Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Minimum wage rises, employment holds steady..."
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics. You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are. [/quote] Two problems: First, corporations are tax collectors, not tax payors. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html Likewise, they don't really receive tax breaks and subsidies, they are simply pass through entities for the economic benefit. Second, capital will almost always seek the highest AFTER TAX returns possible. All else being equal, capital will be allocated to an investment that returns 10% vs one that returns 9% after tax. Since capital is mobile, the idea of simply taking a "slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable)" won't work. You'll starve the company of capital as investors flee to better investments. What you're asking for is the equivalent of asking the process of natural selection to be less ruthless even if it means that the species that is evolving ends up being weaker than it would have otherwise been. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics