It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D.C. Council votes to Force Walmart to pay "living wage"--50% over minimum wage.

page: 29
19
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss


The simplest concepts really do escape you, don't they? Believing in freedom doesn't mean you can't support consequences. The consequence in this case is regulation as a result of unethical and damaging business practices.

Oh good hell.
The consequences of a bad business, is that the business fails.
With the last, and current Progressives in charge, business was not allowed to fail ,because it was deemed as too big and important.





Originally posted by Garkiniss

And you're promoting slavery.

Yep, because that is exactly what I said.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
Guess who maintains the moral high ground?

In regards to what.


Originally posted by Garkiniss

So you admit it's a failed business model. Glad we can agree on something.

What is a failed business model? Be specific.




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Oh good hell.
The consequences of a bad business, is that the business fails.
With the last, and current Progressives in charge, business was not allowed to fail ,because it was deemed as too big and important.


I'm assuming you're talking about the bailouts, and I agree. They shouldn't of been bailed out. Doesn't really apply to the Wal-Mart scenario though, does it?



Yep, because that is exactly what I said.


You're defending a business that promotes indentured servitude.
I really don't see a difference.



What is a failed business model? Be specific.


One that can't operate on its own without negatively affecting everything it touches.
I've, and several others, have already covered this. Do pay attention.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss


I'm assuming you're talking about the bailouts, and I agree. They shouldn't of been bailed out. Doesn't really apply to the Wal-Mart scenario though, does it?

I am sure that Walmart had their hand in part of the bailouts, as most large corporations did.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
You're defending a business that promotes indentured servitude.
I really don't see a difference.

Yeah, because the Walmart employee owes money to Walmart, as the employer. Or.....the Govt has ordered the person to work there.
Your fast and loose use of such things is the reason why people don't think they can speak their mind.
en.wikipedia.org...
Please, go and research and educate yourself as to what it means, before spouting off talking points from forums.


Originally posted by Garkiniss

One that can't operate on its own without negatively affecting everything it touches.
I've, and several others, have already covered this. Do pay attention.

No, that is not a failed model.
A failed business model is one where the business fails and closes.
You want to legislation outcomes or hurt feelings.
Negative impact is part of the free will and free market experience. Same goes for positive impacts.
Can't have one without the other. Nor can the Govt rid society of it.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
As I've mentioned, you and I differ on opinions concerning what constitutes success.
I hold success to a higher standard. I suppose that's a Progressive ideal as well?

And I know what an indentured servant is.
Research the way Wal-Mart employees are treated abroad. How they're locked into barracks
and actually owe the company money.

Walmart supports these business practices, so it reflects on their own morals. I.E. they're guilty.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
As I've mentioned, you and I differ on opinions concerning what constitutes success.
I hold success to a higher standard. I suppose that's a Progressive ideal as well?

This is a very basic idea.
A company is there to make a profit for the owner(s).
A successful business is one that makes a profit and stay operational.
A great company is one that provides well for the employees and customer.

Those are the differences.
What you add really is opinion.



Originally posted by Garkiniss
And I know what an indentured servant is.

Obviously not, as you tried to apply it to a company operating within the US.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
Research the way Wal-Mart employees are treated abroad. How they're locked into barracks
and actually owe the company money.

I don't care about other countries or their problems. It is none of my business.




Originally posted by Garkiniss
Walmart supports these business practices, so it reflects on their own morals. I.E. they're guilty.


Oh, so you are the Judge and Jury. I get it. Rights for everyone, except when you deem not for everyone.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 

You're wasting your time and energy my friend - He doesn't get it. He'll never get it because he doesn't want to.

I strongly suspect he is a boss of one of those taxpayer-robbing companies whose employees are underpaid and claiming benefits.

And according to his previous posts in answer to mine, he is now looking for professional advice with regard to dodging his own taxes, but has the neck to accuse poor folk of robbing the taxpayer.

Hypocrite or what?

edit on 6-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll

You're wasting your time and energy my friend - He doesn't get it. He'll never get it because he doesn't want to.

Yes, you are right...I just don't get the Progressive mindset where you and others get to have the Govt to force things on people and companies.
Silly me.


Originally posted by doobydoll
I strongly suspect he is a boss of one of those taxpayer-robbing companies whose employees are underpaid and claiming benefits.

Nope, but try again.
The company I work for is great and pays me the my market value. If they didn't I would leave.
The business I own and run is myself and my brother. We don't employee anyone because it would cost too much to do so. Thank Govt for that one.
Maybe in the future we will use contractors.


Originally posted by doobydoll
And according to his previous posts in answer to mine, he is now looking for professional advice with regard to dodging his own taxes, but has the neck to accuse poor folk of robbing the taxpayer.
Double-standards much?


Dodging taxes you say??? So, I should be paying higher taxes to accommodate others???
Shall I bend over a little further, while I allow the Govt to rape me over my earned income?
Oh, and your analogy doesn't fit, and I will be happy to explain it:
Tax payer is paying out
Low income is getting tax dollars in.

So, who is being robbed again?
I do like it when it is viewed as selfish or what ever, when I want to keep the money I earned, to provide for MY family. That is very quaint.


edit on 6-8-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 





Dodging taxes you say???

Yes I do say.

I omitted the rest of your rant/post because however you choose to spin it, the bottom line is you are looking for ways to get out of paying your due taxes = tax dodging.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


Dodging implies that I am either doing something illegal or neglecting my responsibilities.
Please explain why I am financially responsible for low income people?

This is going to be a treat if you really want to explain it to me.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll

And according to his previous posts in answer to mine, he is now looking for professional advice with regard to dodging his own taxes, but has the neck to accuse poor folk of robbing the taxpayer.



Doobydoll, a simple entity change for a business can result in substantial tax savings, usually at a minimum 2 or 3 thousand U.S. Dollars of tax savings. Sometimes you are talking tens of thousands of tax savings.These savings will be realized every year there-after as well. There is nothing illegal about it. I back up my words with a guarantee that they will save at least $2,000 or my fee is refundable. They save the same amount in taxes year after year when they do an entity change.

I routinely can get larger businesses with assets, tax savings in the $50,000 to upwards of $400,000.Most of those are just a one time savings but even with them there are credits that can save them $25,000 to $50,000 every year. Again, there is nothing illegal about it. All you need is the knowledge and those savings can be realized for them.You should see the look on a business owner's face when they realize they just got an extra $100,000 because of existing tax laws, utilized properly.

I guess now you are going to rail about how I skirt the system by reducing my clients tax situations. The Government designed these programs and entities to be utilized by business, not everyone realizes they are available to EVERYONE, if the situation warrants it.

Everything I do is 100% legal, never gets a client of mine in any trouble with the IRS. Most people don't realize that two neighbors working the exact same business, with the same biz revenue and expenses, can pay vastly different amount of taxes. It's true and the only reason one of them pays less in taxes is that they took the time to PLAN and LEARN about how you can legally reduce your tax obligations.

Like the site says, DENY IGNORANCE. Most people are ignorant on how they could minimize their tax situation.
edit on 6-8-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by doobydoll
 


Dodging implies that I am either doing something illegal or neglecting my responsibilities.

Are you or are you not seeking advice on how to avoid paying in future, some of your taxes which you pay now? I'm not implying it's illegal because I know it isn't. The bottom line is you're looking for ways to get out of paying some taxes.

You said yourself you will soon be lobbying for these tax-dodges - or 'loopholes' as they like to call it so it doesn't sound criminal.

Yes it's legal. Legal fraud.



Please explain why I am financially responsible for low income people?

This is going to be a treat if you really want to explain it to me.

Oh for goodness sake what's wrong with you? I'm not gonna go through it all again. Go back and read my replies, your answer is there.

Myself and others have spent days explaining it to you over and over and over again but you're just too dense to get it.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Thanks for your reply


I understand these 'loopholes' aren't illegal, but the point I'm trying to make is macman 'takes' tax money when he uses 'loopholes', he's committing no crime and legally entitled to do so.
Underpaid workers are 'taking' tax money when they get benefits, they're also committing no crime and legally entitled to do so.

Both instances leave the taxpayer pot short of a few dollar.

If he's saying they're wrong to claim benefits, then he must also also wrong to use loopholes.

Double standards, ok for him, not ok for others.
edit on 6-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
Are you or are you not seeking advice on how to avoid paying in future, some of your taxes which you pay now?

Yep, sure am. Nothing illegally done.
I should not be forced to carry more of the load, because I earn/make more.


Originally posted by doobydoll

I'm not implying it's illegal because I know it isn't. The bottom line is you're looking for ways to get out of paying some taxes.

Yes, because again, it is not my responsibility to carry more for others.


Originally posted by doobydoll
You said yourself you will soon be lobbying for these tax-dodges - or 'loopholes' as they like to call it so it doesn't sound criminal.

I never said for tax loop holes. I said lobbying in general.
You assumed for taxes.
There are several facets within the world that my business operates in, that requires lobbying.


Originally posted by doobydoll
Yes it's legal. Legal fraud.

Ohhhhhh, nice burn.
That really hurt. *Points to chest* right here, it hurts, if only I had a heart that wasn't black with greed.
But, it will probably never change, as I am told that my drinking of the blood of the poor causes it.



Originally posted by doobydoll
Oh for goodness sake what's wrong with you? I'm not gonna go through it all again. Go back and read my replies, your answer is there.

Myself and others have spent days explaining it to you over and over and over again but you're just too dense to get it.

So, you refuse to explain to me why I need to pay more in taxes, then others???
Okay then. I guess you concede.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll


I understand these 'loopholes' aren't illegal, but the point I'm trying to make is macman 'takes' tax money when he uses 'loopholes', he's committing no crime and legally entitled to do so.

Excuse me??? I am "taking tax dollars"?
Who earned the money in the first place?
I am taking nothing. The Govt is the one taking. Maybe get your BS straight before you reply again, as I will not let that kind of crap slide.




Originally posted by doobydoll
Underpaid workers are 'taking' tax money when they get benefits, they're also committing no crime and legally entitled to do so.

No, as they aren't taking. The Govt is taking and giving to those people. Both actions are wrong.


Originally posted by doobydoll
Both instances leave the taxpayer pot short of a few dollar.

And the problem is what???
By your thought process, I should be with less earned income, just so someone else can have it?
I wonder, do you have a problem with people stealing from you?


Originally posted by doobydoll
If he's saying they're wrong to claim benefits, then by his own logic he is also wrong to use loopholes.

I am saying the loop holes and benefits are wrong to begin with.
As I have stated before. I am for a flat tax of EVERYONE of 15%, no write offs, no handout no nothing.
Or, a tax only on consumption.
Those are the only 2 taxation methods that are equal for everyone.


Originally posted by doobydoll
Double standards, ok for him, not ok for others.

Now that is funny, because I do recall you and the other Progressive here being shown for the "its different" statements.
I have yet to state one thing for some, but not for others.
Again, get your BS straight.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
.....
If he's saying they're wrong to claim benefits, then he must also also wrong to use loopholes.



Perhaps, I've read his responses wrong, but I don't think he claims it is wrong for people to seek benefits they are entitled to. He just thinks that he shouldn't have to pay more because of people claiming benefits, when everybody is not asked to pay more, only a select few. That's usually how the tax conversations flow around here. I pay my legally required amount of taxes and no more.

I too, don't feel it's my duty to pay more in taxes to cover expansion of creating a even more dependent welfare state. It's a never ending, going down the drain kinda of system. We should be encouraging good job growth and manufacturing, not figuring out how to make minimum wage jobs become a career. Some jobs are only worth so much, to pay more than a job is worth to a person or business is just crazy IMO.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

With the last, and current Progressives in charge, business was not allowed to fail ,because it was deemed as too big and important.





Who voted to bail out the banks?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

This is a very basic idea.
A company is there to make a profit for the owner(s).
A successful business is one that makes a profit and stay operational.


And yet Wal-Mart's business model is failing now, and their sustainability is being brought into question.
Failed business model.



What you add really is opinion.


An opinion backed by economic facts, but sure... it's my opinion.



Obviously not, as you tried to apply it to a company operating within the US.


They don't just operate in the United States, and their factories overseas, out-managed or not, are still reflective on the business as a whole. Wal-Mart supports those practices by keeping those factories open. You support Wal-Mart as a corporation, ispo facto, you support the use of indentured servants.



I don't care about other countries or their problems. It is none of my business.


Spoken like a true republican, though as a supporter of the "free market", you should be very interested
in international affairs.



Oh, so you are the Judge and Jury. I get it. Rights for everyone, except when you deem not for everyone.


I'd call you a hypocrite, but that would require you to have moral standards.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by Garkiniss
 

You're wasting your time and energy my friend - He doesn't get it. He'll never get it because he doesn't want to.

I strongly suspect he is a boss of one of those taxpayer-robbing companies whose employees are underpaid and claiming benefits.

And according to his previous posts in answer to mine, he is now looking for professional advice with regard to dodging his own taxes, but has the neck to accuse poor folk of robbing the taxpayer.

Hypocrite or what?

edit on 6-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



Yeah, I'm bugging out of this thread. It's going no where.
Even if he realized he were wrong, he'd never admit it.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by supremecommander
 


Say it with me. GOVERNMENT.
All had a hand in this.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
...
And yet Wal-Mart's business model is failing now, and their sustainability is being brought into question.
Failed business model.


Please explain to me exactly how Wal Mart's Biz model is failing or their sustainability? Frankly, I'm not seeing it. Eventually, they will reach a saturation point, but they are not there yet. They "might" be in trouble if unemployment were to dip to 2.5% or China implodes. Other than that, they still should be the dominant retailer in the U.S.

Visual Chart of Wal Mart's Growth



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join