Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[bripat9643]

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

These liberal scumbags would probably actually cheer if Wal-Mart declared bankruptcy.

 

[hadit]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

So?

So you're paying their taxes for them.

Why is that Walmart's responsibility? The solution is simple. Want them to go out of business or change their business model? Convince untold millions of shoppers to no longer shop there. The fact that so many continue to shop there despite low quality and poor shopping experiences tells you that they offer something a LOT of people find very valuable.

 

[Geaux4it]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

Get smart and get you some.

-Geaux

 

[Arianrhod]

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

 

[Arianrhod]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

So?

So you're paying their taxes for them.

Why is that Wal-Mart's responsibility?

Because they're utilizing tax loopholes and the uninformed taxpayers' gullibility. Actually I'd argue that it's the taxpayers' responsibility to find out who's gouging them and pressure Congress to close those loopholes, as Reagan suggested 30 years ago:

 

[hadit]

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

 

[hadit]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

So?

So you're paying their taxes for them.

Why is that Wal-Mart's responsibility?

Because they're utilizing tax loopholes and the uninformed taxpayers' gullibility. Actually I'd argue that it's the taxpayers' responsibility to find out who's gouging them and pressure Congress to close those loopholes, as Reagan suggested 30 years ago:

IOW, they're playing the game by the rules. Sounds like your ire would be better aimed elsewhere.

 

[hadit]

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

These liberal scumbags would probably actually cheer if Wal-Mart declared bankruptcy.

As long as they can feel good about themselves. That's all that really matters.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

So?

So you're paying their taxes for them.

Why is that Wal-Mart's responsibility?

Because they're utilizing tax loopholes and the uninformed taxpayers' gullibility. Actually I'd argue that it's the taxpayers' responsibility to find out who's gouging them and pressure Congress to close those loopholes, as Reagan suggested 30 years ago:

What stopped the Dims from eliminating those "loopholes?" It appears you believe some people are entitled to take all the deductions the law allows while other's aren't. It all depends on whether they are on the Dim favorite list.

 

[Arianrhod]

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

Savvy retailers adjust prices to the local market.

What stopped the Dims from eliminating those "loopholes?"

The who, now?

It appears you believe some people are entitled to take all the deductions the law allows while other's aren't.

On the contrary.

 

[bedowin62]

Costco is a luxury retailer by comparison, the Neiman Marcus of the discount space.

In nearly every story written today about retail in general, and Walmart in particular, this idea that people should just shop at Costco comes up in the comments section. It’s a nice thought, but not a realistic one.

For the more than 15 percent of the U.S. population that lives at or below the poverty line, those membership fees stands between them and the more social conscious retail choice, as does the higher total prices paid

 

[Arianrhod]

Costco is a luxury retailer by comparison, the Neiman Marcus of the discount space.

In nearly every story written today about retail in general, and Walmart in particular, this idea that people should just shop at Costco comes up in the comments section. It’s a nice thought, but not a realistic one.

For the more than 15 percent of the U.S. population that lives at or below the poverty line, those membership fees stands between them and the more social conscious retail choice, as does the higher total prices paid

This assumes that a major retailer's business model is immutable. I'm not familiar with WinCo - maybe someone else can tell me how they compare with Costco - but I do know that when a retailer enters a new market, they take the potential customer base into consideration.

When The Gap's prices were out of reach for many customers, they spun off Old Navy. Whole Foods is in the process of spinning off a lower-priced division called 365.

Costco has shown market sensitivity throughout its existence; I don't imagine they'd ignore how much customers can afford now.

 

[Arianrhod]

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Not only do I sincerely doubt that you even pay taxes, fucktard, but I laugh at the idea that you will earn in your entire life what one Walton pays in taxes in one year.

Based on what?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

We need to do what we did to the robber baron's to all these fucking assholes.

I like the part in the communist manifesto where it says all,the poor people can take everything they want from everyone else.

 

[bripat9643]

We need to do what we did to the robber baron's to all these fucking assholes.

I like the part in the communist manifesto where it says all,the poor people can take everything they want from everyone else.

You like that because you're a thug.

 

[Arianrhod]

We need to do what we did to the robber baron's to all these fucking assholes.

I like the part in the communist manifesto where it says all,the poor people can take everything they want from everyone else.

And I bet you can cite it word for word, can't you? No?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wal-Mart doesn't receive SNAP benefits.

And neither does Walmart.

The employees of Walmart, however, are paid so little that they're eligible for SNAP benefits.

Figure that out and we can move forward.

Is it WalMart's fault that their labor isn't worth more, or the employees' fault that their skills aren't good for anything more than running a cash register?

I worked as a supermarket cashier a long time ago, and while I would certainly have liked to make more than I did, honesty compels me to say that the pay was commensurate with the job. I didn't deal with my low income by pissing and moaning and demanding that the market pay me as though I was doing more than swiping bar codes and punching buttons; I got a better job.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There’s a running thread in the discussion about minimum wage and worker benefits that pits Walmart and Costco against each other. But the idea that they are identical in more than the most basic sense is utter rubbish.

Here’s why.

Costco is a membership club. It’s members pay anywhere from $55 to $110 for the pleasure of shopping there. That fee is a barrier to entry for a very large portion of the population. Particularly the population that shops at Walmart and deep discount dollar store chains.

Costco sells items in bulk. That 50-roll pack of toilet paper may cost less per unit than the 24-pack sold at another store, but the shopper still needs to pay the higher total price at the outset and for many, budgets do not allow for that luxury.

Because it is a luxury to shop with a social conscience and it’s a luxury to buy in bulk, to have the extra money to pay up front, to have the extra space to store the bulk items. It’s the reason that Costco can afford to pay a higher wage.

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

1) WalMart is not going to be closing stores. Moving them, possibly, but not closing them.

2) Business isn't about employing. It's about making money. Employment is ancillary.

3) It's all very well and good to demand that we have "better" businesses like Costco instead of WalMart, but how does that improve life for people who need the low prices WalMart provides and can't afford Costco? Do we just say, "Fuck you" to them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Was, past tense. They've been operating at a deficit for years despite leeching off the middle-class taxpayer and they recently suffered a $14.7 billion loss in a single day.

They didn't suffer a loss...

From three years ago.

So here's another vote for "The Walmart business model sucks, but I'm happy to pay more taxes to support the Waltons anyway."

No one pays more taxes for Wal-Mart.

So who makes up that $6 billion shortfall? And who pays for the SNAP benefits?

you moron; Walmart subsidizes the government not the other way around. who is going to pay when Walmart lays them off and they need ALL THEIR NEEDS TAKEN CARE OF??


FIGURE THAT OUT AND WE CAN MOVE ON

WalMart not only pays taxes that go to those people's SNAP benefits, but it ALSO provides them gainful employment to go along with them.

Pretty good for unskilled, uneducated people. If they choose to work there well into adulthood instead of moving onward and upward, they should be happy they at least HAVE employment (and employee discounts to help them shop the already-low prices), instead of bitching because someone else doesn't step in and improve their lives.

 

[Arianrhod]

Wal-Mart doesn't receive SNAP benefits.

And neither does Walmart.

The employees of Walmart, however, are paid so little that they're eligible for SNAP benefits.

Figure that out and we can move forward.

Is it WalMart's fault that their labor isn't worth more, or the employees' fault that their skills aren't good for anything more than running a cash register?

Neither is necessarily the case.

I worked as a supermarket cashier a long time ago, and while I would certainly have liked to make more than I did, honesty compels me to say that the pay was commensurate with the job. I didn't deal with my low income by pissing and moaning and demanding that the market pay me as though I was doing more than swiping bar codes and punching buttons; I got a better job.

So Walmart wasn't the only employer in your area? You were lucky. If you look at a map of where many Walmarts are located, you'll see they've pushed out every little grocery store, service station, hardware store, garden supply store, appliance store, etc., etc., until they're all there is. That's their business model.

But, hey, thanks for finally addressing the content of one of my posts instead of resorting to your usual fly-by. I appreciate that.