Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Reply

Walton Family has 1 out of every 1000 dollars in America

  • AvgMSUJoe said... (original post)

    That... and the robber baron's oligarchy ruled the country.

    Pure fallacy.

    "The RCMB on 247 is one of the most awful, alarming, inappropriate, disgusting, and offensive msg boards in the history of the internet."

  • Davethedickhead said... (original post)

    Tell that to his employees who receive government assistance paperwork at their orientation.

    How about telling the employees that they don't have to work there. There is no draft to work at any company in this country.

    If you really are pissed off that Walmart and the Waltons are doing so well, you should direct your anger at the shoppers...

    Hating the rich has always been the thing to do to make yourself feel better...it's a shame, too.

  • Davethedickhead said... (original post)

    How about telling the employees that they don't have to work there. There is no draft to work at any company in this country.

    If you really are pissed off that Walmart and the Waltons are doing so well, you should direct your anger at the shoppers...

    Hating the rich has always been the thing to do to make yourself feel better...it's a shame, too.

    How about they use one of their billions to pay their employees a livable wage and give them enough hours in a week to qualify for full time and medical benefits.

  • numberonealcove

    Davethedickhead said... (original post)

    How about telling the employees that they don't have to work there. There is no draft to work at any company in this country.

    If you really are pissed off that Walmart and the Waltons are doing so well, you should direct your anger at the shoppers...

    Hating the rich has always been the thing to do to make yourself feel better...it's a shame, too.

    People who have this degree of affinity for wealth, nation, and power are three quarters on their way to fascism.

  • Diodotus said... (original post)

    This is the reality of redistrbutionist politics: economic chaos is preferable to capitalist order.

    when compared with how high up the tree a single ten dollar bill gets you, is pretty much worthy of a heartfelt "Meh".

    BTW, have no idea why anyone was quoted when I replied...

    This post was edited by Sparty2QP 3 years ago

  • Davethedickhead said... (original post)

    How about telling the employees that they don't have to work there. There is no draft to work at any company in this country.

    If you really are pissed off that Walmart and the Waltons are doing so well, you should direct your anger at the shoppers...

    Hating the rich has always been the thing to do to make yourself feel better...it's a shame, too.

    Bingo. Nobody mandated to these employees that Wal-Mart is the highest level of employment you can attain in life. Don't like the pay there? Work for something better.

  • Wealth is not finite. Because they have more does not mean someone else has less.. Good for them.

  • CoachDistheman said... (original post)

    Bingo. Nobody mandated to these employees that Wal-Mart is the highest level of employment you can attain in life. Don't like the pay there? Work for something better.

    What are you talking about? People should be paid zilly dollars to work a normally minimum wage job at Walmart just because the owners have gotten rich

    signature image

    Behold the walls of Sparta: 10000 men and every one a brick.

  • CoachDistheman said... (original post)

    Bingo. Nobody mandated to these employees that Wal-Mart is the highest level of employment you can attain in life. Don't like the pay there? Work for something better.

    LOL!!!

    So suppose there are 1,500,000 jobs that are "better" than that out there. But there are 2,000,000 going for those jobs and busting their asses to try and get there.

    Did the 500,000 of the original 2,000,000 that don't get those jobs not try? Did they not work for it? Did they not try to "bootstrap" (LOL term in this economy, by the way) it up?

    That's the problem we're faced with. Try as you might, you can't blame the victims in this depression.

  • KingKwame said... (original post)

    LOL!!!

    So suppose there are 1,500,000 jobs that are "better" than that out there. But there are 2,000,000 going for those jobs and busting their asses to try and get there.

    Did the 500,000 of the original 2,000,000 that don't get those jobs not try? Did they not work for it? Did they not try to "bootstrap" (LOL term in this economy, by the way) it up?

    That's the problem we're faced with. Try as you might, you can't blame the victims in this depression.

    I wish the American Bar Associotion understood this concept before approving more law school campuses.......

  • CoachDistheman said... (original post)

    Bingo. Nobody mandated to these employees that Wal-Mart is the highest level of employment you can attain in life. Don't like the pay there? Work for something better.

    It's not always possible when a Wal-Mart comes into a low income area, sits just on the outskirts of town to pay cheaper property taxes, and pushes out the jobs of locally owned stores. If you are up to your neck with debt and underwater on your mortgage, moving isn't an option. This whole "work somewhere else" or "go get a better job" sounds nice, but is simply a talking point. It's not easy and not always possible.

  • Davethedickhead said... (original post)

    They own more than one tenth of one percent of the wealth in America. 6 people out of 350 million. Insane.

    Good for them.

    That's not a problem is it?

  • Davethedickhead said... (original post)

    You're not a red blooded American if you're not in debt.

    I guess I'm not a red blooded American any more. cry

  • AvgMSUJoe said... (original post)

    American Dream... those people worked hard for that money. We should all hold them in the highest esteem.

    Slight correction, SAM Walton worked hard. His kids, not so much.

  • Io Triumphe said... (original post)

    It's not always possible when a Wal-Mart comes into a low income area, sits just on the outskirts of town to pay cheaper property taxes, and pushes out the jobs of locally owned stores. If you are up to your neck with debt and underwater on your mortgage, moving isn't an option. This whole "work somewhere else" or "go get a better job" sounds nice, but is simply a talking point. It's not easy and not always possible.

    Well, for starters, people who are working at a job on the level of Wal-Mart should not be acquiring debt and taking on a mortgage in the first place.

    Despite what anyone says, there are other options than Wal-Mart if you want a different life. Join the military, learn a trade, move to a new area, etc. The problem is that everyone wants something better without sacrificing anything in order to get it. I never said it would be easy for everyone, but there are literally millions of different possibilities in life for people to explore. They have to take that initiative first though.

  • Madhatter536 said... (original post)

    Slight correction, SAM Walton worked hard. His kids, not so much.

    Yeah - inheriting wealth is bad.

    So when you escape the surly bonds of earth and are on your way to whatever circle of hell you land in - it'll be OK if we take all of your money and leave your kids and grandkids jack squat, right?

    Of course that's a big assumption that your estate won't be in debt, but hey - let's pretend.

  • Misterray

    So many of the GOP-style responses in this thread are equivalent to: "If they have no bread, then let them eat cake!"

    T. Roosevelt was right. This society is structured and organized in such a way as to permit and promote the type of success that we are discussing here and that IS a good thing.

    The PROBLEM is that so few of the super rich seem to feel the RESPONSIBILITY to the rest of society that they owe. Instead they seek to grab a larger and larger share of the pie. CEO pay is crazily out of proportion to front-line worker pay. Jobs are being shipped overseas at warp speed. Banks and businesses accept huge bailouts but want zero accountability. Meanwhile, the wealthy fool GOP supporters into believing the strange notion their sanitized robber-baron-like activities are not only acceptable, but to be admired.

    Remember that the feudal social and economic structure that led to the French Revolution were considered just, wise, morally correct, admirable and "the way things should be" until enough people had had enough.

    If this current course of wealth concentration is not corrected, we WILL see a new French-Revolution-Style reign of terror at some point.

    signature image signature image signature image

    --- --- "If you want to be the Man, then you have got to BE the Man." -- CA Sparty's Dad

  • TravelinMan said... (original post)

    Yeah - inheriting wealth is bad.

    So when you escape the surly bonds of earth and are on your way to whatever circle of hell you land in - it'll be OK if we take all of your money and leave your kids and grandkids jack squat, right?

    Of course that's a big assumption that your estate won't be in debt, but hey - let's pretend.

    I never said inheriting wealth was bad. I just pointed out that those that inherit wealth didn't earn it, their ancestors did. You equate wealth with intelligence. But then Paris Hilton is one of your hero's so that's understandable.

    As to whether I leave my kids anything, who says I am obligated to do that? Maybe my wife and I want to enjoy what we earn and let them enjoy what they earn. Is that wrong? And at least I wouldn't run from my burning house to save myself and let my children burn to death, like you have stated you would.

  • I have never met anyone who hated "the rich" as a group. The current concern about income and wealth disparity is because the trickle down economics of the last thirty years has become barely a drip. Massive money at the top is not being clyled back into the domestic economy but naturally goes overseas where the return is so much greater. In addition automation is costing jobs (anyone notice the self checkouts at Walmart). High unemployment rates result in workers that are employed working more and longer for less and being asked to use their dewindling salary to cover more of their soaring health care cost. There is a fundamental systemic problem in the economy and I haven't heard anyone with a coherent plan to fix it. Certainly lowering taxes on those who have plenty of money anyway or eliminating regulations that protect the beleagured middle class won't do it. The auto industry is making money, selling cars and increasing employment. In the entire history of the state of Michigan, when this was the case the state's economy was soaring. But look where we're at. The economy is serving the majority less well but a few are being served better than ever. That is the basis of the discussion about the concentration of wealth. It is not about hating or jealousy. It is about what is healthy for the country as a whole..

  • Madhatter536 said... (original post)

    I never said inheriting wealth was bad. I just pointed out that those that inherit wealth didn't earn it, their ancestors did. You equate wealth with intelligence. But then Paris Hilton is one of your hero's so that's understandable.

    As to whether I leave my kids anything, who says I am obligated to do that? Maybe my wife and I want to enjoy what we earn and let them enjoy what they earn. Is that wrong? And at least I wouldn't run from my burning house to save myself and let my children burn to death, like you have stated you would.

    lol

    And you know I would support you spending every last dollar you have. That is your right to do so if you choose, because you earned that money.

    But your post made me sad about my imaginary kids getting burnt to a crisp. cry

  • Beastial said... (original post)

    I have never met anyone who hated "the rich" as a group.

    Beastial, meet MadHater536. MadHatter536, meet Beastial.

  • TravelinMan said... (original post)

    Beastial, meet MadHater536. MadHatter536, meet Beastial.

    Bestial, please ignore failureman's lame attempt at humor. He has the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.

  • Beastial said... (original post)

    I have never met anyone who hated "the rich" as a group. The current concern about income and wealth disparity is because the trickle down economics of the last thirty years has become barely a drip. Massive money at the top is not being clyled back into the domestic economy but naturally goes overseas where the return is so much greater. In addition automation is costing jobs (anyone notice the self checkouts at Walmart). High unemployment rates result in workers that are employed working more and longer for less and being asked to use their dewindling salary to cover more of their soaring health care cost. There is a fundamental systemic problem in the economy and I haven't heard anyone with a coherent plan to fix it. Certainly lowering taxes on those who have plenty of money anyway or eliminating regulations that protect the beleagured middle class won't do it. The auto industry is making money, selling cars and increasing employment. In the entire history of the state of Michigan, when this was the case the state's economy was soaring. But look where we're at. The economy is serving the majority less well but a few are being served better than ever. That is the basis of the discussion about the concentration of wealth. It is not about hating or jealousy. It is about what is healthy for the country as a whole..

    100% spot on! Key point...

    Massive money at the top is not being clyled back into the domestic economy but naturally goes overseas where the return is so much greater.

    This is a point that gets ignored by trickle down defenders every time it is brought up. The "job creators" that so many deluded poor and middle class jump to defend ARE creating jobs... but not in the US. Emerging economies present much more attractive growth and earnings potential than mature economies like the US. That is where the "trickle down" is occurring. Our low tax rates on corporations and the wealthy are in effect subsidizing the economies of China, India and Brazil.

    It is a real problem that massive amounts of capital are concentrated in the hands of very few. It undermines democracy, and distorts the political process, and it distorts the economy. It's not about money being a "zero-sum game", or "if they have more I have less", it's about power being concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite class of people and power IS a zero-sum game because if someone obtains more power over me than I naturally will have less.

    This post was edited by ming 3 years ago

  • ming said... (original post)

    100% spot on! Key point...

    Massive money at the top is not being clyled back into the domestic economy but naturally goes overseas where the return is so much greater.

    This is a point that gets ignored by trickle down defenders every time it is brought up. The "job creators" that so many deluded poor and middle class jump to defend ARE creating jobs... but not in the US. Emerging economies present much more attractive growth and earnings potential than mature economies like the US. That is where the "trickle down" is occurring. Our low tax rates on corporations and the wealthy are in effect subsidizing the economies of China, India and Brazil.

    Your view could not be more wrong when it comes to the corporate tax rates. It is our high corporate tax rates that encourage companies to invest overseas. The federal corporate tax rate in the US is around 35%. This rate is similar to the rates in Brazil and India (China's rate is lower...around 25%). But in the US, you might also pay a State Corporate Income tax. So the corporate rates in the United States are actually higher than in the nations you mentioned.

    But the bigger issue is that the US taxes US multinational foreign earnings at the full corporate tax rate. Meaning that if a US company attempts to repatriate foreign earnings, those earnings would most likely be taxed twice (Once by the corporate tax of the nation where the earnings were made and a second time by the US corporate rate when bringing that money on shore).

    The return overseas is not always great, as you have suggested. If it were, then US multinational companies would not be sitting on piles of foreign cash looking for places to invest. There are many more opportunities here in the United States. However, the US multinationals do not want to lose 35% of their money repatriating those profits.

    I believe we need to lower the tax burden on corporations in the US. But we certainly need to address the policies that double tax foreign corporate earnings which provides the companies with incentive to keep those earnings abroad. If you want to tax wealthy individuals more to pay for decreasing the corporate taxes...that is fine by me.

    This post was edited by DeputyMSU 3 years ago

  • DeputyMSU said... (original post)

    Your view could not be more wrong when it comes to the corporate tax rates. It is our high corporate tax rates that encourage companies to invest overseas. The federal corporate tax rate in the US is around 35%. This rate is similar to the rates in Brazil and India (China's rate is lower...around 25%). But in the US, you might also pay a State Corporate Income tax. So the corporate rates in the United States are actually higher than in the nations you mentioned.

    But the bigger issue is that the US taxes US multinational foreign earnings at the full corporate tax rate. Meaning that if a US company attempts to repatriate foreign earnings, those earnings would most likely be taxed twice (Once by the corporate tax of the nation where the earnings were made and a second time by the US corporate rate when bringing that money on shore).

    The return overseas is not always great, as you have suggested. If it were, then US multinational companies would not be sitting on piles of foreign cash looking for places to invest. There are many more opportunities here in the United States. However, the US multinationals do not want to lose 35% of their money repatriating those profits.

    I believe we need to lower the tax burden on corporations in the US. But we certainly need to address the policies that double tax foreign corporate earnings which provides the companies with incentive to keep those earnings abroad. If you want to tax wealthy individuals more to pay for decreasing the corporate taxes...that is fine by me.

    No one pays 35%

    The statutory federal income tax rate for big American companies is 35%. But a study by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, two Washington, DC-based think-tanks, has assessed the tax records of 280 companies from the Fortune 500 list with reliable pre-tax profit reports. Among these companies the average effective tax rate between 2008-10 was only 18.5%

    And many states have extremely low corporate tax rates or even 0% corporate tax rates which is why many corporations are headquartered in states like Wyoming and Nevada.

    When a massive multinational corporation like GE pays a negative tax rate of 45% yet still ships 25,000 jobs overseas your red herring regarding "oppressive corporation taxation" leading to corporations moving investment overseas just sounds stupid. Sorry.