Here's a kick in the pants for Wal-Mart haters and lovers of big government, two groups that almost perfectly overlap. According to Mark J. Perry, IBD Brain Truster, economist and American Enterprise Institute scholar, average big-box stores such as Wal-Mart earn only $3.10 in profit for every $100 in sales .
Meanwhile, government makes nearly $7 in (unearned) profit for every $100 in sales at these big discount chains, based, says Perry, "on the 6.94% average sales tax rate for the 46 states that tax retail sales." Governments in high-tax states can rake in three times the profit the stores earn.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Greed?
It's fashionable in liberal circles to denigrate corporate profits as "greed", but...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Darren, both of us know that Wal-Mart has the resources to make their profit look like anything they want it to. That's why GE has been paying zero corporate income tax … because clearly, they haven't made any profit … and yet … they still continue to choose to operate. This a bunch of load of crap statistics. Which is why we need to reform the entire tax system, eliminate the minimum wage, enforce anti-trust laws, and empower unions. But we won't do that, because the only parties capable of winning, due to their oligarchical leanings, make sure no one else can.
Rather than making sweeping generalities, tell me where he erred.
That's the point. I don't think I could show you where he erred. And depending on how you interpret tax regulations, he probably DIDN'T err. I'm just asking for a more simple, progressive tax system that is fair. Currently, it's regressive, despite pretending not to be, and that allows our government to hide costs and pass them on to the middle and lower classes.
I should elaborate on 'fair'. Fair is a matter of opinion. I, personally, believe a fair tax system should be progressive, meaning that as you become richer, each additional dollar is taxed at a rate higher than your first, or 100,00th was … but there is a limit to that. My limit for a top tax rate would be in the 30-40% range -- yours might be lower, and I can respect that and discuss it. But currently it can't be the subject of any reasonable discussion, because no one knows what they are paying. When you file your return, which is really but a small part of the actual taxes you pay, since most of them are hidden in the FICA tax, you don't even need to calculate how your tax owed was arrived at: the Feds would rather send out millions of 50 page tables, or whatever, at huge cost instead of having you make one simple mathematical calculation, easily done in about 30 seconds with a calculator. But -- if they did it that way? You'd have a better idea of what you were paying, and you'd be more upset.
The trouble with a "fair" tax system is, since as you've admitted "fair" is a subjective measure, that fairness is whatever you've decided it is.
If you'd like to think of yourself as compassionate and generous, but aren't that interested in making a personal commitment, a "fair" tax system allows you to enjoy the sensation without writing a check or rubbing elbows with the target of your compassion and generosity.
The result of using the power of taxation as a proxy for personal responsibility can be seen in your complaint about GE. They pay no taxes in a perfectly legal manner but the legality of that fact is a function of the complex tax system that's resulted from putting the tax system to use to avoid personal responsibility. If the tax system's simple there are no byzantine complexities of which to take advantage.
Oh, and Walmart, and GE, can't make their profits look like anything they want. GE has taken advantage of the generous tax treatment afforded by the public's passing infatuation with a number of left wing ideas. Tax treatment not available to the retail sector. Walmart's done a bit of that, putting stupid solar panels on some of their stores, but that's peanuts compared to the tax credits, write-offs and subsidies enjoyed by an outfit that enjoys dominance in the power generation industry as does GE.
Oh, and how would you go about "empowering" unions in a world of international trade? Private sector unions have collapsed because trade undermines their monopoly, as it does all monopolies, so how would you re-establish union monopoly power?
allen, to address your points … yeah, fairness is a matter of personal opinion, and so fairness for me is fairly ingrained based on my opinion, as yours is to you … and we can argue about it, and maybe we're close. But you can't argue about it when no one actually knows what their actual tax burden is. They are essentially pulling numbers out of their butt. That's why I ask for a reduction of taxes and fees to be something we can actually look at and say, seriously? We're paying that much?
You apparently agree with me, since you acknowledged that GE was able to skirt existing tax law legally … which means we need simplification and fewer loopholes.
Empowering unions definitely puts us at a disadvantage in terms of world trade … but it is a far better solution than arbitrarily raising minimum wage. And the way you fix the international aspect is to impose tariffs on goods imported from foreign countries which pay prisoner's wages, like China. And, even as a proponent of free market capitalism and international trade? That is an entirely appropriate use of a government mandate. The problem is, our government is so in debt to China, that imposing a tariff on the goods their prisoners make for us would be counter productive...
Post a Comment