton and the wealthiest woman in the United States, but the wealthiest woman in the world, Forbes reported."

 

"Alice Walton: $38.5 billion

Christy Walton’s sister-in-law, Alice Walton, is the second wealthiest woman in the world. However, she seems less interested in the family business and more interested in art. In 2011, she founded the Crystal Bridges Art Museum in Bentonville, Ark., and recently said she plans to purchase a house in New Jersey designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and move it there."

 

 

I don't think it's wrong to be angry that the Walton heirs are so wealthy and mistreat their employees so egregiously.

 

I don't know how the Waltons' personal lifestyles are, nor do I want to.  I just want to point out that their wealth includes their ownership in all those stores.  It's not like they have all these stacks of hundred dollar bills lying around, wondering how to spend it.  It is possible for a very wealthy person to have all of their wealth in the form of shares in a business, to live a modest lifestyle, to even be in debt.  Also, they may not be allowed to sell or donate their share, as the family may want to prevent dilution of control over the business.

 

So they own a big business.  No, I don't see how that is anything to be angry about.  And I don't understand why the same people both despise the Waltons and adore (or at least tolerate) other wealthy business owners like Bill Gates.  Well actually, I do know why, but I am surprised more people don't see through the illogic.

[3in9th]

 It's not like they have all these stacks of hundred dollar bills lying around, wondering how to spend it.

 

Apparently one Wal-Mart heir knew exactly what to do with a stack of 200 $100 bills.

 

"Then, last week, Paige Laurie's freshman roommate at the University of Southern California, Elena Martinez, said in an interview on ABC's "20/20" that Laurie paid her about $20,000 over 3½ years to write papers and complete other assignments for her."

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1931214

[3in9th]

No, I don't see how that is anything to be angry about.

I just want to double check that you are okey-dokey, a-okay with paying taxes (assuming you are paying them and not evading or rollling them all back into your business) to support the Waltons' billions. They choose not to pay the majority of their workers a living wage and thus, those very workers rely on Uncle Sam for assistance.

 

Also, how does this gel with your previous statement of, "Why blame them for the fact that some other people are in low-wage jobs and have gaps in certain benefits/entitlements?"

 

Who are we to blame if Wal-Mart heirs are among the wealthiest in the world, multibillionaires and yet their company chooses not to pay the majority of their workers a livable wage? Should we blame Obama, instead?

[SKL]

I just want to double check that you are okey-dokey, a-okay with paying taxes (assuming you are paying them and not evading or rollling them all back into your business) to support the Waltons' billions. They choose not to pay the majority of their workers a living wage and thus, those very workers rely on Uncle Sam for assistance.

 

Also, how does this gel with your previous statement of, "Why blame them for the fact that some other people are in low-wage jobs and have gaps in certain benefits/entitlements?"

 

Who are we to blame if Wal-Mart heirs are among the wealthiest in the world, multibillionaires and yet their company chooses not to pay the majority of their workers a livable wage? Should we blame Obama, instead?

 

So if I understand correctly (I don't really follow the Wal-propoganda because it is fueled by pro-union activists), Wal-Mart hires part-time workers and low-wage workers to do unskilled labor.

 

People would be happier if Wal-Mart hired fewer workers for full-time hours?  That would leave more completely unemployed people collecting benefits/entitlements.  Is that better?  Also, lots of people want to work part-time.  Should they be denied the opportunity?

 

Or, people would be happier if Wal-Mart raised its prices to pay unskilled workers more than the market supports for unskilled labor?  Of course if Wal-Mart raised its prices to pay higher wages, folks would buy less, and Wal-Mart would not need so many workers, and then we'd have more unemployed people collecting benefits/entitlements.  Is that better?

 

Wal-Mart treats its workers similar to other retail chains serving their target market.

 

If Wal-Mart was unionized, there would be none of this bashing.  So, is it better for unskilled workers to be forced to pay union dues out of their working-class wages?

 

So tell me why it's only the Waltons whose wealth is evil.  Don't you think Microsoft outsources a lot of its work to sweatshops in developing countries?  Don't you think there are any people at Microsoft who aren't thrilled with their pay or hours?  Why doesn't that bother anyone?  What about the monopoly issue?  How about Oprah - why isn't she on the rack for getting rich off of pandering and fake crying?  I could go on all day, but I have a big work deadline.

 

PS, and don't even get me started about how much I pay in taxes.

 

I kind of wish all the businesses in the USA would, without warning, shut down for a week.  Business is the root of all evil, so let's see how much happier people would be without them.

[SKL]

Another thing.  The argument about Walmart employees getting entitlements doesn't work if you believe in universal, tax-funded health care and/or education.  You can't say it's evil and unfair on the one hand, then say it's best for the country on the other.
 

[Murphy101]

Another thing. The argument about Walmart employees getting entitlements doesn't work if you believe in universal, tax-funded health care and/or education. You can't say it's evil and unfair on the one hand, then say it's best for the country on the other.

 

I can say I think roads are things we collect taxes for because everyone needs them.

I can say I think healthcare is something we collect taxes for, everyone needs, and likewise everyone should be able to access it (vs a select few).

I can say education is something we pay taxes for, everyone needs, and either shut the thing down and give the taxes back or actually give a quality and free education to everyone.

I can say, we are already giving this corporation boatloads of tax relief and it's not just that in return they give us thousands of employees that despite working 2 jobs still qualify for foodstamps. A job, and most certainly a job getting gov't monies, should pay a wage that allows people to buy their own food.

 

I'm not anti-entitlements. I think there are some things every citizen should be entitled to by virtue of being human and or because justice demands it.

[hornblower]

Another thing.  The argument about Walmart employees getting entitlements doesn't work if you believe in universal, tax-funded health care and/or education.  You can't say it's evil and unfair on the one hand, then say it's best for the country on the other.

 

 

what? No, that doesn't make sense. I believe in both: well paid employees with generous benefits from their employers, and state funded baseline health care & education for all. 

 

Also, isn't the whole idea of the system that if you have well paid employees, they spend money & keep the economy churning? That's how the trickle down thing is supposed to work.

If your employees can't afford to buy your products without gov't support, something is very wrong & the economy is faltering & there's definitely no trickle down.

[Murphy101]

I don't think the Walton or Walmart is evil.

I don't envy them their money. Being in the public eye sounds like a living nightmare to me that no amount of money is worth.

 

I still think that if we are giving a business huge tax relief in multiple forms based on the promise they are creating jobs, I think they should be jobs that permit people to buy their groceries without gov't assistance.

 

If that means Walmart hires less or raises prices, then so be it. We will adjust. I think people are too dependent on these few mega corporations. Diversifying is usually a good thing.

[Sarah CB]

I just want to double check that you are okey-dokey, a-okay with paying taxes (assuming you are paying them and not evading or rollling them all back into your business) to support the Waltons' billions. They choose not to pay the majority of their workers a living wage and thus, those very workers rely on Uncle Sam for assistance.

 

Also, how does this gel with your previous statement of, "Why blame them for the fact that some other people are in low-wage jobs and have gaps in certain benefits/entitlements?"

 

Who are we to blame if Wal-Mart heirs are among the wealthiest in the world, multibillionaires and yet their company chooses not to pay the majority of their workers a livable wage? Should we blame Obama, instead?

 

I bet the Waltons pay more tax in a year than I'll pay in my entire lifetime.

[hornblower]

I bet the Waltons pay more tax in a year than I'll pay in my entire lifetime.

 

absolute values are meaningless imo. We should be looking at percentages.

 

Buffett on taxes:

 

"

The billionaire investor said taxes on the wealthiest Americans are far too low, given that some of the 400 largest earners in the United States, whose average income was about $200 million a year, pay a tax rate of less than 10 percent.

“That’s still a lot less than my cleaning lady,†Buffett said in an interview with Politico editor-in-chief John Harris. “So it hasn’t been fully corrected,†he added, referring to the fact that he has been complaining about this issue for years.

 

Buffett said his own tax rate was “certainly not too high.†He has frequently pointed out that his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. Debbie Bosanek, his secretary since 1993, has been a symbol for tax inequality since Buffett began touting the disparity in their tax rates as far back as 2007. During a 2012 interview with ABC News, Bosanek said she paid a tax rate of 35.8 percent, while Buffett paid 17.4 percent."

 

 

for that matter, I favour looking at percentages for everything. There are countries where speeding tickets are based on your income. That $100 fine might mean no food for a week for one family,  while for another it's how much they tip the woman who paints their chihuahua's nails....

[SKL]

Anyway I don't think WalMart is long for this world, at least not anywhere near the size it is now.  People are switching to online shopping.  I used to shop at WalMart, now I hardly ever need to go to an actual store to buy the things they sell.

 

Maybe we should really be hating on the owners of Amazon.com.  LOL.  Out of sight, out of mind.  :p

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/apple-corporate-income-tax-rate_n_1429955.html

[SKL]

Just think of all the sales taxes that Amazon.com is evading.  Bad corporation!!!  At least WalMart stores are doing their duty in sales tax department.

[JeanM]

To answer the question about why people tend to focus on Walmart and not someplace like Microsoft, I think part of the answer is because Walmart has so many employees in the US who are earning less than a living wage. Walmart is the single largest employer in the US outside of the federal goverment, with about 1.4 million employees. Microsoft has about 59,000. And I don't have a citation, but a much larger percentage of Microsoft US employees receive benefits and earn enough money to be above the poverty line. Microsoft is on this list of 25 companies with the best pay, according to employees:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-companies-with-the-best-pay-and-benefits-2014-5?op=1

 

Now if you're including workers outside of the US, that's really hard to compare. Walmart also gets tons of stuff from overseas.

[SKL]

Wal-Mart was the 5th highest taxpayer in the USA per this article.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/

 

The effective tax rate $8B / $25.7B is pretty high.  Also, this is only the corporate level of tax.  If they pay dividends, the owners pay taxes on those.  If they pay the owner/managers big salaries etc., taxes are also paid on those.

 

5. Wal-Mart
• Income tax expense: $7.98 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $25.74 billion
• Revenue: $469.16 billion
• 1-year share price change: 21.87%
• Industry: Supermarkets

Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) is the largest company in the United States and the largest employer. Unlike some of the other companies on the highest taxpayer list, particularly the banks and oil companies, Wal-Mart is relatively young, founded in 1962. Since that time, expansion has outpaced traditional American retailers, such as Sears, Kmart and J.C. Penney, each of which has struggled as Wal-Mart has expanded. Wal-Mart's annual tax payment has been above $7 billion in each of its past five fiscal years. Wal-Mart's size has become something of a disadvantage because it is hard for the retailer to grow much faster than the economy in general. Recently, the company's U.S. same-store sales were up only 2.2% In a recent conversation with the media, Charles Holley Jr., Wal-Mart's chief financial officer, said "I don't think the economy's helping us."

[SKL]

To answer the question about why people tend to focus on Walmart and not someplace like Microsoft, I think part of the answer is because Walmart has so many employees in the US who are earning less than a living wage. Walmart is the single largest employer in the US outside of the federal goverment, with about 1.4 million employees. Microsoft has about 59,000. And I don't have a citation, but a much larger percentage of Microsoft US employees receive benefits and earn enough money to be above the poverty line. Microsoft is on this list of 25 companies with the best pay, according to employees:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-companies-with-the-best-pay-and-benefits-2014-5?op=1

 

Now if you're including workers outside of the US, that's really hard to compare. Walmart also gets tons of stuff from overseas.

 

So because Walmart makes its money creating unskilled jobs in the US and Microsoft / Apple make their money by NOT creating jobs in the US, WalMart is the evil one.

[Catwoman]

Apparently one Wal-Mart heir knew exactly what to do with a stack of 200 $100 bills.

 

"Then, last week, Paige Laurie's freshman roommate at the University of Southern California, Elena Martinez, said in an interview on ABC's "20/20" that Laurie paid her about $20,000 over 3½ years to write papers and complete other assignments for her."

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1931214

So are you saying that Paige Laurie is the only college student to ever pay another kid to do her papers and assignments for her? :rolleyes:

 

And what about the roommate's responsibility in all this? It doesn't sound like her high moral standards and ethics were working in high gear when she accepted the $20,000... over a period of 3 1/2 years. It's not like it was a one-time thing and the roommate immediately realized the error of her ways and reported the situation to the college.

 

Sure, the Walton kid cheated and should be held accountable for that. But if she wasn't a member of the Walton family, it never would have made the news.

 

FWIW, The roommate wasn't exactly paid slave wages to do those papers and assignments. If she had done the same thing for a different student, she wouldn't have made anywhere near that much money. She chose her "employer" very well. ;)