Yep, in Austin, San Antonio, DFW or Houston you have no choice. You had to go well out of the emission control counties of a metro area to find E0 gas. As much as Charlotte has grown I would imagine it is similar the Texas cities in EPA mandates. The ethanol free gas is much more important to small engines and vehicles that sit for awhile being unused. I do know that the owners manuals for the cars and my motorcycle say do not use anything with more than 10% ethanol.DFW has Ethanol free gas, I filled up there other day. Unless something has changed, Houston also has it as of 3 months ago.

Not sure about Austin or SA.

Two-strokes seem to be a bit more sensitive to it than 4-stroke engines.

Definitely.

To get back on topic, I think the point was that if Shell sells ethanol-free gas they can differentiate from Sam's gas and keep their business up. There's definitely a market for 100% gas in OKC, given how widely available it is. Even if they don't adapt, Shell probably won't have much trouble.

I agree. Before moving to OKC, I didn't realize they still had 100% non-ethanol gasoline. The EPA regulations in Charlotte are much stricter. There are many cars from the 1970s and 80s still on the road in OKC that couldn't be legally tagged in Mecklenburg County.

OMG even the cars are better in Charlotte?????

I'm not a regular Sam's shopper (only because I never need that much bulk merchandise), but I think this is a big win for the area.

I hope this spurs some development, or at least clean up, along May to the South.

Personally, I am a little disappointed in this only because I remember when there was a plan for a much better use of this space. I can't find it right now, but I remember there was a hotel on the far NW corner of the space and mostly restaurant pad sites facing May. Much like what was originally proposed for the Dave and Buster's area on May. I know they are going to start work on redoing May from NW 36th to Britton and I hope that includes making the street to bridge over I-44 more seamless instead of a huge dip that people slow down to 20 mph to go over. Luckily, there is already a fifth lane so there won't be too much of a traffic backup.

Personally, I am a little disappointed in this only because I remember when there was a plan for a much better use of this space. I can't find it right now, but I remember there was a hotel on the far NW corner of the space and mostly restaurant pad sites facing May. Much like what was originally proposed for the Dave and Buster's area on May. I know they are going to start work on redoing May from NW 36th to Britton and I hope that includes making the street to bridge over I-44 more seamless instead of a huge dip that people slow down to 20 mph to go over. Luckily, there is already a fifth lane so there won't be too much of a traffic backup.

I just hope they find a way to provide access to I-44 west from 39th.

I just hope they find a way to provide access to I-44 west from 39th.

Pretty much impossible. Just have to go south to 36th and then to 44.

I just hope they find a way to provide access to I-44 west from 39th.

Yeah, I think it was tried about ten years ago and there were so many wrecks from people trying to cross three lanes of traffic going 30 mph, they just blocked it off. If anything, there just needs to be a lot better signage so people don't get lost trying to look for it.

Yeah, I think it was tried about ten years ago and there were so many wrecks from people trying to cross three lanes of traffic going 30 mph, they just blocked it off. If anything, there just needs to be a lot better signage so people don't get lost trying to look for it.

Yeah, I know the wrecks were bad, just wish there was some way to mitigate that.

Yeah, I know the wrecks were bad, just wish there was some way to mitigate that.

Flyover would fix it, unfortunately they probably have no interest in spending that amount of money on that intersection.

All kinds of gas aside, what kind of time frame are we looking at on this if the application is approved? End of 2014?

I just hope they find a way to provide access to I-44 west from 39th.They had one, originally, but it proved to be so accident-prone that they closed it. That entire interchange area is so horribly designed that it needs to be completely re-done, from the ground up. Preferably, with no access to I44 at all in either direction from May...

I'm not a huge Walmart fan myself. That being said I am a Sam's Club member and this is a great move for the company in OKC. The location in WOKC on the I40 frontage is too busy. With the current developments and out of town shoppers coming in from Yukon and beyond it was becoming almost impossible to shop there due to the volume of customers. Should buy them some time before there is enough population growth in the far SW sector of OKC to support another store.

I'm just hoping that this somehow spurs some new businesses in the Mayfair shopping center. I'm right around the corner and would like to keep my money in the neighborhood but right now Khazana is the only one getting any of my cash in that strip.

I would think some sort of true lifestyle center type development would have been better for that. This will probably mostly just spur additional congestion.

I would think some sort of true lifestyle center type development would have been better for that. This will probably mostly just spur additional congestion.
C'mon. Let me live the lie.
This won't make my daily drive a pain in the @ss. Plus I'll have the convenience of 5 gallon tubs of mayo right around the corner.

I would think some sort of true lifestyle center type development would have been better for that. This will probably mostly just spur additional congestion.

It was marketed as such for a long time but apparently there weren't any bites.

I just hope they find a way to provide access to I-44 west from 39th.

Your better off safety wise to go to 50th or 36th. That ramp going to LHP can be a nightmare to navigate sometimes. It never fails I always deal with a last minute merging 18 Wheeler or a person who is driving slower than molasses trying to merge on to LHP/44.




I'm just hoping that this somehow spurs some new businesses in the Mayfair shopping center. I'm right around the corner and would like to keep my money in the neighborhood but right now Khazana is the only one getting any of my cash in that strip. You can blame owners for that one. They were responsible for killing the grocery store so CVS could open a bigger mediocre store. They have ran off most of the tenants there thanks to outrageous rent rates and a refusal to make repairs on the property.

Personally, I think this is the best situation this property could hope for. Sam's will bring a descent crop of shoppers and they will keep the property looking nice. No other store other than a dollar store (DG, Family Dollar or Dollar Tree) is going to be interested in this area. To be honest, I'm tired of seeing the light pole stumps and stripped foundations. It's time for something useful to be placed on this property. For all we know, it might revitalize the areas. There are some descent homes in this area that just need a little TLC to bring the neighborhood back to what it used to be. Who knows, Circle K may be encouraged to remodel to a nicer store. After all not everybody has a Sam's membership. You have to have one to buy their gas.

OKC...better than crappy makes us happy!

okc...better than crappy makes us happy!

like

That and all the targets across the street from walmarts...they aren't afraid to compete either.

had to laugh when I read that...

Yes it is true that they sometimes build a Target near a Walmart but if you ask the management or employees at Target why their SuperTarget isn't open 24 hrs like the Walmart Supercenter and they will flat out tell you that they aren't in competition with Walmart!

I tried to shop at 3 am (when I got off work) and they were closed. i went back the next day on my way into work and that was the answer I got over and over again. The added response was "if you don't like our hours, don't shop here" Duh, if you aren't open and the competition is, guess where I am going to shop? LOL

Am thrilled to have a Sams closer to me!

had to laugh when I read that...

Yes it is true that they sometimes build a Target near a Walmart but if you ask the management or employees at Target why their SuperTarget isn't open 24 hrs like the Walmart Supercenter and they will flat out tell you that they aren't in competition with Walmart!

I tried to shop at 3 am (when I got off work) and they were closed. i went back the next day on my way into work and that was the answer I got over and over again. The added response was "if you don't like our hours, don't shop here" Duh, if you aren't open and the competition is, guess where I am going to shop? LOL

Am thrilled to have a Sams closer to me!

They may not see it that way, but they sell a lot of the same type products, have a similar (though obviously more upscale) set up and pretty similar prices. I shop at both for basically the same things depending on where I am and when I need to go, as do most other people I know. Their markets overlap so they are definitely competitors in some respects. However, the argument was that Walmart and Sams are keeping more upscale grocery stores, Costco, etc... from coming to OKC, so Target fits my point. Though you may make a better one...if Costco, Target, upscale/better grocery stores, etc don't see themselves in direct competition with Walmart & Sams... then all this Walmart dominating the market and keeping everyone else out stuff really is complete crap.

I'm right there with you, I'm fired up about this as well. One less reason to drive up to memorial.

As a member of the surrounding neighborhood I am very UNHAPPY to hear of this as are several of my fellow neighbors! We would love to see the abandoned lot developed but NOT with a Sam's club!! The additional traffic of both customers and the TRUCKS would be devastating to the surrounding community!! The access roads are in HORRIBLE condition already, I don't even want to imagine how much worse they will get if this happens. Traffic in the area is heavy already too. I would not hesitate to move if this happens.... and I Love my home.

To get the thread back on subject...:tongue:

I don't know how true this is but. During one of the crane stunts, Lynn Hickey took Evel Kneivel up in that van with him to appraise vehicles which is what the crane stunt was about. Lynn and Evel had been friends for a awhile and during this stunt they were back to the old shenanigans. Lynn and Evel were supposedly getting hammered up in that van, drunk as a skunk. Both were peeing in plastic bottles. One accidentally pee'd on the other and all heck broke loose. But by the time the van was lowered so Evel and Lynn could get out, both had forgotten what the fight was about and just ordered another bottle of grandpa's cough medicine. Back up they went and the madness continued. Heard more stories about those two. Don't know how true any of them are but that is what was told to me.

There should be a few more places in this area to eat fast food. Burger King, Carl's Jr, something. Lots of homes in this area and the fast food options are very limited. You gotta drive a bit to get to them.

There should be a few more places in this area to eat fast food. Burger King, Carl's Jr, something. Lots of homes in this area and the fast food options are very limited. You gotta drive a bit to get to them.

Uhhh...

I'll take Patty Wagon over Burger King every time.

I'll take Patty Wagon over Burger King every time.

Exactly. Or Barry's Old Fashioned Burgers just down the street at 32nd or so. But if chain fast food is what someone wants, a mile north there is Jack In The Box, KFC, Whataburger. "Drive a bit," is a subjective thing I suppose, but one mile north? Really - that's "a bit"? I agree with you anyway, there are better options that aren't chain fast food even closer.

As a member of the surrounding neighborhood I am very UNHAPPY to hear of this as are several of my fellow neighbors! We would love to see the abandoned lot developed but NOT with a Sam's club!! The additional traffic of both customers and the TRUCKS would be devastating to the surrounding community!! The access roads are in HORRIBLE condition already, I don't even want to imagine how much worse they will get if this happens. Traffic in the area is heavy already too. I would not hesitate to move if this happens.... and I Love my home.

So you want it developed with something with no traffic? How likely is that. LOL

As a member of the surrounding neighborhood I am very UNHAPPY to hear of this as are several of my fellow neighbors! We would love to see the abandoned lot developed but NOT with a Sam's club!! The additional traffic of both customers and the TRUCKS would be devastating to the surrounding community!! The access roads are in HORRIBLE condition already, I don't even want to imagine how much worse they will get if this happens. Traffic in the area is heavy already too. I would not hesitate to move if this happens.... and I Love my home.

Sam's does not see as many trucks as Walmart. Not to mention, Sam's and many other retailers forbid their vendors from idling on property. The vast amount of vendor trucks are going to be box trucks. Not to mention, the dock backs up to I-44 so your not going to see anymore truck traffic than you already see right now. Lowe's probably creates more traffic in day than Sam's will in a week. I am willing to bet if the neighbors tactully ask Sam's to tell the drivers not come down there, they will likely do so in the name of being a good neighbor. Besides the store closes at 8, by 9 the place will be pretty peacefull, by 10 it will be as quiet as cemetery. If I had to pick a box to move in my neighborhood it would be Sam's.

Sam's Club plans new store in northwest Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/sams-club-plans-new-store-in-northwest-oklahoma-city/article/3922002)

Perfect....forevermore I will refer to Edmond as "The Wall"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/25/major-retailer-cutting-2300-workers/

Reading of Sam's Club layoffs just really raised my blood pressure.

The six Waltons on Forbes’ list (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/) of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons—Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)—will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company.

The Waltons aren’t just the face of the 1%; they’re the face of the 0.000001%. The Waltons have more wealth than 42% of American families (http://walmart1percent.org/2012/07/17/new-data-waltons-richer-america-poorer/) combined.
Why does all of this matter? While the Waltons are building (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-13/wal-mart-heiress-s-museum-a-moral-blight-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html) billion-dollar museums, driving (http://www.thenassauguardian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18252&Itemid=2) million-dollar cars, and jumping between vacation homes, Walmart, the country’s largest private employer, is paying its associates an average of $8.81 an hour (http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/economy/694-is-wal-mart-worse). The Waltons make billions a year off of a company most of them don’t even work for, while Walmart associates struggle for respect on the job and enough pay to make ends meet.

from: The Walton Family: America's New Robber Barons (http://walmart1percent.org/how-rich-are-the-waltons/)

Update:


Using the Forbes 400 list for 2013 (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/), that the wealth of six of Sam Walton’s descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion.

Adam Smith would roll-over in his grave at these kinds of statistics.

This isn't about being "against rich people," it's about the tiny few who own the vast amount of the wealth in America. It's about right and wrong.

I strive to be part of the 1% as should everyone that has a work ethic.

I strive to be part of the 1% as should everyone that has a work ethic.

That is ridiculous. Work ethic is exactly what we're talking about. These six people (the Walton heirs) making more than 40% of all Americans combined don't work. At all. But many people with solid work ethics work hard and make their money for them. The workers? They have to use the government (food stamps, etc.) to make ends meet. When that's a part of your business plan (and it IS with WalMart) it is about greed. But you're right, it's about the "work ethic" too, and the lack of any work at all to simply allow your billions to make more billions is beyond sanity. Where is the work ethic there?

edit:
And by the way, NOBODY could actually "work" hard enough to make $25,000.00 per minute from dividends alone.. That's what we're supposed to strive for? That's beyond sick.

You had a chance to buy Walmart stock when it was cheap didn't you? It's their family business, just like bill gates , Oprah and all those rich 1% on the left. I personally can't stand Walmart but they are a huge success and he started out with one little crap store and built it to what it is today. Every business owner goes into it with a goal of being the best. Your best and my best may be something totally different though. Stick your neck out on the line and risk your lively hood then come back and discuss everything you knock about sorry business owners and their practices.

Walking on dead mans legs is what you call it. Folks that were born with more wealth than a normal working class schmuck can imagine. It is what it is. There is not a system in existence that makes life totally fair.

Garin, Nice job of sidestepping the issue of hoarding BILLIONS upon BILLIONS while the taxpayer picks up the tab for many of their workers "benefits."
Great work ethic those Walton's have!

So would they be able to afford it if they paid them 10 or 11 dollars an hour?

By (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Doug Altner

Observe any hiring center for a new Walmart and you will see thousands of individuals eager to become a Walmart associate. Many already have jobs at fast food restaurants, supermarkets, or other retail stores. LaShawn Ross, 29, worked for McDonald’s and Winn-Dixie before taking a job at a brand new Walmart in Pinellas Park, Florida. Ross aptly summarizes the sentiments of many applicants: “They are huge, so I know there is a huge amount of opportunity.”

To Protect The Defenseless, We Must Abolish The Minimum Wage
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins
Contributor

By Eliminating Failure, The Government Robs Us Of Success
Harry Binswanger
Contributor

Capitalism In No Way Created Poverty, It Inherited It
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins
Contributor

The Egalitarian, Anti-Progress Absurdity Of Bank-Capital Requirements
John Tamny
Forbes Staff
Yet, a few pundits, policymakers, and activists insinuate that these people should not be excited, but outraged at the company for its wages—and some groups are even calling for protests on Black Friday.

Walmart “can easily afford to pay $15 an hour,” says Robert Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at U.C. Berkeley, who is also urging shoppers to “[B]oycott Walmart on the most important sales day of the year, November 29.” “Their net income was $17 billion,” says Vincent Orange, a D.C. city councilman who voted to force Walmart to pay a minimum wage of $12.50 per hour in the nation’s capital, adding, “You don’t want to share a little bit with the citizens? Come on.” OUR Walmart—a union-backed activist group—accuses the company of showing disrespect to its employees because it doesn’t pay so-called living wages.

Well, nobody has to work at Walmart if he feels underpaid or underappreciated. He can always seek another job. So why do 1.4 million Americans choose to work at Walmart, many for well under $12 per hour?

Many entry-level Walmart jobs consist of comparatively safe and non-strenuous work such as stocking shelves, working cash registers, and changing price labels. Walmart also pays competitive wages, which, for these jobs, are generally under $12 per hour, because these positions require little or no work experience or technical skills. For anyone with modest credentials, these jobs provide good work experience—experience which they can use to eventually land a higher paying job.

Listen to the critics, though, and you’ll hear Walmart portrayed as if it is holding its employees down. But in fact the company offers incredible opportunities for any hard-working, ambitious person who wants to work his way up in retail. Three out of four Walmart store managers started out as hourly associates, and those managers can earn up to $170,000 per year. Some former hourly associates, such as Patricia Curran, have worked their way up to top executive positions. Curran was named by Fortune magazine as one of the 50 most powerful women of 2006. Walmart even encourages associates to complete training courses during fully paid work time and offers raises to associates who complete these courses.

Little wonder that when Walmart opens a new store, it’s not uncommon for as many as 10,000 people to apply for just 300 jobs.

For Walmart, the pay, opportunities, and perks it offers must serve its goals for long-term growth and profitability. It offers training and development because it judges this to be good business. Such programs reward talent, motivate employees and recruit managers with extensive firsthand knowledge of store operations. With regards to wages, the company pays what it needs to in order to recruit an enormous number of competent and content associates. And it recognizes that it does not make business sense to pay more than it needs to.

This is what many Walmart critics detest: the company will not offer higher wages and benefits when it calculates that it will not be good business. According to these critics, every Walmart employee should be paid at least $12-$15 per hour, regardless of the role he fills, regardless of whether he has the skills or experience to justify such a wage, regardless of whether he is a model employee or a slouch, regardless of how many other individuals are willing and able to do his job for less, regardless of whether raising wages will be good for the company’s bottom line. In effect, their premise is that $12+ per hour wages shouldn’t have to be earned or justified; they should be dispensed like handouts.

Walmart’s relationship with its employees is win-win. Every wage that it pays is one that the employee accepts and a large number of individuals have successfully worked their way up the retail giant. So, let’s stop attacking Walmart for paying market wages.

If the Feds let the loopholes exist for Walmart , why aren't you just as mad about target jumping on the band wagon? You can work you way up from 8 bucks an hour to a management position if you have a good work ethic and are willing to put in the time. Not just at Walmart but anywhere it's the American dream.

You're wanting to change the subject. Sam's Club is laying off workers while six of their owners profit to the tune of $25,000.00 per minute in dividends alone.
Some people it's just not worth arguing with. You somehow have that kind of grotesque concentration of wealth mixed up with the American Dream.

What's this doing in OKCpedia anyway?

I'm sorry. I just get really frustrated at people not being able to tell the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

If you were one of the 1% would you run things any different? Probably not because there is more to running a company than meets the eye. Retail stopped being a career industry years ago when commissioned sales people were phased out. In the retail world you're here today gone tomorrow and that is a fact of life. The average retail worker is coming to terms with that fact. Many of these laid off employees will go work for other retail firms or they will go to school and go work in another field all together. Not to mention, automation will eventually phase out about 50% of retail jobs. A typical retail store employees about 35 people. When I worked retail our stores employed about 75-100 people depending on the season. Web sales, automation and smarter store planning and inventory management eliminated many of those jobs. As time goes on I would not be surprised if your average retail store only employees only a handful of people.

I just don't buy into the 1% argument. It's nothing more than envy and jealousy. The $15 an hour thing is going to sting more than it helps if it ever becomes reality. You can expect most cashier positions to be phased out by self serve kiosks. Not to mention stores will do more with less people. That's going to mean the younger generations will not have jobs. Minimum wage is never meant to be a career or family income. It's meant for those with no experience and no marketable skills. With in about 6-12 months you either move up or move out. That's what I did when I was working making $4.00 an hour (minimum wage was $3.35 an hour).

What it all comes down to is if you don't like how much you are paid, do something about it. Go to school, learn a trade or better yet come up with a business idea and go to work for yourself. After all the financial experts say if you want to make the most money, work for yourself. Don't go to work for someone else.

Had a good friend from high school just get laid off from his management position at Sam's (Memorial location) after working there 23-years. Fortunately he had been there so long he got a decent/good severance package and still has profit sharing. He was let go around Jan. 21 and apparently was one of the first in the area. Others were let go that hadn't been there nearly as long, so their severance packages were not nearly as good.

That said, do I wish corporate management would conduct business differently? Sure. Do I hold them 100% responsible? Not at all. They are wealthy beyond imagination with our money - money we gladly hand over to them by the billions. I have always shopped at WalMart and Sam's and most likely will continue to do so.

Guess what folks - life ain't fair. The best part is, when you stop making excuses, you can make your situation better.

If you don't like Wal-Mart dont give them your money. Encourage others to do the same. I go out of my way not to.
Otherwise...

You're wanting to change the subject. Sam's Club is laying off workers while six of their owners profit to the tune of $25,000.00 per minute in dividends alone.
Some people it's just not worth arguing with. You somehow have that kind of grotesque concentration of wealth mixed up with the American Dream.

What's this doing in OKCpedia anyway?

I'm sorry. I just get really frustrated at people not being able to tell the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Sorry, zoo, no offense, but this is simply more redistributionist rhetoric that boils down to the fallacious notion that tries to create a singular cause-and-effect relationship between the wealthy and the poor (or, perhaps more accurately in this discussion, "working class.")

I know of no system in world history that did not create some form of disparity between groups. And there always will be. Because there will always be trash that must be collected, streets that must be swept, buildings that must be maintained, store shelves to be stocked, broken things to repair, and it is a matter of historical fact that not all those occupations draw the same compensation no matter how that compensation was calculated - either by government fiat or market forces.

The notion of "grotesque concentration of wealth" is ad-hominem rhetoric to create the illusion that it is those wealthy people who, merely by virtue of their wealth, somehow "wronged" the folks without the wealth, and thus "something oughta be done!!" But what's the wrong? Sam Walton created an empire worth billions. He has/had every right to ensure his family enjoyed the benefits of that empire.

If, in your eyes, this is wrong, what's the remedy? Shall the government create an arbitrary, bright white line at which it says "You are no longer allowed to earn $x, and we shall confiscate any amount over that threshhold and redistribute it 'fairly.'" Do we say "you make so much money, you won't miss this penny, this dollar, this ten-spot, this hundred, this thousand, or this million?" You can't go down that path, because doing so makes everyone at risk because everyone's perception of what's "too much" or "wrong" will vary, making that means test entirely subjective.

Is this to say every aspect of what the Walton empire does is pure or altruistic? Of course not. But if we are going to engage in some form of righteous indignation, it has to be for reasons more concrete then "I don't like how much money they have." Are they violating labor laws? Get 'em. Are they forcing children into slave labor camps? Shut 'em down. But so long as the argument is just the former, implying the solution is government confiscation and redistribution, and creating a punitive response to successful business practices, then I just can't get on board with it. This "evil" Walton empire has created thousands of jobs of varying quality, enhanced the local sales tax base of thousands of cities, and provided retail opportunities smaller cities never even conceived of even 50 years ago. To dismantle or punish that merely because "I don't like how much money they have" just doesn't pass the test for me. They have that money because of the empire Walton Sr. built, based on paying the wages the market and the business environment taught him should be paid.

I appreciate what you're saying, zoo, I do, but creation of wealth isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It demonstrates what is possible. I can't fathom a situation in which we decide its a good thing to start punishing it merely for its own existence.

This is why we need to eliminate the income tax and just go with a wealth tax. Every person and company completes an annual 'net worth' statement and then pay taxes on that amount. If you live solely on cash flow and rent a place to live your taxes would be very low. If you live because your money makes you money you would pay a much higher amount.

How come if a person catches Barry Bonds homerun ball he instantly owes $200K in taxes, but if Walmart stock instantly goes up a few points the owners of Walmart stock don't get a tax bill. Weird how that works. I wonder who came up with these rules.

TaxProf Blog: More on Tax Consequences to Fan Catching Barry Bonds' 756th Home Run (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/08/more-on-tax-con.html)


As soon as 21-year-old Matt Murphy snagged the valuable piece of sports history Tuesday night, his souvenir became taxable income in the eyes of the IRS, according to experts. "It's an expensive catch," said John Barrie, a tax lawyer with Bryan Cave LLP in New York who grew up watching the Giants play at Candlestick Park. "Once he took possession of the ball and it was his ball, it was income to him based on its value as of yesterday,"

That would instantly put Murphy, a college student from Queens, in the highest tax bracket for individual income, where he would face a tax rate of about 35%, or about $210,000 on a $600,000 ball. Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still owe the taxes based on a reasonable estimate of its value, according to Barrie

I just don't buy into the 1% argument. It's nothing more than envy and jealousy. The $15 an hour thing is going to sting more than it helps if it ever becomes reality. You can expect most cashier positions to be phased out by self serve kiosks. Not to mention stores will do more with less people. That's going to mean the younger generations will not have jobs. Minimum wage is never meant to be a career or family income. It's meant for those with no experience and no marketable skills. With in about 6-12 months you either move up or move out. That's what I did when I was working making $4.00 an hour (minimum wage was $3.35 an hour).
A friend of mine is the Walmart Security Manager in the Phoenix area, he said they battle with management all the time on the self-service kiosks in Walmart and Sam's but he know if wages are forced to increase a large amount they will do exactly that and their shrinkage will increase. He said it all comes down to a cost/benefit ratio and at some point it will be "too expensive" to have more than a couple of people managing the kiosks.

I just don't buy into the 1% argument. It's nothing more than envy and jealousy. The $15 an hour thing is going to sting more than it helps if it ever becomes reality. You can expect most cashier positions to be phased out by self serve kiosks. Not to mention stores will do more with less people. That's going to mean the younger generations will not have jobs. Minimum wage is never meant to be a career or family income. It's meant for those with no experience and no marketable skills. With in about 6-12 months you either move up or move out. That's what I did when I was working making $4.00 an hour (minimum wage was $3.35 an hour).


What if your $4.00 per hour job didn't exist? Where would you have started? Try this, play any board game you want but don't use the square marked 'Start' and see how fun the game is or how long it last.

This is why we need to eliminate the income tax and just go with a wealth tax. Every person and company completes an annual 'net worth' statement and then pay taxes on that amount. If you live solely on cash flow and rent a place to live your taxes would be very low. If you live because your money makes you money you would pay a much higher amount.

How come if a person catches Barry Bonds homerun ball he instantly owes $200K in taxes, but if Walmart stock instantly goes up a few points the owners of Walmart stock don't get a tax bill. Weird how that works. I wonder who came up with these rules.

TaxProf Blog: More on Tax Consequences to Fan Catching Barry Bonds' 756th Home Run (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/08/more-on-tax-con.html)

Why not just a flat tax proportionate to what everyone earns? Say 20% ... If you only earn $2000 a year, you pay $400 in taxes. If you earn $2M a year, you pay $400,000. I guess that's just too simple.

As far as the baseball goes, it should only get it's taxable value from the money he gets if he sells it, not what someone thinks it's worth.

Why not just a flat tax proportionate to what everyone earns? Say 20% ... If you only earn $2000 a year, you pay $400 in taxes. If you earn $2M a year, you pay $400,000. I guess that's just too simple.

As far as the baseball goes, it should only get it's taxable value from the money he gets if he sells it, not what someone thinks it's worth.

Unfortunately, probably because our "representatives" wouldn't let it be THAT easy...

Agreed on the baseball value. Just ridiculous.

Guess what folks - life ain't fair. The best part is, when you stop making excuses, you can make your situation better.

To the chief anti-Walmart naysayer this is what it is all about. To the OP you have just as much opportunity to do the same thing in another industry. Lack of opportunity is certainly not why the OP is not bettering the world. As far as a net worth tax that is phooey to. What we really need is a consumption tax. if a tax is paid on everything w/o exception everybody pays. Even law violators have to buy things so tax it all at a reasonable level. Carping about the wealthy is nothing less than ENVY!!!

Sorry, zoo, no offense, but this is simply more redistributionist rhetoric that boils down to the fallacious notion that tries to create a singular cause-and-effect relationship between the wealthy and the poor (or, perhaps more accurately in this discussion, "working class.")

I know of no system in world history that did not create some form of disparity between groups. And there always will be. Because there will always be trash that must be collected, streets that must be swept, buildings that must be maintained, store shelves to be stocked, broken things to repair, and it is a matter of historical fact that not all those occupations draw the same compensation no matter how that compensation was calculated - either by government fiat or market forces.

The notion of "grotesque concentration of wealth" is ad-hominem rhetoric to create the illusion that it is those wealthy people who, merely by virtue of their wealth, somehow "wronged" the folks without the wealth, and thus "something oughta be done!!" But what's the wrong? Sam Walton created an empire worth billions. He has/had every right to ensure his family enjoyed the benefits of that empire.

If, in your eyes, this is wrong, what's the remedy? Shall the government create an arbitrary, bright white line at which it says "You are no longer allowed to earn $x, and we shall confiscate any amount over that threshhold and redistribute it 'fairly.'" Do we say "you make so much money, you won't miss this penny, this dollar, this ten-spot, this hundred, this thousand, or this million?" You can't go down that path, because doing so makes everyone at risk because everyone's perception of what's "too much" or "wrong" will vary, making that means test entirely subjective.

Is this to say every aspect of what the Walton empire does is pure or altruistic? Of course not. But if we are going to engage in some form of righteous indignation, it has to be for reasons more concrete then "I don't like how much money they have." Are they violating labor laws? Get 'em. Are they forcing children into slave labor camps? Shut 'em down. But so long as the argument is just the former, implying the solution is government confiscation and redistribution, and creating a punitive response to successful business practices, then I just can't get on board with it. This "evil" Walton empire has created thousands of jobs of varying quality, enhanced the local sales tax base of thousands of cities, and provided retail opportunities smaller cities never even conceived of even 50 years ago. To dismantle or punish that merely because "I don't like how much money they have" just doesn't pass the test for me. They have that money because of the empire Walton Sr. built, based on paying the wages the market and the business environment taught him should be paid.

I appreciate what you're saying, zoo, I do, but creation of wealth isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It demonstrates what is possible. I can't fathom a situation in which we decide its a good thing to start punishing it merely for its own existence.

Interesting. Do you think Walmart has some responsibility to pay its workers a more livable wage?

Interesting. Do you think Walmart has some responsibility to pay its workers a more livable wage?

Absolutely not. They have a responsibility to pay exactly what the market says they should pay for the value of the services being rendered.

This "living wage" claptrap is nothing more than redistributionist, class warfare rhetoric.

Interesting. Do you think Walmart has some responsibility to pay its workers a more livable wage?

Their only responsibility is to their shareholders.

Absolutely not. They have a responsibility to pay exactly what the market says they should pay for the value of the services being rendered.

This "living wage" claptrap is nothing more than redistributionist, class warfare rhetoric.

Not when min wage hasnt kept up with inflation. Not when min wage was more valuable in 1960 than today, based on inflation. Not when worker productivity is much higher than it was in 1960. Not when education levels of min wage earners is much higher than it was 50 years ago. Not when corporate profits are at all time highs. And not when many min wage workers are adults with families and taxpayers end up subsidizing their income anyways in the form of public assistance.

Classic wealth redistribution is doing nothing about wages and allowing the top to collect more for themselves. Im not calling for $15/hr but the current min wage is simply out of whack with history and current living costs right now.

Their only responsibility is to their shareholders.

And as a shareholder the past five years it has been very rewarding. This is not a charity, it is a business.

I wonder how much more money the Walton family would have if it weren't for the wealth redistribution policies foisted on us by the liberals. It has to be tough for the aspiring billionaire these days.

Not when min wage hasnt kept up with inflation. Not when min wage was more valuable in 1960 than today, based on inflation. Not when worker productivity is much higher than it was in 1960. Not when education levels of min wage earners is much higher than it was 50 years ago. Not when corporate profits are at all time highs. And not when many min wage workers are adults with families and taxpayers end up subsidizing their income anyways in the form of public assistance.

Walmart has absolutely *nothing* to do with those assertions. Nothing. And if you don't like the public assistance, you should be chief on the bandwagon to have it cut back, not enhanced. Your own argument makes a great case to suggest that if sub subsidies were eliminated, wages would go up because the company is factoring in that element in their market computation of wage value.


Classic wealth redistribution is doing nothing about wages and allowing the top to collect more for themselves. Im not calling for $15/hr but the current min wage is simply out of whack with history and current living costs right now.

Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution; coloring it under a varying degrees of severity is merely a clever way to disguise means testing. Ultimately, it always boils down to "I think that guy has too much money, therefore he must evil. Confiscate his money over some magical threshhold and give it to someone under the magic threshhold."

Employer X, in response to shareholder equity, pays Employee Y what the market for widgets says Employee Y is worth. Period. Not about the relative "value" of min wage because the relative "value" of minimum wage is not the employer's responsibility. Not about "relative worker productivity" if the worker at Employer X hasn't really increased. Not about "employee education levels" if the education possessed is of no value to the employer. It is up to the employee to do what he can to gain the maximum salary and compensation possible and increase his value to the workforce, not vice-versa.

Why not just a flat tax proportionate to what everyone earns? Say 20% ... If you only earn $2000 a year, you pay $400 in taxes. If you earn $2M a year, you pay $400,000. I guess that's just too simple.

As far as the baseball goes, it should only get it's taxable value from the money he gets if he sells it, not what someone thinks it's worth.

Define 'income'?

If I have 1,000 shares of CompanyX stock and it goes up in value from $10 a share to $1,000 a share should I get a tax bill for the 'windfall profit' even if I haven't sold any shares? You would probably say no. What if I take out a $10,000,000 loan against the now $1,000,000 worth of shares (that I originally paid $10,000 for) and used the money to buy more stock, and then I used the dividends from the $10 million worth of stock to repay my loan and provide a means of living. Would you count any of that money as income?

Now let's say all this falls apart on me and my $1,000 stock goes back to $10 and the people loaning me the $10,000,000 want their money now. Should Congress bail me out?