[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I think it is pretty crummy too, although it is misleading to say the teamowner takes all the profit while taxpayers paid for it. Teams either lease the use of the stadium or have put significant sums into the purchase and share the profits according to contracts agreed to by the cities in which the stadiums were built. I have the same 'not with my tax money' reaction to, though.

Taxpayers who don't live in the area where the stadium is being built should not have to pay for it.

Walmart provides insurance benefits for fulltime employees. I know they use the old 35 hour per week, part time employee escape, but the employees do choose to work there. The reason the owners are rich and the company makes huge profits is because they manage their p/l statements that tightly. Taxpayers are unfortunately stuck paying for some benefits for these low pay employers just like we do for the low pay grocery store clerk and the unemployed guy on his couch. That's the nature of the beast.

Even with some of the people who work full time, unless they are managers or higher ups, many of them can't afford the insurance and so they still end up on medicaid. WalMart should pay them enough to afford to buy insurance, or they should provide it to them.

*R&D is subsidized through grants and the like but the companies spend far more in drug trials and development. They are private corporations who pay their employees to do a job. Instead of despising their profit, you should applaud it.

Why? We are paying for a lot of the research and development, then charged extremely high prices for the very drugs we helped pay to develop. What we are paying for is advertising. Why should drug companies even be advertising? That should be between a doctor and their patient. If people really want to know about new drugs, there are plenty of ways to get information about them. Drug companies are extremely corrupt, and they are very profitable. Health care should not be about profit, it should be about helping people.

Do you mean in dollars or percentages? I guarantee there is NO millionaire paying less in either category than someone making $30K/ year. That is a nice fallacy though.

Warren Buffet has even said he pays less than his secretary. Not in actual dollars of course, but the % he pays is less than hers. That is very common.

There we agree. Those companies shouldn't be bailed out. If they aren't strong enough to compete and succeed they shouldn't exist.
Too true. That is the very hallmark of a poorly managed company that should fail.

Yeparoo.

You've thrown out the usual statements but without an idea of how to make it better they don't mean much.

Well, we could start by putting some regulations back into place to stop corruption, have serious oversight and transparency, and we could investigate and try people who break the law or are unethical with regard to how they conduct business. We could reform the tax code. We could stop subsidizing private corporations, or companies that make more than $500,000/year. We could provide health care for everyone so the burden doesn't fall on corporations, and then charge them a higher tax rate to help pay for it. We could stop bailing out companies that fail. We could start enforcing antitrust laws, and break up companies that are too big to fail. And, we could have some kind of regulations about how executives are paid, and have a living wage for workers, so people make enough money to live and afford things. And lastly, we could reform the advertising industry. how is that for a start?