Walmart heirs give less than 1% to charity - here's the full list

[Faygo Kid]

Here's a "shocker" - the Walmart heirs (worth $108 billion - that's with a "b," folks), the family that can buy and sell Bill Gates, the right-wing heirs to Sam Walton's misbegotten fortune, give less than 1% to charity. How many billions do you need? Anyway, here's the list, from Business Week. What to say?
http://aol.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_48/b3860605.htm

[onebigbadwulf]

1. heres what I say

Stringent corporate tax. Exponential progressive income tax.

[SahaleArm]

9. They will pay 20% as all their money is capital gains.

Ordinary income is irrelevent to them.

[Sir_Shrek]

2. Eh.......

I'm a big believer in charity and being charitable, but I refuse to judge anyone by what they give or don't give to charity, no matter what kind of money they have on hand.

[juancarlos]

3. So what?

It is their money. They can do whatever they want with it. If they want to give it all away, they can do that. If they want to keep it all for themselves, that is their choice.

[henslee]

4. yup, its their money...

[salinen]

5. But you gotta wonder

how much they give to RW candidates?

[SharonAnn]

14. Yup, it's their money, though they didn't work for it or earn it.

It was given to them and I guess they don't want to "give' it to anyone else.

Selfish, but it's their money.

[terrisel]

19. Was it Saddam's Money in his legal Bank Accounts in Iraq?

When a rich man contributes money to a public servant-legislator, president, or judge in order to get laws passed to allow him to pay less than his fair share of taxes, or to enable him to exploit others, is the resulting money he earns his to do with what he wishes?
if he gives it away does the money then belong to the people he has given it to?

When does campaign financing become racketeering ?
Why won't Cheney release those records of meeting with the energy company representatives?

[camero]

6. okey, dokey. Here's how they got thier money.

http://www.lawmall.com/wal-mart/

Wal-Mart's Growth Is Simply a Failure of Our Federal Government to Enforce the 1936 Federal Law Prohibiting Price Discrimination. The Robinson-Patman Act

The dramatic expansion of Wal-Mart and other superstore retailers (as well as our globalizing economy) results from the failure of our Constitutional checks and balances to correct our political system when the components are corrupted by large concentrations of capital and the ability to purchase exemption from law and redirection of tax money into massive corporate welfare.

[OldSoldier]

21. Robinson-Patman won't do it. Anti-dumping laws will.

It is common practice in commercial transactions to sell large quantities cheaper on a per-unit basis than small quantities are sold.

Buy a pack of cigarettes, pay $3. Buy a carton of cigarettes, pay $2.50 per pack. Buy a whole truckload of cigarettes...I think you see where this is going.

The way to fight Wal-Mart isn't on Robinson-Patman; it's on dumping grounds.

Dumping is the practice of selling product below fair market value in an attempt to drive out competition. The Internet is covered up with information about Mitsubishi selling a press system to the Washington Post for less than its fair market value.

This is what Wal-Mart does: sells for less than FMV in an attempt to shut down the competition. They probably sell for less than cost in some cases.

[camero]

22. It also covers dumping

Article 15 Sec 3(a). Of the same Act.

[jmowreader]

23. Hmm...didn't see that in there. Thanks.

But the point's the same: busting Wal-Mart on their wholesale transactions isn't going to pass muster, because discounts on bulk purchases are an ordinary part of doing business and have been for decades.

There's two ways we can attack this legally. One I talked about earlier, the other I just thought of. Dumping would be good; it's one thing when Wal-Mart is selling product cheaper than John's Clothing can buy it, and another when they're selling product cheaper than Wal-Mart can buy it.

The other is RICO. I like RICO a little better, and it might be easier to prove. It's not hard to find an article in the paper that says Wal-Mart walked into some company and told 'em how much Wal-Mart was going to pay, and if they didn't get the price they wanted, they'd walk. When I read stuff like that, I envision large Italian men with Southern accents wearing well-tailored pinstripe suits while making deals you can't refuse. The nice thing about RICO is that you can dissolve the guilty company after a RICO conviction.

[camero]

24. You're right

You just have to prove intent, I think? Not an easy thing to do but the publicity would probably be enough.

[Touchdown]

8. Here's what.

Some people (including me) see what they're doing not only with charity, but also business as the kind of "ME" attitude as destroying the nation.

If we want to point out what selfish Robber Baron,Troglodytes the Waltons are, then that's our business, and our choice.

Isn't America great?

[terrisel]

16. Actually its not their money-they didn't earn it someone else did

When there is not a hefty inheritance tax capitalism is defeated. Capitalism depends upon a level playing field. We need to let the cream rise to the top, not the untalented and unproductive. If the walmart heirs are talented and productive they shouldn't need to inherit. They should compete on their own.


Seconding the person who did earn it should have been happy to give back to the country that allowed him to rise to the top and shouldn't whine about inheritance tax. What ingratitude.

What about the people who property has been seized through eminent domain so that Sam W could could build a Wal Mart on it and amass billions for himself? Should they have been forced to give up their assets so Sam could amass more and them pass it on to his undeserving children.

Get real here. The problem in the USA is that it is full of fake capitalists and apologists for them. When the apologists learn to love their children as much as Sam cared about his, we may be able to get back to capitalism.

[Liberal Veteran]

18. Yes it is their money...but their choices say something about them.

And the type of people they are. If you are one of 10 richest people in America and give less than 1 percent to charity, it indicates you are a greedy person who cares more for the accumulation of wealth than anything else.

The idea that we are not allowed to comment on the excesses and money grubbing of the ridiculously wealthy (people who could easily give away 75% to charity and not cause any noticible change in their own standard of living) is an idea that went out with the robber baron era.

[bleedingheart]

25. yeah they are just really greedy nasty jerks anyways

who pay their employees substandard wages and offer no healthcare...what else could we expect.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NuckinFutz]

11. I have to agree with you.

When you add in that one of W's beliefs is that we ought to be able to remove charitable agencies and policies from government and let the churches and the wealthy provide them, it gets pretty scary. We just can't depend on that. Most of them aren't even close to being as philanthropic and charitable as Bill Gates or George Soros.

[outinforce]

15. "Low Post Wonders" ???

"Maybe it's the weather or something but I see an awful lot of low-post wonders out today."

Low-Post Wonders??

Speaking as someone who at one point had a low post number, I must say that I value to opinion of almost anyone, irrespective of the size of his or her post number.

In fact, I am much more concerned about what the person making the post has to say, and the ideas behind the post, than I am about the number of posts the person has made.

And if, by some chance, I happen to disagree with what someone has posted, or if I consider their idea to be silly, then I post my own argument or try to point out the silliness of the other person's idea.

But criticize another person simply because he or she has a low post number?

Doesn't make much sense to me, regardless of weather conditions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. kudos to James and Virginia Stowers

they've given away over 2/3 of their wealth to biomedical research.

[Touchdown]

12. The top 5 philathropic companies

has 3 that were retailers. I read that in my local paper a couple of weeks ago.

#1 Albertson's
#2 Target
#4 Best Buy

Just to show that retail isn't the small margin business that W-M tries to pass off. #5 BTW, was Ford Motor Company.

[FreakinDJ]

13. It is only relevant when you think

It is only relevant when you think of all the working poor at their stores we subsidize with medical and food stamps.

Yep you guessed it. A working Mom at Walmart, being a temporary employee still qualitfies for many state and federal aid programs. So when you realy think of it, why do we have to subsidize their greed.

Do our tax dollars really go to pay for them ? You bet they do and thats not all. We are also sending tons of our hard earned cash to China and other Asian countries to develope the factories to produce these goods.

So you mean our tax dollars funds China's growth ? You know it does and guess what ? for many of the workers in some of these countries their living conditions are not even acceptable to the standereds we set for farm aminals in this country.

So why would any one think that the Walmart hiers would give to charity.

They are way to busiy ripping of the american way of life and funding working poor world wide.....................and with our money.

Please freepers need only to reply and tell me why this is a GOOD thing

[Kremer]

17. I wish this horrible company would go away!

I'ts bad enough they are destroying America. Now they moved onto the rest of the world! How fucken big can 1 company get!!!!!!!!!!!!!Yuck!

[terrisel]

20. I wonder if they are investing in euros right now-

and driving down our dollar.

The lack of charitable giving in the US implies a lack of interest in our well being here.

Now that Asia is seen as the growth economies-do we have any patriotic American corporations? Have we passed so much enabling legislation for "our" companies only to have them flee to greener pastures and consider themselves International.

Neil Bush and his uncle seem to be big Asian money makers.

[mitchum]

26. Up against the wall with them

venal pigs

[Fescue4u]

27. 1% is a BILLION dollars to charity

Thats with a "b" folks

I don't understand all the hand wriggin over Walmart.

Poor families need to buy things to.