View Full Version : Sam's Club



Garin
01-26-2014, 08:35 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/25/major-retailer-cutting-2300-workers/

zookeeper
01-26-2014, 09:30 PM
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.

Garin
01-26-2014, 09:35 PM
I strive to be part of the 1% as should everyone that has a work ethic.

zookeeper
01-26-2014, 09:41 PM
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.

Garin
01-26-2014, 09:57 PM
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.

Mel
01-26-2014, 09:57 PM
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.

zookeeper
01-26-2014, 10:12 PM
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!

Garin
01-26-2014, 10:16 PM
So would they be able to afford it if they paid them 10 or 11 dollars an hour?

Garin
01-26-2014, 10:18 PM
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.

Garin
01-26-2014, 10:24 PM
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.

zookeeper
01-26-2014, 10:31 PM
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.

MWCGuy
01-27-2014, 01:17 AM
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.

BBatesokc
01-27-2014, 07:23 AM
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.

trousers
01-27-2014, 08:08 AM
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...

SoonerDave
01-27-2014, 08:20 AM
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.

Just the facts
01-27-2014, 08:23 AM
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

bluedogok
01-27-2014, 09:59 AM
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.

Just the facts
01-27-2014, 10:18 AM
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.

rezman
01-27-2014, 10:19 AM
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.

HangryHippo
01-27-2014, 10:29 AM
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.

MustangGT
01-27-2014, 11:39 AM
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!!!

HangryHippo
01-27-2014, 11:50 AM
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?

SoonerDave
01-27-2014, 12:45 PM
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.

BBatesokc
01-27-2014, 12:59 PM
Interesting. Do you think Walmart has some responsibility to pay its workers a more livable wage?

Their only responsibility is to their shareholders.

onthestrip
01-27-2014, 01:09 PM
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.

Richard at Remax
01-27-2014, 01:26 PM
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.

Stew
01-27-2014, 01:34 PM
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.

SoonerDave
01-27-2014, 02:09 PM
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.

Just the facts
01-27-2014, 02:22 PM
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?

Mel
01-27-2014, 02:27 PM
Tax them too much and they will become tax exiles like many other countries have done to their 1%.

Plutonic Panda
01-27-2014, 02:30 PM
I strive to be part of the 1% as should everyone that has a work ethic.I agree with you.

Just the facts
01-27-2014, 02:34 PM
Tax them too much and they will become tax exiles like many other countries have done to their 1%.

This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.

SoonerDave
01-27-2014, 02:48 PM
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)

If we post a bit more of that commentary, we find out that "not all tax experts agree with Barrie's legal assessment."

There is considerable discussion regarding what the realities of that situation are. And one little nugget that I just loved, and think carries a ton of weight, goes like this:

If the folks want to tax the ball on its value at the time it was caught, great. That ball, at the time it is caught, is about $15. Why? Because the fan catching the ball does so almost certainly before the runner scores (well, technically, before he crosses third base). The event that makes the ball valuable doesn't occur until after the fan takes possession of it. So he now has a perfectly legitimate claim to avoid sudden accession to wealth, and as one guy put it, "claim the $15 value on the tax return to start the statute of limitations clock running." (or words to that effect), and sell the ball with the notion of paying capital gains taxes on the subsequent home run.

As far as the wealth tax goes, that's a non-starter, because neither countries nor municipalities can make any intelligent plans on the "predictions" of wealth, nor does wealth imply liquidity of funds to make payments. So some poor soul gets stuck with a bill for, say, $1000 on the presumed "wealth value" of a non-liquid asset? Start doing that and people won't walk, they'll run away from investing in most any to-that-point healthy economy. Sadly, however, we already do "wealth taxation," here - we just call it "property taxes."

onthestrip
01-27-2014, 02:51 PM
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.



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.

No, they dont. Thats why govt should require a higher min wage and tie it to inflation. Im sure we will hear this from the Pres during his state of the union address tomorrow. As for the state level, Sen. McAffrey gas proposed a bill (SB1362) to raise it to $10/hr for state workers.

SoonerDave
01-27-2014, 02:55 PM
No, they dont. Thats why govt should require a higher min wage and tie it to inflation. Im sure we will hear this from the Pres during his state of the union address tomorrow. As for the state level, Sen. McAffrey gas proposed a bill (SB1362) to raise it to $10/hr for state workers.

Absolutely not. Employers set the wage, not the government. And McAffrey's bill should be crushed.

rezman
01-27-2014, 03:03 PM
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?

Heh heh.. It's easy to muddy things up.

If you invest in the market and your stocks go up, and you reinvest the gains, no I do not think the gains should be taxed. Now if you put your gains in the bank, then yes that would be taxable income.

Just the facts
01-27-2014, 04:54 PM
Heh heh.. It's easy to muddy things up.

If you invest in the market and your stocks go up, and you reinvest the gains, no I do not think the gains should be taxed. Now if you put your gains in the bank, then yes that would be taxable income.

Should the purchase of stock be subject to sales tax then?

onthestrip
01-27-2014, 06:28 PM
Absolutely not. Employers set the wage, not the government. And McAffrey's bill should be crushed.

Well, then we will continue to have very slow economic growth.

And I'm guessing that you probably believe that there should be no min wage of any kind? If so, do you think that would improve things for the country as a whole?

bradh
01-27-2014, 07:53 PM
Not when worker productivity is much higher than it was in 1960.

Even been to a Wal-Mart lately?

Mel
01-27-2014, 08:03 PM
This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.

Too rich too fail.:cool:

Plutonic Panda
01-27-2014, 09:19 PM
This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.It's a free market. The Walton's are fine people and have every right to have as much money as they can make and pay their employees minimal wage.

Don't like it, GET OVER IT.

mugofbeer
01-27-2014, 09:57 PM
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!

First, saying they make $25,000 every minute is quite an exaggeration. Lets look at real numbers. According to Yahoo finance, the largest shareholder was Jim Walton with 10,501,672 shares as of June of last year. That equates to dividend income of about $19,743,143 per year which is about $37.56 per minute. Still not bad pay but far from $25,000 per hour you claim.

Second, Wal Mart directly employs more than 2.1 million people worldwide. That is a massive number of people. Add to that the millions upon millions who are employed in multiple other businesses supporting Wal Mart's sales and operation and you have virtually the world's most massive business.

Now, lets look at the layoffs that have you foaming at the mouth.....about 2,800 people. All businesses lay people off while undergoing reorganizations or slowing business. I've been laid off myself and totally understand it is part of life. You seem to feel that the Walton family had something to do with this business decision. Do you understand business so little that you don't realize that NO ONE in the Walton family has anything to do with the decision to lay these people off. Wal Mart is a business run by officers and the people they laid off were let go by way of a business decision. The company will open both Sam's and Wal Mart stores this year that will employ far more than the 2,800 these layoffs will entail. The Walton family is so far removed from the layoff decision you could line 100 Superstores in between.

Next, you seem to be under the impression that the Walton family sits in buildings virtually drowning in the hoarded piles of cash and stacks of $1000 bills, being waited on by naked servants, serenaded by musicians and being fed bon-bons and grapes like so many Jabba-the-Huts. Their wealth is in the value of the stock they own which rose to all-time highs in recent weeks.

The company donated directly to charity more than $650 million dollars over the last 5 years.

The company and the Walton Foundation has pledged $2 Billion just to hunger causes by 2015.

If they didn't hoard all those billions and billions, what exactly, would you have them do? Just give shares of their stock away? Pull up in front of the local stores in pickup trucks loaded with stock certificates and just start throwing them up in the air for anyone to get? They give hundreds of millions away every year. Millions of people are invested in Wal Mart stock and expect the business to operate in the most profitable way. This is a fiduciary responsibility. If the company feels 2,800 Sam's employees are not needed, then that's part of their responsibilities of running a business.

Since you don't understand what capitalism is, what you see with the Walton family is simply called building and wildly successful family business that has helped the middle and lower income people of this country survive far better than if Wal-Mart didn't exist at all. The family simply owns stock in the company. No one puts a gun to the head of any Wal Mart employee to work there. Well over a million American's do keeping far more off of the government dole or relying on it far less than they otherwise would.

Wal Mart is a business. It is not in business to provide welfare jobs for tens of thousands or pay more than they need to pay. If they raise wages, then they raise their prices and it will defeat the purpose of their business plan. They didn't become the worlds largest business by paying prime wages and benefits.

If you don't understand these things, then you don't understand capitalism at all.

Just the facts
01-27-2014, 10:04 PM
It's a free market.

It's not a free market - and THAT is the problem.

mugofbeer
01-27-2014, 10:06 PM
Should the purchase of stock be subject to sales tax then?

No, because you will eventually pay taxes on the capital gains and dividends, whether in a non-retirement account or in a retirement account. If you die with it, you pass it to your children subject to estate taxes. Investing in stock is investing in a company. While some profit, just as many lose money. Would you tax someone who buys a coffee shop or a printing plant for the cost of the purchase?

mugofbeer
01-27-2014, 10:07 PM
This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.

That's what France was seeing with their wealth tax and had to pull it back. Those with wealth were simply moving it elsewhere.

Plutonic Panda
01-27-2014, 10:51 PM
It's not a free market - and THAT is the problem.Dude, a business was created by Sam Walton and has grown beyond anyones expectations. It is extremely profitable and even though it has grown out of Sam Walton's ethics, it is still part of the free market system. I take it you don't like shareholders?

ctchandler
01-28-2014, 11:52 AM
Mugofbeer,
First, I like your name, second, money in IRAs, 401k/403b accounts are subject to income taxes, not estate taxes (much of which is exempt for we, the great unwashed), and the heirs have to pay in the year received. I could be corrected, but that's what I had to do when my mother died, and my financial adviser has told me that my boys will have to do the same. I would love for someone knowledgable on this forum to tell me otherwise.
C. T.
If you die with it, you pass it to your children subject to estate taxes.

HangryHippo
01-28-2014, 04:46 PM
Dude, a business was created by Sam Walton and has grown beyond anyones expectations. It is extremely profitable and even though it has grown out of Sam Walton's ethics, it is still part of the free market system. I take it you don't like shareholders?

JTF is saying (I think) that we don't actually have a FREE market, but a manipulated market where the forces aren't actually allowed to compete fairly in all cases. Perhaps along the lines of "too big to fail"? JTF, correct me if I'm off base.

Plutonic Panda
01-28-2014, 05:25 PM
JTF is saying (I think) that we don't actually have a FREE market, but a manipulated market where the forces aren't actually allowed to compete fairly in all cases. Perhaps along the lines of "too big to fail"? JTF, correct me if I'm off base.Even if that is the case, then he wants to regulate companies limiting how large they can get.

catch22
01-28-2014, 06:09 PM
Panda. Ina 100% free-market capitalist system we would not have a minimum wage. Without the minimum wage requirements, Walmart would pay half their currents wages. Walmart is committed to being the lowest on everything. Whether that be prices quality wages or anything else, they are committed to having the lowest.

That is their right but it is also my right as a shopper to not support that kind of disgusting behavior

Just the facts
01-28-2014, 06:38 PM
JTF is saying (I think) that we don't actually have a FREE market, but a manipulated market where the forces aren't actually allowed to compete fairly in all cases. Perhaps along the lines of "too big to fail"? JTF, correct me if I'm off base.

100% correct.



Panda. Ina 100% free-market capitalist system we would not have a minimum wage. Without the minimum wage requirements, Walmart would pay half their currents wages. Walmart is committed to being the lowest on everything. Whether that be prices quality wages or anything else, they are committed to having the lowest.

That is their right but it is also my right as a shopper to not support that kind of disgusting behavior

...and we wouldn't have the social benefits that Walmart relies on to help compensate their employees either. They would have to pay the full cost of the job they want done.

Just the facts
01-28-2014, 06:44 PM
Should the purchase of stock be subject to sales tax then?No, because you will eventually pay taxes on the capital gains and dividends, whether in a non-retirement account or in a retirement account. If you die with it, you pass it to your children subject to estate taxes. Investing in stock is investing in a company. While some profit, just as many lose money. Would you tax someone who buys a coffee shop or a printing plant for the cost of the purchase?

I see you too have also confused buying and selling with profit and loss. If I buy collectable trading cards at the comic book store as an investment why do I have to pay a sales tax? Shouldn't I be able to buy them not only tax free but also with pre-tax dollars?

Plutonic Panda
01-28-2014, 07:14 PM
Panda. Ina 100% free-market capitalist system we would not have a minimum wage. Without the minimum wage requirements, Walmart would pay half their currents wages. Walmart is committed to being the lowest on everything. Whether that be prices quality wages or anything else, they are committed to having the lowest.

That is their right but it is also my right as a shopper to not support that kind of disgusting behaviorOk, there is a line drawn where and what we regulate. I support having a minimum wage, but not limiting the growth of a successful company.

The exact point I'm making is, they have their rights and you have yours. If you don't want to shop there, then awesome! That is why we live in a free society where we can make decisions such as where we want to shop.

HangryHippo
01-29-2014, 10:20 AM
Ok, there is a line drawn where and what we regulate. I support having a minimum wage, but not limiting the growth of a successful company.

The exact point I'm making is, they have their rights and you have yours. If you don't want to shop there, then awesome! That is why we live in a free society where we can make decisions such as where we want to shop.

But how free is the society when the "free" market favors one company over another and drives the rest out of business due to unfair advantages? How free are we then to make decisions about where we shop?

Just the facts
01-29-2014, 10:53 AM
No one is saying Walmart can't grow as big as they want. We are just saying pay the same taxes the rest of us are paying and stop pushing your employee compensation on the taxpayer. If you need the shelves stocked and the customers greeted then pay what it cost to stock shelves and greet customers. Why would anyone think that is such an unfair burden on Walmart?

Dubya61
01-29-2014, 02:02 PM
Panda. Ina 100% free-market capitalist system we would not have a minimum wage. Without the minimum wage requirements, Walmart would pay half their currents wages.
Not necessarily. If the market were permitted total freedom, there's no telling what Wal-Mart might have to pay. It could be half of their current wages, it could be double. It's hard to say, as there are very many constraints on the free market of labor.