Tax them too much and they will become tax exiles like many other countries have done to their 1%.

I strive to be part of the 1% as should everyone that has a work ethic.I agree with you.

Tax them too much and they will become tax exiles like many other countries have done to their 1%.

This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.

This is why we need to eliminate the income tax and just go with a wealth tax. Every person and company completes an annual 'net worth' statement and then pay taxes on that amount. If you live solely on cash flow and rent a place to live your taxes would be very low. If you live because your money makes you money you would pay a much higher amount.

How come if a person catches Barry Bonds homerun ball he instantly owes $200K in taxes, but if Walmart stock instantly goes up a few points the owners of Walmart stock don't get a tax bill. Weird how that works. I wonder who came up with these rules.

TaxProf Blog: More on Tax Consequences to Fan Catching Barry Bonds' 756th Home Run (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/08/more-on-tax-con.html)

If we post a bit more of that commentary, we find out that "not all tax experts agree with Barrie's legal assessment."

There is considerable discussion regarding what the realities of that situation are. And one little nugget that I just loved, and think carries a ton of weight, goes like this:

If the folks want to tax the ball on its value at the time it was caught, great. That ball, at the time it is caught, is about $15. Why? Because the fan catching the ball does so almost certainly before the runner scores (well, technically, before he crosses third base). The event that makes the ball valuable doesn't occur until after the fan takes possession of it. So he now has a perfectly legitimate claim to avoid sudden accession to wealth, and as one guy put it, "claim the $15 value on the tax return to start the statute of limitations clock running." (or words to that effect), and sell the ball with the notion of paying capital gains taxes on the subsequent home run.

As far as the wealth tax goes, that's a non-starter, because neither countries nor municipalities can make any intelligent plans on the "predictions" of wealth, nor does wealth imply liquidity of funds to make payments. So some poor soul gets stuck with a bill for, say, $1000 on the presumed "wealth value" of a non-liquid asset? Start doing that and people won't walk, they'll run away from investing in most any to-that-point healthy economy. Sadly, however, we already do "wealth taxation," here - we just call it "property taxes."

Walmart has absolutely *nothing* to do with those assertions. Nothing. And if you don't like the public assistance, you should be chief on the bandwagon to have it cut back, not enhanced. Your own argument makes a great case to suggest that if sub subsidies were eliminated, wages would go up because the company is factoring in that element in their market computation of wage value.



Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution; coloring it under a varying degrees of severity is merely a clever way to disguise means testing. Ultimately, it always boils down to "I think that guy has too much money, therefore he must evil. Confiscate his money over some magical threshhold and give it to someone under the magic threshhold."

Employer X, in response to shareholder equity, pays Employee Y what the market for widgets says Employee Y is worth. Period. Not about the relative "value" of min wage because the relative "value" of minimum wage is not the employer's responsibility. Not about "relative worker productivity" if the worker at Employer X hasn't really increased. Not about "employee education levels" if the education possessed is of no value to the employer. It is up to the employee to do what he can to gain the maximum salary and compensation possible and increase his value to the workforce, not vice-versa.

No, they dont. Thats why govt should require a higher min wage and tie it to inflation. Im sure we will hear this from the Pres during his state of the union address tomorrow. As for the state level, Sen. McAffrey gas proposed a bill (SB1362) to raise it to $10/hr for state workers.

No, they dont. Thats why govt should require a higher min wage and tie it to inflation. Im sure we will hear this from the Pres during his state of the union address tomorrow. As for the state level, Sen. McAffrey gas proposed a bill (SB1362) to raise it to $10/hr for state workers.

Absolutely not. Employers set the wage, not the government. And McAffrey's bill should be crushed.

Define 'income'?

If I have 1,000 shares of CompanyX stock and it goes up in value from $10 a share to $1,000 a share should I get a tax bill for the 'windfall profit' even if I haven't sold any shares? You would probably say no. What if I take out a $10,000,000 loan against the now $1,000,000 worth of shares (that I originally paid $10,000 for) and used the money to buy more stock, and then I used the dividends from the $10 million worth of stock to repay my loan and provide a means of living. Would you count any of that money as income?

Now let's say all this falls apart on me and my $1,000 stock goes back to $10 and the people loaning me the $10,000,000 want their money now. Should Congress bail me out?

Heh heh.. It's easy to muddy things up.

If you invest in the market and your stocks go up, and you reinvest the gains, no I do not think the gains should be taxed. Now if you put your gains in the bank, then yes that would be taxable income.

Heh heh.. It's easy to muddy things up.

If you invest in the market and your stocks go up, and you reinvest the gains, no I do not think the gains should be taxed. Now if you put your gains in the bank, then yes that would be taxable income.

Should the purchase of stock be subject to sales tax then?

Absolutely not. Employers set the wage, not the government. And McAffrey's bill should be crushed.

Well, then we will continue to have very slow economic growth.

And I'm guessing that you probably believe that there should be no min wage of any kind? If so, do you think that would improve things for the country as a whole?

Not when worker productivity is much higher than it was in 1960.

Even been to a Wal-Mart lately?

This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.

Too rich too fail.:cool:

This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.It's a free market. The Walton's are fine people and have every right to have as much money as they can make and pay their employees minimal wage.

Don't like it, GET OVER IT.

Garin, Nice job of sidestepping the issue of hoarding BILLIONS upon BILLIONS while the taxpayer picks up the tab for many of their workers "benefits."
Great work ethic those Walton's have!

First, saying they make $25,000 every minute is quite an exaggeration. Lets look at real numbers. According to Yahoo finance, the largest shareholder was Jim Walton with 10,501,672 shares as of June of last year. That equates to dividend income of about $19,743,143 per year which is about $37.56 per minute. Still not bad pay but far from $25,000 per hour you claim.

Second, Wal Mart directly employs more than 2.1 million people worldwide. That is a massive number of people. Add to that the millions upon millions who are employed in multiple other businesses supporting Wal Mart's sales and operation and you have virtually the world's most massive business.

Now, lets look at the layoffs that have you foaming at the mouth.....about 2,800 people. All businesses lay people off while undergoing reorganizations or slowing business. I've been laid off myself and totally understand it is part of life. You seem to feel that the Walton family had something to do with this business decision. Do you understand business so little that you don't realize that NO ONE in the Walton family has anything to do with the decision to lay these people off. Wal Mart is a business run by officers and the people they laid off were let go by way of a business decision. The company will open both Sam's and Wal Mart stores this year that will employ far more than the 2,800 these layoffs will entail. The Walton family is so far removed from the layoff decision you could line 100 Superstores in between.

Next, you seem to be under the impression that the Walton family sits in buildings virtually drowning in the hoarded piles of cash and stacks of $1000 bills, being waited on by naked servants, serenaded by musicians and being fed bon-bons and grapes like so many Jabba-the-Huts. Their wealth is in the value of the stock they own which rose to all-time highs in recent weeks.

The company donated directly to charity more than $650 million dollars over the last 5 years.

The company and the Walton Foundation has pledged $2 Billion just to hunger causes by 2015.

If they didn't hoard all those billions and billions, what exactly, would you have them do? Just give shares of their stock away? Pull up in front of the local stores in pickup trucks loaded with stock certificates and just start throwing them up in the air for anyone to get? They give hundreds of millions away every year. Millions of people are invested in Wal Mart stock and expect the business to operate in the most profitable way. This is a fiduciary responsibility. If the company feels 2,800 Sam's employees are not needed, then that's part of their responsibilities of running a business.

Since you don't understand what capitalism is, what you see with the Walton family is simply called building and wildly successful family business that has helped the middle and lower income people of this country survive far better than if Wal-Mart didn't exist at all. The family simply owns stock in the company. No one puts a gun to the head of any Wal Mart employee to work there. Well over a million American's do keeping far more off of the government dole or relying on it far less than they otherwise would.

Wal Mart is a business. It is not in business to provide welfare jobs for tens of thousands or pay more than they need to pay. If they raise wages, then they raise their prices and it will defeat the purpose of their business plan. They didn't become the worlds largest business by paying prime wages and benefits.

If you don't understand these things, then you don't understand capitalism at all.

It's a free market.

It's not a free market - and THAT is the problem.

Should the purchase of stock be subject to sales tax then?

No, because you will eventually pay taxes on the capital gains and dividends, whether in a non-retirement account or in a retirement account. If you die with it, you pass it to your children subject to estate taxes. Investing in stock is investing in a company. While some profit, just as many lose money. Would you tax someone who buys a coffee shop or a printing plant for the cost of the purchase?

This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.

That's what France was seeing with their wealth tax and had to pull it back. Those with wealth were simply moving it elsewhere.

It's not a free market - and THAT is the problem.Dude, a business was created by Sam Walton and has grown beyond anyones expectations. It is extremely profitable and even though it has grown out of Sam Walton's ethics, it is still part of the free market system. I take it you don't like shareholders?

Mugofbeer,
First, I like your name, second, money in IRAs, 401k/403b accounts are subject to income taxes, not estate taxes (much of which is exempt for we, the great unwashed), and the heirs have to pay in the year received. I could be corrected, but that's what I had to do when my mother died, and my financial adviser has told me that my boys will have to do the same. I would love for someone knowledgable on this forum to tell me otherwise.
C. T.
If you die with it, you pass it to your children subject to estate taxes.

Dude, a business was created by Sam Walton and has grown beyond anyones expectations. It is extremely profitable and even though it has grown out of Sam Walton's ethics, it is still part of the free market system. I take it you don't like shareholders?

JTF is saying (I think) that we don't actually have a FREE market, but a manipulated market where the forces aren't actually allowed to compete fairly in all cases. Perhaps along the lines of "too big to fail"? JTF, correct me if I'm off base.

JTF is saying (I think) that we don't actually have a FREE market, but a manipulated market where the forces aren't actually allowed to compete fairly in all cases. Perhaps along the lines of "too big to fail"? JTF, correct me if I'm off base.Even if that is the case, then he wants to regulate companies limiting how large they can get.

Panda. Ina 100% free-market capitalist system we would not have a minimum wage. Without the minimum wage requirements, Walmart would pay half their currents wages. Walmart is committed to being the lowest on everything. Whether that be prices quality wages or anything else, they are committed to having the lowest.

That is their right but it is also my right as a shopper to not support that kind of disgusting behavior

JTF is saying (I think) that we don't actually have a FREE market, but a manipulated market where the forces aren't actually allowed to compete fairly in all cases. Perhaps along the lines of "too big to fail"? JTF, correct me if I'm off base.

100% correct.



Panda. Ina 100% free-market capitalist system we would not have a minimum wage. Without the minimum wage requirements, Walmart would pay half their currents wages. Walmart is committed to being the lowest on everything. Whether that be prices quality wages or anything else, they are committed to having the lowest.

That is their right but it is also my right as a shopper to not support that kind of disgusting behavior

...and we wouldn't have the social benefits that Walmart relies on to help compensate their employees either. They would have to pay the full cost of the job they want done.

Should the purchase of stock be subject to sales tax then?No, because you will eventually pay taxes on the capital gains and dividends, whether in a non-retirement account or in a retirement account. If you die with it, you pass it to your children subject to estate taxes. Investing in stock is investing in a company. While some profit, just as many lose money. Would you tax someone who buys a coffee shop or a printing plant for the cost of the purchase?

I see you too have also confused buying and selling with profit and loss. If I buy collectable trading cards at the comic book store as an investment why do I have to pay a sales tax? Shouldn't I be able to buy them not only tax free but also with pre-tax dollars?

Panda. Ina 100% free-market capitalist system we would not have a minimum wage. Without the minimum wage requirements, Walmart would pay half their currents wages. Walmart is committed to being the lowest on everything. Whether that be prices quality wages or anything else, they are committed to having the lowest.

That is their right but it is also my right as a shopper to not support that kind of disgusting behaviorOk, there is a line drawn where and what we regulate. I support having a minimum wage, but not limiting the growth of a successful company.

The exact point I'm making is, they have their rights and you have yours. If you don't want to shop there, then awesome! That is why we live in a free society where we can make decisions such as where we want to shop.

Ok, there is a line drawn where and what we regulate. I support having a minimum wage, but not limiting the growth of a successful company.

The exact point I'm making is, they have their rights and you have yours. If you don't want to shop there, then awesome! That is why we live in a free society where we can make decisions such as where we want to shop.

But how free is the society when the "free" market favors one company over another and drives the rest out of business due to unfair advantages? How free are we then to make decisions about where we shop?

No one is saying Walmart can't grow as big as they want. We are just saying pay the same taxes the rest of us are paying and stop pushing your employee compensation on the taxpayer. If you need the shelves stocked and the customers greeted then pay what it cost to stock shelves and greet customers. Why would anyone think that is such an unfair burden on Walmart?

Panda. Ina 100% free-market capitalist system we would not have a minimum wage. Without the minimum wage requirements, Walmart would pay half their currents wages.
Not necessarily. If the market were permitted total freedom, there's no telling what Wal-Mart might have to pay. It could be half of their current wages, it could be double. It's hard to say, as there are very many constraints on the free market of labor.

Building permit today for this project.

Will be just under 140,000 square feet.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/7815d1399927886-sams-club-39th-n-may-sams.jpg

The purchase was listed in Saturdays paper. Cant remember exactly but sold for something like $6.5million

$6,296,500 for almost 14 acres.

Whats the latest on this project?

I don't know but I cringe at the thought of another light on May. It seems like there's one every 100 feet from 23rd to 50th.

I don't know but I cringe at the thought of another light on May. It seems like there's one every 100 feet from 23rd to 50th.

There is not a need for a light right there. People coming from the south can turn on 39th and go in or there is a middle turn lane after the gas station that they can use. Of course, that won't matter since there are people driving who shouldn't be on the road in the first place...

My gripe against Target is that in NWA and back home in Memphis is their stores are sparsely stocked and it's not because it's just after a busy weekend, there's always empty looking shelving in multiple depts every day of the week. Sometimes their children's clothing sections, especially boy's, shouldn't even exist. The Cosco location in the Memphis area are basically very close to a Sam's. We find that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Waiting for them to try NWA, Sam's in putting in a third store it's back yard. And the products do vary, the NWA ones carries USDA Prime at insanely low prices considering what it fetches at meat markets while you'll never see that in the Memphis locations. Back to Walmart, folks don't give them credit but they have quietly added lines like Calphalon cookware and so on. Men's jeans are about the same with Walmart carrying Levi's Signature to Target's Levi's Denizen. Denizen came about because Target didn't like the brand sharing.

This location is (finally) out to bid for General Contractors at the end of the month. Would put construction starting around the 1st of April and completion somewhere around October / November of this year.

My gripe against Target is that in NWA and back home in Memphis is their stores are sparsely stocked and it's not because it's just after a busy weekend, there's always empty looking shelving in multiple depts every day of the week. Sometimes their children's clothing sections, especially boy's, shouldn't even exist. The Cosco location in the Memphis area are basically very close to a Sam's. We find that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Waiting for them to try NWA, Sam's in putting in a third store it's back yard. And the products do vary, the NWA ones carries USDA Prime at insanely low prices considering what it fetches at meat markets while you'll never see that in the Memphis locations. Back to Walmart, folks don't give them credit but they have quietly added lines like Calphalon cookware and so on. Men's jeans are about the same with Walmart carrying Levi's Signature to Target's Levi's Denizen. Denizen came about because Target didn't like the brand sharing.

Sounds like the Target on NW Expressway and Rockwell.

Sounds like the Target on NW Expressway and Rockwell.

I like Target, but inventory control is my big problem with them. It's the same at Northwest Expressway and May.

I like Target, but inventory control is my big problem with them. It's the same at Northwest Expressway and May.

I've noticed that more than a few times since they expanded their grocery offerings at the NW Expy/May location. For example, one day I went in and there was almost nothing in the entire cheese section. Another time it was that way with the eggs. Strange.

Oh--so as not to derail the thread, glad to hear we're close to seeing some movement on the Sam's. I've been wondering what was the holdup.

I'm really confused on what they layout is going to be for this. I don't see how there is going to be room here for the building and he massive parking lot that will be required.

There will be quite a bit of parking along May:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5732d1388853656-sams-club-39th-n-may-39thmay1.jpg

There will be quite a bit of parking along May:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5732d1388853656-sams-club-39th-n-may-39thmay1.jpg

Same type of layout in N. Edmond.
I wish they would put a south bound approach lane on May. Going to have traffic problems. The City Council is letting SAM'S off cheap.

^^^^

The traffic problems. That intersection is already packed. Without a new traffic light somewhere along the northern border of the property (not that I want another signal...I hated it when Lowe's just across the highway from this site got one), it'll be a cluster-you-know-what trying to get out if you're going northbound. You'll have to exit going west on 39th, then loop under I-44 at Drexel, then go back east to hit the light. It'll also be difficult getting into from the south. The 39th entrance will be jammed up, more than likely.

Just another reason to avoid May. From 10th to 63rd there must be lights every 6 blocks or so.

10th, 12th, 16th, 23rd, 27th, 30th, 36th, Lowes, 39th, 39th, 47th, 50th, 57th, 63rd. Am I missing any? :)

10th, 12th, 16th, 23rd, 27th, 30th, 36th, Lowes, 39th, 39th, 47th, 50th, 57th, 63rd. Am I missing any? :)

52nd also has a stoplight.

I'm really confused on what they layout is going to be for this. I don't see how there is going to be room here for the building and he massive parking lot that will be required.

Plans show 545 parking spaces which is 40 more then the city would require

52nd also has a stoplight.

How could I forget the Target light? Also there's one at the Bank of America.

Plans show 545 parking spaces which is 40 more then the city would require

Awesome. I hadn't seen the plans before. Still it looks like the parking situation is going to be awkward with the building in the SW part of the lot and parking all the way up to what looks like 42nd.

^

Keep in mind the entrance will be at the NE corner of the building, so it's pretty well centered in the parking area.

^

Keep in mind the entrance will be at the NE corner of the building, so it's pretty well centered in the parking area.

Is the Shell part of this deal, or will it stand alone as it is now?

That Shell station is under separate ownership and not a part of this project.

That Shell station is under separate ownership and not a part of this project.

That's what I thought originally, but wondered if they had worked out some deal. Thank you!

This corner is getting crowded. Also, right down the street to the west will be the new WinCo.

I'm hopeful that the development of this corner will spur redevelopment of some of the run-down/boarded up businesses and vacant lots in that part of town. It has huge potential.

I'm hopeful that the development of this corner will spur redevelopment of some of the run-down/boarded up businesses and vacant lots in that part of town. It has huge potential.

This is what I'm hoping for. I don't buy enough bulk items to make shopping at Sam's appealing, but I live within a mile south of here. Between the Sam's, and renovated Taft Stadium, and the On Cue, I'm hopeful this will encourage some other commercial property owners to make additional investments.

This is what I'm hoping for. I don't buy enough bulk items to make shopping at Sam's appealing, but I live within a mile south of here. Between the Sam's, and renovated Taft Stadium, and the On Cue, I'm hopeful this will encourage some other commercial property owners to make additional investments.

we must be nearly neighbors then.. yes I too hope this spurs some growth on May between 23rd and 36th especially. that area needs some love.. however as it does develop I see this end of May getting to be as congested as the north sections of May up around 63rd which can be horrible.

The building permit for this project was finally issued and they just applied for construction trailers which may already be on site.

Dirt should start moving soon.

See article at top of the page for details.

The building permit for this project was finally issued and they just applied for construction trailers which may already be on site.

Dirt should start moving soon.

See article at top of the page for details.

Construction fence is up around the entire property as of this morning.

Thats great news! Anyone know anything about the Oncue at 36th and May?

Snapped these today while stopped at the traffic light:

10536

10537

This is from warreng88:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sams051615.jpg