Text 17440, 126 rader
Skriven 2006-01-19 18:44:59 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 17434 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
Ärende: "Wal-Mart" bill
=======================
LEE LOFASO -> ROSS CASSELL wrote:
 LL> Hello Ross,

 RC>>> Can you name any other business as in single employer in Maryland
 RC>>> that emplo 10,000 or more people? ( I suppose the federal
 RC>>> government trumps Walmart in that area but Maryland cannot enforce
 RC>>> a law on the feds )


 LL>>> All employers who have 15 or more employees should be subject, not
 LL>>> just Wal Mart.  But Wal Mart is a good start.


 RC>> Then the law isnt fair until it targets a wider scope.

 LL> Wal Mart is famous for employing the working poor.  Other employers
 LL> also do the same, preferring to hire part-timers (at low wages) so as
 LL> to avoid providing health insurance and maximize profits.

 LL> While it would be preferable that all employers should be made to pay
 LL> a living wage, including providing health insurance for all employees,
 LL> it is a good start to begin with large employers, such as Wal Mart,
 LL> first.

 RC>>> Yep Lee, thats the gist of the law..


 RC>>> But you are right, the law can only be fair if it targetted a wide
 RC>>> scope of businesses/employers.


 LL>>> Gotta start somewhere.  Might as well be Wal Mart.


 RC>> No, they could have done it right the first time.

 LL> Conservatives would have been totally opposed to passing legislation
 LL> along those lines.

 RC>>> What Maryland should have done is pass tax incentives for those
 RC>>> who spend x percent of their payroll on bennies.


 LL>>> Increasing payroll taxes is not the answer, given that people have
 LL>>> to eat.  The minimum wage as it is now is not sufficient for
 LL>>> anybody to live on.  In fact, the U.S. has the lowest minimum wage
 LL>>> among all industrial countries in the world.  And payroll taxes
 LL>>> have increased as a result of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy,
 LL>>> thus leaving working Americans and their families poorer.


 RC>>> READ AGAIN what I said..


 LL>>> Tax breaks for the wealthy, or more tax breaks for businesses, mean
 LL>>> higher payroll taxes for American workers.


 RC>> The purpose of the Maryland law was to save the state money because
 LL> so many
 RC>> were using its medicaid programs. If the businesses were to do so
 LL> voluntaril
 RC>> they would be by default saving the state money and the state could
 LL> pass on
 RC>> that savings by reducings the various taxes they already charge
 LL> businesses,
 RC>> would not hurt the states coffers and would be win/win for all sides.

 LL> States have had to scrounge for funds, or raise state taxes, to pay
 LL> for medicaid programs due to the Bush administration cutting the budget,
 LL> through underfunding, in those areas.  Giving businesses tax breaks only
 LL> serves to exacerbate the problem, not make things better.

 RC>> As it is, all Walmart has to do is cull its full time payroll in
 LL> favor of on
 RC>> that is composed of a part time one, businesses dont have to provide any
 RC>> benifits to part time help..

 LL> Thus creating more working poor, who have no health benefits, thus
 LL> forcing people to rely more and more on medicaid.

 RC>>> "pass tax incentives"


 LL>>> Tax breaks for one group(s) means tax increases for other groups.


 RC>> But Lee, taxes are the sexual aphrodesiac of your political party.

 LL> Cutting taxes for one group leads to raising taxes for other groups.
 LL> That is what GWB has done, with his tax breaks for the wealthy program.

 RC>>> meaning that businesses could receive "breaks in the taxes they pay
 RC>>> the stat if they spent x % of their payroll for bennies.


 LL>>> It also means higher taxes for others, namely working Americans.


 RC>> This is what you liberals want anyway.

 LL> Liberals want fiscal sanity, with fair taxation for everyone.

Hey, Lee, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!  You ever heard of fast food joints? 
Mickey D, Burger King, etc.?  Those places have been hiring people for decades
as part-time employees.  They seldom if ever give anybody enough hours to
qualify for benefits from the company, and will fire their ass at the drop of a
hat.  Why?  Because the quality of the people they get is problematic to start
with - functionally illiterate in many cases - and they can't afford to pay
somebody benefits who can't cut it in the working world.

I've got friends who own and run fast food joints.  They would give anything to
be able to hire good people who show up for work on time, every time, and who
can do the job without constant supervision.  They would LOVE to pay those
people higher wages.  But they can't afford to because the government forces
them to pay a high minimum wage to people who are essentially unemployable, so
they compensate by only hiring part-timers at the lowest possible wage.  If
somebody shows potential they will promote them out of the the pack, but those
types are rare as hen's teeth.

And now, you want to allow NJ to jump on WalMart - who typically gets several
hundred applicants for every job they have when a store opens - and force them
to incur higher costs for no return.  How Democratic of you.

--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)