Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-12-2013, 02:27 PM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,302,568 times
Reputation: 2314

Advertisements

The point that is being made is that businesses cost cities and states a lot of money to maintain roads, build sewer, water, power, schools for the workers of that business, police, fire etc that businesses don't pay the full cost.

Those businesses are not paying the full cost that it would take to maintain the infrastructure that those businesses need to exist and thrive.

So you have a Walmart which like all businesses is costing that city or state additional money to maintain roads, water, power, etc for that Walmart, that Walmart isn't covering by paying taxes, then on top of that the employees of Walmart that then have to subsidized by that same city or state as well.

I think that is a legit point to make from state or local governments.

Businesses costs states and cities a lot of money that aren't covered by tax revenues collected from those businesses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2013, 02:40 PM
 
45,244 posts, read 26,482,257 times
Reputation: 25001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
The point that is being made is that businesses cost cities and states a lot of money to maintain roads, build sewer, water, power, schools for the workers of that business, police, fire etc that businesses don't pay the full cost.

Those businesses are not paying the full cost that it would take to maintain the infrastructure that those businesses need to exist and thrive.

So you have a Walmart which like all businesses is costing that city or state additional money to maintain roads, water, power, etc for that Walmart, that Walmart isn't covering by paying taxes, then on top of that the employees of Walmart that then have to subsidized by that same city or state as well.

I think that is a legit point to make from state or local governments.

Businesses costs states and cities a lot of money that aren't covered by tax revenues collected from those businesses.
"You didnt build that"-Lord High Priest Barack Obama
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 02:46 PM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,302,568 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
"You didnt build that"-Lord High Priest Barack Obama
Huh, again, I don't understand your point, but look at Willinston ND, that city government is experiencing increased costs because of the businesses that are there, and the taxes being paid by those businesses aren't covering the additional costs to the city.

Oftentimes the additional costs that businesses lay on states and cities is hidden because most people don't think comprehensively about what a city has to do to maintain the infrastructure that supports that business, those additional costs aren't covered by the taxes paid, that business is usually not paying the full weight of what it costs to maintain that business.

So then if a business which is already being subsidized by a city or state then pays its employees so little that those employees have to be subsidized, I think it is a legit point of governments to say look business you are costing the city this amount to be here and there needs to be a more sharing of that burden from the costs those businesses are placing on states or cities.

Last edited by Iamme73; 06-12-2013 at 03:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 02:52 PM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,213,689 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
They won't.
Fire at will states, employers will exploit as they choose.
If people are desperate, they'll take anything rather than starve.

What power do the employees have?
You're against unionization, what protections to these employees have?
They can quit and work for another company. They can go on strike. I am not against striking, I am against unionization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 02:58 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,483,714 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
And if the very poor can increase their buying power by 15-25% by shopping at Wal-Mart you'd rather have them shop elsewhere ?
You must be against poor people stretching their food dollar to feed their families.

Who benefits more from the low prices, their millions of customers or the people they employ ? I say both.

No surprise here, my general law of politics and economics says Whenever the interests of the poor are opposed by one or more other interests, the poor lose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 03:02 PM
 
Location: USA
13,255 posts, read 12,137,639 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
"You didnt build that"-Lord High Priest Barack Obama
I don't know where Obama became a part of this discussion. There's tons of other threads to criticize him in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 03:03 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,483,714 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
They can quit and work for another company. They can go on strike. I am not against striking, I am against unionization.

That's like saying poor people have alternatives when facing exclusionary zoning. They can vote with their feet and move somewhere else (where the zoning is just as hostile to the poor). They can go on strike against landlords (go homeless). Um, sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 03:08 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,483,714 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
exactly...which means lower profitability for our retirement accounts (we all need to work longer to retire), less profitability to banks (higher interest rates on mortgages and car loans), and less investable money in future growth (slower economic recovery as a nation)

Walmart workers (not to mention burger flippers) have retirement accounts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 03:09 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,271,772 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
The point that is being made is that businesses cost cities and states a lot of money to maintain roads, build sewer, water, power, schools for the workers of that business, police, fire etc that businesses don't pay the full cost.

Those businesses are not paying the full cost that it would take to maintain the infrastructure that those businesses need to exist and thrive.

So you have a Walmart which like all businesses is costing that city or state additional money to maintain roads, water, power, etc for that Walmart, that Walmart isn't covering by paying taxes, then on top of that the employees of Walmart that then have to subsidized by that same city or state as well.

I think that is a legit point to make from state or local governments.

Businesses costs states and cities a lot of money that aren't covered by tax revenues collected from those businesses.
That doesn't make sense. In most states businesses pay higher property taxes because there is no homeowner's exemption available to them. So on a local level businesses pay more and on a federal level businesses pay more if they conduct business in the USA because of the tax rates.

Also, the Walmart employees aren't subsidized by anyone. Single mothers that work at WMT might be subsidized, but they will be subsidized anywhere they work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 03:10 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,271,772 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Walmart workers (not to mention burger flippers) have retirement accounts?
Yes they do and they also have profit sharing account and they can buy WMT stock at a 15% discount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top