LiL’ Orphan Annie Was Never So Cruel

this photo somes up how “people” think of wal mart for shame the guy looks like a 1960’s arrogant slob with size 50 pants what a pig

Again distorted facts—seems to me both Democrats and Republicans alike make these federal and state laws.  Or perhaps none of them read beforehand what they were voting for.

I object to the word “contribute”.  It’s this same infrastructure that made Wal-Mart’s success possible so paying their fair share in taxes isn’t a contribution, it’s what Wal-Mart owes!

In 2006, Wal-Mart paid $6.365 billion in income taxes and, if you assume they only collected sales taxes on 50% of their sales, this amounts to $10.38 billion in sales taxes, not to mention hundreds of millions in property taxes. Wal-Mart also employs nearly 1.5 million Americans, many of them first time workers or seniors who could not get employment anyplace else. These employees generate quite a bit of money for payroll taxes and consumer spending. Warren Buffett has said that he believes Wal-Mart saves US consumers a minimum of $20 billion per year. When Wal-Mart opens in a new area, consumer prices decline from 8%-18%.

So, does Wal-Mart’s financial contribution outweigh the subsidies it receives (same subsidies as any other company)? You do the math.

You do the math.

That’s a little hard to do, Nick, when the numbers from the pro side are nothing more than optimistic guesstimates and the numbers for the other side are incomplete.

This from a Good Jobs First 2004 study:

It must be admitted from the start that it is impossible to calculate the total value of the subsidies that Wal-Mart has received over the course of its 42-year history, or even in a given year.  That’s because there is no central source of information on economic development subsidies that are awarded at the state or local level. Public disclosure requirements are minimal.  Nine states release some collated information, but in most of them the disclosure provisions do not cover all forms of subsidies, and there is no consistency in how the information is published.

Warren Buffet has also promised to donate 80% of his fortune to charity*.  From a Ayn Rand/Adam Smith-On-Crack neo-capitalists perspective, Buffet must be addled by age.

*the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ken

Objectivism doesn’t object to charitable giving; it simply advocates a belief that we are under no obligation to be charitable. It leaves the disposition of one’s assets to that person alone.

As for Wal-Mart subsidies-do you really expect me to believe that Wal-Mart, which 8 years after its founding had just 18 stores, received ANY subsidies from 1962-1970? Has it since received any subsides not granted to Target or other companies? Has it not contributed billions in taxes? The numbers I posted are not “pro-Wal-Mart” numbers. They are verifiable numbers to be found it the same financial statements submitted to the IRS & the SEC. Why can’t you deal with facts?

The numbers I posted are not “pro-Wal-Mart” numbers.

As usual, you slip off the point. The only “facts” you could provide that would be pertinent of this discussion would be a hard total of the subsidies that Wal-Mart receives. That would allow all of us to “do the math”.

Objectivism...

It’s my guess you subscribe to Nathanial Brandon’s interpretation of Objectivism rather that the ideology originally contained in Ayn Rand’s writing.

Sage,

“Again distorted facts—seems to me both Democrats and Republicans alike make these federal and state laws.”

Seems to me, that most of the laws that are now referred to as “corporate welfare”, were passed by the Democrat Congress, during the 40 years they were in control.

Come on, Bob, the Republicans had control and only made things worse. In this case thirteen years is our bad luck.

Ken V,

I never said that the Republicans didn’t add to the mix, the problem is, it is hard to tell nowadays who is what, as they are all becoming much the same thing: “Professional Perpetual Politicing Partisan Polititians”!!