Except you’re leaving out the savings from the stores themselves, power, water, land, taxes, etc.
Except you’re leaving out the savings from the stores themselves, power, water, land, taxes, etc.Sorry, I figured it was so simple that you would realize the logical conclusion, but ill explain.
See, Walmart is cutting about 10% of the jobs from Sam's, not all of Walmart, just Sam's. From the articles I have read its about 10,000 jobs. Now, not all of those jobs were making $10/hr and will be just fine finding a new job. Thus the real issue is the lower wage workers that were just getting by. Now, on top of raising their lower wage to $11/hr, they are also increasing other benefits which cost real money. So, those 10k jobs are having those wages spread across far more than 100k people, meaning Walmart is actually spending more money on its new system than what was lost. This is the very foundation of what the Left has wanted by instituting "living wages", and yet here you are being unhappy. So even though many more people are going to have more money, you are unhappy.
A bad deal in what way? If you don't like the wages Walmart gives out then fine, but how is Walmart obligated to employ people? Walmart did not make this move because of the tax cuts. I'm sure people will try and link them, but its still wrong. Walmart did this because of many other reasons. That said, if you disagree with something I have said point it where and explain yourself. I think is fairly telling that your reply is to not address what I have said.
Except you’re leaving out the savings from the stores themselves, power, water, land, taxes, etc.
I was pretty clear with what my issue was, everyone else was able to understand it.
We get it, people should be happy with what they get and should shut up if they think people deserve more and expect more from corporations than just making more profit.
You can shove the rest of your straw man arguments up your ass.
I'm ignoring nothing. His point was that the tax cuts were done to help keep jobs and Walmart just cut jobs. It ignores that what Walmart did was likely a short term expense. Walmart cut stores that were not meeting its expectations and took that money and used it elsewhere. Its not like Walmart is making huge profits from this, considering the raise in hourly wages, bonuses, and benefits. Something that many around here have complained about. So now that Walmart is spending more on paying its people, they are somehow doing something wrong in that.
No that was not my point you stupid fuck.
Wait, so you are saying that a corporations tax rate has very little to do with creating, let alone, maintaining existing jobs? Then what was all that talk about a high corporate tax rate being job killing?
Welcome to the club water boy!
You said...
So your original point that I responded to was not about making or maintaining jobs through the tax cut?
I think this emphasizes the point that many of these companies have considerable amounts of capital already and don't need tax cuts to "boost employment". Maybe some small businesses do but certainly not these mega corporations that have the GOP by the balls.
Sure. When Wal-Mart was growing and expanding and building new location after new location it had nothing to do with Trump. It was a reaction to Wal-Marts success in the retail marketplace. And now that the retail marketplace is being shrunk due to online competition retailers are either streamlining or failing completely (Sears, K-Mart, Circuit City, etc) Only the truly pathetic and delusional would view this as anything but a necessary move to adjust to the fact that RETAIL IS DYING. It was dying long before Trump came along and it will continue to die long after he''s gone. Wal-mart is overbuilt in B&M and needs to adapt, cut underperforming locations and move their operations more in the direction of online order fulfillment or they'll wind up like Caldor, Bradlee's and he rest of the defunct businesses that didn't adapt.
Is this really so difficult to understand?
Tax cuts were not to keep jobs. They were to create jobs. This is the opposite of job creation.I'm ignoring nothing. His point was that the tax cuts were done to help keep jobs and Walmart just cut jobs. It ignores that what Walmart did was likely a short term expense. Walmart cut stores that were not meeting its expectations and took that money and used it elsewhere. Its not like Walmart is making huge profits from this, considering the raise in hourly wages, bonuses, and benefits. Something that many around here have complained about. So now that Walmart is spending more on paying its people, they are somehow doing something wrong in that.
Tax cuts were not to keep jobs. They were to create jobs. This is the opposite of job creation.
Tax cuts were not to keep jobs. They were to create jobs. This is the opposite of job creation.
The goal was not to free up money. It was to create jobs and boost GDP. That is the stated goal of these tax cuts.First, he clearly said create or maintain. That is what I responded to.
2nd, the point of the tax cut was to free up money that business could use for things like labor. I have not made a comment on my view of this as it's irrelevant to the point that Walmart is likely spending more in the increased wages, new bonuses, and benefits compared to the savings in the jobs cut. It's not likely that the not having the tax cuts world have made a difference in keeping the jobs. It is likely that the increased wages and benefits is in part due to the tax cuts.
Again, I have not taken a stance in my comments about how well this will work, just that his comment was to imply that the tax cuts did not do what they intended to do. The goal was to free up money and it did.
The same way he preserves American jobs at his own properties....right?don't worry Trump will rescue all of these jobs ... soonish.
The goal was not to free up money. It was to create jobs and boost GDP. That is the stated goal of these tax cuts.
I reiterated what the stated goal was. Just because the goal wasn't to free up money doesn't mean the the bill will not free up money. Also, notice the "and" in your link? The goal wasn't to create more jobs OR increase paychecks. The goal was to create jobs AND increase paychecks. Let's wait and see how employment numbers look as the tax bill goes into effect."By lowering taxes across the board, eliminating costly special-interest tax breaks, and modernizing our international tax system, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will help create more jobs, increase paychecks, and make the tax code simpler and fairer for Americans of all walks of life."
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/taxreform/
Also, to say tax cuts is not to free up money is absurd at best and stupid at worst. You literally just took the position that the government taking less money will not mean business keep more money. I have read a lot of dumb things by you, and that is in the top three for sure.
I reiterated what the stated goal was. Just because the goal wasn't to free up money doesn't mean the the bill will not free up money. Also, notice the "and" in your link? The goal wasn't to create more jobs OR increase paychecks. The goal was to create jobs AND increase paychecks. Let's wait and see how employment numbers look as the tax bill goes into effect.
I'm sorry you have trouble understanding the distinction between a goal and a method to achieve that goal. If the goal was simply to free up money then nobody would be arguing about the effectiveness of the bill. We are arguing about grammar simply because you seem to want to avoid admitting that the bill's goal is to create jobs, not just increase wages. On top of that, you are simply pulling numbers out of your ass and asking us to just accept them as proof that the overall result of the Wal-Mart action is a net gain. I highly doubt that.Ok, so first you say reducing taxes is not to free up money, the very purpose of tax cuts. I then give the explicit stated purpose and you argue over Grammer.
No, a child would pull numbers out of his ass and declare net gain.Ok, so now your stance is that any reduction cannot be netted against any other gains. So even though the total wages has gone up, because there were some jobs cut it has failed. That is an argument that a child would make.
I did not imply that I believed that. However, the stated goal of the bill is to do both things. Do you think the bill will accomplish its goal?Do you believe that a series of items separated by commas implies that each job created must also have higher wages? Do you understand the differences between a comma and the word and?