Over 92 million Americans out of work force

[Robert May Eng.]

Taxes are set by the Government. As trickle down has not worked the pre 1981 rate is a good place to start.

A minimum wage that meets the minimum needed to pay taxes sounds like another good place to start.

FMB Jim, how can giving workers a wage increase in order for them to pay income tax be of any benefit to them ,the government or their employer ?? All that will do is jack up the cost of anything they manufacture which will in turn make a move to overseas production look more attractive for the company. We are all part of the WORLD economy Jim , the only way forward is to get the cost of living down so that those on less can manage and not give them more so they become less competitive in the labour markets. This Country has suffered with the demands of higher wages , that coupled with high fuel , food and house prices has turned Britain into an industrial wasteground. There are not many things the consumer buys in this country that are not imported which also fucks with the trade deficit.

Bob

 

[Steve]

Well, anyone would argue that the 10 years post 1981 was much better economically than the 10 years prior so your assertion re: trickle down doesn't hold up. The capital gains tax cut in 1981 sure resulted in a boom in the market. If people had relied on the growth rates of the 70's for their 401ks no one could've retired.

So how does increasing minimum wage cut down on how much the ultra rich make? Won't the Walton's just raise prices to keep profit margins the same?

 

[Doug S.]

Do you honestly believe in taking wealth from those that have earned it and giving say 50% to others? It doesn't matter how much the Waltons, Gates or Buffet have, they worked their asses off for it. When you Soros and Obama are ready to give away half of you net worth, give the Waltons a call.. Socialist bullshit!!

Nobody suggested giving anyone's wealth away, Al....or at least in the limited time I have to read during my lunch break. This thread is about unemployment. If those who are wealthy/ultra wealthy got that way through their labors, what makes you think they would not get even more wealthy if they were to turn loose of those hoarded dollars and put the unemployed back to work?

That is not giving anyone anything, except a job. Whether they work at a level adequate to keep that job or not is on them.

IMHO our government has a vested interest in keeping an armed insurrection from happening. History has shown that you can only keep the downtrodden suppressed for so long. Who's trying to do anything about the unemployment problem.....certainly not the rich/ultra rich who are hoarding the cash, but the government is providing jobs with our tax dollars...not giving that money away (well, if you don't count foreign aid, but that's another issue/thread altogether).

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Jim Craik]

I'll ask this again......its a simple question.........

Al, Steve, Robert and Pete.......

***Its an easy question, which senario is better for the United States.....

(1) Your average Walmart worker making enough to actually to pay taxes and perhaps afford to shop at Wallmart, maybe even buy a car and your average Walton paying a fair share of taxes.

(2) A few Waltons with more $billions than they could ever spend and tens of thousands of full time working Americans who do not make enough to pay taxes?

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Nobody suggested giving anyone's wealth away, Al....or at least in the limited time I have to read during my lunch break. This thread is about unemployment. If those who are wealthy/ultra wealthy got that way through their labors, what makes you think they would not get even more wealthy if they were to turn loose of those hoarded dollars and put the unemployed back to work?

That is not giving anyone anything, except a job. Whether they work at a level adequate to keep that job or not is on them.

IMHO our government has a vested interest in keeping an armed insurrection from happening. History has shown that you can only keep the downtrodden suppressed for so long. Who's trying to do anything about the unemployment problem.....certainly not the rich/ultra rich who are hoarding the cash, but the government is providing jobs with our tax dollars...not giving that money away (well, if you don't count foreign aid, but that's another issue/thread altogether).

Cheers!

Doug

Doug, Sure sounds as if Jim was suggesting exactly that here.

Originally Posted by Jim Craik View Post
Pete,

How would a more even distribution of the available wealth from a given business enterprise change any of that? If each Walton only had half as many billions would they change anything?

Would they leave the business cause it's just not worth it?


If the available wealth was not just concentrated at the top, but actually allowed to "trickle down,", maybe a full time Walmart worker could make enough to actually pay taxes.

You know, like they did back before 1981 and all the wealth went to the top.

******

Pete,

How much would having only $15 Billion instead of $30 Billion change the average Waltons life?

How much would an income large enough to pay taxes change the average Walton workers life?

How much would more Americans making enough to actually pay taxes change America?

 

[Steve]

I'll ask this again......its a simple question.........

Al, Steve, Robert and Pete.......

***Its an easy question, which senario is better for the United States.....

(1) Your average Walmart worker making enough to actually to pay taxes and perhaps afford to shop at Wallmart, maybe even buy a car and your average Walton paying a fair share of taxes.

(2) A few Waltons with more $billions than they could ever spend and tens of thousands of full time working Americans who do not make enough to pay taxes?

Jim,

It's not a question of which scenario is better. It's the means by which you intend to acheive your desired scenario. You desire to have an overreaching federal government, which is decidedly atypical for the US, divest individuals or groups of individuals of their wealth in order to redistribute it to those you, or presumably govt officials, deem worthy. That has never been successfully and fairly acheived in the history of humanity.

The USA, however, was founded upon the belief that individuals have certain inalienable rights. The right to wealth was not one of them. That being said, the American people recognize that we are all more successful and happier if we benefit as a group and as a nation. It's what makes us a great country. The wheels start to fall off when you try to legislate it. It has never worked.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Question 1 has been answered in several posts, if they were paid more Wal Mart would up its prices to cover the cost. Nothing gained.
Question 2. A few more billionaires would be good because they put their money to work, they don't waste it like big Government.

 

[Steve]

Oh, and the data would show that you could confiscate the entire wealth of the top 1% and it still wouldn't cover all of your desired social spending, which is bankrupting us. It will, however, eliminate quite a few jobs......

 

[Bob Fechter]

Dear Doug,

The only thing that will cause an armed insurrection is if the left tries to quash the Second Amendment. On that you can count.

The "poor" of America are very rich compared to the rest of the world. The unrest that is coursing through their population is being fomented by the ruling class.

 

[Jim Craik]

Question 1 has been answered in several posts, if they were paid more Wal Mart would up its prices to cover the cost. Nothing gained.
Question 2. A few more billionaires would be good because they put their money to work, they don't waste it like big Government.

Pete, That sounds to me like bullshit?

You think that having:

Tens of thousands of Walmart workers making a LIVING WAGE!

Tens of thousands of Walmart workers paying taxes

Tens of thousands of Walmart workers who might just buy a car or shop at the mall.

Tens of thousands of Wallmart workers who can get off food stamps.

You say that will change nothing?

You say nothing gained?

Pete,

Ask the car dealers, mall operators if anything is gained.

Are you saying that tens of thousands of new taxpayers is not a "GAIN?"

Are you saying that getting thousands off food stamps is NO GAIN?

Pete, do you really believe that?............................Really?

*****************

But Pete thinks that giving multi-multi billionaires more money is the answer? Pete thinks that will solve all those problems, with the poor not paying taxes and will make it so full time Walmart workers will no longer need food stamps?

Well Pete that is esactly what we have been doing, hows that working?

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I'll ask this again......its a simple question.........

Al, Steve, Robert and Pete.......

***Its an easy question, which senario is better for the United States.....

(1) Your average Walmart worker making enough to actually to pay taxes and perhaps afford to shop at Wallmart, maybe even buy a car and your average Walton paying a fair share of taxes.

(2) A few Waltons with more $billions than they could ever spend and tens of thousands of full time working Americans who do not make enough to pay taxes?

With the size of Walmart and being the largest employer in the US, the chance for advancement in salary and job classification is probably greater than anywhere else. Everyone starts or should start at the bottom, they advance in salary and position according to how well they apply themselves. You don't pay a person more that doesn't apply themselves to advance. The Walton's money is theirs, they've earned it. I'm sure they pay the lawful taxes on their earnings. With over 1 million employees, I imagine the weekly tax check is staggering. You don't seem to be concerned about liberal billionaires paying their fair share. If you feel so strongly about income tax, why don't you cut the IRS a check, your "fair share".

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Jim Walmart is a piss poor example of a company that you can bleed more of a wage out of. They are into the numbers game which is highly competitive , their margins per unit are minuscule . Hammering companies like this would only cause a hike in prices which would be laying the foundations for inflation, we all know where that ends.
The supposed hoarded dollars that you refer to are the very same dollars investment bankers fund all the major building projects , factory start ups and even government loans. Its never idle, dormant, stashed, under a bed ,non productive and its also taxed a few times on the way. Its probably worth a lot more to your tax man in their hands than the workers.

Bob

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Pete, That sounds to me like bullshit?

You think that having:

Tens of thousands of Walmart workers making a LIVING WAGE!

Tens of thousands of Walmart workers paying taxes

Tens of thousands of Walmart workers who might just buy a car or shop at the mall.

Tens of thousands of Wallmart workers who can get off food stamps.

You say that will change nothing?

You say nothing gained?

Pete,

Ask the car dealers, mall operators if anything is gained.

Are you saying that tens of thousands of new taxpayers is not a "GAIN?"

Are you saying that getting thousands off food stamps is NO GAIN?

Pete, do you really believe that?............................Really?

*****************

But Pete thinks that giving multi-multi billionaires more money is the answer? Pete thinks that will solve all those problems, with the poor not paying taxes and will make it so full time Walmart workers will no longer need food stamps?

Well Pete that is esactly what we have been doing, hows that working?

Well Jim, there you go again putting words in my mouth, I didn't say I thought giving multi billionaires more money was a good idea.
I did say that a few more billionaires might be a good thing because they put their money to work and don't waste it like big Governments do. Quite different don't you think?
Then you accuse me of talking bullshit, well one of us is full of bullshit I'll let others be the judge of who it is.
It is not a crime last time I looked to be successful and wealthy although you and your socialist friends seem to believe it is.
Why don't you and Doug lead by example and give half your nett worth to some poor Wal Mart worker?
Ridiculous comment of course, but no more ridiculous than what you are suggesting billionaires should do.

 

[Jim Craik]

How many people do the companies controlled by Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Charles Koch, David Koch and the Walton family who own Wal Mart to name a few employ?
and how much tax do those employees pay to support your large and unwieldy Government?

Posted by Pete

I did not bring up Walmart as an example, Pete did. He used them as an example of good employers who provide good jobs and then asks: "how much tax do those employees pay to support your large and unwieldy Government"

So Pete thinks that Walmart employees have great jobs and pay taxes to support our large and unwieldy Government.

He says if we increse the tax that the Walton family pays on their income, if we make them pay a living wage, it will kill all those great tax paying jobs and the govenment would suffer.............right!

Pete your average Walmart hourly employee does not pay any taxes!

Pete your average Walmart hourly worker makes $8.81 per hour. Thats a whopping $70.48 per day, with no health or retirement benifits.

Not only does the average Walmart hourly worker pay no taxes.....they do not make a living wage.

Per Forbes, dated 04/15/2014 Walmart employees earn so little that not only do they not pay taxes, in 2013, Walmart employees received $6,200,000,000 ($6.2 billion) in public assistance (food stamps, subsidized housing....).

Pete not only are they not paing taxes, we are subsidizing them!

Yet Walmart cleared $17+ Billion in profit last year. Tight margins my ass!

Pete, you are OK with this?

**********************

When I was in Junior College I worked for a year at Safeway, that was in 1969, way back then, I was making $9.20 per hour with full health, vacation and retirement benifits.

That was 45 years ago, I was not only making more than these poor folks, but I got benifits and I did pay taxes!

Although I closed my office a few years ago and now work from home without employees, when I had employees, they were paid a living wage, more than enough to be required to pay taxes.

 

[Doug S.]

Well Jim, there you go again putting words in my mouth, I didn't say I thought giving multi billionaires more money was a good idea.

Why don't you and Doug lead by example and give half your nett worth to some poor Wal Mart worker?

A bit like the skillet calling the griddle greasy, don't you think, Pete? I don't recall saying all of the wealthy/ultra-wealthy should give any of their money away...if that's what you got from my posts, perhaps you would kindly go back and read them again. I did say I really admired those wealthy and ultra-wealthy who realize when they have enough to live out their lives comfortably and provide for their families, and then choose to use part of their holdings in manners that will benefit the less fortunate. The only thing I suggested that the wealthy/ultra-wealthy give the unemployed was a job...this is a thread about unemployment, isn't it, not about redistribution of wealth?

Here's my experience with leading by example. I use to hang out with the very conservative minded son of one of Houston's ultra-wealthy. We are both musicians. We were having a discussion much like this one and the topic became focused on his belief that I had too many guitars, so he challenged me to give away a percentage of my guitars if I believed what I was saying. I did just that, donated those guitars to deserving young aspiring musicians who did not have decent quality guitars as did (and do) I. The next time we met I challenged him to keep up his part of the challenge....if you haven't figured it out yet, I'll tell you...he would not give away even a used set of strings. He laughed at me for being so foolish to believe that he would do the same thing. I left him laughing in the dust and have never seen him again, but I have continued to try to help those individuals who I feel are less fortunate than am I (and with concert grade classical guitars and expensive custom shop guitars, I DO realize how fortunate I am) with gifts from my guitar collection.

So, Pete, I not only talk the talk, I walk the walk. I would challenge any of you conservative minded individuals to provide a description of the manner in which you have been equally generous. I would estimate the total value of the guitars I have gifted to various beginning musicians to equal 6 months of my income...and that doesn't even count the charitable contributions through payroll deductions, etc.

Do you walk the walk, Pete? One thing I respectfully propose that you DO do is put words in my mouth. I have incredible respect and admiration for you and for one of the forum members with whom you are good friends, you know that...but that doesn't give you the right to misrepresent the intent or content of my posts.

Say what you like about Jim...he'll defend himself. As for me, I feel like you owe me a public apology, just like those I have posted many times when I was wrong....or SHAME ON YOU if you won't :idea:

Cheers?

Doug

 

[Scott Calabro]

This thread is funny!

Corporations/businesses do not pay one red cent in taxes, period.

Never have, never will.

The consumer pays the tax as part of the retail price.

The only "things" that pay taxes on goods and services are the end consumers.

 

[Steve]

Several points worth mentioning:

1) If you made $9.50/hr in '69 you were overpaid. Kudos to you for landing that wage but don't make it sound like you were worth that with no experience and working for just one year. As an employer, I can safely say it takes at least 6 months if not more before even a good employee is worth the initial investment in training etc.

2) Pete didn't actually say or imply much of what you said in your last post.

3) I made $3.10 and hour in a grocery store in HS as well as working as a research asst in 1985. Minimum wage. No benefits. It's what I was worth. The doc I worked for could never have afforded more but my cheap labor enabled him to get several NIH grants and launched a very successful career with many clinical applications to his research. He got a straight-A student who worked harder than anyone he's ever had before or since (my best research was done between midnight and 5am. Lab was empty, equipment all mine and no one cared if I had beer in the lab). In return I got a letter of recommendation, many publications, and into med school followed by a primo orthopaedic residency. See how that works Jim? Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be life long or a living wage. They're meant to be a stepping stone. Price them too high and the neither the doc I worked for nor I would have had the opportunities/benefits we subsequently received.

3) When you post a thread criticizing Pete, it's really unnecessary to use his name 8 times. One will do.....

 

[Jim Craik]

You think there is no problem.........



In 1979 to 2007, the bottom 40% of US have reveived none of the fruits of their labor, yet they are called lazy freeloaders because the pay no taxes

For every $1 they were making in 1979 in 2007 they were making less than $1.25!
For every $1 the top 1% was making in 1979 in 2007 they were making $281.

 

[Steve]

Doug,

That's admirable and a great example of what leadership and community responsibility is all about. The scale is not so important as the effect on the individuals who are targeted. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has more money in it than the WHO. Arguably it may have done more good in the last decade as well. Maybe that's why Buffet gave the foundation $1billion rather than giving it to the WHO. Your example is a smaller scale but no less important. I truly think this sense of philanthropy and desire to give back on a personal level is one of the keys that makes our country great (and you're an example. Maybe one of those musicians will eventually go on to have a hugely successful career).

Ultimately, where we probably differ, is that I'd rather leave it up to the individual to invest their resources where it's important to them. Whether that's a new building on a college campus or a scholarship fund or a food shelter or a community center or guitars for struggling artists I don't care. I trust that the individual will judge best where they should invest their time and talent. I don't believe that all wealthy people hoard their money away and selfishly do nothing with it. Your example is a second generation rich kid. They are notoriously worthless in all respects. I will never support the position that the wealth is best surrendered to a central government to be redispersed. That is the very definition of tyranny. You can be sure it will be wasted (no guitars) and the giver will feel raped rather than having the sense of satisfaction that their contribution made a difference.

 

[Doug S.]

Several points worth mentioning:

3) When you post a thread criticizing Pete, it's really unnecessary to use his name 8 times. One will do.....

I counted three....but then, you probably already knew that :laugh:

Thanks for the kind words :thumbsup:

Rock on!!

Cheers!

Doug