bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,322
- 2,180
If you want to pay them an extra 65¢ an hour, ok, but that still accomplishes nothing. 65¢ isn't going to roll back all the welfare roles, and shrink government.
Nevertheless, I take back that you were making up stuff. At least there are some estimates claiming the Waltons are making $3 Billion in dividends.
I will also concede that it is even possible, that they are in fact collecting $3 Billion.
I couldn't actually find anything proving that the Walton's owned 50% of the shares. Several claims, but no proof. I did find that a majority stake, 51% of the shares are owned by insiders. But "insiders" is not limited to the Waltons.
We do know what they have a holding company, with 1.6 billion shares of Wal-mart stock, and that likely brings them $2 Billion in dividends. But that is only 33% of the company. The other 17% of insider shares is divided up among all the insiders, not just the Waltons.
But all of that is beside the point.
They own this company. Should they not get a share of the profit of the company they built? Sam Walton started this entire thing from a tiny mom&pop dollar store. He built this company. He owned it, and gave it to his family. They own this company.
If you owned a car, and the car made money.... shouldn't you get a share of that money? Of course. And if you don't, you would not have bought it.
If you create a system by which the people who make these companies, can't make a share of the profit from their ownership........ well then they are not going to do it! And then 2.2 million people will not be employed.
Again, how much welfare are they going to collect while earning zero?
Well I don't think the kids have ever done very much to earn it, but I agree they should make money. Again I have not said take from them, I'm just pointing out that if so few can make so much then don't tell me they can't pay more to workers.
Now if Walmarts corporate tax rate went to 0, would that give them money to pay the workers more?
Does that matter? Why does that matter?
If your parents bought us savings bonds, and put them in trust for your children.... as many often do, your kids haven't lifted a finger for those. Should they not be allowed to have them?
If your grand father gave you his 1967 Shelby mustang, and you hire someone to take it to auto shows where you win money and prizes for it.... is that wrong? You didn't 'work' for it, so it's somehow wrong?
Why?
Nearly every family farm, was passed down through generations since homesteading. Is that wrong? Should you not be allowed to give your children stuff?
Sam Walton worked his butt off making his company, and gave his children shares in the company he made. I don't see a problem with that, whether they 'worked for it' or not.
The bottom line: If your children aren't entitled to inherit your money, then nobody is, especially the government.