February 6, 201412 yr Start your own thread. You ruin to many good discussions with your tactic of avoidance to the topic. Do you have thoughts on the fact government is giving incentive to millions of workers not to work? No avoidance, just amplification. To answer your question, we have two sides to one coin. -- Why are profitable, dividend-paying firms (Wal-Mart, McDonald's) receiving taxpayer subsidies? The short answer is, because they can do so. -- Why will more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes? The short answer is, because they can do so.
February 7, 201412 yr No avoidance, just amplification. To answer your question, we have two sides to one coin. -- Why are profitable, dividend-paying firms (Wal-Mart, McDonald's) receiving taxpayer subsidies? The short answer is, because they can do so. -- Why will more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes? The short answer is, because they can do so. Again you are confused on how the economy works and the difference on the two examples you provide. The first example is the government giving tax incentives for companies to create jobs and expand business by allowing corporations to keep more of their own money . Second example is the government taking money from one set of people and redistributing to another group of people. Completely different ideas and have completely different results. The first expands the economy and the second as we find in this recent CBO reports slows economic growth. But I now see where you are confused. You have some weird dilluted idea that the government is entitled to unlimited amount of citizens money. Which is not the case. Government does not have wealth , citizens have wealth. Are you OK with government artificially slowing economic growth and making more people dependent on the government?
February 7, 201412 yr Again you are confused on how the economy works and the difference on the two examples you provide. The first example is the government giving tax incentives for companies to create jobs and expand business by allowing corporations to keep more of their own money . Second example is the government taking money from one set of people and redistributing to another group of people. Completely different ideas and have completely different results. The first expands the economy and the second as we find in this recent CBO reports slows economic growth. But I now see where you are confused. You have some weird dilluted idea that the government is entitled to unlimited amount of citizens money. Which is not the case. Government does not have wealth , citizens have wealth. Are you OK with government artificially slowing economic growth and making more people dependent on the government? Thank you for forwarding to me, for the 28th time, the condensed version of the mission statement of the Pollyanna School of Economics. I don't think government "incentives" for businesses ever included setting up assistance hotlines for "associates" to enroll in Medicaid and welfare. But, hey, since it's legal, then what the heck -- all citizens should tap Uncle Sam for every nickel they can pocket ... just like Wal-Mart and McDonald's. Right?
February 7, 201412 yr How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg Total bias Bull:poop: I know for a fact what is offered and available from benefits to pay at WM and most employees make more than rumored and there is no reason for any to be on Medicade as very very affordable health care insurance is available for everyone even for PT associates.
February 7, 201412 yr Thank you for forwarding to me, for the 28th time, the condensed version of the mission statement of the Pollyanna School of Economics. I don't think government "incentives" for businesses ever included setting up assistance hotlines for "associates" to enroll in Medicaid and welfare. But, hey, since it's legal, then what the heck -- all citizens should tap Uncle Sam for every nickel they can pocket ... just like Wal-Mart and McDonald's. Right? You do realize that you proved his post, don't you? Then again, probably not.
February 7, 201412 yr No avoidance, just amplification. To answer your question, we have two sides to one coin. -- Why are profitable, dividend-paying firms (Wal-Mart, McDonald's) receiving taxpayer subsidies? The short answer is, because they can do so. -- Why will more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes? The short answer is, because they can do so. What subsidies do they receive? Please indulge us...Walmart pay more in effective taxes than any company approaching their size. I know the talking point used to demonize Walmart but you need to get the updated talking points, after being proven wrong over and over the last several years most libs have got off the Walmart horse and moved on to someone else.
February 7, 201412 yr You do realize that you proved his post, don't you? Then again, probably not. We need to put signs up at every Wal-Mart and McDonald's: "YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK" Here's another story to chew on: One Walmart's Low Wages Could Cost Taxpayers $900,000 Per Year, House Dems Find
February 7, 201412 yr We need to put signs up at every Wal-Mart and McDonald's: "YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK" Here's another story to chew on: One Walmart's Low Wages Could Cost Taxpayers $900,000 Per Year, House Dems Find Key word COULD this is not hard data but some fairy tales numbers meant to demonize the largest employer in the United States. Walmart pays more than any comparable retailer. Walmart does have a lot of people entering the job force for the first time and some of those people are on public assistance before they come to work at Walmart. Walmart is the biggest private employer in most states and something that may shock you...Walmart has more insured employees than any other company in almost every state in the country...but that doesn't fit your 6 year old talking points.
February 7, 201412 yr FWIW the last two Walmart CEO's are on record supporting a higher minimum wage...but as a business with close to 2 million employees they would be at a competitve disadvantage if they raised starting wages without the competition having to do the same thing. Again that's something not in you Dem Talking points. Walmart is also the 6th highest tax paying corporation in America with an effective rate of over 31% of earnings
February 7, 201412 yr Watching Kentucky House debate minimum wage on KET. Stumbo is poking holes in the GOP's "chicken little" argument.
February 7, 201412 yr I'm neither for or against the min wage raising...there are good and bad points to it. One thing to consider before you dismiss "Chicken little", if company X has 300 employees making Y in wages each week and wages are going to be raised 25% there is a good chance that the cost of the product they are making will raise that much or labor will have to be cut or the company will start losing profit margin ASAP.
February 7, 201412 yr Watching Kentucky House debate minimum wage on KET. Stumbo is poking holes in the GOP's "chicken little" argument. Serious question do you understand how inflation works ? If private companies are forced to artificially increase wages where do you think corporations pass on the cost ? I love talking economics with people who obviously haven't studied it above a remedial course. Its simple logic. So we have a healthcare law that is now proven will slow economic growth and to add to the cost the new health care law imposes we want to add an increase in wage cost for employers. With ideas like this it makes it quite obvious why governments heavily influenced by Keynesian economics show the least about of economic growth and creativity.
February 7, 201412 yr I'm neither for or against the min wage raising...there are good and bad points to it. One thing to consider before you dismiss "Chicken little", if company X has 300 employees making Y in wages each week and wages are going to be raised 25% there is a good chance that the cost of the product they are making will raise that much or labor will have to be cut or the company will start losing profit margin ASAP. I see no value in creating incentives for people to be comfortable in entry level positions. I always hear the argument that minimum wage jobs are impossible to raise a family on. Well here's a little factoid for people who push this agenda. Entry level positions and minumn wage jobs aren't meant to be career positions. They are entry level for a reason . You get in the door and prove your value to the company and your position and pay increases. Entry level positions are low pay for a reason because the workers are easily replaced. If you add value your employer increases pay to incentivize you to stay. If you are worth more than your current pay based on your skill set and experience then find a job that will pay your for your skill.
February 7, 201412 yr I see no value in creating incentives for people to be comfortable in entry level positions. I always hear the argument that minimum wage jobs are impossible to raise a family on. Well here's a little factoid for people who push this agenda. Entry level positions and minumn wage jobs aren't meant to be career positions. They are entry level for a reason . You get in the door and prove your value to the company and your position and pay increases. Entry level positions are low pay for a reason because the workers are easily replaced. If you add value your employer increases pay to incentivize you to stay. If you are worth more than your current pay based on your skill set and experience then find a job that will pay your for your skill. BINGO Additionally entry level positions can lead to a six figure income as well...it did for me in 6 years and I started at the near the minimum wage of the day $3.15
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.