Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[thereisnospoon]

Like when BMW gets a tax break from Greenville and Spartanburg Counties to build not only a large automotive plant there,but also agrees to pay for an expansion of the airport in return for bringing in 10,000 new and very well paying jobs?
Like when Dell gets tax breaks to build a new assembly plant in Greensboro, NC in return for creating 1,500 news jobs?
These deals are made all the time. It's business. In business parties make trades. Everybody wins.

I couldn't disagree more. The government leaders and the businesses involved might 'win'. The rest of us get screwed. In particular, the businesses trying to compete with the companies getting in bed with government get screwed. The corporate state is not something I want to see in my lifetime, and people lauding the view you represent here are inviting just that. We should keep business out of government and government out of business.

In a perfect world you'd be spot on. However, the USA is made up of 50 states each with different tax laws, tax structures and various other regulations. That means states must compete for businesses. It's sort of like the free agent market in Major League Baseball. The owners( States) know darn well they should not extend big money( tax breaks) to quality players ( businesses) but they do not want the other team owners( states) to get a crack at the star player( business). SO they off the best deal ( tax break) for the player( business) andif that means spending high dollars (loss of some tax revenue), so be it
Plus. Big plus. With the promise and delivery of hundreds or even thousands of new and well paying jobs, states are welcoming the new companies because the additional payroll taxes, sales taxes from equipment purchases by the firm, new spending power of the workers, etc will make up for the loss in property tax revenue. Plus it's just plain old good PR for local and state politicians to be "pro business and pro new jobs"..
At this point in this shitty economy, job creation is crucial.
I don't see how anyone gets "screwed"....

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't despise Wal-mart. They have found a way to thrive and prosper in a very business unfriendly environment and I say power to them. I shop there infrequently, however. And I've never worked for them but I have family members who have (retired school teachers) and they did not find it a bad experience even though they didn't stay all that long. I hope to leave something for my kids too that will increase their ability to do more with their lives that otherwise might not be possible.

But instead of focusing on Wal-Mart as the bad guy, how about focusing on a government who makes a Wal-mart possible and/or even necessary? How about demanding a government that will stop crushing business spirit and initiative and will rather remove onerous tax and regulation policies and provide incentives for more jobs to be created here? More products to be manufactured here?

Labor is a commodity like anything else. And it is worth more the less there is of it. Work to restore full employment in this country and Wal-mart, along with everybody else, will be forced to raise wages and improve benefits to attract and keep good people. Those that continue to work in low paying 'drudge' jobs will be those that simply aren't capable or willing to do anything else. But there needs to be a place for them too.

We have a government that seems gung ho to keep American business oppressed and American labor unemployed and encourages cheaper products made by cheaper labor overseas. Fix that, and you fix all of it.

The problems I have with wallmart are listed above, and to add to them, wallmart regularly buys influence with small governments and they push out the small businesses who can't compete with them. Walmart claims that they increase jobs but they don't. The amount of jobs they create is countered by those they destroy.

The main problem is they have enough money they can get the government to do almost anything they want that will drive out whatever local competition there is. They are using government to destroy small business and that is a crime.

I have heard allegations like that but have never seen any evidence to back it up. Here is Albuquerque, the Wal-marts are almost all anchor stores in shopping centers or strip malls and are essential to pull business in for everybody else there. When a Super Center wanted to go in out in our former mountain community just outside Albuquerque, we all objected because we didn't want to lose the rustic atmsophere and the small mom and pop businesses there. The Wal-mart was not built even though there was more than a sufficient trade area for it.

We're on the same page on most things Westie. Do you have a credible source to back up your accusations of Wal-Mart here?

Who is to blame. Those who petition and buy influence from the government? Or the government who can be bought?

 

[westwall]

I don't despise Wal-mart. They have found a way to thrive and prosper in a very business unfriendly environment and I say power to them. I shop there infrequently, however. And I've never worked for them but I have family members who have (retired school teachers) and they did not find it a bad experience even though they didn't stay all that long. I hope to leave something for my kids too that will increase their ability to do more with their lives that otherwise might not be possible.

But instead of focusing on Wal-Mart as the bad guy, how about focusing on a government who makes a Wal-mart possible and/or even necessary? How about demanding a government that will stop crushing business spirit and initiative and will rather remove onerous tax and regulation policies and provide incentives for more jobs to be created here? More products to be manufactured here?

Labor is a commodity like anything else. And it is worth more the less there is of it. Work to restore full employment in this country and Wal-mart, along with everybody else, will be forced to raise wages and improve benefits to attract and keep good people. Those that continue to work in low paying 'drudge' jobs will be those that simply aren't capable or willing to do anything else. But there needs to be a place for them too.

We have a government that seems gung ho to keep American business oppressed and American labor unemployed and encourages cheaper products made by cheaper labor overseas. Fix that, and you fix all of it.

The problems I have with wallmart are listed above, and to add to them, wallmart regularly buys influence with small governments and they push out the small businesses who can't compete with them. Walmart claims that they increase jobs but they don't. The amount of jobs they create is countered by those they destroy.

The main problem is they have enough money they can get the government to do almost anything they want that will drive out whatever local competition there is. They are using government to destroy small business and that is a crime.

A typical Wal Mart store employs hundreds of workers. The business that may close as a result may employ a few dozen workers combined.
Lowes.Target, Home Depot and Many other large retailers do the same thing.
This phenomenon did not start with Wal Mart. It started with the invention of the suburban shopping mall.
Wal Mart gets picked on for two reasons. One is it's staunchly anti- union stance. That makes no sense in that the businesses that would close because of the presence of a Wal Mart were non union anyway. Two, Wal Mart has supplanted Exxon/Mobil and GM ( big union) as the largest corporation in the world. People seem to despise old number one.

That's true but try drivin through Kansas some day. Wherever a walmart is, there is very little else. All of the small businesses are gone with the concurrent loss of jobs.

 

[westwall]

I don't despise Wal-mart. They have found a way to thrive and prosper in a very business unfriendly environment and I say power to them. I shop there infrequently, however. And I've never worked for them but I have family members who have (retired school teachers) and they did not find it a bad experience even though they didn't stay all that long. I hope to leave something for my kids too that will increase their ability to do more with their lives that otherwise might not be possible.

But instead of focusing on Wal-Mart as the bad guy, how about focusing on a government who makes a Wal-mart possible and/or even necessary? How about demanding a government that will stop crushing business spirit and initiative and will rather remove onerous tax and regulation policies and provide incentives for more jobs to be created here? More products to be manufactured here?

Labor is a commodity like anything else. And it is worth more the less there is of it. Work to restore full employment in this country and Wal-mart, along with everybody else, will be forced to raise wages and improve benefits to attract and keep good people. Those that continue to work in low paying 'drudge' jobs will be those that simply aren't capable or willing to do anything else. But there needs to be a place for them too.

We have a government that seems gung ho to keep American business oppressed and American labor unemployed and encourages cheaper products made by cheaper labor overseas. Fix that, and you fix all of it.

The problems I have with wallmart are listed above, and to add to them, wallmart regularly buys influence with small governments and they push out the small businesses who can't compete with them. Walmart claims that they increase jobs but they don't. The amount of jobs they create is countered by those they destroy.

The main problem is they have enough money they can get the government to do almost anything they want that will drive out whatever local competition there is. They are using government to destroy small business and that is a crime.

I have heard allegations like that but have never seen any evidence to back it up. Here is Albuquerque, the Wal-marts are almost all anchor stores in shopping centers or strip malls and are essential to pull business in for everybody else there. When a Super Center wanted to go in out in our former mountain community just outside Albuquerque, we all objected because we didn't want to lose the rustic atmsophere and the small mom and pop businesses there. The Wal-mart was not built even though there was more than a sufficient trade area for it.

We're on the same page on most things Westie. Do you have a credible source to back up your accusations of Wal-Mart here?

Who is to blame. Those who petition and buy influence from the government? Or the government who can be bought?

I will find the articles that go into great depth on how walmart drives small businesses out of busine. As far as who is to blame i would say everyone. The governments are clearly complicit in the arrangements. Walmart's biggest crime in my opinion is driving manufacturing out of the US to produce the cheapest possible goods. Large cities such as Albuquerque can absorb the hit that a walmart mete's out. Small towns can't however.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problems I have with wallmart are listed above, and to add to them, wallmart regularly buys influence with small governments and they push out the small businesses who can't compete with them. Walmart claims that they increase jobs but they don't. The amount of jobs they create is countered by those they destroy.

The main problem is they have enough money they can get the government to do almost anything they want that will drive out whatever local competition there is. They are using government to destroy small business and that is a crime.

I have heard allegations like that but have never seen any evidence to back it up. Here is Albuquerque, the Wal-marts are almost all anchor stores in shopping centers or strip malls and are essential to pull business in for everybody else there. When a Super Center wanted to go in out in our former mountain community just outside Albuquerque, we all objected because we didn't want to lose the rustic atmsophere and the small mom and pop businesses there. The Wal-mart was not built even though there was more than a sufficient trade area for it.

We're on the same page on most things Westie. Do you have a credible source to back up your accusations of Wal-Mart here?

Who is to blame. Those who petition and buy influence from the government? Or the government who can be bought?

I will find the articles that go into great depth on how walmart drives small businesses out of busine. As far as who is to blame i would say everyone. The governments are clearly complicit in the arrangements. Walmart's biggest crime in my opinion is driving manufacturing out of the US to produce the cheapest possible goods. Large cities such as Albuquerque can absorb the hit that a walmart mete's out. Small towns can't however.

Well I've read a ton of stuff on Wal-mart so I'm hoping you can find a credible source as most sources are leftwing arms of those who despise and want to destroy Wal-mart. Wal-mart certainly isn't alone in purchasing cheaper products from overseas so I don't think they can be condemned just for that. I would take on G.E. before Wal-mart on that score as they don't pay any federal income taxes and pay fewer other taxes than most large companies. Wal-mart pays a ton of local, state, and federal taxes.

I agree many small towns suffer from any big box store coming into town, but almost all that get those stores solicit them and for a number of small towns they have been a real blessing. Have you checked the products you find in Office Max, Home Depot, Staples, Costco, Lowes? Lots and lots of foreign products there too.

I am not defending Wal-mart so much as I try to keep things in perspective and honest. Liberaldom has been trying to demonize and destroy Wal-mart for a long time because they refuse to unionize or play the politically correct game in other ways. If Wal-mart is unethical, that should be exposed. But they should not be the whipping boy for everybody else.

 

[dblack]

In a perfect world you'd be spot on. However, the USA is made up of 50 states each with different tax laws, tax structures and various other regulations. That means states must compete for businesses. It's sort of like the free agent market in Major League Baseball. The owners( States) know darn well they should not extend big money( tax breaks) to quality players ( businesses) but they do not want the other team owners( states) to get a crack at the star player( business). SO they off the best deal ( tax break) for the player( business) andif that means spending high dollars (loss of some tax revenue), so be it
Plus. Big plus. With the promise and delivery of hundreds or even thousands of new and well paying jobs, states are welcoming the new companies because the additional payroll taxes, sales taxes from equipment purchases by the firm, new spending power of the workers, etc will make up for the loss in property tax revenue. Plus it's just plain old good PR for local and state politicians to be "pro business and pro new jobs"..
At this point in this shitty economy, job creation is crucial.
I don't see how anyone gets "screwed"....

It's not clear to me whether you're defending this practice as a free market ideal, or a state's rights issue, but it's neither.

'State's rights' ensures that states aren't dictated to by the federal government. They have the freedom, within certain constraints, to set their own laws and tax policies. The most important of the constraints, in my opinion, is the concept of equal protection. It requires government (local or national) to apply it's laws equally to everyone. Leaders can't decide to only enforce laws against people they don't like, while giving a pass to their cronies. Likewise, they can't, according to principles of equal protection, write laws that give special breaks to individuals or businesses regardless of the quid pro quo involved. To do so is fundamentally unfair to everyone who isn't granted the special privilege and undermines the rule of law.

And while I realize some people think of these policies as 'pro free-market', nothing could be further from the truth. They are exactly the opposite. In a free market, the state sets the rules that everyone must follow and otherwise, stays out of the way. The success, or failure, of a given company depends on their ability efficiently provide for the needs and desires of consumers. These policies corrupt that ideal, and elevate a company's ability to manipulate government as a core business strategy. Not only does this encourage business and wealthy interests to become actively involved in manipulating the state, it invites government to become actively involved in dictating 'terms' to the businesses it 'partners' with. The whole process blurs the line between between business and government and creates a dynamic far closer to state socialism than any free market ideal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I suppose it does!

Thank you for again proving the saw...

The lower the IQ, the further to the left...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I couldn't disagree more. The government leaders and the businesses involved might 'win'. The rest of us get screwed.

"Screwed" through lower prices, more availability, better selection, more convenience...

Damnitall... People need to drive to 15 different stores to get what they need. They need to pay more for lower quality so that Koreans who staff their Bodegas with family members can stay in business!

 

[westwall]

I have heard allegations like that but have never seen any evidence to back it up. Here is Albuquerque, the Wal-marts are almost all anchor stores in shopping centers or strip malls and are essential to pull business in for everybody else there. When a Super Center wanted to go in out in our former mountain community just outside Albuquerque, we all objected because we didn't want to lose the rustic atmsophere and the small mom and pop businesses there. The Wal-mart was not built even though there was more than a sufficient trade area for it.

We're on the same page on most things Westie. Do you have a credible source to back up your accusations of Wal-Mart here?

Who is to blame. Those who petition and buy influence from the government? Or the government who can be bought?

I will find the articles that go into great depth on how walmart drives small businesses out of busine. As far as who is to blame i would say everyone. The governments are clearly complicit in the arrangements. Walmart's biggest crime in my opinion is driving manufacturing out of the US to produce the cheapest possible goods. Large cities such as Albuquerque can absorb the hit that a walmart mete's out. Small towns can't however.

Well I've read a ton of stuff on Wal-mart so I'm hoping you can find a credible source as most sources are leftwing arms of those who despise and want to destroy Wal-mart. Wal-mart certainly isn't alone in purchasing cheaper products from overseas so I don't think they can be condemned just for that. I would take on G.E. before Wal-mart on that score as they don't pay any federal income taxes and pay fewer other taxes than most large companies. Wal-mart pays a ton of local, state, and federal taxes.

I agree many small towns suffer from any big box store coming into town, but almost all that get those stores solicit them and for a number of small towns they have been a real blessing. Have you checked the products you find in Office Max, Home Depot, Staples, Costco, Lowes? Lots and lots of foreign products there too.

I am not defending Wal-mart so much as I try to keep things in perspective and honest. Liberaldom has been trying to demonize and destroy Wal-mart for a long time because they refuse to unionize or play the politically correct game in other ways. If Wal-mart is unethical, that should be exposed. But they should not be the whipping boy for everybody else.

I certainly agree with you on the GE front. And I agree with you on the leftist attack on walmart. I have no problem with the workers of walmart, just with the upper level corporate wonks. I'll try and dig up those articles today.

 

[editec]

I'm informed that the AVERAGE wage of WALMART employees is about $250 a week.

My guess would be the MEDIAN WAGE is even less than that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm informed that the AVERAGE wage of WALMART employees is about $250 a week.

My guess would be the MEDIAN WAGE is even less than that.

Informed?

Informed by blowhards on the Huffingglue message board? Wal-Mart has a starting wage of $8.37 an hour, currently. $250 would represent 30 hours for a new hire.

No way that is average. Besides, I already posted and cited the average wage for Wal-Mart associates.

 

[Againsheila]

Fair... the word you libs love to use.. subjective as it may be...

And it has been debunked SO many times about 'corporations not paying any taxes'... no matter how many times huffo puffo and other winger sites love to spout it off

The fact is the corporate taxation rate is outrageous, and the loopholes are many... and it makes it more advantageous for companies to set up elsewhere... moving jobs away from American workers... it is that simple

I posted links...where are your debunking the corporations not paying taxes????

The corporation tax rate is almost nil, it has certainly gone down drastically since the 60's and back then they weren't sending our jobs overseas, of course the CEOs didn't make 500 to 1000 times what their workers made either. For some, we are actually PAYING them to be in business (more socialization, but only for the wealthy).

We have gone thru the myth of 'corporations not paying taxes' ad nauseum on this board...

The corporate tax rate is almost nil?? Are you smoking crack?? Try ~39.2% in 2010

And of course... the CEO pay numbers... which of course you want yourself or your government cronies to limit because it makes you feel better... take away from those evil do-nothings

IOW you have no proof of anything. Thanks for playing....

 

[Chris]

GE paid no taxes last year.

The super rich had their rate cut from 26% in 1990 to 17% today.

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a tax problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep. The USA has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world which is one reason they ship the jobs overseas. We very much need to correct that to bring the money and jobs back home.

And those people who are paying no taxes need to pay their fair share.

We don't need to impose more taxes on those we need to provide savings, venture capital, take risks, and engage in commerce and industry that hires people.

 

[Douger]

Let's fantasize a bit.(murkins do that all day between viewing flags waving and TV)
Go back to first grade and think about your class mates. OK ? You there yet ?
Imagine if your mommy had her driver take you to school in The Limo, with a thousand dollars in your pocket(just in case) and 40 hamburgers in a warmer in the back of the limo. Just in case you got really hungry.
As you arrived your classmates all were looking weak, famished and all of them said they were very hungry. Some were shitting their pants because the water was polluted garbage but your mommy knew that and sent 25 gallons in the limo in case you got thirsty.

You make your choice at that moment ( and this moment) as to what you might do.
Are you a social democrat yet ? Or a fucking Nazi Jew piece of shit like your masters?
Sit down. read what I wrote, and decide who YOU are.
Get it ?

 

[Antiderivative]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?

Define "earned", because many people's wealth do not come from people earning it.

I define wealth as someone producing something of value in an free market context. However, we are far from a free market, so my definition of wealth does not carry much weight in our current paradigm.

 

[Douger]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?

Define "earned", because many people's wealth do not come from people earning it.

I define wealth as someone producing something of value in an free market context. However, we are far from a free market, so my definition of wealth does not carry much weight in our current paradigm.

You certainly didn't read my posts and most here won't either.I'm normally detested for speaking the truth.
No problem. My guys will arrive in another 2 hours and we'll get to work. If they have any problems I'll take care of it. NO MATTER WHAT.
I can't do what I do without my workers.That is the American way. Success via the efforts of others.I'm a socialist. My guys and their families are 100% covered.I'll go without before they have to. That's a given.
A.D. You are super intelligent. Carry on , thanks,and avoid all lies.

 

[bripat9643]

Define "earned", because many people's wealth do not come from people earning it.

I define wealth as someone producing something of value in an free market context. However, we are far from a free market, so my definition of wealth does not carry much weight in our current paradigm.

"Earned" means acquired through voluntary exchange. "Plunder" is when you acquire money through the use of force. Take welfare or Social Security as examples of the later.

 

[Antiderivative]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?

Define "earned", because many people's wealth do not come from people earning it.

I define wealth as someone producing something of value in an free market context. However, we are far from a free market, so my definition of wealth does not carry much weight in our current paradigm.

You certainly didn't read my posts and most here won't either.I'm normally detested for speaking the truth.
No problem. My guys will arrive in another 2 hours and we'll get to work. If they have any problems I'll take care of it. NO MATTER WHAT.
I can't do what I do without my workers.That is the American way. Success via the efforts of others.I'm a socialist. My guys and their families are 100% covered.I'll go without before they have to. That's a given.
A.D. You are super intelligent. Carry on , thanks,and avoid all lies.

I didn't read your post because it was mostly gibberish like this response.

 

[Antiderivative]

"Earned" means acquired through voluntary exchange.

"Pllunder" is when you acquire money through the use of force. Take welfare or Social Security as examples of the later.

I know, but we do not have voluntary exchange in our society. Instead, we have political and crony capitalism in our society, so welcome to reality.

How do you declare ownership over limited resources that benefit mankind as a whole?