I've thought that if companies are really that desperate for H1B workers--because they claim there are simply absolutely no, zero, zilch, local citizens capable of doing the job--then that job is certainly worth a hefty premium. Figure they ought to be willing to pay 1.5 or even 2x the "going rate" for that H1B worker, what with supply and demand being what it is. Not to mention an additional one-time tax paid to the government that runs about 1x the H1B's salary.
Overstaying a visa, a common way of being in the US illegally, is a civil issue.
However, that's not the case for border jumpers, as imprisonment is clearly part of the potential punishment.
8 U.S. Code 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Did you bring your child or any other aliens with you when you jumped to border? Criminal.
8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who— (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien; (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law; (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B). (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs— (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
And once an illegal gets here, assuming they've avoided the criminal penalties of these and many other statutes, their whole life here is one long string of criminal actions, starting with that first job:
US Code says [Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Section 1015] "Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
"Only proper transparent pricing allows you the opportunity to be sure you're not being ripped off."
Advertising a price and selling goods at the marked price, a la McDonald's, does not provide the necessary information to let me know if I'm being ripped off. First, being "ripped off" is a matter of degree, but I figure a 10% profit margin is fair. You may think more or less is fair.
To know if that burger is fairly priced, I need to know the wholesale costs of ingredients, labor costs, and fixed costs. If their cost per burger is about $2.75 and they sell it to me for about $3.00 I'm going to rate it as a fair transaction. If I were to discover that McD's costs are 10 cents per burger and they're selling it for $3.00, then I start to feel ripped off. Same for a car, sell me a car that costs $27.5K to build at a price that's around $30K and I won't feel ripped off. If I find out that the cost to build the car was $1000 and I paid $30K for it, I'm gonna feel ripped off.
Despite being able to see the advertised the price "transparently" and knowing I can actually purchase for that price (as a maximum), without knowing or at least having some instinctual unconscious basis for the sellers costs I cannot form the "ripped off" opinion. Neither McDonald's nor the car dealership is likely to post their actual costs for a "transparent" evaluation.
An advertised no-haggle fixed price is "transparent" only in the sense that I can compare to other vendors for the same item. It is not "transparent" in the sense of avoiding being ripped off.
Every car I've ever bought has a sticker price right there on the window, and you don't have to haggle. If I was inclined to think that price was reasonable, I'm *certain* the dealership would be happy to sell the car for the price as written on that tag stuck to the window. And the MSRP is advertised endlessly for cars. It's as transparent as any price posted anywhere else for any other goods, if "transparent" means posted for public viewing as the price you can purchase the goods for. You can absolutely buy a car for the sticker price and avoid the whole negotiating process just like you do at McDonald's.
It may not be the *lowest* price at which it is possible to purchase the car for, just like McDonald's posted price is may not be the lowest price I could buy the burger for. In that fashion, they are both equally transparent: there's an advertised price which may not be the lowest possible price. Sure there's a difference in the variability of the final price, i.e. a lot more burgers are sold at the advertised price than cars are sold at MSRP, but its a matter of degree not kind.
Why don't people negotiate prices at McDonald's? Perhaps because even getting a 10% reduction in price on a $3 burger isn't worth the time it would take to negotiate. On the other hand getting 10% off of the $30K sticker price on a car is worth an hour of my time.
I've gotten 10% off a large order at Pizza Hut (like 10 pizzas for a big party) just by asking for a "volume discount", so even a place like Pizza Hut with "transparent" and apparently fixed pricing has some variability under the right circumstances.
"This is simply not true for the vast majority of retail situations. In almost all cases there is a sticker price that is what you pay. You can easily compare different stores for price and choose the cheapest, or accept a higher price because you prefer the store for some reason."
All that you have going here is that the sticker price is almost always *already* in the range both parties are willing to accept, so there's a much smaller incentive to work to get a lower price as a buyer or a higher price as a seller. That sticker price is offered *because* it almost always avoids haggling, which is important in high volume situations.
As for not caring about McD's prices, that's probably because you understand at some level that McDs is probably not a high markup situation, where volume is preferred over optimizing per-customer pricing. And you probably have an understanding of the price of the raw materials and labor: you know you could go the store, buy ground meat, buns, condiments, and make your own burger for less, but not *that* much less. And again, the sticker price falls within your tolerance level. If McD's started selling a Big Mac for $22 sticker price, you probably would be unwilling to buy it even though the price is "transparent" what with being right there on the big board and all and with store personnel absolutely unwilling to sell for less.
Dealerships know that a significant portion of their customers are predisposed to car less about overall costs than the monthly payment. They know that they can only afford $300/month payment, so a deal that gets them a lower overall price but monthly payments of $350 will be rejected.
When you walk into a dealership and say "I'm going to pay cash for a car today if you can give me what I want at a price I find reasonable. And I've done my homework, so I have a particular number in mind. I've also checked your inventory online this morning and know you have a car matching my specs on your lot right now." you find that a lot of the rigmarole goes away.
P.S. I got the car I wanted at about $100 more than the rock-bottom price I went in with plus 0% three-year financing so I could keep my cash longer. Also got free normal service (oil changes, etc.) for three years, have had two such appointments so far with pleasant waiting room, etc. Plus they wash the car after they service it.
I've haggled at Best Buy. I've haggled at furniture stores. Generally the higher the price of an item, the more likely it is that there is room to get a lower price or a better deal somehow. What you see at McDs and other places is simply an increased willingness to trade low-cost items in volume sales against the potential inefficiencies of higher markup that can lead to haggling situations. But you have no idea what McD's markup is, do you?
The true price is a number that both parties agree upon. For a seller, of anything, it is in their best interest to sell at as high a price as they can without alienating customers. For a buyer, it is in their best interest to pay as little as they can. For any item being bought/sold, there exists a range of numbers at which both parties find the price to by acceptable and the transaction made.
In a haggling situation, it is not uncommon to hear something like this *after* the sale of say a $100 marked item: "$75 was a good price for me, I was really willing to pay up to $85. Oh yeah, I'd've sold it to you for $65". Obviously the sale could have been done at anywhere between $65 and $85 and both parties got what they wanted, albeit with less satisfaction for the seller at a lower price and less satisfaction for the buyer at a higher price.
Dealers buy cars from manufacturers, and have certain contractual obligations to do so. This allows the manufacturers to level out their production and offload inventory risk to the dealers. Dealers have been very good for manufacturers for a long time. In early years of car sales, manufacturers believed that an independent dealer (who is carrying the inventory risk and is highly motivated to sell cars) was more likely to sell inventory than an employee of the manufacturer sitting in a company-owned store. Manufacturers *want* independent dealerships.
And not everyone wants to specify their next new car and then wait months for it to be built and delivered.
Every other retail seller--like Amazon--is also a middleman, just like car dealers. Sure middleman profits increase overall costs, but they provide selection, one stop shopping, etc. that would be impossible if I had to go to a manufacturers outlet for each different item purchased.
Not a fan of car dealers and their tactics, mind you, but they do serve a purpose.
I subscribe to some liberal sites, and as a result get regular emails from them. I recently received an email from Public Citizen. Now, Public Citizen is a 501(c)(4), founded by Ralph Nader, who's primary purpose of late seems to be opposing the ruling handed down in the Citizens United case.
Recall that the Citizens United case hinged on the fact that a 501(c)(4) corporation produced a movie that had a political purpose, in this case a documentary "Hillary: The Movie" that was intended to highlight Mrs. Clinton's perceived shortcomings at a time when she was running for president.
The email from Public Citizen was urging me to donate money to support their distribution of a documentary highlighting how wrong they felt the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United was.
That's right: a 501(c)(4) corporation made a movie with the express political purpose of protesting the Supreme Court decision that a 501(c)(4) corporation could make a movie with an express political purpose!
Consider the NRA. As every is surely aware, they are a pro-2nd amendment organization. Or Greenpeace, an environmental organization.
These organizations do a lot of things under the auspices of their respective mission statements. One of these is of course publishing a list of candidates and office-holders that may have voted for or against certain laws. Is that electioneering? There's no coordination with any campaigns, there's no quid pro quo with any candidates. This is an issue, and informing the public about how politicians are acting with respect to legislation affecting the issue certainly an "educational" activity falling under the very broad "social welfare" label.
Similarly, when a piece of legislation may be pending, these sorts of groups will certainly attempt to educate the public on what the organizations expect the ramifications of the legislation might be. Any politician supporting a piece of legislation the group supports should be supported by the public, and vice versa. "Urge your congressman to vote for HR bill xxyy." seems like a protected 1st amendment right no matter what (and is why Citizens United was decided the way it was).
Especially consider that when a group runs an ad saying "Senator Smith voted for xxyy, and we think that was wrong" (or right, doesn't matter) the ad may in fact reinforce the other side's opinion of Senator Smith simultaneously with strengthening your side. So if the Kochs say "Senator Smith voted for Obamacare." they probably mean to dissuade you from offering any further support of Senator Smith but if you favored Obamacare, then the ad may instead make you more determined to keep Senator Smith in office.
Like Greenpeace, PETA, Public Citizen, Priorities USA, League of Conservation Voters Inc., Planned Parenthood, etc.
The primary activity of a 501(c)(4) must be "issues-related" rather than "electioneering" but that is certainly a very broad brush. If candidate A supports issue X while candidate B opposes issue X, a group can support A (and oppose B) by running ads on issue X while never mentioning either candidate by name.
If I gave you $10,000 it would be a gift from me to you that would be tax-free on your part, but I would have had to pay income taxes on that first as that gift is non-deductible. If I gave $10,000 to, say Greenpeace or the NRA, it would be tax-free on their part, but I would have had to pay income taxes on that first as that gift is non-deductible.
Since donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are not deductible, anyone donating to them has paid taxes on those dollars. Although they are corporations, 501(c)(4)'s generally do not have incomes like other corporations because they don't sell stuff for profit. Nearly all of the money 501(c)(4)'s "earn" comes in the form of already-taxed donations and the law reasonably does not require those dollars to be taxed again simply because they were donated to a 501(c)(4).
Donations to 501(c)(3) organizations *may* be deductible, but those organizations generally are precluded from engaging in political activities--unlike 501(c)(4)s.
A 501(c)(3) is actively engaged in doing things to help people needing it, but not advocating it in the political arena; the reverse is generally true for 501(c)(4). A 501(c)(3) may be feeding the homeless, for example, while a 501(c)(4) might be paying for advertisements that advocate changing a law that is seen to be aggravating the plight of homeless people.
There is some rationale for not taxing dollars that are helping people directly.
Donations to 501(c)(4) are not deductible, so they have been taxed. These are "social welfare organizations" that are not primarily engaged in exempt activities. A lot of 501(c)(4) are public-awareness organizations, like Greenpeace or the NRA.
Donations to 501(c)(3) may be deductible. These engage primarily in exempt activities and are restricted in the political arena. "Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct."
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
A 501(c)(4) is almost always operated through donations made to the organization that are not tax-deductible. That is, the money they run on was taxed before the individuals donated it, at the individuals tax rates. A 501(c)(4) rarely earns any significant income from any source other than these non-deductible donations (otherwise this section would not apply), and so would rarely have any taxable corporate income to speak of.
If I and 100 friends decided we wanted to fund the creation of a video outlining the dangers of hiring pedophiles as babysitters, we couldn't easily do so. Who would sign the contract with the producer, director, cast, writer? Who would write a check to pay the distributor and all the other payroll checks? As a group of individuals--using our after-tax dollars--we couldn't. What we'd need to do is organize under a corporate umbrella, which we'd give our after-tax dollars to, and which could then satisfy all those legal requirements. That'd be a 501(c)(4).
The world currently contains 2,170 billionaires — and you’re (probably) not one them, at least not yet. They have a combined net worth of $6.5 trillion, an amount larger than the entire GDP of every country in the world except China and the United States. The number of billionaires increased by ten between June 2012 and June 2013, says a study conducted by UBS and Wealth-X, a consultancy service. Their total wealth grew over that period by 5.3 percent.
That growth, though, was uneven. The European billionaire population fell from 795 in 2012 to 766 in 2013 (even as their total wealth rose 3.7 percent from $2,045 billion to $2,120 billion.) Asia, however, picked up eighteen new billionaires to reach a grand total of 508 while North America’s most exclusive club welcomed eleven new members this year, bringing its membership to 552. (Although with 214 few individuals, North America’s billionaires are worth $38 million more than all of Europe’s super-rich combined.)
Although billionaires have a mean worth of $3 billion each, most just scrape into the club. Some 1,175 people are worth between $1 billion and $2 billion. Only four, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, Warren Buffet and Amancio Ortega, founder of clothing chain Zara, qualify as “mega-billionaires” with total wealth topping $50 billion each.
Each of those mega-billionaires is self-made, an exceptional figure. Overall, 60 percent of the world’s billionaires made their fortunes themselves. Twenty percent inherited their wealth and another twenty percent inherited a fortune and used it to make another.
Yeah, cause the Forbes 400, where 30% inherited, doesn't represent billionaires.
Sure 30% is a fairly large percent, but on the relative scale I use, 30% doesn't rate "vast, vast majority" status. And sure, people like Bill Gates had a good head start, coming from a well-to-do family, but he didn't inherit Microsoft and the billions he made from it.
--------------
One of the papers presented at the recent annual meeting of the American Economic Association focused on the 400 richest individuals in the country ranked by Forbes magazine. The paper, "Family, Education, and Sources of Wealth Among the Richest Americans, 1982—2012," by Chicago Booth Professor Steven Neil Kaplan and Joshua Rauh of Stanford, found that fewer of those who made it on to the Forbes 400 list in recent years grew up wealthy than in previous decades.
Some 32 percent of the Forbes 400 in 2011 belonged to very rich families, down from 60 percent in 1982. On the other hand, the share of those in the Forbes 400 who didn't grow up wealthy but had some money in the family—the equivalent of the upper middle class—rose by the about same amount. The proportion of those in the list who grew up poor or had little wealth remained constant at roughly 20 percent throughout the same period.
Most individuals on the Forbes 400 list did not inherit the family business but rather made their own fortune. Kaplan and Rauh found that 69 percent of those on the list in 2011 started their own business, compared with only 40 percent in 1982. In other words, there are fewer people on the Forbes 400 list who came from an affluent background and eventually took over the family business, such as brothers David and Charles Koch (Koch Industries) and the Walton siblings (Wal-Mart), and more self-made people such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway), Philip Knight (Nike), and Stephen Schwarzman (Blackstone Group), who had an upper middle-class upbringing and eventually built their own successful companies.
Lots and lots of people imagine the wealthy hoarding their cash, a la McDuck's pool of gold coins (ever see the Family Guy were Peter tries that?!). They cannot imagine any positive impact deriving from people having wealth.
Of course, if *they* were to win $100M in the lottery, that'd be OK.
It's nice to be liked But it's better by far to get paid I know that most of the friends that I have don't really see it That way But if you could give 'em each one wish How much do you wanna bet? They'd wish success for themselves and their friends and that would include lots of money [Liz Phair: Shitloads of Money]
Because printing money in two steps is so much less efficient than printing it directly. They're already printing money, the government just uses the fiction of selling itself bonds to lay a very thin veneer over the process.
According to the CBO: "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
Corporate income taxes account for about $250-$200B in annual revenue. Compliance costs for business to determine how much tax they owe is also estimated at about $200-$300B annually. In other words, it costs corporations almost as much or maybe slightly more to determine how much they owe as they actually owe. Not to mention the inordinate amount of effort that goes into determining how to run the business when various tax considerations come into play (e.g. when to buy equipment, or hiring that 50th employee) instead of simply doing what's best for the business for business reasons rather than tax reasons. And virtually all of these taxes and compliance costs get passed on directly to consumers/labor/shareholders.
A huge amount of "corporate welfare" comes in the form of special tax breaks--eliminate the tax breaks and you eliminate the corporate welfare and the tens of millions of dollars of lobbyist money showered on politicians as they try to seek those special tax breaks.
Apart from the economic shot in the arm freeing up about $600B every year in the economy would be--and the increase tax revenues resulting from growth--the "cost" is largely recaptured as the dollars flow into personal income taxes (wages, dividends). Further, with the specter of double taxation removed, we could reset the CG rates to normal income rates.
The point relative the size of government here is that you take away a huge incentive for corporations to lobby for special tax treatment. That money flows out of the political system. Sure, corporations may find other things to lobby for, but special tax treatment seems to be #1 on the hit parade.
P.S. This will never happen because too many people think we need to punish corporations with taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of entry into a welfare state is not supportable.
I've thought that if companies are really that desperate for H1B workers--because they claim there are simply absolutely no, zero, zilch, local citizens capable of doing the job--then that job is certainly worth a hefty premium. Figure they ought to be willing to pay 1.5 or even 2x the "going rate" for that H1B worker, what with supply and demand being what it is. Not to mention an additional one-time tax paid to the government that runs about 1x the H1B's salary.
Sure, let's build some of those. We can keep these pitiful refugees there until it is safe for them to return home.
Overstaying a visa, a common way of being in the US illegally, is a civil issue.
However, that's not the case for border jumpers, as imprisonment is clearly part of the potential punishment.
8 U.S. Code 1325 - Improper entry by alien
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Did you bring your child or any other aliens with you when you jumped to border? Criminal.
8 U.S. Code 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
And once an illegal gets here, assuming they've avoided the criminal penalties of these and many other statutes, their whole life here is one long string of criminal actions, starting with that first job:
US Code says [Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Section 1015] "Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
an all-chicken production of Fiddler on the Roof (of the coop)?
"Only proper transparent pricing allows you the opportunity to be sure you're not being ripped off."
Advertising a price and selling goods at the marked price, a la McDonald's, does not provide the necessary information to let me know if I'm being ripped off. First, being "ripped off" is a matter of degree, but I figure a 10% profit margin is fair. You may think more or less is fair.
To know if that burger is fairly priced, I need to know the wholesale costs of ingredients, labor costs, and fixed costs. If their cost per burger is about $2.75 and they sell it to me for about $3.00 I'm going to rate it as a fair transaction. If I were to discover that McD's costs are 10 cents per burger and they're selling it for $3.00, then I start to feel ripped off. Same for a car, sell me a car that costs $27.5K to build at a price that's around $30K and I won't feel ripped off. If I find out that the cost to build the car was $1000 and I paid $30K for it, I'm gonna feel ripped off.
Despite being able to see the advertised the price "transparently" and knowing I can actually purchase for that price (as a maximum), without knowing or at least having some instinctual unconscious basis for the sellers costs I cannot form the "ripped off" opinion. Neither McDonald's nor the car dealership is likely to post their actual costs for a "transparent" evaluation.
An advertised no-haggle fixed price is "transparent" only in the sense that I can compare to other vendors for the same item. It is not "transparent" in the sense of avoiding being ripped off.
Every car I've ever bought has a sticker price right there on the window, and you don't have to haggle. If I was inclined to think that price was reasonable, I'm *certain* the dealership would be happy to sell the car for the price as written on that tag stuck to the window. And the MSRP is advertised endlessly for cars. It's as transparent as any price posted anywhere else for any other goods, if "transparent" means posted for public viewing as the price you can purchase the goods for. You can absolutely buy a car for the sticker price and avoid the whole negotiating process just like you do at McDonald's.
It may not be the *lowest* price at which it is possible to purchase the car for, just like McDonald's posted price is may not be the lowest price I could buy the burger for. In that fashion, they are both equally transparent: there's an advertised price which may not be the lowest possible price. Sure there's a difference in the variability of the final price, i.e. a lot more burgers are sold at the advertised price than cars are sold at MSRP, but its a matter of degree not kind.
Why don't people negotiate prices at McDonald's? Perhaps because even getting a 10% reduction in price on a $3 burger isn't worth the time it would take to negotiate. On the other hand getting 10% off of the $30K sticker price on a car is worth an hour of my time.
I've gotten 10% off a large order at Pizza Hut (like 10 pizzas for a big party) just by asking for a "volume discount", so even a place like Pizza Hut with "transparent" and apparently fixed pricing has some variability under the right circumstances.
"This is simply not true for the vast majority of retail situations. In almost all cases there is a sticker price that is what you pay. You can easily compare different stores for price and choose the cheapest, or accept a higher price because you prefer the store for some reason."
All that you have going here is that the sticker price is almost always *already* in the range both parties are willing to accept, so there's a much smaller incentive to work to get a lower price as a buyer or a higher price as a seller. That sticker price is offered *because* it almost always avoids haggling, which is important in high volume situations.
As for not caring about McD's prices, that's probably because you understand at some level that McDs is probably not a high markup situation, where volume is preferred over optimizing per-customer pricing. And you probably have an understanding of the price of the raw materials and labor: you know you could go the store, buy ground meat, buns, condiments, and make your own burger for less, but not *that* much less. And again, the sticker price falls within your tolerance level. If McD's started selling a Big Mac for $22 sticker price, you probably would be unwilling to buy it even though the price is "transparent" what with being right there on the big board and all and with store personnel absolutely unwilling to sell for less.
Dealerships know that a significant portion of their customers are predisposed to car less about overall costs than the monthly payment. They know that they can only afford $300/month payment, so a deal that gets them a lower overall price but monthly payments of $350 will be rejected.
When you walk into a dealership and say "I'm going to pay cash for a car today if you can give me what I want at a price I find reasonable. And I've done my homework, so I have a particular number in mind. I've also checked your inventory online this morning and know you have a car matching my specs on your lot right now." you find that a lot of the rigmarole goes away.
P.S. I got the car I wanted at about $100 more than the rock-bottom price I went in with plus 0% three-year financing so I could keep my cash longer. Also got free normal service (oil changes, etc.) for three years, have had two such appointments so far with pleasant waiting room, etc. Plus they wash the car after they service it.
I've haggled at Best Buy. I've haggled at furniture stores. Generally the higher the price of an item, the more likely it is that there is room to get a lower price or a better deal somehow. What you see at McDs and other places is simply an increased willingness to trade low-cost items in volume sales against the potential inefficiencies of higher markup that can lead to haggling situations. But you have no idea what McD's markup is, do you?
The true price is a number that both parties agree upon. For a seller, of anything, it is in their best interest to sell at as high a price as they can without alienating customers. For a buyer, it is in their best interest to pay as little as they can. For any item being bought/sold, there exists a range of numbers at which both parties find the price to by acceptable and the transaction made.
In a haggling situation, it is not uncommon to hear something like this *after* the sale of say a $100 marked item: "$75 was a good price for me, I was really willing to pay up to $85. Oh yeah, I'd've sold it to you for $65". Obviously the sale could have been done at anywhere between $65 and $85 and both parties got what they wanted, albeit with less satisfaction for the seller at a lower price and less satisfaction for the buyer at a higher price.
There is no one true price for anything.
Dealers buy cars from manufacturers, and have certain contractual obligations to do so. This allows the manufacturers to level out their production and offload inventory risk to the dealers. Dealers have been very good for manufacturers for a long time. In early years of car sales, manufacturers believed that an independent dealer (who is carrying the inventory risk and is highly motivated to sell cars) was more likely to sell inventory than an employee of the manufacturer sitting in a company-owned store. Manufacturers *want* independent dealerships.
And not everyone wants to specify their next new car and then wait months for it to be built and delivered.
Every other retail seller--like Amazon--is also a middleman, just like car dealers. Sure middleman profits increase overall costs, but they provide selection, one stop shopping, etc. that would be impossible if I had to go to a manufacturers outlet for each different item purchased.
Not a fan of car dealers and their tactics, mind you, but they do serve a purpose.
I subscribe to some liberal sites, and as a result get regular emails from them. I recently received an email from Public Citizen. Now, Public Citizen is a 501(c)(4), founded by Ralph Nader, who's primary purpose of late seems to be opposing the ruling handed down in the Citizens United case.
Recall that the Citizens United case hinged on the fact that a 501(c)(4) corporation produced a movie that had a political purpose, in this case a documentary "Hillary: The Movie" that was intended to highlight Mrs. Clinton's perceived shortcomings at a time when she was running for president.
The email from Public Citizen was urging me to donate money to support their distribution of a documentary highlighting how wrong they felt the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United was.
That's right: a 501(c)(4) corporation made a movie with the express political purpose of protesting the Supreme Court decision that a 501(c)(4) corporation could make a movie with an express political purpose!
Consider the NRA. As every is surely aware, they are a pro-2nd amendment organization. Or Greenpeace, an environmental organization.
These organizations do a lot of things under the auspices of their respective mission statements. One of these is of course publishing a list of candidates and office-holders that may have voted for or against certain laws. Is that electioneering? There's no coordination with any campaigns, there's no quid pro quo with any candidates. This is an issue, and informing the public about how politicians are acting with respect to legislation affecting the issue certainly an "educational" activity falling under the very broad "social welfare" label.
Similarly, when a piece of legislation may be pending, these sorts of groups will certainly attempt to educate the public on what the organizations expect the ramifications of the legislation might be. Any politician supporting a piece of legislation the group supports should be supported by the public, and vice versa. "Urge your congressman to vote for HR bill xxyy." seems like a protected 1st amendment right no matter what (and is why Citizens United was decided the way it was).
Especially consider that when a group runs an ad saying "Senator Smith voted for xxyy, and we think that was wrong" (or right, doesn't matter) the ad may in fact reinforce the other side's opinion of Senator Smith simultaneously with strengthening your side. So if the Kochs say "Senator Smith voted for Obamacare." they probably mean to dissuade you from offering any further support of Senator Smith but if you favored Obamacare, then the ad may instead make you more determined to keep Senator Smith in office.
"civic leagues and volunteer fire departments"
Like Greenpeace, PETA, Public Citizen, Priorities USA, League of Conservation Voters Inc., Planned Parenthood, etc.
The primary activity of a 501(c)(4) must be "issues-related" rather than "electioneering" but that is certainly a very broad brush. If candidate A supports issue X while candidate B opposes issue X, a group can support A (and oppose B) by running ads on issue X while never mentioning either candidate by name.
Don't like the advocacy of the NRA? Have to shut down Mothers Demand Action and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, too. All 501(c)(4) groups.
From a freedom of speech perspective, it seems easier to let them all continue to exist.
If I gave you $10,000 it would be a gift from me to you that would be tax-free on your part, but I would have had to pay income taxes on that first as that gift is non-deductible. If I gave $10,000 to, say Greenpeace or the NRA, it would be tax-free on their part, but I would have had to pay income taxes on that first as that gift is non-deductible.
Since donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are not deductible, anyone donating to them has paid taxes on those dollars. Although they are corporations, 501(c)(4)'s generally do not have incomes like other corporations because they don't sell stuff for profit. Nearly all of the money 501(c)(4)'s "earn" comes in the form of already-taxed donations and the law reasonably does not require those dollars to be taxed again simply because they were donated to a 501(c)(4).
Donations to 501(c)(3) organizations *may* be deductible, but those organizations generally are precluded from engaging in political activities--unlike 501(c)(4)s.
A 501(c)(3) is actively engaged in doing things to help people needing it, but not advocating it in the political arena; the reverse is generally true for 501(c)(4). A 501(c)(3) may be feeding the homeless, for example, while a 501(c)(4) might be paying for advertisements that advocate changing a law that is seen to be aggravating the plight of homeless people.
There is some rationale for not taxing dollars that are helping people directly.
Donations to 501(c)(4) are not deductible, so they have been taxed. These are "social welfare organizations" that are not primarily engaged in exempt activities. A lot of 501(c)(4) are public-awareness organizations, like Greenpeace or the NRA.
Donations to 501(c)(3) may be deductible. These engage primarily in exempt activities and are restricted in the political arena. "Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct."
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
A 501(c)(4) is almost always operated through donations made to the organization that are not tax-deductible. That is, the money they run on was taxed before the individuals donated it, at the individuals tax rates. A 501(c)(4) rarely earns any significant income from any source other than these non-deductible donations (otherwise this section would not apply), and so would rarely have any taxable corporate income to speak of.
If I and 100 friends decided we wanted to fund the creation of a video outlining the dangers of hiring pedophiles as babysitters, we couldn't easily do so. Who would sign the contract with the producer, director, cast, writer? Who would write a check to pay the distributor and all the other payroll checks? As a group of individuals--using our after-tax dollars--we couldn't. What we'd need to do is organize under a corporate umbrella, which we'd give our after-tax dollars to, and which could then satisfy all those legal requirements. That'd be a 501(c)(4).
There's no taxes being avoided.
The world currently contains 2,170 billionaires — and you’re (probably) not one them, at least not yet. They have a combined net worth of $6.5 trillion, an amount larger than the entire GDP of every country in the world except China and the United States. The number of billionaires increased by ten between June 2012 and June 2013, says a study conducted by UBS and Wealth-X, a consultancy service. Their total wealth grew over that period by 5.3 percent.
That growth, though, was uneven. The European billionaire population fell from 795 in 2012 to 766 in 2013 (even as their total wealth rose 3.7 percent from $2,045 billion to $2,120 billion.) Asia, however, picked up eighteen new billionaires to reach a grand total of 508 while North America’s most exclusive club welcomed eleven new members this year, bringing its membership to 552. (Although with 214 few individuals, North America’s billionaires are worth $38 million more than all of Europe’s super-rich combined.)
Although billionaires have a mean worth of $3 billion each, most just scrape into the club. Some 1,175 people are worth between $1 billion and $2 billion. Only four, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, Warren Buffet and Amancio Ortega, founder of clothing chain Zara, qualify as “mega-billionaires” with total wealth topping $50 billion each.
Each of those mega-billionaires is self-made, an exceptional figure. Overall, 60 percent of the world’s billionaires made their fortunes themselves. Twenty percent inherited their wealth and another twenty percent inherited a fortune and used it to make another.
[http://www.geekpreneur.com/most-billionaires-are-self-made]
Yeah, cause the Forbes 400, where 30% inherited, doesn't represent billionaires.
Sure 30% is a fairly large percent, but on the relative scale I use, 30% doesn't rate "vast, vast majority" status. And sure, people like Bill Gates had a good head start, coming from a well-to-do family, but he didn't inherit Microsoft and the billions he made from it.
--------------
One of the papers presented at the recent annual meeting of the American Economic Association focused on the 400 richest individuals in the country ranked by Forbes magazine. The paper, "Family, Education, and Sources of Wealth Among the Richest Americans, 1982—2012," by Chicago Booth Professor Steven Neil Kaplan and Joshua Rauh of Stanford, found that fewer of those who made it on to the Forbes 400 list in recent years grew up wealthy than in previous decades.
Some 32 percent of the Forbes 400 in 2011 belonged to very rich families, down from 60 percent in 1982. On the other hand, the share of those in the Forbes 400 who didn't grow up wealthy but had some money in the family—the equivalent of the upper middle class—rose by the about same amount. The proportion of those in the list who grew up poor or had little wealth remained constant at roughly 20 percent throughout the same period.
Most individuals on the Forbes 400 list did not inherit the family business but rather made their own fortune. Kaplan and Rauh found that 69 percent of those on the list in 2011 started their own business, compared with only 40 percent in 1982. In other words, there are fewer people on the Forbes 400 list who came from an affluent background and eventually took over the family business, such as brothers David and Charles Koch (Koch Industries) and the Walton siblings (Wal-Mart), and more self-made people such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway), Philip Knight (Nike), and Stephen Schwarzman (Blackstone Group), who had an upper middle-class upbringing and eventually built their own successful companies.
[http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/magazine/summer-2013/billionaires-self-made]
Lots and lots of people imagine the wealthy hoarding their cash, a la McDuck's pool of gold coins (ever see the Family Guy were Peter tries that?!). They cannot imagine any positive impact deriving from people having wealth.
Of course, if *they* were to win $100M in the lottery, that'd be OK.
It's nice to be liked
But it's better by far to get paid
I know that most of the friends that I have don't really see it
That way
But if you could give 'em each one wish
How much do you wanna bet?
They'd wish success for themselves and their friends and
that would include lots of money
[Liz Phair: Shitloads of Money]
Because printing money in two steps is so much less efficient than printing it directly. They're already printing money, the government just uses the fiction of selling itself bonds to lay a very thin veneer over the process.
According to the CBO: "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
Corporate income taxes account for about $250-$200B in annual revenue. Compliance costs for business to determine how much tax they owe is also estimated at about $200-$300B annually. In other words, it costs corporations almost as much or maybe slightly more to determine how much they owe as they actually owe. Not to mention the inordinate amount of effort that goes into determining how to run the business when various tax considerations come into play (e.g. when to buy equipment, or hiring that 50th employee) instead of simply doing what's best for the business for business reasons rather than tax reasons. And virtually all of these taxes and compliance costs get passed on directly to consumers/labor/shareholders.
A huge amount of "corporate welfare" comes in the form of special tax breaks--eliminate the tax breaks and you eliminate the corporate welfare and the tens of millions of dollars of lobbyist money showered on politicians as they try to seek those special tax breaks.
Apart from the economic shot in the arm freeing up about $600B every year in the economy would be--and the increase tax revenues resulting from growth--the "cost" is largely recaptured as the dollars flow into personal income taxes (wages, dividends). Further, with the specter of double taxation removed, we could reset the CG rates to normal income rates.
The point relative the size of government here is that you take away a huge incentive for corporations to lobby for special tax treatment. That money flows out of the political system. Sure, corporations may find other things to lobby for, but special tax treatment seems to be #1 on the hit parade.
P.S. This will never happen because too many people think we need to punish corporations with taxes.