Nobody ever confused the Waltons for good people.

Please excuse the vomit all over this comment space.

Wow, the right-wing trollery here is astounding- find an article clearly pointing out what stingy billionaires the Waltons are- ATTACK THE POOR!

You want to know who the greatest thieves in America are? Well who has all the damn money, geniuses? It sure as hell isn't the middle class.

It is a well documented statistical fact, that middle class customers tip the best. The wealthy simply cannot comprehend the struggle of the person waiting on them to make ends meet. Expecting such people to set sound national economic policy is like expecting sharks to solve the over-fishing problem.

If there wasn't a tax break, they wouldn't give anything at all. The Waltons are the largest parasites on the American economy- they should be fined thousands for every person employed that requires federal aid to make ends meet.

Solution? Call yours neighbors, relatives, friends, etc., and install yours own store, warehouse, even in a small garage. Buy things direct from the industry, the farm, collectively. Initially begins with shares, valued at $100,00. Everybody can buy this share, nobody can buy 2 shares. Next year launches shares of $ 200,00. Nobody can buy 2 shares. It must be non-profit, only an additional price for expanding the business. You and yours family will learn everything about each product. Or feed these predators-monsters that will falls over yours next generations.

That is basically what Costco did, and it is wildly successful, only it is employee owned, not public.

The Waltons--Actual examples of the old revolutionary slogan: "Capitalism is the boot heel on the neck of the proletariat!" Haha! This is another reason never to shop at Walmart. Walmart provides the boot heel and Communist China provides the proletariat and the revolutionary thinking. Once unregulated Chinese capitalism is done with the Chinese people, the Chinese people are going to be like banshees when called upon to destroy us.

Thanks Walton family.

Every $1 Billion these stingy, greedy @#$#^$&'s have is 20,000 1-year jobs that pay $50,000. Billionaires are not job creators - they are job preventers. The Walton family alone is preventing more than 2.8 million jobs by holding on to their $$$$

Do tell me, how does your post make ANY sense whatsoever. Their company employs tens of thousands of people. How, pray tell, is that preventing jobs? Beyond that are the thousands that are employed in their shipping company. How, pray tell, is that preventing jobs? Beyond that are the tens of thousands that are employed to manufacture for them. How, pray tell, is that preventing jobs? They have ZERO obligation to hire people for the sake of hiring people. They hire enough to operate their company and still be profitable. Why is that wrong? They aren't preventing jobs, they've created tens of thousands of jobs and when they open a new store, the lines go around the block to apply to work there.

Whenever they open up in a town they shut down dozens of smaller shops. There is a net loss of jobs and massive decrease in average salary. I just went on a vacation to Colorado and most of the mountain towns don't have a Walmart, even though they are pretty big. They all had booming main streets with dozens of specialty shops.

Waltons...Kochs....to all the other self designated American royalty....'Let them eat cake'...Bastille day is lurking

Riiiiiiiiight. You are aware, are you not, that Bastille Day preceded the Reign of Terror that was so out of control that the revolutionaries began decapitating each other, right?

Why not just institute an exploitation tax ....for resources and for labor

Whip out your checkbook Scooter, because you know who is going pay a tax like that? YOU ARE.

This is why you set up a net wealth tax.

And when you do, those that have that money will take it out of the country and you won't have it to tax AND it won't be circulating in the country as those that have it, buy products and are taxed on the sale. GOOOOOD job.

But isn't a tax just more exploitation, especially if one does not receive a benefit in return comparable to the valuta taken?

You are right....many more perceptive and understand employers would be hurt by that. What would you do to recover value from employers that exploit their workers and do the environment great harm...in their quest for maximized profits.

That all hinges on the meaning of "exploit"
For socialists, >> ALL capitalists exploit the workers<<
That is a given..
In effect, as long as you are working for someone else, but not the state, they you are being "exploited", EVEN IF, you have accepted that contract freely and willingly.

Hard to have any kind of intelligent or creative discusion when the basis premise definition has alternative.

If you want to see what good a globalist that actually cares about people can do just look up the Kaufman Foundation. He started out by going to some of the worst schools in the country and telling all of the high school students that if they maintained a 3.0 GPA he would pay for their entire secondary education wherever they could get accepted. He ended up paying for several students to get harvard PhDs or to become medical doctors. He also built many of Kansas City's most recognizable buildings and attractions just to benefit the city. Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, the syphony hall, orchestra hall, etc.. And he put nearly all of his money into a foundation that continues to do stuff like this continuously. If a billionaire really decides to do some good for their community they really can. Fayetteville should have the best schools in the country, best museums in the country, and best performing arts in the country. It doesn't.

Their “horns” are “non-tootable.”

How do you know ??

You missed the quotation marks around—horns.
Look-up the definition of a homonym. If you’re still perplexed by the pun—I don’t care.

Okay, am I the only one that noticed the analysis was done by a union backed campaign called making change at Wal-Mart? So there is no way this could be drummed up is there. Also from first hand experience here in the Raleigh area, Wal-Mart's employees are not severely under paid. Cashiers which is an entry level job is starting at $9.50 an hour.

In my area they are paid $5.50.

Okay, you are either the biggest idiot in the world, live in another country, or are very clever with your sarcastic wit. The federal minimum wage is $7.25

Not a living wage and now they have to buy their uniforms

Not a living wage? Since when? If you live within your means this is definitely a living wage. They don't have uniforms, they wear their own clothes with an apron. This is almost 1000 a month. Yes, if you have to have a $200 phone bill and have to have cable and other non essential services then you might struggle, but if you use your money wisely then you should have no problems. I know I used to work for $8.75 an hour but I made it work. This is also the STARTING wage for a cashier if you want to make more then do what Americans have done for centuries, work hard.

Go figure.....Aynnie is smiling down on you. Live a life on a grand a month. Go ahead ....I dare you ...analyze what you do and where the support mechanisms begin. We pay for that you know. It is just not enough.

Let us look at this logically, Rent- $650, electricity- $80-100, water and trash (even though most apartments there days pay this) $65-90. This is only $795 a month that leaves $205 at 1,000 a month and $505 at 1,300 a month you can't make that work?

I have lived off a grand a month before did you not read my whole statement? It can happen plus $9.50 an hour is really more like $1300 a month

You lived with your parents. You weight 89 pounds....give me a break....maybe you are the ultimate monk of the suburban culture. I bow to you. The rest of America cannot live on that without some kind of subsidy.

I lived on my own. I just broker it down for you it is simple math. I'm sorry you refuse to see this. It can be done and should be done. I also weigh about 250 and can put away food with the best of them.

I want to know one thing. Why does it matter how much they give to charity? They have 0 obligations to do so.

No they do not have any obligations. Read up on Pullman and how history treated him. You do have an obligation to your society...but it just is not in writing. They are leeches and should be treated as such

First, the sources is VERY VERY suspect. I would like to know how, exactly, they "know" how much these folks gave. Their tax records are NOT public information. Are they admitting to illegally reading tax records they have ZERO authority to read? Or are they asking them? How are they "estimating" how much someone gives? A lot of this is dependent on the reporting of the receiving charity, IF they are required to report it depending on their status, they may not have to report the source. So, again, how is it that this Wal-Mart hating union "estimates" how much the Waltons donate to anyone without illegally looking at their tax returns?

Exactly

The Walmart heirs are some of this nation's biggest welfare dependents. Their massive profits come from paying their employees such low wages that many qualify for welfare to supplement their measly income.

Well, last I checked, Barack Obama's job czar was so busy sending GE jobs from the X-Ray and MRI manufacturing divisions to China that he couldn't be bothered to help, you know, fix our jobs problem. That seems to me that after SIX YEARS IN OFFICE, we have only one person to blame for not exercising the leadership that is required of that office and getting people back to work. No one is compelled to work at Wal-Mart. If it doesn't pay enough, leave. I know that most of the people demonstrating in front of Wal-Marts are NOT Wal-Mart employees, they are SIEU agitators and people that SIEU hires. Connecting Wal-Mart wages to federal welfare is just outright dishonest. ONE THIRD OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY is receiving federal benefits. The United States Army pays less than Wal-Mart, I don't see the SIEU out in front of the Pentagon. LOCKHEED pays people less than Wal-Mart. Starbucks pay people less than Wal-mart. It's pure baloney. When one in three people are on welfare, food stamps, SSI, or some other form of federal assistance, EVERY SINGLE COMPANY IN THE COUNTRY falls into the same category as Wal-Mart. If you don't like that Wal-Mart employees get welfare, I feel for you. Quit shopping there, I doubt you do, anyway. Then, when Wal-Mart goes under, you've just saved all those people from those terrible jobs at Wal-Mart because they will be UNEMPLOYED. As will their vendors, shippers, truck drivers, etc etc etc. You really don't think these things through, do you?

No, if walmart closes then dozens of specialty shops can open and pay much more.

And charge much more which means that those that are poor cannot afford basic goods. So what I'm reading you saying here is that as far as the poor are concerned, "Let them eat cake." You know why specialty shops went out of business? Because people couldn't afford their products, that's why. When Wal-Mart came to town, people could afford to get products that they've wanted for a long time. You don't see long lines in front of a specialty store on Thanksgiving Day, but you do at Wal-Mart. And specialty stores won't employ TENS OF THOUSANDS of people like Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart's shipping and freight terminals do, Ozark Mountain manufacturing does, etc etc etc. The specialty store MIGHT pay more (though I doubt it) but they wouldn't employ twenty percent of the people that Wal-Mart does, nationwide and would be much more shaky as an employer and prone to economic pressures that would force them to lay off employees that Wal-Mart weathers much more effectively.

So then go ahead and compete with them, but pay your employees more. You'll get a lot of their employees, but will the customers come, too, especially when you have to raise your prices to cover the increased personnel costs?

The Walton a Family Foundation gave more than $325 MILLION last year in addition to the individual contributions. Alice Walton personally financed the free admission Crystal Bridges American Art a Museum. Yet the article counts the work by Bill Gates Foundation? Hummmm...

What a waste.

The article is about the fact that the Waltons don't contribute to charity (tax deductible, generally) compared with other super-rich folks. Yet, the comments are all about ordinary welfare cheats. Some people think that welfare fraud could pay for a month of the Iraq war, but it is probably more like 2 minutes, if that. (this is a wild guess, but you see my point).
Anyway, welfare abuse is a subject that is way overrated in my opinion compared with other wastes of government money, and even the best welfare cheats are probably not driving Caddys or any of those other stereotypes.

I don't shop at Walmart.

I do, but I wouldn't work there. Neither should anyone else.

Couldn't ask for a better definition of hypocrisy than that.