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

[Arianrhod]

So instead of teaching the bottom 40% how to earn that type of wealth...

The answer's self-evident: Have a wealthy grandfather leave you billions.

May we assume you're at least a millionaire?

 

[bripat9643]

A theory with no visible means of support.

Try proving your conclusions are true rather than assuming they are.

Support? We vote in this country. I have years of support that if employers don't provide, the government will. You been living under a rock?

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

 

[Brain357]

How is my plan at all communism? Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything.

So you don't want the government to force Wal-Mart to pay a "living wage," whatever you deem that to be?

No, did you bother reading what I would do? I said I would redo corp taxes so that there are incentives for companies to hire here, pay well, and provide good benefits. A corp that does those things could pay 0 taxes. Obviously the wage increases would come out of the tax savings. Rather than collect taxes and then give welfare to the poor, the government would be cut out. The employer would give direct to the employee. How is the communism?

Your plan doesn't add up. It would never work.

Oh and what part doesn't add up for you professor?

The part where the corporation saves enough in taxes to compensate for the increased cost of wages doesn't add up.

Why not? You republicans run around saying our corporations are the most taxed in the world. Are you now saying they aren't? Walmart for instance would have an extra 7.1 billion.

 

[Brain357]

Support? We vote in this country. I have years of support that if employers don't provide, the government will. You been living under a rock?

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

 

[Contumacious]

So instead of teaching the bottom 40% how to earn that type of wealth...

The answer's self-evident: Have a wealthy grandfather leave you billions.

May we assume you're at least a millionaire?

We do not have two pennies to rub together. But that doesn't give us the authority to steal the Walton's wealth.


.

 

[Brain357]

Support? We vote in this country. I have years of support that if employers don't provide, the government will. You been living under a rock?

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

You must be against the part where the government gets cut out and money goes direct from employer to employee. You think it is more efficient to funnel it through the government obviously.

 

[bripat9643]

So you don't want the government to force Wal-Mart to pay a "living wage," whatever you deem that to be?

No, did you bother reading what I would do? I said I would redo corp taxes so that there are incentives for companies to hire here, pay well, and provide good benefits. A corp that does those things could pay 0 taxes. Obviously the wage increases would come out of the tax savings. Rather than collect taxes and then give welfare to the poor, the government would be cut out. The employer would give direct to the employee. How is the communism?

Your plan doesn't add up. It would never work.

Oh and what part doesn't add up for you professor?

The part where the corporation saves enough in taxes to compensate for the increased cost of wages doesn't add up.

Why not? You republicans run around saying our corporations are the most taxed in the world. Are you now saying they aren't? Walmart for instance would have an extra 7.1 billion.

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

You must be against the part where the government gets cut out and money goes direct from employer to employee. You think it is more efficient to funnel it through the government obviously.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

 

[Brain357]

No, did you bother reading what I would do? I said I would redo corp taxes so that there are incentives for companies to hire here, pay well, and provide good benefits. A corp that does those things could pay 0 taxes. Obviously the wage increases would come out of the tax savings. Rather than collect taxes and then give welfare to the poor, the government would be cut out. The employer would give direct to the employee. How is the communism?

Your plan doesn't add up. It would never work.

Oh and what part doesn't add up for you professor?

The part where the corporation saves enough in taxes to compensate for the increased cost of wages doesn't add up.

Why not? You republicans run around saying our corporations are the most taxed in the world. Are you now saying they aren't? Walmart for instance would have an extra 7.1 billion.

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

How many employees they have on welfare?

 

[Brain357]

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

Ok so I guess they really aren't paying much in taxes.

 

[Brain357]

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

You must be against the part where the government gets cut out and money goes direct from employer to employee. You think it is more efficient to funnel it through the government obviously.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well right now the poor are taken care of through welfare. Corps and individuals pay taxes and the government distributes it as welfare. I am suggesting cutting out that part and have employers give direct to the employee. You obviously have a problem with that.

 

[Arianrhod]

So instead of teaching the bottom 40% how to earn that type of wealth...

The answer's self-evident: Have a wealthy grandfather leave you billions.

May we assume you're at least a millionaire?

We do not have two pennies to rub together. But that doesn't give us the authority to steal the Walton's wealth.


.

No one's asking you to steal anything. Like Ronald Reagan, we expect American corporations to pay their fair share. "Zero" - in the case of 20 American corporations - is not a "fair share."

Again, I'm amazed that the Rightists are so unwilling to demand that Apple, at least, pay some taxes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

No, they get a check from the government because they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

What's questionable is why you leftists have latched onto the word "earned", and think you can demand that people prove to you that they "deserve" their own property through meeting some arbitrary definition of "earned".

They built and maintained a relationship with their father, such that he chose to give them his property. YOU, on the other hand, didn't even do that much. So I think we can safely say the Walton children did more to "earn" what they have than YOU did. Or the government did. Or anyone who doesn't actually own the money did.

 

[Brain357]

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

No, they get a check from the government because they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

 

[Arianrhod]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

No, they get a check from the government because they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck.

No, they get SNAP benefits (not "a check" - you people can't even get that right) because Walmart is the only employer for miles around. Many of these workers owned their own stores before Walmart steamrolled in and put them out of business. I thought you people respected small business owners? But not compared to your worship of Walmart.

Keep praying. When Walmart goes bust, decent employers will fill the vacuum.

 

[Rustic]

Work harder and be more responsible employee you will get paid more simple as that

 

[Arianrhod]

They built and maintained a relationship with their father, such that he chose to give them his property.

Wow, that sounds strenuous! Did they swallow?

 

[BluesLegend]

So instead of teaching the bottom 40% how to earn that type of wealth...

The answer's self-evident: Have a wealthy grandfather leave you billions.

May we assume you're at least a millionaire?

We do not have two pennies to rub together. But that doesn't give us the authority to steal the Walton's wealth.


.

No one's asking you to steal anything. Like Ronald Reagan, we expect American corporations to pay their fair share. "Zero" - in the case of 20 American corporations - is not a "fair share."

Again, I'm amazed that the Rightists are so unwilling to demand that Apple, at least, pay some taxes.

Ahahahaha okay what's a "fair share"? And don't say 'more' like the left always does.