Sanders Tears Into Walmart For Corporate Welfare

Submitted by: SweepOfDeath 3 years ago in

Should the wealthiest family in this country have large numbers of employees who depend upon government help?
There are 105 comments:
Male 679
"Dozens of people line up for Walmart jobs." Maybe because there are no other jobs to be had, unless you want to work at Taco Bell.

"People choose to work at Walmart." Oh really? What are their other options, McDonalds? Are these pompous @sses serious?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"Those are all jobs that can be done by pretty much anyone after a couple weeks of training."

What an non-nice individual.

It takes more than 2 weeks to become an electrician, HVAC man, or any of the other jobs you listed.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Well, it`s been real, but I`ve got to run. I`ll try to check back later tonight or tomorrow to see where we are.

I`m still curious why you think raising it to some value (say, $15) will be a positive, but raising it to a higher value (say, $60) will be negative.

I don`t understand what possible thing may exist or occur that would suddenly make raising the minimum wage shift from net-positive to net-negative.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]OK... I messed this up in a few places. [/quote]

Nevermind... you`ve already noticed.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]This is different than what you said a couple posts ago, though. Here, you`re saying that the INCREASED COST PER TRANSACTION is lower at WalMart. That seems reasonable.

Before, your statement was written such that you were saying that there was a greater TOTAL INCREASED COST at Walmart; we can`t know that.[/quote]

OK... I messed this up in a few places.

Should be INCREASED COSTS PER TRANSACTION AS A PERCENTAGE. Also, second paragraph should be "...increased total cost at McDonalds"
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"Also, it`s inappropriate to compare percentage increase amongst different companies. They all have different costs and differently priced products, so percentages make little sense."

Agreed. Forget it.

You already agreed that there were less walmart employees per transaction. So since increased employee costs is all we are talking about we know it will be LESS than 18 cents per transaction at walmart.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

For example, let`s say the profit at McDonalds per transaction is $0.10. On the other hand, since Walmart has larger transactions, the average profit is $1 per transaction.

We can clearly see that a 4% increase at McDonalds costs the end consumer far less than a 2% increase at WalMart.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"This is different than what you said a couple posts ago, though. Here, you`re saying that the INCREASED COST PER TRANSACTION is lower at WalMart. That seems reasonable.

Before, your statement was written such that you were saying that there was a greater TOTAL INCREASED COST at Walmart; we can`t know that."

Don`t know what I said that made you think that, but yes, "the INCREASED COST PER TRANSACTION is lower at WalMart."

I said "So the affect on the end user would be even LESS than at mcdonalds, would you agree?"

I meant one consumer going to walmart for one transaction. Not all consumers as a whole.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

Also, it`s inappropriate to compare percentage increase amongst different companies. They all have different costs and differently priced products, so percentages make little sense.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]If we agree that the increase on mcdonalds is about 4% per average transaction and we agree that there are fewer employees per transaction and a higher average transaction then the increase will be even less than 4%.[/quote]
This is different than what you said a couple posts ago, though. Here, you`re saying that the INCREASED COST PER TRANSACTION is lower at WalMart. That seems reasonable.

Before, your statement was written such that you were saying that there was a greater TOTAL INCREASED COST at Walmart; we can`t know that.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Socialists make the rules, and then whine when the capitalists still manage to win the game.

Pathetic.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"That`s another impossible to know answer. We don`t know how many times per week out imaginary average consumer shops at Walmart vs. McDonalds. That is a VERY important question to answer before figuring out where costs will rise most. "

No dude. It isn`t. If we agree that the increase on mcdonalds is about 4% per average transaction and we agree that there are fewer employees per transaction and a higher average transaction then the increase will be even less than 4%.

It doesn`t matter who shops or how often. All we`re doing is talking about the increase in the cost of goods or services to consumers.

We know walmart`s will be less than mcdonlads by pure common sense.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]I`m not trying to make people rich from working minimum wage.[/quote]
Hang on now, that`s not what I was getting at.

Your argument is that raising minimum wage is a net-positive, or at the very least, it helps people under the minimum wage proportionally to the amount it hurts people over the minimum wage.

Therefore, if this is your argument, in order to stay internally consistent, you must also agree that increasing it further will help more less-fortunate people.

So, is it a good idea, as in, is it good for our society, to raise the minimum wage to $100/hr?

If you believe so, then you`re delusional. Sorry, but that`s about all I can offer you. Otherwise (and I`m assuming you don`t actually think it would be a good idea), your original statement is incorrect.

Right?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]There is less employees per transaction at walmart would you agree?[/quote]
That`s probably a fair assumption.

[quote]The average transaction at walmart is WAY higher, would you agree?[/quote]
I think you mean the average cost per transaction, in which case, yes.

[quote]So the affect on the end user would be even LESS than at mcdonalds, would you agree?[/quote]
That`s another impossible to know answer. We don`t know how many times per week out imaginary average consumer shops at Walmart vs. McDonalds. That is a VERY important question to answer before figuring out where costs will rise most.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"The prices would also go up everywhere else too. McDonald`s isn`t the only place that employs minimum wage workers."

Let`s take walmart.

There is less employees per transaction at walmart would you agree?

The average transaction at walmart is WAY higher, would you agree?

So the affect on the end user would be even LESS than at mcdonalds, would you agree?

"Let`s look at this at another angle. If raising the minimum wage is a net-positive, then why not raise it even higher? Why is it good to raise it to $15/hr. and not $30/hr. or $60/hr.?"

I`m not trying to make people rich from working minimum wage. I`m not saying they deserve to drive brand new cars and buy huge houses. I`m just saying they deserve to survive without welfare if they work.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"I`ve read here before that you make six-figures, right? Perhaps we should raise minimum wage to your salary."

I DON`T think everyone should be equal. I have never advocated for pure socialism. Without financial reward many jobs that require skill / schooling / hard work would go away.

I don`t think a fry cook deserves as much as a doctor or a businessman. I just think that if you work 40 hours a week in america and provide a needed service to society you shouldn`t have to live on welfare.

Your main thing was that if you raise the wage it would be passed on to consumers. I just proved that isn`t all that significant.

So now you are arguing principle. I GET that you are against any mandate or intervention by the government on business. I GET it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

I`ve read here before that you make six-figures, right? Perhaps we should raise minimum wage to your salary.

By your reasoning, this would transfer wealth from people who make more than your salary into the hands of people who are less fortunate than yourself.

It`s perfect.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Guess I was pretty good huh?[/quote]
Actually yea, that was pretty good. There`s a problem though...

The prices would also go up everywhere else too. McDonald`s isn`t the only place that employs minimum wage workers.

Let`s look at this at another angle. If raising the minimum wage is a net-positive, then why not raise it even higher? Why is it good to raise it to $15/hr. and not $30/hr. or $60/hr.?

I mean, let`s reason it out.

If raising the minimum wage from $7.25/hr. to $15/hr. helps people who make less that $15/hr., then raising it to $30/hr. should help even more people.

Based on this, we should raise it as high as it can go, because it is a net-positive. Right?
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"Yes, you did. Unless you can source the study you got your 20c notion from, it`s fabricated."

FINE.

Average mcdonalds serves 8 people a minute:
http://tinyurl.com/ny5c43s

Mcdonalds are open approx 18 hours a day
I looked up their hours

Average spent per transaction in the US is $5.50- 5.75
http://tinyurl.com/mhferrz

14,000 mcdonalds in america
http://tinyurl.com/kas6bfz

$15 wage hike cost mcdonalds $8 billion a year US
http://tinyurl.com/lsw3ljg

$8,000,000,000 / 8 / 60 / 18 / 365 / 14,000 =

DUD DUH DUH

18 cents per transaction

Guess I was pretty good huh?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]That has nothing to do with our debate.[/quote]
OK, fair enough. I had mentioned that you arbitrarily set the new minimum wage to $10/hr. earlier and you did not dispute it then. As such, I continued with the assumption that we were using it.

Either way, the number doesn`t really matter; it`s arbitrary and does not significantly change the reasoning involved.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"This is what I`m talking about - it`s a made up statistic. You just said raise wages to 10$ per hour earlier, and now you`re doubling it. You aren`t even being consistent with your made up statistics."

Bulls.hit.

It has been $15 for our entire debate. $15 was the carryover from our previous debate. My guess is someone chose it because that is what the mcdonalds workers in new york wanted. I didn`t pick $15.

I mentioned that I thought $15 was high to mcgovern and that $10 was more reasonable.

That has nothing to do with our debate.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

At the end of the day, if - and it`s a big if - the only negative consequence is an increase in prices, then it must be a net-zero. Total sales revenue must increase the same amount that total expenditures decrease.

If this doesn`t happen, then someone else is also starting to pay for the new wage increase; at this point, the negative consequences really start to shine. Most likely, it will be in the form of employee cost, which includes things such as: increased unemployment, decreased hours, and/or decreased supplementary compensation.

Now, if you want government to pay for it, then stop trying to be sneaky and stop trying to trick people - you want more welfare. Call it what it is, and we will see if the nation supports it; there is no need to be tricky if it`s supported by the public.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"This is the best case scenario and it`s a net-zero. The other more likely scenarios are net-negatives."

HOW THE HOLY F.UCK DO YOU FIGURE?

If someone`s income doubles for it to be a net-negative then the things they spend money on would have to more than double. Are you telling me you project that the costs of goods and services provided by minimum wage workers is going to more than double if you raise the minimum wage?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]I can`t imagine it takes all that much more training to change oil as it does to learn the machinery and systems at mcdonalds. The point is ANYONE can do it. [/quote]

Mmmm kind of they usually do a lot more than oil at those places too though. AC recharge, trans fluid, belts and ect. All makers are designed differently to so there`s a bit to know and they don`t even make $15 an hour last I checked.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]So raising the minimum wage will hurt the minimum wage workers because the costs of the things they buy will go up?[/quote]
This is the best case scenario and it`s a net-zero. The other more likely scenarios are net-negatives.

[quote]10%? Or even 25%?[/quote]
This is what I`m talking about - it`s a made up statistic. You just said raise wages to 10$ per hour earlier, and now you`re doubling it. You aren`t even being consistent with your made up statistics.

[quote]Think how stupid this argument is.[/quote]
I agree! I f*cking hate when people just start making sh*t up to "prove" their arguments; it annoys the absolute sh*t out of me.

[quote]You think they are going to be hurt because walmarts and mcdonalds prices go up a bit?[/quote]
They`re going to hurt because they won`t have a job anymore. Skilled people who currently make $15/hour will replace them via attrition.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]I didn`t magically create it[/quote]
Yes, you did. Unless you can source the study you got your 20c notion from, it`s fabricated. What`s more, you`re relying on it for your argument. Do you understand why that sounds "retarded" as you would say? I mean, you are relying on a made-up statistic to "prove" your point.

[quote]So a meal at mcdonalds goes up 40 cents. Who cares?[/quote]
I had no idea that the only minimum wage workers out there were from McDonalds. I had assumed that there were such wages in a variety of different places, such as Walmart, Target, Walgreens... I now realize how silly I am for thinking this way. (<--- Sarcasm)
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"Again, it still hurts minimum wage workers the most if the price of each good produced by minimum wage workers increases; this is because minimum wage workers are most likely to purchase products and services tendered by other minimum wage workers."

So raising the minimum wage will hurt the minimum wage workers because the costs of the things they buy will go up? You really don`t get why that sounds retarded?

If you DOUBLE someone`s salary you think it will be a hardship that the goods and services they buy goes up 10%? Or even 25%?

You aren`t stupid. I know you aren`t. Think how stupid this argument is.

Someone makes less that $1,200 a month at a minimum wage job. They have to pay for rent, utilities, etc out of that. Double their wage and now they have 3 - 5 TIMES the disposable income.

You think they are going to be hurt because walmarts and mcdonalds prices go up a bit?
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

" Please do not provide data you`ve magically created and act as if it is gospel."

I didn`t magically create it. I googled how many people the average mcdonalds serves in a day. I`ve eaten at mcdonalds enough times to make a pretty fair guess at the average meal price and average number of workers per shift.

The numbers I gave might not be exact but they are pretty damn close and they clearly show that even if ALL the burden of a higher minimum wage were passed on to the consumer the increase would not be that significant at all. I mean hell, say I`m WAY off and it is double what I said. So a meal at mcdonalds goes up 40 cents. Who cares?
0
Reply
Male 9,766
McGovern1981

"Yes those require knowledge of many things. Most of those especially entry level don`t even make $15 an hour. BTW Electrician and Plumbers require years of working in the field to become a master. Did plumbing for 1 1/2 years."

I can`t imagine it takes all that much more training to change oil as it does to learn the machinery and systems at mcdonalds. The point is ANYONE can do it.

I`m not talking master electricians or plumbers. I`m talking the entry level jobs.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]How do you define "skilled" out of curiosity? Is a guy that changes oil and brake pads skilled? How about a guy that fixes air conditioners or washing machines? Electricians, plumbers, etc? [/quote]

Yes those require knowledge of many things. Most of those especially entry level don`t even make $15 an hour. BTW Electrician and Plumbers require years of working in the field to become a master. Did plumbing for 1 1/2 years.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

You`re tossing around a lot of numbers to support your case that you`ve pulled out of thin air. These are nothing more than baseless assumptions you`re "guessing" at (by guessing, I mean arbitrarily setting at a point that supports your argument) to "prove" your point.

For example, you suggest that the price of each good will rise some negligible amount (20 cents) if we raise the minimum wage to some arbitrary amount ($10hr), but of course you can`t know that number.

There is no number you can use that will be evidenced-based to support you argument. If you have an issue with the reasoning I`ve provided, argue against that. Please do not provide data you`ve magically created and act as if it is gospel.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]So again, WHO does this hurt? I`m still sorta waiting.[/quote]
Again, it still hurts minimum wage workers the most if the price of each good produced by minimum wage workers increases; this is because minimum wage workers are most likely to purchase products and services tendered by other minimum wage workers.

I`m not sure where you`re lost at. You seem to agree with the reasoning I`ve provided, yet, you just refuse to accept that it is reasonable.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
McGovern1981

"$15 an hour for a completely unskilled job is a joke."

I agree with you. I think $10 is much more reasonable. I`m only using $15 because, for whatever reason, it is the number that has been used in the debate spanning a few posts.

How do you define "skilled" out of curiosity? Is a guy that changes oil and brake pads skilled? How about a guy that fixes air conditioners or washing machines? Electricians, plumbers, etc?

Those are all jobs that can be done by pretty much anyone after a couple weeks of training. Is that "skilled" in your opinion?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
$15 an hour for a completely unskilled job is a joke. Typical entitlement attitude. Do you really think most of these people who think they should be getting paid this for making no effort and some spitting out kid while making a poor wage would actually spend it wisely not $200 dollar sneakers, nail job and $50 underware? Ya lets support getting by without any effort what so ever what`s the worst that could happen......
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"The people who spend the largest % of their income on goods and services tendered by minimum-wage earners also make minimum-wage.

Therefore, passing the cost on to consumers (raising prices) hurts minimum-wage workers more than anyone."

EXCELLENT point. However, now that THEY make an extra $8 an hour at THEIR minimum wage job I`m sure they won`t complain about the extra 20 cents for their meal at mcdonalds too much.

In fact I`m pretty sure they will now be able to buy more things at walmart and more food at mcdonalds even with the slight increase in cost. So again, WHO does this hurt? I`m still sorta waiting.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]Pass it on to each consumer at a WHOPPING 20 cents each.[/quote]
Who`s more likely to seek out goods and services tendered by minimum wage employees - poor people, middle class people, or rich people?

Well of course it`s poor people. The people who spend the largest % of their income on goods and services tendered by minimum-wage earners also make minimum-wage.

Therefore, passing the cost on to consumers (raising prices) hurts minimum-wage workers more than anyone.

Ideally, you`d want to pass the cost on in this order to least hurt minimum-wage earners:

1. Business owners;
2. Government/Taxes;
3. Consumers;
4. Employees.

In reality, almost the exact opposite will happen:

1. Employees/Consumers;
2. Government/Taxes;
3. Business Owners.

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HG

[quote]They eat it now with minimum wage don`t they?[/quote]
That`s an impossible question. How do we know where the difference between market value and minimum wage comes from? There`s no way to know.

It`s possible that business owners make up the difference; it`s possible that less people are working that could be otherwise; it`s possible that compensation packages are less than they would be otherwise; it`s possible that prices are higher than they would be otherwise; it`s a certainty that tax dollars are used to subsidize it.

We don`t, we can`t, know who is paying for it now. However, what we can do is take some best guesses at who *will* pay the difference if it`s raised.

My guess?

1. Consumers/Employees - That`s a tossup;
2. Government;
3. Businesses.

What`s more, there`s no way to force business owners to be the ones to bear the brunt.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

However, even if it DOES hit consumers, I don`t really care. If my meal goes from $5 to $5.20 so that the employees working there can actually have a sustainable life, then great.

An average McDonalds serves 8 people every minute they are open. Let`s say each person spends an average of $5. If the McDonalds is open from 6am to 10pm that is $38,400 from 7,680 consumers.

Let`s say there are 25 employees between the multiple shifts and they all make minimum wage, which they don`t obviously. They each work 8 hours at $7/hr. Raise their wages to $15/hr. That costs the store an extra $1,600.

Pass it on to each consumer at a WHOPPING 20 cents each.

Where`s the problem?

Walmart`s raise on consumers would be even less.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
HA

"Does anyone here actually think that the business owners (those who control two others groups - consumers and employees) are going to eat the total cost?"

They eat it now with minimum wage don`t they?

I mean walmart and mcdonalds would probably love to pay people less than minimum wage if they could.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Two very important questions:

1. Is Walmart at fault for using a resource that`s readily available, or is government at fault for offering/allowing it?

2. Do we all agree that *someone* will need to pay the difference if we raise minimum wages?

Regarding the second question, who are some possible candidates to pay for this new minimum wage difference? Well, it could be the business owner (pay higher wages or close business), the consumer (higher prices), taxes (welfare or subsidies like the current minimum wage), or the employee (less hours, less other comp, lay offs, etc.).

Does anyone here actually think that the business owners (those who control two others groups - consumers and employees) are going to eat the total cost? Seriously, that`s naïve.
0
Reply
Male 418
Should the wealthiest family in this country have large numbers of employees who depend upon government help?

No, take away the government help. Problem solved.
0
Reply
Male 567
Also, our acceptance of these timed forums on critical matters is completely insane.
0
Reply
Male 567
LOLOLOL
"[Walmart] workers decide where to work." That`s some funny zhit right there.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
JadesDitoyor

"Well, that`s not what he explained. By laying off some employees and giving it to others to pay them the extra 7 dollars an hour; they`re paying the same in wages as before. The billionaires lose nothing.

You`re taking money out of the hands of people who need it and putting it in the hands of people who need it. Not out of the hands of people who have it into the hands that need it."

I disagree. He said nix 10% of the workforce. That means 90% would be getting twice as much money.

If Y is numbers of workers:

.9Y x $15/hr > Y x $7.25
0
Reply
Male 837
@HolyGod
"You take money from billionaires whose spending habits won`t change at all and give it to worker`s whose spending will go way up. You really don`t think that will grow the economy?"

Well, that`s not what he explained. By laying off some employees and giving it to others to pay them the extra 7 dollars an hour; they`re paying the same in wages as before. The billionaires lose nothing.

You`re taking money out of the hands of people who need it and putting it in the hands of people who need it. Not out of the hands of people who have it into the hands that need it.
0
Reply
Male 466
I got fed up with making bosses millionaires while the workers were being paid a pittance.
One day I exploded and quit, moved as far out bush as I can get. Life has NEVER been so good.
Being the man with the skills, I can build almost anything I require.(while I was employed all those years I slowly bought tools and equipment).
For the last 2.5 years now I have lived like a King on a $0 income. no welfare, nothing.
Most of my mates are insanely jealous and struggle to comprehend how it can be done.
The answer is easy- Don`t be lazy & knowledge is power.
everything starts with the generation of power- once you have a power source you can complete other tasks like filter water etc.
Technically I do get paid as people offer things for me to come around and resolve some problem they seem unable to understand or cant fix.
Bosses take advantage of the fact that most people are not as smart as they think.
If you want more then stand on your own two feet
0
Reply
Male 1,449
No, the reason why Socialism never took root in American is because it`s a bad idea. I noticed how you left off Greece, Spain, and Ireland in your examples.
0
Reply
Male 334
But yeah, Do not have a living wage, or a minimum wage, after all, that is to much a socialist thing, right? cant work, right? i mean, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, all on the brink of bankrupcy, right?
Nah, lets defend the right of walmart to rip of their employees and blaming the poor people for being poor.
I think the saying is Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. John Steinbeck
0
Reply
Male 334
i love that scott winship is using a lot of words to make sure he isnt answering the given question... After all, the question wether the workers should be earning a living wage is a direct question. His answer is, we should not increase the pay to a level where walmart will not hire people.. FAIR ENOUGGH< DO NOT PAY THEM $100 AN HOUR. But, seriously, $16 is still doable, right?

And if there are almost no places for people to work you cannot claim that it is their choise to take a low pay or go work somewhere else when there is no somewhere else.

B
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Hmm.. wait.. a better way to look at this might be what we are actually arguing about. *The 7.10 dollar an hour worker*.

7.10 is roughly half of what I make, if you consider them full time.

That means, you can half my income of around 1100, and assume that a full time min wage worker makes around 550 every two weeks.

If they pay out 200 per pay check in health care, and 12% tax rat, that means they only get to bring home 284 dollars per 2 weeks.


My argument is easy - if health insurance cost less, and they paid out less in taxes, their standard of living would go up dramatically. 284 dollars every two weeks is in fact no enough to live on, but 550 isn`t impossible.

I know families in my area that live on 10k total bring home a year. FAMILIES not individuals.

0
Reply
Male 5,620
BTW - switching to Obamacare, or as its named in my state KY Health Net, would cost me an additional 186 dollars per month -- *IF* I dropped my pregnant wife and didn`t pick up elkingo jr.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Although, that 143 bucks per pay check (286 per month) would purchase my entire families groceries for about 3 weeks.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Holygod - I agree with you to some degree. However, I disagree with the assumption that my health insurance cost is not related to government.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
elkingo

"I am just making the very simple statement, that if the government took less from me I would live a better standard."

If insurance companies took less from you your standard would be much higher than if the government took less. Maybe you should advocate for national health care.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Actually, for college I went to a private school. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
HolyGod - Lol. You crack me up man.

Do you honestly think I do not enjoy roads, schools, parks or the like? Do you not think I enjoy military and police protection? No.. Hell, I want to pay taxes. I also want to have health insurance.

I am just making the very simple statement, that if the government took less from me I would live a better standard.

How that occurs is debatable.

For one, the law about health insurance could be changed so it doesn`t cost me 600 per month. I could sure put that money to work elsewhere, but hey - gotta have my health insurance.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
elkingo

You enjoy public roads. You probably went to a public school. You enjoy protection from the military, the police, the firefighters. You have access to libraries and parks. Etc, etc, etc.

You`re going to bitch about 13%?

Where do you think the money to make our society function comes from?
0
Reply
Male 9,766
elkingo

Your original statement was "My pay check is taxed by about 45%, which goes to state, federal, and health insurance."

That would be like if I had 70% withheld for my 401k and then came on here b.itching that I am taxed 95%, which goes to state, federal, and retirement.

The government takes a small percentage of your money.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
You are right though, I do choose to pay for insurance. However, didn`t Obamacare make it a law to have it? Doesn`t matter that point anyway, as I would have it anyway.


I am simply stating, that my life would be much more pleasant if I could keep more of my paycheck. Not trying to be deceptive here at all.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Sorry, I had some of the original numbers wrong.

Also, if you go back and re-read my first post, I said I pay out around 45% in taxes and health insurance. I don`t know why you are so up in arms about it.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
elkingo

"That translates to around 1100 per two week period. Out of that, I pay for health insurance for my wife and I at around 347 dollars per pay check. I pay out around 38 dollars in state tax, and around 112 in federal tax.

You do the math."

Well then you pay 13% in taxes. Don`t tack on health insurance for you AND your wife that you CHOOSE to pay and then act like the GOVERNMENT takes half your money. They take 13%. The rest is taken by insurance companies.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@Holy God - I am not going to post a pay stub on here, but I will give you some numbers.

My last check was for 1146.64

I paid out a total of 143.94 in state and federal taxes, and a total of 300.43 for insurance.

That works out closer to 38% but I hadn`t considered my recent raise.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Gerry1of1 "If you pay 45% tax it`s your own fault."

Re-read it.. I pay around 45% in taxes and health insurance.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
Andrew155

"You see, if you mandate labor to be sold at no less than $15/hr, then not all of those people will be working. That`s a fact, Jack. The Liberty Tax guy who holds the sign, pointing where their store is, will be gone. But he`s just the first. I can guarantee Walmart could carry on with employment reductions as well, easily 10% of the workforce nixed. "

Let`s say you are right. The 90% that sees it`s income doubled can all of a sudden afford to actually live a life. They may be able to buy a car. Buy a vacuum cleaner. Eat out once in a while. Now with all these people having more money to spend, guess what? More businesses and more jobs for the people who got nixed.

You take money from billionaires whose spending habits won`t change at all and give it to worker`s whose spending will go way up. You really don`t think that will grow the economy?
0
Reply
Male 768
Ohhh I thought this was going to be Colonel Sanders talking...
0
Reply
Male 39,927

dang007, [quote]"Do not forget were the ATM came from and what a mess it is now."[/quote]
I rather like the ATM. I put my card/pin in and I get money out. What`s the problem?
0
Reply
Male 3,908

0
Reply
Male 2,579
It`s funny how the rich have trained poor people to think this is fair, and when someone points out that it isn`t, all you here is "it`s YOUR fault that the only jobs available to you are slave jobs, just work harder so you can become a slave master (manager, ceo, whatever)"

It physically is not possible for everyone to be a manager of a business. How are people so stupid as to see the flaw with that argument?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Also, can we seriously stop using this term "living wage". It literally means that you should get paid more if you have 3 children than if you have 2 or 1. Or none (you know, the responsible choice if you can only achieve minimum wage labor).
0
Reply
Male 2,578
That whole, "pay them a living wage or don`t criticize excessive welfare" argument is pretty much a strawman argument.

You see, if you mandate labor to be sold at no less than $15/hr, then not all of those people will be working. That`s a fact, Jack. The Liberty Tax guy who holds the sign, pointing where their store is, will be gone. But he`s just the first. I can guarantee Walmart could carry on with employment reductions as well, easily 10% of the workforce nixed.

And so, the money you save because people are now making a "living wage" is more than offset by the number of people who have zero work.

You see, it`s a false argument. It argues against critics of a "living wage" without actually addressing any of the completely legitimate arguments against a living wage. Namely, that not all of the people will get paid a living wage, but rather the absolute minimum wage of $0/hr.
0
Reply
Male 663
Do not forget were the ATM came from and what a mess it is now.
0
Reply
Female 8,055
Governments should not subsidise profitable businesses by the back door. If a company makes millions yet pays its staff so badly they get government help of one form or another- then that business is being subsidised. In the UK the hospitality industry is a prime example. I used to work 50 hours a week as bar manager- getting paid for 45 , yet I could not earn enough to pay my rent, so I got housing benefit and tax credits. The brewery made a killing every year- shareholder effectively being given money by the government... lunacy. YET all we hear is how a living wage will kill business--- hmmm.
0
Reply
Male 85
This is bullpoo. I`m all against corporatism, which is creating this state of affairs in the first place, but attacking a specific family for being rich is the same as wanting to increase minimum wage without considering how many jobs will be lost as a result of that. It`s idiotic and immoral. I agree with what that lady who spoke before the one at the end said: it`s their choice to work.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
So will we be raising everyones wage or just Wally world and McDs? Either way it does nothing to help the income gap and they`ll just up the cost of things accomplishing nothing. If you`re only qualified to hold a job like this that`s your fault. So you`ll have to work a bit harder for awhile to get out of it because it`s your laziness and stupidity that got you in that situation in the first place.
0
Reply
Female 4,427
they`re leeches because they continue to live beyond their means and have children/more children! THAT is what makes them leeches! "I know I can`t live on this wage for myself, but I`m going to spit out a few kids SO I can get on assistance (not `forced` to pfft) ANYWAY." Sorry... to me, taking a bullet for your country and making sure YOU don`t have to take one either, is a little more important than making sure I have fries with that.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
At day they go to two difrent houses and have a party. by nigth, they all end up at the same house, same party.


Parliament just gets piss drunk right where they are.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"I think it`s funny the ones who say they don`t deserve a living wage, or are "leaches" also bitch when those people get guvment assistance. You don`t want them to earn enough to buy health insurance, but you also don`t want them getting medicare.

Make up your mind. Pay them enough to support themselves or you can expect your tax dollars to help support them."


0
Reply
Male 6,227
Awesome post below by Gerry re: those who need to make up their minds.

I don`t always agree with you, Gerry (and vice versa), but you really hit it out of the park with that one. 100%.
0
Reply
Male 15,270
@Musuko42 exactly; it is how we define and measure the `economy` that is the heart of this. It is real people, real lives and a lot of them, too.

Measuring a country`s success by its GNP/GDP/etc. fundamentally assumes that one dollar = one vote. that is called a Capital Democracy.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
I do worry that a lot of people seem to think and act like the health and happiness of the economy is more important than the healthy and happiness of the people that economy is meant to serve.
0
Reply
Male 15,270
"The current employees are not worth a `living wage` at these McJobs."

I won`t debate the accuracy of that statement today, but I object to the loaded terms "worth" and "living wage". It seems to imply such people have no productive place in society.

Instead of "worth", we could consider whether it is appropriate to allocate capital and resources to ensure that these people contribute a net positive to the greater good. Not all capital and resources are private enterprise and neither private, nor public enterprise can have the expectation of profit without consideration of societal impact.

The term "living wage" is also controversial. However, all people in society, regardless of the circumstances of their origin, deserve the opportunity to be able to rise on their own efforts, decisions and merits to achieve all that they can for themselves. There is a difference between being dirt poor and being dirt poor wi
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@DuckBoy87

"These employees need to take night classes and gain skills while working these McJobs to make it out of poverty."

A: how can they afford to pay for that if they don`t even have enough money to live off of with the job they have that isn`t worth a living wage?

B: Taking classes and gaining skills isn`t worth anything if there isn`t a demand for those skills either.

C: If there IS demand for those skills, then if every McJob employee managed to do as you suggest, then the supply of trained people for those jobs will end up just as high, and they`ll all be back at square one.

D: Supply and demand economics should be used for PRODUCTS, not PEOPLE! People are NOT resources and shouldn`t be treated like they are.

E: Be a f*cking human being.
0
Reply
Male 303
@Draculya
Yeah. i cant belive Murmikans still belive in the two party system. its just one party.
At day they go to two difrent houses and have a party. by nigth, they all end up at the same house, same party.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
45% tax can`t be right.

I live in the "socialist tax-aholic" UK, and my total tax (not counting VAT/sales tax stuff) comes to 19% of my pay. And that includes the cost of my healthcare.

How could you be paying more in the US? I`m sceptical.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
PFFFSSSHHH please Colonel Sanders pays his employees min wage too!!! Should`ve kept the beard BTW!
0
Reply
Male 39,927

I think it`s funny the ones who say they don`t deserve a living wage, or are "leaches" also bitch when those people get guvment assistance. You don`t want them to earn enough to buy health insurance, but you also don`t want them getting medicare.

Make up your mind. Pay them enough to support themselves or you can expect your tax dollars to help support them.

At least they work where/when they can! They`re not sitting at home sexting other on their ObamaPhones or selling their EBT cards for crack.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
Gerry1of1

" If you pay 45% tax it`s your own fault."

He doesn`t. He`s totally full of s.hit.

I pay self employment taxes, make 6 figures and withold a ton in 401k, HSA, life insurance, and college savings and I don`t even get near 45% taken out of my pay.
0
Reply
Male 15,270
Nor do I suggest that most US politicians that identify as liberals/Democrats etc. buy into the ideals of good governance that i described. They too, favour the lobbies and oligarchy of the rich, even if its to a lesser extent.

Economic measures that are so hotly debated, such as the minimum wage, healthcare, social security, special spending programmes, immigration, tax incentives, the size of the government and targeted lending are all imperfect tools. However, everyone (and politicians especially) should all be mindful of the end-goals of social morality, upward mobility and the common good and the corrupting temptations that those in power must resist.
0
Reply
Male 39,927

[quote]" The current employees are not worth a "living wage" at these McJobs." [/quote]
Go to the blackboard and write "I will not make stupid statements" 100 times!
0
Reply
Male 9,766
MelCervini

"Yet some leech who dropped out of school to freely spit out 6 kids from 6 different baby daddies, bitches that they can`t make a living at mcdonald`s, gets all the `outrage` and news coverage."

Why are they a leech if they have a job?

Is being a soldier a more worthy job to society than making food? I don`t think anyone was every tortured at mcdonalds. I`m pretty sure no wedding parties were ever killed by cheeseburgers.

I don`t understand.

I live near an airforce base. People in the military survive off of their jobs. People at McDonalds cannot. I don`t see the comparison.
0
Reply
Male 39,927

elkingo - 45% ? Dude what`s wrong with you.
I`m middle class and paying 23-25%. If you are in a tax bracket at 45% you need a new accountant so you don`t pay that much. Hell, even billionaires pay less tax percentage than their maids {Warren Buffet}. If you pay 45% tax it`s your own fault.
0
Reply
Female 4,427
Holygod... right.. but raised themselves raises, trips, vacations, parties etc... Yet some leech who dropped out of school to freely spit out 6 kids from 6 different baby daddies, bitches that they can`t make a living at mcdonald`s, gets all the `outrage` and news coverage.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
DuckBoy87

" The current employees are not worth a "living wage" at these McJobs."

What an a.sshole.

So what`s a McJob? Anyone in the retail, service, or restaurant industry? So our society needs people to fill these jobs, huge numbers of people, and your position is f.uck em, let them live in poverty so that the people that own the company can make billions?

It isn`t like every job at mcdonalds, walmart, dennys, or sears can be taken part time by a high school kid. We, WE, need adults to take these jobs for our economy to function. Should that mean they are somehow deserving of being put in some sub-class with no value or prospects?

America flourished under manufacturing. You think ANYBODY couldn`t go to a factory and work an assembly line? However they were still paid a wage that allowed them to raise a family and buy a house and a car.

There are so many heartless f.ucks on this site it is amazing.
0
Reply
Male 15,270
All countries should govern for the sustainable betterment of the standards of living, happiness, health and welfare of their citizens and residents.

Therefore, public policy in a fair country should look like this:

The government and lawmakers should be looking at the well-being of measured by country`s median (representing the majority) and should also seek to better the lot of the worst off and ensure the opportunity for relative upward mobility of the less well off.

However, in less than ideal political systems, governments tend to focus on the total gross national product, because this relates to the recurring income of the nation and hence the power that the government can wield.

even worse, corrupt governments favour the interests of those parties who can bolster the power of, and enrich, the government, especially the higher echelons that control policy.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
MelCervini

"where`s the outrage against their "boss"?"

Their boss wanted to raise taxes and was repeatedly blocked. Where do you think money to pay government employees like the military come from? TAXES.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
elkingo

"Horsesh|t. My pay check is taxed by about 45%, which goes to state, federal, and health insurance."

There is absolutely no way I believe that.

Let`s say you make $60,000 a year. Health insurance comes out at $250/month. You`re telling me you pay $24,000 a year in taxes? THAT is horsesh|t.
0
Reply
Female 4,427
Our military families qualify for foodstamps, welfare and section 8 housing AND are getting their benefits cut, pay raises don`t exist and neither does quality healthcare... where`s the outrage against their "boss"?
0
Reply
Male 3,646
That`s a very good point @elkingo.

While we`re at it, let`s go back to the way thing were set up, as in being a politician was a service to the country and earned no wages for the politician.

Let`s cut all of their benefits and see how many politicians are there for the money, and how many are there to help the country.
0
Reply
Male 39,927

More people living in poverty now than at any time in history?
Bull Schitt. Yes things are bad and we are declining but let`s not exaggerate the situation. But I`m not seeing barefooted kids working 14 your shifts in factories. THOSE were poor people with no guvment assistance at all.

When people who are employed also get guvment help it`s just Corporate Subsidies. The company doesn`t have to pay workers enough to live on because they know the guvment will step in.

Back in the day a working family would move grandma in and she`d watch the kiddies. Now people expect the guvment to provide day care. It helped the parents, it ensured security for the granny. People relied of their families and that has just fallen apart. It`s not the only solution, but it`s part of it.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Wouldn`t it be great to spend a weekend at his house?
0
Reply
Male 3,646
Made it halfway before realizing it was -this- argument again...

Supply and demand: there is a huge supply of the unemployed. Anyone can fill out these positions. The current employees are not worth a "living wage" at these McJobs.
These employees need to take night classes and gain skills while working these McJobs to make it out of poverty.

Increases in the minimum wage will throw the supply and demand of money off balance.
With a bigger supply of money, goods will be worth less and thus increasing the price of the goods. Now we`re back to them living in poverty, and even more people will be as well because:

If the min wage increases to $X, everyone making more than $X will not be scaled. So now someone with their BS and working a more difficult job will be (eventually) making a poverty level wage, and the high school drop out will be making the same amount.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Horsesh|t. My pay check is taxed by about 45%, which goes to state, federal, and health insurance.

Let me have all of my pay check, and then argue that you are subsidizing my company.

Its the same for walmart too. Let those employees have their checks, and watch the quality of living go up.
0
Reply
Male 2,669
Love the squirming and evasion from the fat-cat toadies.
0
Reply
Male 938
Link: Sanders Tears Into Walmart For Corporate Welfare [Rate Link] - Should the wealthiest family in this country have large numbers of employees who depend upon government help?
0
Reply