Corporate welfare in action ....

[Aries]

They are able spare a living wage. They don't want to and they don't care. The owners of Wal-Mart are making a killing and a high number of their employees don't make enough to make ends meet. They can pay people more, they don't. And it's not right.

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have ran a business before and that explanation was trash. Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" .... "underpaying" people brings us to people working 40 hours a week and still needing government assistance. Totally unacceptable to me.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc. But when people are working 40 hours a week, in the richest country in the world, and can't make rent THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

Correct, something is wrong. You need to work more than 40 hours a week. I've done it plenty of times. I've had two or three jobs at one time in the past. I still do it now when you consider I invested my money and am now a landlord.

The problem is not that there are not enough jobs, the problem is there are not enough people willing to do the jobs. They would rather sit home and talk on their Obama phone all day.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

You buy that?
You don't think Wal-Mart can afford to pay their cashiers 12 an hour instead of 10??? That's horse shit.

If the work is only worth $10, why should they pay them $12?

Because the groceries they buy are worth 60 and they pay 120. Because the place they rent is worth 500 and they're paying 800..

Pay has to be relative to living costs. They arent.

For the sake of argument, why must they?

Because stealing and squatting is frowned upon....

"Why must poor people eat? When they can just starve to death?"

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

Then lower taxes comparative to the added expense.

If we want to be able to lower taxes on the working class... Why keep electing Republican scumbags who only lower taxes on the wealthiest citizens ?

Because yours is not a true statement.

 

[Aries]

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

Then lower taxes comparative to the added expense.

If we want to be able to lower taxes on the working class... Why keep electing Republican scumbags who only lower taxes on the wealthiest citizens ?

Because yours is not a true statement.

What is not true?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have ran a business before and that explanation was trash. Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" .... "underpaying" people brings us to people working 40 hours a week and still needing government assistance. Totally unacceptable to me.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc. But when people are working 40 hours a week, in the richest country in the world, and can't make rent THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

Correct, something is wrong. You need to work more than 40 hours a week. I've done it plenty of times. I've had two or three jobs at one time in the past. I still do it now when you consider I invested my money and am now a landlord.

The problem is not that there are not enough jobs, the problem is there are not enough people willing to do the jobs. They would rather sit home and talk on their Obama phone all day.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

You buy that?
You don't think Wal-Mart can afford to pay their cashiers 12 an hour instead of 10??? That's horse shit.

If the work is only worth $10, why should they pay them $12?

Because the groceries they buy are worth 60 and they pay 120. Because the place they rent is worth 500 and they're paying 800..

Pay has to be relative to living costs. They arent.

For the sake of argument, why must they?

Because stealing and squatting is frowned upon....

"Why must poor people eat? When they can just starve to death?"

Here's the thing. You people on the Left believe the Communist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" should be forced upon society, and that those who produce should be made to support those who do not.

You redefine common theft as charity, and those who produce are growing weary of it.

Note that no government policy is behind the donations pouring into Texas because of Harvey, nor those beginning to pile up for Florida.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

Then lower taxes comparative to the added expense.

If we want to be able to lower taxes on the working class... Why keep electing Republican scumbags who only lower taxes on the wealthiest citizens ?

Because yours is not a true statement.

What is not true?

Jeez ...

If it were a pie, your face would be wearing it.

 

[Aries]

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

Then lower taxes comparative to the added expense.

If we want to be able to lower taxes on the working class... Why keep electing Republican scumbags who only lower taxes on the wealthiest citizens ?

Because yours is not a true statement.

What is not true?

Jeez ...

If it were a pie, your face would be wearing it.

I got you that excited you want to sit on my face??


I say no. No means no.

 

[Aries]

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

Then lower taxes comparative to the added expense.

If we want to be able to lower taxes on the working class... Why keep electing Republican scumbags who only lower taxes on the wealthiest citizens ?

Because yours is not a true statement.

Did you sleep through the Reagan/bush years?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Then lower taxes comparative to the added expense.

If we want to be able to lower taxes on the working class... Why keep electing Republican scumbags who only lower taxes on the wealthiest citizens ?

Because yours is not a true statement.

What is not true?

Jeez ...

If it were a pie, your face would be wearing it.

I got you that excited you want to sit on my face??


I say no. No means no.

Why is it that Leftists such as yourself always resort to sexual crudity when losing an argument?

Odd, that.

 

[ph3iron]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

I presume you are sucking off your socialist VA SS Medicare welfare?

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

I presume you are sucking off your socialist VA SS Medicare welfare?

What are you blabbering about?

 

[Brain357]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

All corporate welfare is an example.

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

All corporate welfare is an example.

So no examples, pure fantasy wow shocker.

 

[Brain357]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

Fantasy, unless you have an example.

All corporate welfare is an example.

So no examples, pure fantasy wow shocker.

Are you not bright? Read this thread and you will see plenty.

 

[Brain357]

Toyota's recent decision to move 4,000 jobs from California and Kentucky to Texas is a prime example of this nonsense. Texas governor Rick Perry – who, by the way, isn't fooling anyone with those glasses – boasted that it was his state's pro-business policies that allowed him to nab those jobs from California and Kentucky. But by pro-business policies, what Perry really means is that he paid Toyota $10,000 for each jobfor a total of $40 million in tax breaks and money incentives. And that's on top of the millions from the city of Plano in property tax abatements, cash incentives, and waivers on construction fees.

The numbers are depressingly simple. The net gain of jobs for the country is zero; the corporation is just moving jobs from one place to another. California and Kentucky lose thousands of jobs and a significant source of tax revenue. That's less money for California and Kentucky schools, roads, health care, etc. The people of Texas aren't really gaining all that much. In most cases, the current Toyota employees will just relocate making any increase in employment for Texas minimal. The Texas government has given away a huge amount of public funds. They also lose all of the potential tax dollars they would have received if, for instance, a group of small businesses developed the land in Plano.

Republicans love welfare...for corporations

 

[Brain357]

According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the corporations are allowed to subtract the credits they are awarded from their annual gross income tax bill to reduce their taxes for expenses like adding and retaining employees, training, expansions and purchases from vendors located in the state. Amazon, for instance, has opened a $250 million distribution center near Kenosha.

If the tax credits exceed the amount of taxes due in a given year, the corporation can actually receive a refund from the state.

Plain Talk: Corporate welfare's flourishing in Scott Walker's Wisconsin

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living.

Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

If not for the corporations providing low paying jobs, there wouldn't be any, and everyone would be on full benefits.

They are able spare a living wage. They don't want to and they don't care. The owners of Wal-Mart are making a killing and a high number of their employees don't make enough to make ends meet. They can pay people more, they don't. And it's not right.

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have ran a business before and that explanation was trash. Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" .... "underpaying" people brings us to people working 40 hours a week and still needing government assistance. Totally unacceptable to me.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc. But when people are working 40 hours a week, in the richest country in the world, and can't make rent THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" ....

What's a "living wage"?
How do you know?
Show your math.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc.

Federal Government transfer payments in the US are currently over $2 trillion a year.

 

[jc456]

There's no such thing as corporate welfare.

What would you call it then when corporations get free money?

what exactly is free money?