38 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Since WalMart normally
pays their workers more than the minimum wage already (plus benefits that many other companies don't usually give), the increase to those 500K workers won't affect their bottom line nearly as much as it would for smaller businesses......and they aren't increasing wages to the $15 per hour that protesters/picketers wanted. Do you think that this will stop them from doing it again since they won't be happy? I wonder if this new increase will be in the form of actual pay increases or if it will be as a reduction instead of how much workers will have to contribute to their benefits? There is a difference even though it will still result in larger take home pays.....decreased cost to the worker as their portion of the benefits received is now considered to be a taxable income increase vs an actual pay increase and how it shows up on their tax returns when they file and where they are now situated on their tax liability status/bracket. Sometimes even what you demand/wish for can bite you. In any event, they might be better off since it's not a union situation.
So you disagree with the management of WalMart.
You disagree with Unions, You disagree with management, You disagree with workers asking for a raise.....
What are you talking about?
How did you figure that I disagree with them? They made a decision that wasn't going to seriously affect their bottom line since it's less than a third of their current payroll staff being affected, whereas a smaller business would probably go bellyup pretty quickly if they were forced to make the same move (just as Obamacare forced something they could ill-afford to do). I only said it could have been a whole lot worse if Unions were involved. Workers can ASK for a raise...that doesn't give them the right to DEMAND one....and the owners are the only ones in a position to give or deny. If you don't like your working conditions or pay, the door swings both ways....go thru it and leave just as easily as you came in.
Like jobs are out there in vast quantity.
So by your own logic
there are far too few jobs to keep the economy going, so instead force companies to increase the wages of those working by cutting their profits or laying more people off to accommodate that force? Liberal babble increases daily...........
It has been shown in the past that
an increase in minimum wage increases the number of jobs. The states with the highest minimum wage right now have the lowest unemployment.
You have lived through a lot of minimum wage increases. The more money you put people's pockets, the more money is in the economy and the more workers are needed to take care of the increase in business.
You give rich people more money and they put it into the Caymen Islands. You give poor people more money and they spend it in their neighborhood.
That is why decreasing Medicaid and food stamps increases the unemployment because people go for really cheap food (like pasta) and don't go to the doctor for their kids and don't get their vaccinations.
Again, good grief.....
History has shown, especially with Dems in charge, that the more money people have in their pockets, the higher the taxes get instead so the government gives and takes away at exactly the same time. How much more would people have in their pockets today if Obamacare wasn't adding 23 new taxes, including on their home sales now, along with increased premiums and massive deductibles, and fines if they don't buy coverage, Diana? How many vaccinations will be paid for out of pocket now because the deductibles are so high that no insurance coverage kicks in until they reach that limit....or do you think there will be MORE that DON'T get those vaccinations because they can't afford to pay for them?
Gas prices have finally declined and liberal Dems immediately start talking about greatly increasing the Fed tax on gasoline at the pump........they have one hand in the taxpayer's pocket to pay for illegals and others and the other hand is busy writing new regulations or having BO issue more expansive executive orders to keep their own hands clean by using 'his' agencies to do the dirty work.
Also...we can add another
5 million illegals to those who are 'out of work' because there aren't enough jobs to accommodate them either so put them all on the welfare roles.....
Can't have it both ways, Diana....
Illegals do not qualify for welfare
unless they have children that were born here. Then the kids do but not the illegal parents.
You are so delusional......
Ironically enough....as I searched for the correct spelling of that word, I found THIS as a definition.........Even the DICTIONARY has gotten into the political game.....
How many illegals that were given amnesty during Reagan's term after being lied to by the Dems eventually qualified for welfare, do you think?
cost of illegals and their children
650 million just in Los Angeles County.
"GAO noted that: (1) in fiscal year (FY) 1995, about $1.1 billion in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamp benefits were provided to households with an illegal alien parent for the use of his or her citizen child; a vast majority of households receiving these benefits resided in a few states--85 percent of the AFDC households were in California, New York, Texas, and Arizona;"
Most Illegals collect Welfare. Judicial Watch.
"Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal
immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their
American-born anchor babies.Even before the recession, immigrant
households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher
rates than natives, according to the extensive census data collected and
analyzed by a nonpartisanWashington D.C. group dedicated to researching
legal and illegal immigration in the U.S. The results, published this
month in a lengthy report,
are hardly surprising.Basically, the majority of households across the
country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by
immigrants, both legal and illegal. States where immigrant households
with children have the highest welfare use rates
are Arizona (62%), Texas, California and New York with 61% each
and Pennsylvania(59%).The study focused on eight major welfare programs
that cost the government $517 billion the year they were examined. "
RE: James, cost of illegals and their children
As Diana said....and YOU noted in YOUR post
households WITH children
I won't call you delusional.
And that includes the
tens of thousands who have recently crossed the border......and it WILL include all of the 5M plus who will have 'legal' status with social security cards, drivers' licenses, and other documents that are only afforded to LEGAL residents in our country. They will be eligible for most of the benefits that they have no legal right to.....unemployment benefits, social security disability, social security retirement, etc. along with housing, food stamps, medicaid, etc.
RE:no legal right to..... unemployment benefits
Please tell me HOW?
I can't use that tip but I could pass it on to some up here.
I know you'll correct my assumption that you must pay into unemployment insurance in order to receive unemployment benefits.
The EMPLOYER pays into that program
not the EMPLOYEE.......so if they get laid off or fired and can prove no good reason for the firing (like teachers do because of the Unions), they can collect. And if they can't collect from the 'current' employer's account, they can go backwards and collect from a previous one.
So the employer pays 6.0% deducts 5.4% from their taxes
they end up paying .6% a max of $420 and a min of $42.
The illegal immigrant employee pays income tax, fed and state, on the Unemployment they receive.....takes their $150/wk Unemployment that they receive and hide it in an offshore bank account
You make no sense
as usual.....the employer takes from the employee's paycheck because of Federal, State, and City tax laws....that has nothing to do with unemployment benefits that the employer SOLELY pays into.
As for having to ALSO pay taxes on the benefit received, that's only in the case of the employee having OTHER earned income enough that those benefits have to be claimed in the first place....and probably 90% or more don't make enough on a new job (say in the middle of the year to the end of the year) to have to claim what they got during the first six months of that year in unemployment benefits. As a matter of fact, they probably qualify at the end of the year for a pretty decent Earned Income Credit and get all of what they paid into the Feds as payroll taxes back PLUS that EIC amount up to about $5000 as a refund check.
How do you figure that having that kind of extra NATIONAL DEBT burden helps since a good majority of illegals with social security numbers and filing taxes are considered to be 'low paying jobs' that get that EIC refund in addition to what they had deducted from their paychecks? And don't give me that crap about how they will spend it and better the economy when OTHER taxpayers are giving them that money....because it really ISN'T the Federal Government's money, is it?
Did you also know that the IRS came out last week and said that 800 THOUSAND people who signed up for Obamacare got the wrong tax information that allows them to claim premiums based on THIS year's premium instead of LAST year's premiums.....and instead of making them refile their taxes that would increase their tax responsibility, they are letting them off the hook? Sounds like they just pulled a "Sharpton" on a whole lot of folks....ignore millions in back revenue owed and make other taxpayers eat it, as usual.
RE:.the employer takes from the employee's paycheck because
.the employer takes from the employee's paycheck because of Federal, State, and City tax law
So the employee is paying, NOT the employer....as YOU claimed?
The EMPLOYER pays into that program not the EMPLOYEE.
The employER takes it from the employEE, The employER "pays" it by "taking it" from the employEE.
Let me pay for your dinner...I'm paying...I'll take your money.
You forgot to mention the Keystone Pipeline and Kanye West.
Again...you compare apples to oranges, JP
UNEMPLOYMENT payments are made by the EMPLOYER and NOTHING is taken from the EMPLOYEE for that. It is SOLELY an EMPLOYER expense. The ONLY way the EMPLOYEE is involved is when/if he is laid off and puts in a claim with the State Unemployment Agency and is granted the claim or is fired for no good cause and fights for it in a mediator's 'courtroom' somewhere within that agency.
Figure it out and get back to me........YOU brought up the TAXES issues....that's an entirely different and totally separate issue but for some reason you are mixing them together to try and come up with a recipe that's not in any cookbook.
RE: YOU brought up the TAXES issues
And you brought up Unemployment benefits, along with a bunch of other stuff.
I brought up taxes.....Because the employer deducts the Unemployment Premiums that they pay from their taxes/income. You want to talk about Employers and Unemployment premiums. I want to talk about Employers, Unemployment premiums AND taxes. Apples and oranges? I disagree.
My posts make "no sense" ..but they do give you a platform for your rants....ENJOY!!!! and You're welcome.
And this statement is where
you are wrong, wrong, wrong.....
>>>I brought up taxes.....Because the employer deducts the Unemployment Premiums that they pay from their taxes/income.>>>
Employers do NOT deduct that premium from the employees' paychecks.
Where is OUR laws do you believe you have proof that this happens? I was an accountant/bookkeeper nearly my entire working career, JP, and I KNOW personally what deductions I took from payroll checks, and the ONLY other deduction I ever had to take was the employee union dues when they belonged to a union. They didn't even, at that time, contribute towards their pensions....it was all paid by the employER, along with OSHA, the employer half of Social Security, Workers' Compensation (for if/when they are hurt on the job) and the unemployment payment made directly to the State.
That unemployment payment went into one huge account from all other employers across the state so that any employee who had to file a claim actually collected from that pool, and that check is sent directly from that Agency.
Workers' Comp works the same way....it is a STATE held pool of funds from all employers across the state.
I'm done here....the point being is that with a social security card/number, illegals will be eligible for ALL of these benefits....which gives them plenty of identification required by most states that don't have specific VOTER ID cards to be able to illegally vote in our elections.
Toni....RE: And this statement is where
you are wrong, wrong, wrong....
>>>I brought up taxes.....Because the employer deducts the Unemployment Premiums that they pay from their taxes/income.>>>
YOU claim Employers do NOT deduct that premium from the employees' paychecks. as a rebuttal.
MY statement that you posted above is NOT claiming that the premium is deducted from the employees paycheck, it is claiming that the employer deducts the Unemployment Premiums that THEY pay from THEIR taxes/income. The EMPLOYER gets a tax credit/deduction....You know, like a business expense. NO mention of the employEE, by me, in the statement you posted.
This is because EMPLOYERS RECEIVE A CREDIT of up to 5.4% for any state unemployment taxes they pay.
RE: when they belonged to a union.
when they belonged to a union. They didn't even, at that time, contribute towards their pensions....it was all paid by the employER,
Same as their wages were paid by the employER?
The employER pay for their pension out of the kindness of their heart OR the pension payments were negotiated in the wage package...Part of their wages? That's what it looks like to me.
Update on pay raises
RE: How did you figure that I disagree with them?
OK...You don't disagree.....You agree with them giving a wage hike, because it's ONLY to 500,000 people.
that doesn't give them the right to DEMAND one.
One persons DEMAND is another persons
demand synonyms: request, call, command, order, dictate, ultimatum, stipulation
It doesn't mean they have to ***** foot around either. You know, like the Tea Party is ***** footing around Boehner. Can the Tea Party DEMAND?
They could go to WalMart and say
May I please have a 5¢ an hour raise, Sir?
NO!!!! But you're a tough negotiator....
RE: If you don't like your working conditions or pay, the do
If you don't like your working conditions or pay, the door swings both ways....go thru it and leave just as easily as you came in.
Said the person that won't leave the GOP. Wants to stay and change it from within.
we only use the pharmacy there anymore
It's inside the front door and quick enough, good prices. They closed the regular size Walmart when they opened the Super sized Walmart and it covers a few acres. Maybe some like walking all that distance to find what they want, but it would make the trip 3-4 times as long for us. We moved over to Target instead, down the road from the old Walmart, due to them retaining a reasonable sized store, less walking, same shopping, quicker.
So it's safe to go back and shop there
without wearing nose glasses?
OK....let's go deeper into this, JP
>>>The employER pay for their pension out of the kindness of their heart OR the pension payments were negotiated in the wage package...Part of their wages? That's what it looks like to me.>>>>
When I worked for a company in 1973, there was no union at that time. My employer paid decent wages to a shop full of workers who could barely speak the English language (none were illegal....just very diverse and hard working), including a one as a night shift supervisor. They were also getting a pension plan and healthcare package as well as a year end Christmas bonus given voluntarily by the owner because he saw that to keep good workers, you gave more than the competition might offer (There were also hams for Easter and turkeys for Thanksgiving).....and, yes, those benefits were tax deductions for the company, but those extras were never considered to be part of the wages so were NOT reported on the employees' tax forms at the end of the year.
The union thugs showed up three years later, convinced a number of workers who barely understood the English language, that they should be getting much more......and negotiated the contract after a vote brought the Union in. The employer, at that point, was no longer 'obligated' to cover the employees with pension or healthcare plans since the Union brought in their own versions. Now, not only did I have to start deducting Union dues from the employees' paychecks, but also a portion had to be deducted that went to the Union office itself for their pension and healthcare coverage.....giving the employee much less in their take home pay than what they had ever received from the owner of the company. Their net was very disappointing to the workers, but the contract gave the Unions at least two years' of 'blood money' before they could hold another vote to get rid of them.
The Union, knowing they would be voted out in two years, then made a backdoor deal with the owner.....you keep taking the dues, pensions, and healthcare deductions from the workers, send it to us each month, and we'll disappear today and never come back. The unions had then cancelled every single worker's coverage (I got the cancellation notices to keep on file at that time) and membership.....and slithered away as quickly as they had showed up. For two years, the owner sent the blood money, but the workers had NOTHING to show for it, didn't KNOW they had nothing, and everybody held their breath for two years that nobody would get hurt, no family member would need medical assistance, and that nobody would die.
Once the two years were up, the employees voted the Union back out, the gross wages were kept the same, but the employer never again gave them what they had received for free before. They no longer had a pension or healthcare coverage unless they got it on their own in the private sector. And since the company was actually a three-part process in two different buildings on the same property, two of those extensions were permanently closed down and out of a 40 person shop before, 20 were permanently laid off and gone...and business never came back because the costs had gone up so high during the union takeover and the competition got most of the company's original customers that they had held onto for over 20 years previously. Overtime became non-existent.
Fast forward to today's (began a number of years back) IRS rules.....IF you get those benefits now from your employer as part of your pay package (whether it's forced or voluntary by the employer), those benefits are considered to be part of your wages and are included on your yearly tax form and must be included as 'income' that's taxable on your return.....there are exceptions, obviously, as to whether you actually have to PAY taxes on those benefits dependent upon what your 'earned' income (wages) are and what tax bracket you fall into, but most of the time, you WILL pay taxes on those benefits.
Since this all has bearing on 'the planet imploding' topic....when you combine forced, very expensive healthcare coverage on the employer along with a large minimum wage increase at the same time, there are very few small businesses that will be able to stay afloat and you will be left with a monopoly of only very large companies that can weather that storm. But there will always be consequences and that they ALWAYS affect the very people that liberals claim to want to help and instead actually wind up destroying. Because what many companies years ago and sometimes even today will gladly do voluntarily, on THEIR schedule of what they can afford to do and when, will see that train wreck coming ahead of time and will do whatever they have to to either survive or shut down completely in order to save themselves and what they spent many years trying to build.
RE: .IF you get those benefits now from your employer
.IF you get those benefits now from your employer as part of your pay package (whether it's forced or voluntary by the employer), those benefits are considered to be part of your wages and are included on your yearly tax form and must be included as 'income' that's taxable on your return
And you have NO deductions for medical expenses WHEN working and people that aren't working get a deduction for medical expenses?
Well THAT'S certainly not fair.....Is that how it is down there?
Paying taxes on benefits you receive, when others that don't receive the same benefit from their employers have to provide that benefit for themselves and they get to deduct that cost from their income?
I have no problem with that. You get a benefit as part of your wage package and I have to pay for the same thing...we should both be treated the same way, tax wise.
Up here, I deduct the payments I make for my private insurance, insurance arranged through my Union, you'll be saddened to know.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)