Text 17475, 98 rader
Skriven 2006-01-20 11:49:00 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROSS CASSELL
Ärende: "Wal-Mart" bill
=======================
Hello Ross,

>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.

RC>Retail is like that period, Walmart faces the criticism because they happen
RC>be at the top of the heap.

The law was designed to affect all employers with 10,000 or more
employees, not just Wal Mart.

>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>Kmart, Target, Home Depot and on and on...

Only if those companies have 10,000 or more employees.

RC>Restaurants, Fast Food etc..

Only if those businesses have 10,000 or more employees.

>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>The Maryland Governor tried to veto the law.

That is an idiotic statement.  No governor can veto a law.  No governor
can even try to veto a law.  A governor can veto a bill.  But not a law.
A legislature can override a veto, but not a law.  Although laws can be
rewritten, amended, or repealed.

>RC>The purpose of the Maryland law was to save the state money because
>RC>so many were using its medicaid programs. If the businesses were to
>RC>do so voluntaril they would be by default saving the state money
>RC>and the state could pass on that savings by reducings the various
>RC>taxes they already charge businesses, would not hurt the states
>RC>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
>LL>budget, through underfunding, in those areas.  Giving businesses tax
>LL>breaks only serves to exacerbate the problem, not make things better.

RC>Businesses get tax breaks all the time.

Each state tries to lure new businesses by offering tax breaks.
For example, an automobile manufacturer might want to build a new
factory in Alabama if the governor offers some tax incentives.
Otherwise, the automobile manufacturer might choose to locate its
new factory elsewhere.  The problem is, other states will try to
do the same thing, with each state offering more incentives than
another.

RC>Businesess also pay more taxes than ordinary citizens, you knew this right?

Businesses should pay their fair share of taxes, as should everybody
else.  But when businesses are given tax breaks in order to make more
profits, it often comes at the expense of working Americans, whose
payroll taxes rise as a result.

>RC>As it is, all Walmart has to do is cull its full time payroll in
>RC>favor of on that is composed of a part time one, businesses dont
>RC>have to provide any 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>Then the Maryland law accomplished nothing.

Except to force companies with 10,000 or more employees to spend at
least 8 percent of its profits on health care for its employees.

>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.

RC>No they want to tax the fuck out of everyone and give it away.

Better to tax and spend rather than borrow and spend.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)