If they want to do business in this country, you can.

Perhaps not, but Wal-Mart certainly get their share of subsidization at the expense of local taxpayers in many cities and towns. I suspect that most Wal-Mart customers in those locations are unaware that Wal-Mart pays lower sales tax rates than other retailers, while still charging (and recording on the receipts) the higher rate to their customers.

There's also WalMart's "Made in America" ad campaign of the 1980's and early 1990's, a period during which they were becoming the nation's single largest importer of Chinese goods. Source "If it were an independent nation, it would be China's eighth-largest trading partner." Source

Wal-Mart is not exactly a model of an ethical corporation that pays their own way. We certainly don't need them "helping" American automakers.

I'm not a Walmart fan, and they are by no means a model corporation based on the way they treat their employees. But when it comes to cutting unnecessary expenses, they are very, very good. The Big 3, on the other hand, really take good care of their employees.

Since when have employees been unnecessary expenses? :eek:

Walmart is very, very good at cost shifting, which is the reason the economy is in the toilet. Cost shifting only works until the people you've shifted the costs to either wake up and refuse to pay or they run out of money. One or both must happen at some point.

A better example is probably Circuit City. As they got in trouble, they let all their experienced (and somewhat knowledgeable) sales folks go and replaced them with the least experienced (and thus cheapest) replacements they could find. See where that tactic got them -- no one would shop there.

Whether we like it or not, folks, labor is a commodity. Wages are subject to the laws of supply and demand. When you mess with supply and demand, ala UAW, you get overpriced labor, over priced products and an inability to compete in the market place.

People who work at Walmart work there because that's the best job they can find and at the best wages they can find (same reason we all work where we do/did). Had a couple friends who worked at Walmart... they liked it, and of course they had health care and a retirement plan. It's Walmart's tendency to hire a lot of part time people that some find objectionable. McDonalds, Burger King, and on and on do the same thing.

Walmart is successful and profitable in the US and all over the world because they do it right. Extremely involved, effective management.

Most cities will provide a kickback of sorts for large operations to locate in their cities/counties/states.... because there is a city/county/state sales tax. Employees who live in the location will also pay income tax and property tax. Not unusual for a large manufacturing facility to get a favorable rate on electricity/natural gas... cheaper than a homeowner pays.... as an incentive to locate there.

Right, CWT, it ain't a free market. But if you don't do these things, you end up living in a poor city/county/state with the neighboring states getting all the jobs and taxes.

Our state actually provides a kickback to large operations for paying their taxes on time.... i.e. remitting sales taxes they have collected on the state's behalf. So, technically, the operation collected taxes from the customers and kept part of it. It's not just Walmart getting a good deal.... they're all getting it if they bring jobs and income with them.

This is the problem with that "New Math" that they taught in the 60s and 70s. It doesn't add up, and that's why we're where we are today. You can't claim you want a free market and then setup Socialism for large organizations.

We all recognize that labor is a commodity. The problem is that few people recognize that corporations are also commodities. If not giving one a tax break will mean they won't locate to your community, you're better off without them. Another will be happy to take their place, and do a better job of it while paying its way!

Walmart is a perfect example of what I'm talking about: they don't do it right. They pay lower taxes, lower wages, and they shift health care and retirement costs to tax payers. The math challenged among us look at the tax dollars they pay and are impressed because the numbers appear to be large. They are not. When you factor in the lost taxes from all the businesses Walmart destroys, it's a loss of income for the cities and towns combined with an increase in costs.

In a perfect world. The competition among states to woo an auto manufacturer (Toyota & Honda usually) is fierce. We've lost that competition time and time again because we offered less than surrounding states (Texas, Tennessee, and Mississippi). Should not be that way; that's 3rd world type thinking (legal bribes). But, it is a fact.

Walmart pays taxes. Which is more than you can say for over 50 percent of the corporations in the US.

With so called free trade, US workers are forced to compete with workers all over the world. This fact has hit our workers hard and does threaten the standard of living we have enjoyed in the past. We are going to have to become more productive or accept the lower wages. Sucks, but its real.

That's survival of the fittest. And, it results in lower prices for consumers. That's a good thing.

Again with the New Math! States should NOT be competing to get manufacturers, because that ends up with reduced tax per capita income, and because it destroys the free market. By favoring large business you make things more difficult for small business, which is where real innovation and job creation comes from. If other countries are making bribes, we should counter those with INCREASED taxes when we find a company accepting them. If they don't want to do business here, great! They'll be replaced by a company that will pay their taxes.
Oh, in that case, let's be sure to kiss their butts. :rolleyes:

Once again, it's not free trade! When large corporations can manipulate the government into giving them tax advantages over smaller competitors, there is nothing free about the market.
No, it is systematic destruction of small business, which is the backbone of our economy. The result is not lower prices. It is slight of hand which creates the appearance of lower prices by increasing taxes and unemployment. It is nowhere near a good thing.

That's some of that new math CWT is talking about.

A very large proportion of corporations that "don't pay taxes" only escape tax liability as corporate entities. They are small businesses whose owners pay taxes on the pass through income. Instead of paying x amount in corporate taxes and y amount in personal income taxes, they pay x+y (or a similar amount) in personal taxes only. It's no different than someone taking the most advantageous of itemized deductions or standard deductions on their personal income taxes.

WalMart gets to add a gross profit percentage to their sales and list it as "tax" on the sales receipts, making their prices appear lower to the customer, while oftentimes actually increasing the net cost to the consumers, who have to make up for the lost revenue of their city/county/state by paying more in taxes elsewhere, getting fewer services for their tax dollars, and/or subsidizing the income of many WalMart employees via food stamps and other social welfare.

Like many large corporations (Exxon-Mobil would be another good example), much of WalMart's "profit" is just tax revenue fleeced off the consumers who are fooled into believing they are getting good deals shopping at WalMart.

I am familiar with Subchapter S corporations.

Aw, you guys are just into US Corp bashing.... you don't think Honda, Toyota, etc., do business the same way as Walmart and Exxon? You think they don't hire lobbyists?

How do you explain Walmart's success in the international markets?

(Note again, I am no friend of Walmart and oppose some of what they do. My point is that this is the way the world works until somebody changes it for the better.)

Here's the data who pays corporate tax rates.

http://www.americasbestcompanies.com...corptaxes.aspx

No. I'm into corporate bashing. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a US Corporation in a time where stocks are traded all over the world, every day.

You mean in markets that don't claim to be free markets like ours?

My point is that nobody is going to change it while people insist on citing Walmart as a good example of how to do business. Yes, it is the way the world works, and like any problem, the first step in solving it is to recognize that it is a problem.

After reading it, it's clearly a biased source, offering up just those facts that support the author's assertions, while completely ignoring the fact that would highlight the absurdity of that assertion.

Having said that, I'm all for completely eliminating corporate income taxes, instead taxing shareholders individually on stock dividends and profits from stock sales, at a rate no lower than that which they would be subject to if the money were earned via employment and reported on W2's. Taxing corporate income in such a manner could virtually eliminate tax loopholes. Corporations that are currently paying their own way without receiving corporate welfare would not see any significant changes. The rest of the corporations would have to start paying their fair share, leveling the playing field.

We also need national legislation forbidding retailers from charging higher sales taxes than consumers are actually required to pay with that retailer. There is no reason WalMart, or any other retail chain, should be able to charge their customers sales tax at one rate, while actually paying a lower rate to the governments on the customers' behalf. (Such deals should really not even be allowed to be made without explicit voter approval.)

I agree with everything you've said but this. Such deals should not be allowed at all. They're fraudulent, plain and simple.

Personally, I agree, and would be extremely unlikely to vote for approval of such a deal. However, I believe the local citizens should have the final say, after being informed about the real net costs of such a measure. I can think of scenarios where such a deal could actually be mutually beneficial. The local voters typically have the authority to raise and lower taxes anyway, so eliminating companies' ability to sidestep that authority should be effective enough.

But there are two insurmountable problems with it:

1) You can never fully inform customers.

2) It gives an unfair advantage to large businesses, destroying any pretense at a free market.

I've probably said this before, but I'll say again: The bank's problems are the same as the auto industry's and the problems facing most other businesses. You can't sell any product or service unless there are people who can afford to buy it, and wages have been falling for years while corporate profits soared. It had to end badly, and it has.

What scares me is that our answer to the problem is to blame it on labor costs. When the problem is that wages are too low, it makes no sense to try to fix it by reducing them further.

You might be interested in reading this report from the Brookings Institute. Some excerpts:

Recent studies suggest that there is less economic mobility in the United States than has long been presumed. The last thirty years has seen a considerable drop-off in median household income growth compared to earlier generations. And, by some measurements, we are actually a less mobile society than many other nations, including Canada, France, Germany and most Scandinavian countries. This challenges the notion of America as the land of opportunity.
…

Income inequality has been widening for nearly three decades in the United States. Amidst a flurry of new data and media reports, President George W. Bush addressed the issue for the first time in January 2007 during remarks to Wall Street: “The fact is that income inequality is real — it’s been rising for more than 25 years.” … The Congressional Budget Office finds that between 1979 and 2004, the real after-tax income of the poorest one*fifth of Americans rose by 9 percent, that of the richest one-fifth by 69 percent, and that of the top 1 percent by 176 percent.

Focusing on the familiar story of rising inequalities between CEOs and their employees yields figures that are perhaps even more striking. Between 1978 and 2005, CEO pay increased from 35 times to nearly 262 times the average worker’s pay.4 Said another way, by 2005, the typical CEO made more in an hour than a minimum wage worker made in a month.
…

Relative mobility can occur regardless of what is happening to the society as a whole. Individuals can change their position relative to others, moving up or down within the ranks as one would expect in a true meritocracy.
…

Data on relative mobility suggest that people in the United States have experienced less relative mobility than is commonly believed. Most studies find that, in America, about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income are passed on to the next generation. This means that one of the biggest predictors of an American child’s future economic success — the identity and characteristics of his or her parents — is predetermined and outside that child’s control. To be sure, the apple can fall far from the treeand often does in individual cases, but relative to other factors, the tree dominates the picture. These findings are more striking when put in comparative context. There is little available evidence that the United States has more relative mobility than other advanced nations. If anything, the data seem to suggest the opposite. Using the relationship between parents’ and children’s incomes as an indicator of relative mobility, data show that a number of countries, including Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and France have more relative mobility than does the United States.

Compared to the same peer group, Germany is 1.5 times more mobile than the United States, Canada nearly 2.5 times more mobile [emphasis mine - J Christopher], and Denmark 3 times more mobile. Only the United Kingdom has relative mobility levels on par with those of the United States.
…

Beginning with a comparison of men ages 30-39 in 1994 with their fathers’ generation, men ages 30-39 in 1964, we see a small, but fairly insignificant, amount of intergenerational progress. Adjusting for inflation, median income increased by less than $2,000 between 1964 and 1994, from about $31,000 to under $33,000 — a 5 percent increase (0.2 percent per year) during this thirty-year period. The story changes for a younger cohort. Those in their thirties in 2004 had a median income of about $35,000 a year. Men in their fathers’ cohort, those who are now in their sixties, had a median income of about $40,000 when they were the same age in 1974. Indeed, there has been no progress at all for the youngest generation. As a group, they have on average percent less income than their fathers’ generation at the same age. This suggests the up-escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well. [emphasis in original]
…

A growing gap between U.S. productivity and median family income challenges the notion that a rising tide will lift all boats. For nearly thirty years after the end of World War II, productivity growth and median household income rose together in lockstep. Then, beginning in the mid-1970s, we see a growing gulf between the two, which widens dramatically at the turn of the century. As the data … indicate, the benefits of productivity growth have not been broadly shared in recent years. [emphasis mine -J Christopher]

One thing is clear. A society with little or no absolute mobility is one in which for every winner there is a loser. It’s a zero sum game. And a society with little or no relative mobility is one in which class, family background or inherited wealth loom large. Equal opportunity is a mirage.

Very interesting. This is what Obama means by doing something for Main Street; i.e. actually raising all boats.