Re: WalMart customer service dept.

[Guest guest]

DeGraf wrote:

> Klein jotted this down:

> > The short answer is that it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what

> > kind of impact it has-- whether it is right or wrong to take

> > someone's money without their permission (otherwise called 'theft')

> > does not hinge upon how much it hurts that person.

>

> Taxes aren't theft -- they're a system that adults agree to deal with

> by living in this country.

Did anyone ever ask you if you wanted to pay taxes?

If not, taxes are theft.

> > With more money, they could eat better, live in bigger or better

> > houses, have better cars, et cetera-- the same things that more

> > money would afford to people in lower middle class on up.

>

> I'm talking about people that can already afford the absolute best as

> they wish. That's sort of my point -- somebody that has enough money

> that they can spend it as they wish without thinking of cost, just

> buying a brand-new Jaguar here, a nice new personal plane there,

> perhaps a summer home somewhere else... What I am wondering is: if

> they are able to do that *with* taxes, then can it really be said

> that it's having an impact on their daily lives? Does it force them

> to even slow down spending at all?

Do you think people can do all that with $150,000 per year?

> On the other hand, if disabled people unable to work are going to

> survive on money collected through taxation, it has to come from

> somewhere. Not enough is generated if there is a flat tax on all

> income, not without raising it to the point of crippling the

> middle/lower income brackets. Where would you have it come from?

I think there should not be any tax on income. I am not in favor of

*any* taxes that every single taxpayer has not agreed to. In other

words, " I don't feel like paying this year " should be sufficient to get

the IRS to go away and bother someone else. Same is true for every tax

there is-- gas tax, utility tax, sales tax, all of it. You don't want

to pay, you don't have to. If you have to pay and you do not want to,

that is theft.

No matter how much I need to live, I just cannot find a moral

justification for theft. I am not entitled to a portion of anyone's

paycheck just because I need it-- but, unfortunately, people that are

not able to work are left with no other choice. If the taxpayers had

all of their money, there would be a lot more dollars freed up for

people to give (at their option) to pay for roads, fire and police

protection, helping the disabled and the poor, et cetera. Right now,

people don't donate for that purpose because they know that the

government provides this service, and that (through taxation) they are

already " donating " for that purpose.

[Guest guest]

> I think there should not be any tax on income. I am not in favor of

> *any* taxes that every single taxpayer has not agreed to. In other

> words, " I don't feel like paying this year " should be sufficient to get

> the IRS to go away and bother someone else. Same is true for every tax

> there is-- gas tax, utility tax, sales tax, all of it. You don't want

> to pay, you don't have to. If you have to pay and you do not want to,

> that is theft.

>

> No matter how much I need to live, I just cannot find a moral

> justification for theft. I am not entitled to a portion of anyone's

> paycheck just because I need it-- but, unfortunately, people that are

> not able to work are left with no other choice. If the taxpayers had

> all of their money, there would be a lot more dollars freed up for

> people to give (at their option) to pay for roads, fire and police

> protection, helping the disabled and the poor, et cetera. Right now,

> people don't donate for that purpose because they know that the

> government provides this service, and that (through taxation) they are

> already " donating " for that purpose.

>

, I completely agree with you here. A lot of people believe they

are 'entitled' to all kinds of money from 'the government'. They fail

to realize that the government doesn't own any money, but that the

people around them are working hard, and that some of the money they

earn is taken from them, so that they can be given what they think is

rightfully theirs, when it really isn't.

Rightfully this money belongs to the hardworking person who earned it,

and the government stole it from him. Every time another 'entitlement'

is invented, they will take more from the people.

My husband theoretically makes quite a lot of money (we live in

Canada). But since the government sees fit to take about 40% of it, we

are often struggling to pay the mortgage and to help our kids pay for

their education. In fact, we can't afford to pay all of it, so they

are left with large loans to pay off, and have to work awfully hard

through their whole summers to keep that loan down. And it will take

them years to pay it off after finishing college or university. If the

government would let my husband keep what is rightfully his, we could

easily pay for our five kid's education, and give money to help those

in need as well.

What galls me is, the harder people work (which means in theory that

they should make more money), the higher the percentage of taxes will

be. So, if somebody theoretically makes more money by working harder

and staying at work longer, they often end up in a higher tax bracket

and end up taking less money home after taxes! How fair is that?

[Guest guest]

> That's not Wal-Mart's fault. Wal-Mart is paying the market value for the

> labor of their employees. If they weren't, they would not have anyone

> willing to work for the money they offer.

Yes, there is an assumption that without Wal-mart, the checker earning

$8/hour would be earning $20/hour at the local downtown business. That's

simply not true - small businesses do not pay better then Wal-mart (most

are unprofitable, so they can't *afford* to pay even what they pay now -

mostly minimum wage). I know too many people working for small businesses

on poverty wages to believe otherwise. And I've seen more exploitation at

the small business sector then Wal-mart. These businesses Wal-mart puts

out of business are not all wonderful and innocent victims.

> > A 200-person Wal-Mart store can cost taxpayers (you and me) $420,750

> > per year - about $2,103 per employee.

My Wal-mart in this area pays significantly more then that in sales tax per

year. That doesn't include the non-tangible benefits like being able to

buy stuff that simply wasn't available within 100 miles previously (and

what was available here cost 2 or 3 times what it costs at Wal-mart.

I'm amazed at the discussion about how awful it is to buy goods from China

because it " exports jobs " . Apparently only Americans are worthy of jobs.

(if you want to end child labor, one way to do it is to make it

economically feasible to feed someone's entire family without children

working) I agree that China has a horrible human rights record, but I

think that is something to take up with our elected government, not merely

Wal-mart. It was the elected government who removed almost all tariffs

from Chinese imports.

--

[Guest guest]

> As to poorly paid and abused there is no proof of that.

Just this week 230 Chinese coal miners lost their life in a mine

explosion. These should be rare events but are not in the Chinese coal

mining industry. I would consider death to be " abuse " in most cases.

--

[Guest guest]

Ursula wrote:

> What galls me is, the harder people work (which means in theory that

> they should make more money), the higher the percentage of taxes will

> be. So, if somebody theoretically makes more money by working harder

> and staying at work longer, they often end up in a higher tax bracket

> and end up taking less money home after taxes! How fair is that?

This actually is totally false. Take a look at your tax form. On the

first $35,000. you pay 16%, on the amount between $35,000. and $70,000.

you pay 22%. On the amount between $70,000 and $113,804. you pay 26%. On

any amount over that you pay 29%. In Canada a higher income NEVER bumps

you whole earnings into a higher tax bracket, only that amount that is

over the cut off point for the lower amount.

For an example if you earn $35,000. you pay 16% tax. If you earn $36,000

you pay 16% tax on $35,000. and 22% tax on $1,000. This information

comes straight from the 2004 tax form.

Sometimes individual paychecks can look as if you are paying a higher

amount on all of it but that's just because of how each pay check is

calculated on an individual basis. That is why you will generally have a

refund if you had numerous spikes in the amount of individual paychecks

or you only worked part of the year. When you do your taxes at the end

of the year this is all balanced out based on the above formula.

Red

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Just this week 230 Chinese coal miners lost their life in a mine

> explosion. These should be rare events but are not in the Chinese coal

> mining industry. I would consider death to be " abuse " in most cases.

>

This proves nothing except that there were 230 miners working in a coal

mine when an accident occurred. There have been lots of similar

accidents in US coal mines. The fact is that coal mines are one of the

most dangerous jobs no matter where in the world they are.

Red

[Guest guest]

I think we should identify all CEOs who make 250 times or more the

income of the income of lowest paid workers in that person's

organization. Take half that over-inflated income away and spread it

around among garbage-collectors, home-health workers, child-care

workers, K-12 teachers. That would produce a lot more consumption to

support the economy. If the CEOs quit, fine. The people who actually

do the work can get along without them, and the political system will

benefit (since it is economically-based cronyism that is the main

source of corruption). If the CEOs can't find (or won't take) other

jobs, we can put them on SSI (after they spend down their assets, of

course) while they heal from the trauma of not being rich anymore.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>> I don't have one. Mine broke years ago, and I can't afford to have

>> it fixed, nor can I spare the cash to buy a new one (even one from

>> Goodwill or wherever).

>>

>>

>

>I have about the same income as you, and I can afford one if mine breaks

>(although not easily). If you lived in a section-8 place like I do,

>that would free up more moeny for other things.

>

You do know that your " section-8 place " is subsidized by the taxpayers,

don't you?

If the policies you espouse are enacted (which seems all too likely),

that subsidy will go away, and your rent will go way up.

Will you still be able to pay it?

> You choose not to for

>reasons that are important to you, but that does not mean that it is

>your income alone that means you cannot afford a TV. (And if you could,

>I bet you would get the best price at Wal-Mart).

>

>

Fry's would at least match them and have a better selection.

Costco would probably beat their price.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

[Guest guest]

> This proves nothing except that there were 230 miners working in a coal

> mine when an accident occurred. There have been lots of similar

> accidents in US coal mines. The fact is that coal mines are one of the

> most dangerous jobs no matter where in the world they are.

Actually, US coal mining is extremely safe. I should know, I've worked at

a coal mine. Have you? US coal mines have an accident rate significantly

below *most* industrial professions. In my time at the mine, that

employed around 600 people, there was not a single lost time accident in 3

years. That's not an unusual safety record for a US mine. We certainly

haven't had an accident that killed 230 workers for some time. You can

check my facts at http://www.msha.gov/

A good reason that the coal mines are safe here *is* because of unions.

They wouldn't probably be as safe without them. (that said, I think many

unions have outlived their usefulness and are just as corrupt as the

organizations they " oppose " )

Chinese coal mines are *not* safe, and extremely dangerous because of a

willful regard for employee safety. That is verifiable fact.

--

[Guest guest]

> You do know that your " section-8 place " is subsidized by the

taxpayers,

> don't you?

Of course.

> If the policies you espouse are enacted (which seems all too likely),

> that subsidy will go away, and your rent will go way up.

> Will you still be able to pay it?

If the policies I espouse were enacted, people would not pay *any*

taxes. That does not seem all too likely. My subsidy would go away,

but private organizations would fill in the gaps. The reason that we

still have taxes is that the majority of people do think it is

important to have things like roads and fire stations, and they think

it is important to help the less fortunate. If people overwhelmingly

did not want the taxes we have, they would elect politicians that want

to scrap the taxes we have.

Now, with that in mind, if there was no such thing as subsidies for

section 8 apartments and such, private charities would grow to fill in

the gaps. The key here, though, is that there would have to be NO

taxes... cutting the services without eliminating the taxes would not

work. People would have to know that they still have a societal

obligation to pay for things, but now it is a choice, not something

enforced at the point of government guns.

z. (And if you could,

> >I bet you would get the best price at Wal-Mart).

> >

> >

> Fry's would at least match them and have a better selection.

> Costco would probably beat their price.

Sometimes. Fry's can be hit or miss with prices. Last time I looked,

they had Win XP Pro for $300, which is $100 more than most places

(like Wal-Mart, CompUSA, etc). And if you are going to include

Costco, which is a membership club, certainly you should include Sam's

Club too. (I have a Sam's card on my mother's account, and their

prices are generally a little lower than Wal-Mart's, but not much).

[Guest guest]

So, if somebody theoretically makes more money by working harder

> > and staying at work longer, they often end up in a higher tax bracket

> > and end up taking less money home after taxes! How fair is that?

>

> This actually is totally false. Take a look at your tax form. On the

> first $35,000. you pay 16%, on the amount between $35,000. and $70,000.

> you pay 22%. On the amount between $70,000 and $113,804. you pay

26%. On

> any amount over that you pay 29%. In Canada a higher income NEVER bumps

> you whole earnings into a higher tax bracket, only that amount that is

> over the cut off point for the lower amount.

>

That is the way it works in the US as well. I have heard people here

also that think that someone who can earn more (just enough to reach

the next bracket) and bring home less after taxes. That is not true

here either. I do not know what the brackets are, or the tax rates,

but the way it works is the same as what you describe.

[Guest guest]

> I think we should identify all CEOs who make 250 times or more the

> income of the income of lowest paid workers in that person's

> organization. Take half that over-inflated income away and spread it

> around among garbage-collectors, home-health workers, child-care

> workers, K-12 teachers. That would produce a lot more consumption to

> support the economy. If the CEOs quit, fine. The people who actually

> do the work can get along without them, and the political system will

> benefit (since it is economically-based cronyism that is the main

> source of corruption). If the CEOs can't find (or won't take) other

> jobs, we can put them on SSI (after they spend down their assets, of

> course) while they heal from the trauma of not being rich anymore.

What would give anyone the right to do that? Who among us has the

right to say that a CEO is not entitled to the amount of money

specified in his contract with the company? Why do you think that

other people are more entitled to the CEO's pay than the CEO is? Both

the company and the CEO agree to the amount; it's completely fair.

The company can spend its money as it sees fit, and if it chooses to

pay ridiculous amounts of money to a CEO, that is certainly its

prerogative.

Similarly, garbage collectors, teachers, etc., have all agreed to the

pay they receive. They are making what their jobs are worth on the

market (except for the influence of unions, of course).

[Guest guest]

> Imagine a future utopia...

>

> The wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, so that the poor can receive

> their fair share of assistance. All is now balanced. There are no more

> poor. There are no more rich.

[snip]

> Where is the incentive for somebody to create

> robots who will take that burden of manual labor off the poor?

Where is the

> incentive for anybody to create, to invent, to push for progress,

when it

> will earn them nothing? If there are no poor and no rich, and no risk

> involved in doing nothing, why do anything at all?

You have just highlighted the fatal flaw of the Communist creed of

" From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. "

[Guest guest]

> Fry's would at least match them and have a better selection.

> Costco would probably beat their price.

Costco has recently got some bad exposure as exploiting the marketplace.

But that asside, what about the places where Wal-mart really does well -

places where there is no Cosco or Fry's?

--

[Guest guest]

This whole discussion is making me sick. You ignored me before, so I'll ask

again. Why do you feel compelled to defend and advocate for the rich?

How people feel about political and economic questions often depends on how

they define " us " and " them " in the situation under discussion. You don't

care about union workers. You don't care about American workers. You think

it's good that Chinese workers make more and American workers make less (to

even things out in our " global economy " ). But then you don't care about

Chinese workers either.

You care about corporations. Corporations are imaginary entities which

allow people to do business without risking personal liability for

negligence, financial irresponsibility and other wrongdoing. Why do you

identify with imaginary entities? You might argue that you care about the

stockholders -- the investors in the company -- but you don't. You care

about the CEO's and people making huge salaries. I really want to know why.

Not why they deserve more money or why they should keep the money they make,

but why do you feel the need to argue on their behalf? You're not one of

them and never will be.

- Debra

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>>Now, with that in mind, if there was no such thing as subsidies for

>>section 8 apartments and such, private charities would grow to fill in the

>>gaps.<<

You've got to be kidding. Even if private charities filled in the gaps, do

you know what it would look like? We have private homeless shelters now.

They don't have apartments; they have rooms. They have curfews and lots of

rules, and they throw people out for breaking the rules. And charities have

administration costs -- usually very high administration costs. And

sometimes the treasurer runs off with the money, but the good charity people

don't like to press criminal charges.

The idea that charity would pay for police protection, roads, schools,

courts and other government functions is just silly. Would we have a bake

sale to pay the president's salary or a car wash to buy new computers for

the FBI? Maybe firefighters would only fight fires at houses of people who

contribute to the firefighters fund. I guess you'd like that.

- Debra

[Guest guest]

>>Now, with that in mind, if there was no such thing as subsidies for

>>section 8 apartments and such, private charities would grow to fill in the

>>gaps.<<

I may be confused by the particular mode of the verb you chose, but can you back

that claim up with any evidence? Perhaps you were using the subjunctive as

opposed to the conditional, in which case that renders your point irrelevant in

any serious debate.

[Guest guest]

Wal-Mart - unions - mining - diamonds - Monopoly - property - hotels -

Hilton - bunnies - WWF - PANDAS - neurological disorders - vaccinations -

corporate greed - ???

How far can we stretch one topic/title before coming full circle?

Let's keep the title connected to the subject under discussion -

pleeeeeeeeeeeease?

----- Original Message -----

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>> Can all Americans have " service jobs " and who will be

>> left to service after all of our jobs are sent overseas?

>

> Yes, they can all have service jobs. Let me look at the jobs of

> people I know.

<snipped>

> Can those jobs be exported?

Jobs that can be exported (in addition to manufacturing) are intel-

lectual products. People who prefer to use their minds instead of

their body to work and who aren't suited to working with other people

in service oriented jobs and who aren't suited for management type

jobs are going to find their skills aren't worth very much because a

corp. can contract a foreign worker with the same intellectual skills

and make a huge a markup on the resultant product. (Like charging US

customers US prices for cheap tech support provided by an overseas

call center).

J

[Guest guest]

> Jobs that can be exported (in addition to manufacturing) are intel-

> lectual products. People who prefer to use their minds instead of

> their body to work and who aren't suited to working with other people

> in service oriented jobs and who aren't suited for management type

> jobs are going to find their skills aren't worth very much because a

> corp. can contract a foreign worker with the same intellectual skills

> and make a huge a markup on the resultant product. (Like charging US

> customers US prices for cheap tech support provided by an overseas

> call center).

I'm sorry, but I feel that if an Indian programmer is willing to do my job

for $12,000 a year, which is good money in his country, why shouldn't he

be able to? And why can't an American afford to live on those wages?

Obviously things are overpriced here in general and that may be a problem

to solve (granted, we have a bigger TV, nicer car, and much bigger home,

but *should we* have those things?).

--

[Guest guest]

> An American can't afford to live on those wages because we have to support

> the extravagant lifestyles of the rich class. I wouldn't mind the Indian

> programmer making his money -- as long as I got to pay Indian prices for

> the end product.

Except the middle class in America lives like the upper class lives in

India.

I think the extravagant lifestyle of the middle class is just as bad for

us competing internationally. If not worse.

--

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> A good reason that the coal mines are safe here *is* because of

> unions. They wouldn't probably be as safe without them.

Yes, thank you, . I've also worked in a mine, an iron ore

mine for Kaiser Steel, in Eagle Mountain, CA. Open pit, not

any damn tunnels. It was union, and I was a Teamster, for 3

years while I worked there, driving trucks. (Not the ore trucks.)

> (that said, I think many unions have outlived their usefulness

> and are just as corrupt as the organizations they " oppose " )

The early history of unions show that they started out corrupted.

As soon as a union was formed, the leaders of it *sold them out*

to the companies! This happened over and over until the AF of L,

I believe.

> Chinese coal mines are *not* safe, and extremely dangerous because

> of a willful regard for employee safety. That is verifiable fact.

I saved a little portion of the article in my local paper about that:

" China's mines are by far the world's deadliest, with more than

6,000 deaths last year in floods, explosions and fires. Mine

owners and local officials are frequently blamed for putting

profit ahead of safety as the nation's soaring energy needs raise

demand for coal. "

That said, it was reported there was an earthquake 10 minutes

before this explosion.

Clay

[Guest guest]

At 08:48 PM 2/15/05 wrote:

>

>

> > Jobs that can be exported (in addition to manufacturing) are intel-

> > lectual products. People who prefer to use their minds instead of

> > their body to work and who aren't suited to working with other people

> > in service oriented jobs and who aren't suited for management type

> > jobs are going to find their skills aren't worth very much because a

> > corp. can contract a foreign worker with the same intellectual skills

> > and make a huge a markup on the resultant product. (Like charging US

> > customers US prices for cheap tech support provided by an overseas

> > call center).

>

>I'm sorry, but I feel that if an Indian programmer is willing to do my job

>for $12,000 a year, which is good money in his country, why shouldn't he

>be able to? And why can't an American afford to live on those wages?

An American can't afford to live on those wages because we have to support

the extravagant lifestyles of the rich class. I wouldn't mind the Indian

programmer making his money -- as long as I got to pay Indian prices for

the end product.

J

[Guest guest]

Debra writes:

> You've got to be kidding. Even if private charities filled in the gaps, do

> you know what it would look like?

No, but it would be their money, so it would be up to them to determine what it

would look like.

> We have private homeless shelters now.

> They don't have apartments; they have rooms. They have curfews and lots of

> rules, and they throw people out for breaking the rules.

Like I said, there would have to be no taxes at all for it to be comparable.

> And charities have

> administration costs -- usually very high administration costs.

Private charities always outperform government " charities " like section 8. If

you want to see a model for waste, you need look no further than the government.

They can't be trusted with taxpayers' money, so they shouldn't get any.

> And

> sometimes the treasurer runs off with the money, but the good charity people

> don't like to press criminal charges.

Then that is their choice, is it not?

> The idea that charity would pay for police protection, roads, schools,

> courts and other government functions is just silly.

Not charity, per se, but people would have to opt to pay for these things.

> Would we have a bake

> sale to pay the president's salary or a car wash to buy new computers for

> the FBI?

If people wanted to, sure. Recall the children doing bake sales.

> Maybe firefighters would only fight fires at houses of people who

> contribute to the firefighters fund. I guess you'd like that.

It would be completely fair. If you don't pay for home insurance, you can't

make a claim if your house is robbed or burns down. If you don't pay for ADT to

monitor your home alarm, they won't send anyone to help when the alarm goes off.

Why do people expect otherwise?

Right now, everyone does pay for those things. They pay for it in the form of

taxes. We don't get free protection by any means.

[Guest guest]

Debra writes:

> This whole discussion is making me sick. You ignored me before, so I'll ask

> again.

Who is " you? " There are hundreds of " yous " on the list.

> Why do you feel compelled to defend and advocate for the rich?

It is a matter of right and wrong. No one has the right to take a big chunk of

their money because they have some idea that someone else needs it more than

they do. Rich people own their money, and no one has the right to steal that

money. No one has the right to get together and vote themselves the right to

take that person's money.

> How people feel about political and economic questions often depends on how

> they define " us " and " them " in the situation under discussion. You don't

> care about union workers.

Which are often called " American unemployed, " since their unions provoked their

jobs to move overseas.

> You don't care about American workers.

Sure I do. American workers benefit when they can buy low-priced Chinese goods.

American workers benefit in prosperous economy, which low-priced Chinese goods

help to bring about.

These things you are accusing the person called " you " of are leftist propaganda,

not reality.

> You think

> it's good that Chinese workers make more and American workers make less

Are Americans somehow superior to Chinese, and more deserving of money? I

advocate that people all over the world get paid *what their work is worth.*

> (to

> even things out in our " global economy " ).

Not even close.

> But then you don't care about

> Chinese workers either.

Sure I do. Giving them jobs, pumping money into their economy, and buying their

products improves their lives like it does in America.

> You care about corporations. Corporations are imaginary entities which

> allow people to do business without risking personal liability for

> negligence, financial irresponsibility and other wrongdoing. Why do you

> identify with imaginary entities?

Corporations are composed of people, for one thing. Second, a corporation owns

its money, and it is not right to steal that and hand it to someone else because

some people think the other people somehow deserve the money more than the

people who own that money.

> You might argue that you care about the

> stockholders -- the investors in the company -- but you don't.

How do you know this? Has the person known as " you " mentioned stockholders?

> You care

> about the CEO's and people making huge salaries. I really want to know why.

Every person owns himself, and as such, he owns all of the work he does. If he

sells that work, he owns all of the proceeds of that work. It does not matter

if you, Jane, or anyone else think the price they have gotten for the sale of

that work is fair. The money they are paid is theirs, and no one else's. If

you or someone else was here saying that we should take money from the poor to

redistribute to those that the government thinks is more deserving of that money

than its actual owners, I would oppose that too.

> Not why they deserve more money or why they should keep the money they make,

> but why do you feel the need to argue on their behalf? You're not one of

> them and never will be.

Right-- which should show you that I don't have a personal axe to grind here. I

(presuming I am " you " here) am shocking you by not yielding to

normally-predictable self-interest-- I am a poor person, supported entirely by

tax dollars, who has been exploited, overworked, and underpaid by abusive

employers, who is against unions, and against all taxes. I am writing what I

write based on right and wrong, not based on what would get more of someone

else's money for myself.