<p>Sure Mini, tax all that nasty capital that creates the jobs most of us enjoy and pays for those employed by the state too. That makes sense. We need fewer jobs and a lower standard of living like those other capital poor countries. Then we can all do each others laundry for a living.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why in the world would anyone support this? Example: a middle income wage earner lives frugally, saves, buys some land or whatever, makes investments in the company he works for and should be penalized for doing that?</p>
<p>“So Zoos - who should pay for the Republican boondoggle - you? your kids? the rich? none of the above? Someone’s going to pay - who should it be?”</p>
<p>I’ve answered your “question” already.</p>
<p>Simba, that is the most unsupported thing I have seen here. There were about as many illegals working here when Clinton was around running things. Many of them work for small firms run by those who came here as illegals a generation ago.</p>
<p>"Why do you think we don’t procecute employers who hire illegal immigrants?</p>
<p>Vast majority of them are republicans."</p>
<p>So? Illegal is illegal, right?</p>
<p>“nd I don’t think native-born blacks are lining up for those jobs.”
I do.</p>
<p>That’s certainly true, Zoos - but taxing wealth has its problems, too. Supporters of Prop. 13 here in California, which sharply restricted the taxing of real property value, point out correctly that people don’t pay their bills with wealth, they pay them with income. So for most people it makes more sense to base taxes on income. However, this creates huge inequities. The overall increase in personal net worth for most people is based on asset value growth, not savings of after-tax dollars. For a lot of people that can just be the increase in home equity; for the very wealthy multiply that by commercial property, securities, etc. That increase in wealth is never taxed unless and until the asset is sold. If the owner dies, it is passed on to the next generation at current value so that wealth growth is never taxed at all, unlike earned income, which is taxed every year. That’s why proposals to cut back or eliminate estate tax makes me pull my hair. Most of the asset value taxed when it is inherited by the offspring of the wealthy was never taxed in the first place. So when Paris Hilton’s dad dies, she’ll get millions tax free. You pay taxes on every penny you earn.</p>
<p>Fair? Like I’ve said, there’s no such thing as a “fair” tax. But as far as I’m concerned the estate tax is about the least unfair thing around.</p>
<p>Barrons: No, I didn’t “narrow it down” - I gave a few examples. If you can’t see how it operates all around you you’re obviously not interested in actually thinking about it.</p>
<p>Kluge, thank you for such a thoughtful, informative and interesting post. I have very much enjoyed sharing this thread with you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NPR had an even more interesting report about people who were forced to turn down raises because they no longer were eligible for subsidized child care. It was heartbreaking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Historically, both parties have been terrible at prosecuting illegal immigrant hiring companies. It’s bad politics.</p>
<p>zm, tell me about walmart…I refuse to shop there, and to be honest, my H was an illegal immigrant 25 years ago…a citizen now…</p>
<p>and yeah its bad what employers get away with all across the board</p>
<p>Out of curiosity I looked up employee benefits for Wal-Mart.
"Associates’ Medical Plan
Protection for the unexpected that’s the goal of the Associates’ Medical Plan. If a major or unexpected medical event occurs, the coverage is there to help associates and their families. The Associates’ Medical Plan is designed to protect associates from catastrophic loss and financial ruin.</p>
<p>Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. offers many options in their medical plan offerings so associates can tailor health care selections to their own unique needs."</p>
<p>They also offer group disability, life, cancer and some others.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I also don’t shop Wal-mart because of the way they come into small towns, take over, and shut down small business owners. Also the reason I shop locally owned hardware stores, etc instead of the big box stores.</p>
<p>Interesting thing about wal-mart is that all of the liberals hate a succesful store like that, yet when it comes to the “poor and downtrodden”, the ones liberals really support or pretend to at least, the poor and downtrod flock to wal mart for low prices or a good job, wal mart is a great place. I applaud the corporation for handing out so many jobs and lessening the economic burden on families with cheaper goods</p>
<p>I will enjoy the day when the liberals succeed in shutting down Wal_Mart and all those formerly employed people come down to visit those who put them out of work–for their own good.</p>
<p>Kluge your idea is a mish mash of hating the rich and wishful thinking. Outside of cases of bribery etc most successful wealth was created by taking a good idea and selling it. Microsoft and software, Apple and the PC and now the Ipod, HP and electronics etc. Please tell me how how they exploited the systems while working in their small offices and garages on their new ideas???</p>
<p>golani,</p>
<p>Plenty of not-so-liberal types dislike Wal-Mart as well. I’m sure there are plenty of former small business owners who were Republican but might not have a rosy picture of the company.</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>The problem isn’t what these companies do when they’re getting there…it’s what they do when they get there.</p>
<p>I’m much less critical of monopolies, duopolies, and other big-firm dominated markets than a lot of people, but there is something to be said about how monopolies essentially destroy [consumer</a> surplus](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_surplus]consumer”>Economic surplus - Wikipedia). There is also the question of whether or not monopolies are the best market structure for efficiency, though the arguments are varied.</p>
<p>I grew up shopping in those small stores. You often got high prices, poor selection, outdated clothes, and had to go to 10 stores to find everything you needed. I know they were not paying the help anymore than Wal-Mart–mostly less and you got no benefits. I worked at a few.</p>
<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003364899_walmart08.html[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003364899_walmart08.html</a></p>
<p>Since when is Wal_Mart close to a monopoly?? They have to compete with other discounters and the Internet for starters. Anyone anywhere can shop on-line for everything except maybe produce.</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>Agreed. I think many people over-romanticize the “mom and pop” experience. I’ve been to plenty of small stores that I sincerely wondered if the owners had any idea what “service” meant.</p>
<p>But then again, retail ≠ manufacturing ≠ service industry. They tend to have very different economic structures. Comparing Microsoft to Wal-Mart is a bit disingenuous…at least from an economic perspective.</p>
<p>When did I compare them?? I only talked about Microsoft from the creation of wealth aspect although Wal-Mart also created some very wealthy people.
Microsoft has far more monopoly power than Wal_mart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, but they create wealth in different ways. Of course we see some similarities, but there are reasons why a monopoly in certain industries are worse than in others. </p>
<p>Arguably, Wal-Mart has fewer negative effects on the [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics]social”>Welfare economics - Wikipedia]social</a> welfare<a href=“not%20the%20economic%20dole%20kind”>/url</a> than say Microsoft. I just don’t know that they’re a good comparison, is all. Don’t worry, I’m not disagreeing with you, so no need to get upset.</p>
<p>OK, but I was not trying to connect the two companies in any way. The Wal-Mart discussion was a separate tangent. Actually I do think Wal-Mart has done more good for society than Microsoft who I see as a nearly outlaw company trying very hard to control their monopoly and selling second-rate stuff because of it. If the Dems want to investigate somebody go after them. They have been overcharging Americans for 25 years or so. But they are in the safe Democrat state of Washington–not scary backward Arkansas.</p>