quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You have zero authority to make that determination, unless you are part of the business planning for WalMart. I'm going to gather you are not, so, you have no authority to make a statement of WalMart's needs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Wal-Mart isn't even mentioned.   We spend a lot on heat subsidy, food stamps and other government services to feed, clothe and keep their employees.


And lets never talk about the other externalities we suffer to provide these poor fuckin corporations like the SuperFund.

Wouldn't it cost us MORE if Walmart employees were not working and collecting full welfare?

And If Walmart suddenly "saw the light" and distributed their "excess" profits to workers, but had to raise prices a lot to do this, do you think the public would continue to shop there?

The " enlightended" are generous until it comes out of THEIR pocket.

Wal-Mart could raise their wages substantially and not affect prices at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Your argument is that WalMart's profits are too high, then. Where would Government draw the authority to dictate profit maximums? If Government was allowed to do that, how would they do that, by margin (%) or by dollars? Does Big Oil have too high a profit because they rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? Or, is Big Oil's <10% profit margin acceptable? Would Apple be okay with their 20%+ profit margin because it's not over some billions of dollars level?

You do not get to decide what profit level any company needs unless it's your company.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
It's amazing...Apple makes that much profit in 45 days, provides a product no one needs (a plain Jane cell phone costs 1/3rd or less their prices and interestingly, for those not aware...makes phone calls), yet Apple hires engineers, requiring multiple years of college, science and physics training, spends more on advertising in 6 months than WalMart does in 2 years, has 200 billion in the bank and foreign reserves, is sucking the finances out of everything you do and desire through their overpriced computers, overpriced phones, their near monopoly on music downloads, yet, conversely, everyone seems to think that a company that saves the average consumer 2 grand or more a year (who all insist "I'd never shop there" yet statistics prove otherwise), provides jobs that pay slightly better minimum or starting wages yet, in every location I've ever seen a new WalMart go up in, in markets like Seattle where average wages exceed $25.00 an hour with full benefits, the line to apply for jobs at WalMart literally runs around the building for days and yet.....they're the monster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Your argument is that WalMart's profits are too high, then. Where would Government draw the authority to dictate profit maximums? If Government was allowed to do that, how would they do that, by margin (%) or by dollars? Does Big Oil have too high a profit because they rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? Or, is Big Oil's <10% profit margin acceptable? Would Apple be okay with their 20%+ profit margin because it's not over some billions of dollars level?

You do not get to decide what profit level any company needs unless it's your company.

then maybe they should repay taxpayers for the subsidies & govt handouts they have collected.. If it were not for all the taxpayer money they suck out of the system I would agree with you.. Just think if the govt stopped all the corporate subsidies and used that money instead to provide free college education for selected programs (high tech, engineering, etc).. can you imagine the new businesses and high income jobs that could create? oh well..

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Wal-Mart isn't even mentioned.   We spend a lot on heat subsidy, food stamps and other government services to feed, clothe and keep their employees.


And lets never talk about the other externalities we suffer to provide these poor fuckin corporations like the SuperFund.

Wouldn't it cost us MORE if Walmart employees were not working and collecting full welfare?

And If Walmart suddenly "saw the light" and distributed their "excess" profits to workers, but had to raise prices a lot to do this, do you think the public would continue to shop there?

The " enlightended" are generous until it comes out of THEIR pocket.

Wal-Mart could raise their wages substantially and not affect prices at all.

Walmarts profits were 3.3% of sales in fiscal 2014 (July/July). 16 billion dollars.

1,300,000 employees.

Assuming they opted for zero profit (which of course, would be considered financial malfeasance at best and the Board would remove all executives who proposed such a thing), at an average of 35 hours a week, they could afford to pay their employees (including employment and other taxes) an average of an additional $4.73 per hour.

Interestingly, most corporations depend on profits to build new stores, have reserves in the bank, pay for roof repairs, parking lot striping, etc.

So, if they cut their profits down to 1/2 of this gargantuan, gaping, overflowing, massive profit of 3.3% (1.65% profit), they could keep 8 billion in reserves to pay for new stores, reserves, parking lot repairs, etc. and pay their employees additionally, on average, $2.37 per hour.

It's amazing...Apple makes that much profit in 45 days, provides a product no one needs (a plain Jane cell phone costs 1/3rd or less their prices and interestingly, for those not aware...makes phone calls), yet Apple hires engineers, requiring multiple years of college, science and physics training, spends more on advertising in 6 months than WalMart does in 2 years, has 200 billion in the bank and foreign reserves, is sucking the finances out of everything you do and desire through their overpriced computers, overpriced phones, their near monopoly on music downloads, yet, conversely, everyone seems to think that a company that saves the average consumer 2 grand or more a year (who all insist "I'd never shop there" yet statistics prove otherwise), provides jobs that pay slightly better minimum or starting wages yet, in every location I've ever seen a new WalMart go up in, in markets like Seattle where average wages exceed $25.00 an hour with full benefits, the line to apply for jobs at WalMart literally runs around the building for days and yet.....they're the monster.

People never fail to astound.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Wal-Mart isn't even mentioned.   We spend a lot on heat subsidy, food stamps and other government services to feed, clothe and keep their employees.


And lets never talk about the other externalities we suffer to provide these poor fuckin corporations like the SuperFund.

Wouldn't it cost us MORE if Walmart employees were not working and collecting full welfare?

And If Walmart suddenly "saw the light" and distributed their "excess" profits to workers, but had to raise prices a lot to do this, do you think the public would continue to shop there?

The " enlightended" are generous until it comes out of THEIR pocket.

Wal-Mart could raise their wages substantially and not affect prices at all.

Walmarts profits were 3.3% of sales in fiscal 2014 (July/July). 16 billion dollars.

1,300,000 employees.

Assuming they opted for zero profit (which of course, would be considered financial malfeasance at best and the Board would remove all executives who proposed such a thing), at an average of 35 hours a week, they could afford to pay their employees (including employment and other taxes) an average of an additional $4.73 per hour.

Interestingly, most corporations depend on profits to build new stores, have reserves in the bank, pay for roof repairs, parking lot striping, etc.

So, if they cut their profits down to 1/2 of this gargantuan, gaping, overflowing, massive profit of 3.3% (1.65% profit), they could keep 8 billion in reserves to pay for new stores, reserves, parking lot repairs, etc. and pay their employees additionally, on average, $2.37 per hour.

It's amazing...Apple makes that much profit in 45 days, provides a product no one needs (a plain Jane cell phone costs 1/3rd or less their prices and interestingly, for those not aware...makes phone calls), yet Apple hires engineers, requiring multiple years of college, science and physics training, spends more on advertising in 6 months than WalMart does in 2 years, has 200 billion in the bank and foreign reserves, is sucking the finances out of everything you do and desire through their overpriced computers, overpriced phones, their near monopoly on music downloads, yet, conversely, everyone seems to think that a company that saves the average consumer 2 grand or more a year (who all insist "I'd never shop there" yet statistics prove otherwise), provides jobs that pay slightly better minimum or starting wages yet, in every location I've ever seen a new WalMart go up in, in markets like Seattle where average wages exceed $25.00 an hour with full benefits, the line to apply for jobs at WalMart literally runs around the building for days and yet.....they're the monster.

People never fail to astound.

So give their employees an average raise of $1 an hour and keep healthy profits, especially as a lot of that money will be spent in their stores. And the rest of us will have to subsidize their employees a lot less.

I will also point out that amazingly Costco manages to pay all employees a living wage and has competitive prices with Sam's Club, it actually out sells Sam's Club. The shit right wingers peddle never fails to astound me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Politicians make all sorts of promises (usually vague in how those promises will become reality) at election time and then frequently turn around and do the opposite of what they said they would do.. they don't need to be or appear to be an extremist to get elected.. by the time you see their true intentions you cant get rid of them.. I don't think Hitler appeared as an extremist, that came out after he was in power and had the ability to control the military, create laws, etc..

quote:


Imo, Bush II was the closest to a US Hitler, he used a lie to go into Iraq and as a result thousands of soldiers & innocent people & children were killed.. and he brought in the Patriot Act which allows the govt to throw people in jail & detained "indefinitely", without charges, without a lawyer, etc.. you have TSA asking to see your papers even away from the border.. you have the govt spying on citizens & corporations, etc.. Why was Bush II not seen as an extremist and dangerous? Sometimes people just don't want to see what's in front of them.. When the Patriot Act was first enacted, Americans fell in line behind him cuz you were "either with us or against us"..

I am not the first to compare Bush to Hitler..
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Wal-Mart isn't even mentioned.   We spend a lot on heat subsidy, food stamps and other government services to feed, clothe and keep their employees.


And lets never talk about the other externalities we suffer to provide these poor fuckin corporations like the SuperFund.

Wouldn't it cost us MORE if Walmart employees were not working and collecting full welfare?

And If Walmart suddenly "saw the light" and distributed their "excess" profits to workers, but had to raise prices a lot to do this, do you think the public would continue to shop there?

The " enlightended" are generous until it comes out of THEIR pocket.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Oh its not THAT bad.....
Fishing for compliments??? *wink*

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You have zero authority to make that determination, unless you are part of the business planning for WalMart. I'm going to gather you are not, so, you have no authority to make a statement of WalMart's needs.

If I see a drunk guy in a bar who wants another drink, I don't think it would be too far over the top for someone (who is not drunk) to say he doesn't need another drink. Maybe he doesn't want anyone to interfere and maybe it's nobody else's business how much someone drinks. But the observation would still be just as valid.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Your argument is that WalMart's profits are too high, then. Where would Government draw the authority to dictate profit maximums? If Government was allowed to do that, how would they do that, by margin (%) or by dollars? Does Big Oil have too high a profit because they rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? Or, is Big Oil's <10% profit margin acceptable? Would Apple be okay with their 20%+ profit margin because it's not over some billions of dollars level?
You do not get to decide what profit level any company needs unless it's your company.

then maybe they should repay taxpayers for the subsidies & govt handouts they have collected.. If it were not for all the taxpayer money they suck out of the system I would agree with you.. Just think if the govt stopped all the corporate subsidies and used that money instead to provide free college education for selected programs (high tech, engineering, etc).. can you imagine the new businesses and high income jobs that could create? oh well..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Oh its not THAT bad.....
Fishing for compliments??? *wink*

Not fishing at all. Just looking for some laughs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Your argument is that WalMart's profits are too high, then. Where would Government draw the authority to dictate profit maximums? If Government was allowed to do that, how would they do that, by margin (%) or by dollars? Does Big Oil have too high a profit because they rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? Or, is Big Oil's <10% profit margin acceptable? Would Apple be okay with their 20%+ profit margin because it's not over some billions of dollars level?
You do not get to decide what profit level any company needs unless it's your company.

then maybe they should repay taxpayers for the subsidies & govt handouts they have collected.. If it were not for all the taxpayer money they suck out of the system I would agree with you.. Just think if the govt stopped all the corporate subsidies and used that money instead to provide free college education for selected programs (high tech, engineering, etc).. can you imagine the new businesses and high income jobs that could create? oh well..

I'm for nearly across the board closing of tax loopholes (charities can keep their tax exemption status). But, not a pick-and-choose approach.

What subsidies does WalMart get? What handouts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I can see what you're saying, and I'm definitely no fan of Bush nor would ever defend anything he's done. However, if I was to compare him in such a way, he seems more like a bumbling prince than someone like Hitler. Or perhaps something akin to a Roman Emperor during the decline and fall, since Bush inherited the "empire," whereas Hitler was trying to build an empire and failed.

If we're talking about U.S. Presidents and their political proximity to Hitler, I don't know that Bush II would come closest to Hitler. I can think of one or two who might be closer than Bush, although it's hard to make such comparisons anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Perhaps trucking companies should pay an extra 35 cents a gallon for the damage they do to our freeways far in excess of what a Toyota Prius or motorcycle does for the same per gallon tax.

Perhaps churches should pay taxes on income like other businesses, with standard charitable deductions, like other businesses.

Perhaps Goodwill and The Salvation Army should not receive grants and funding for selling what in fact are 99.99999% donated goods.

Perhaps the NFL should in nearly every large city in the country should pay the entire cost of the stadiums all of us have in our locales as opposed to being nearly 100% funded (with few exceptions) by taxpayer money because "they create jobs" (so do my companies, but no one has offered to use state funds to build me a warehouse and then give it to me after 20 years).

Perhaps there are far larger rip offs happening nationwide in the name of jobs that never arrive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Your argument is that WalMart's profits are too high, then. Where would Government draw the authority to dictate profit maximums? If Government was allowed to do that, how would they do that, by margin (%) or by dollars? Does Big Oil have too high a profit because they rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? Or, is Big Oil's <10% profit margin acceptable? Would Apple be okay with their 20%+ profit margin because it's not over some billions of dollars level?
You do not get to decide what profit level any company needs unless it's your company.

then maybe they should repay taxpayers for the subsidies & govt handouts they have collected.. If it were not for all the taxpayer money they suck out of the system I would agree with you.. Just think if the govt stopped all the corporate subsidies and used that money instead to provide free college education for selected programs (high tech, engineering, etc).. can you imagine the new businesses and high income jobs that could create? oh well..

I'm for nearly across the board closing of tax loopholes (charities can keep their tax exemption status). But, not a pick-and-choose approach.
What subsidies does WalMart get? What handouts?

I am not opposed to subsidies to help small businesses but the problem with these subsidies is that is the large corps that have the manpower and ability to apply and get them that seem to get them.. a small business owner working 80 hour weeks tends not to have the time or employees that can do the legwork etc required to apply for these subsidies.. so large corps have an overwhelming advantage over small business (that tends to need the help much more)..
I already/previously posted on page one a link to the webpage (one page just for Walmart!) on the subsidies and ways they get bucks from taxpayers (including from those taxpayers that are morally against shopping there).. http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/
This is and example (just a tip of the iceberg since many subsidies such as employee healthcare is not available(- just in California they get:
Wal-Mart Subsidy Report for California
Subsidies received by Wal-Mart
There are no centralized databases of economic development subsidies, but Good Jobs First found 18 deals worth a total of about $50.8 million in California. They include the following:
Good Jobs First has compiled data on Wal-Mart subsidies in the following cities
Barstow, CA : n.a.
Cathedral City, CA : $1.8 million
Colton, CA : $2.6 million
Corona, CA : $2 million
Covina, CA : $5.3 million
Duarte, CA : $1.8 million
Gilroy, CA : $408,000
Hemet, CA : $1.8 million
Lake Elsinore, CA : $2.2 million
Lancaster, CA : more than $2.3 million
Manteca, CA : $1.7 million
Merced, CA : n.a.
Perris, CA : about $2.7 million
Porterville, CA : estimated $14 million
Redlands, CA : $1.25 million
Rialto, CA : $2.6 million
Riverside, CA : more than $2.2 million
San Diego, CA : $6.1 million
Hidden taxpayer costs
Many Wal-Mart workers are ineligible for health coverage from their employer or choose not to purchase what is available, because it is too expensive or too limited in scope. These workers often turn to taxpayer-funded health programs such as Medicaid. California is among those states that have not disclosed data on the employers with the most workers or their dependents enrolled in such programs.
For an estimate of how much Wal-Mart is costing the state of CA for taxpayer-funded healthcare, see http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/healthcrisis/map.html#CA
Property Tax Appeals
Selma, CA
Duarte, CA
Panorama City, CA
Anaheim, CA
Apple Valley, CA
Yucca Valley, CA : $19,346
El Cajon, CA
Oceanside, CA : $21,539
Red Bluff, CA : $794,000
Porterville, CA : $38,000

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is a difference, though. A business has reasons to work towards a particular profit margin that has nothing to do with lining the pockets of the owner(s). If WalMart has plans for expansion and they need 25% profit margin to realize those plans, unless they are getting over 25% profit margin, they do need to raise prices after raising costs.