WalMart (walton) family are too rich, we must confiscate their money

99'ers we must unite and demand that all of that money be taken by the govt and given to those refusing to work their way up themselves. There is no justification that this family should benefit from hard work, risk and a well executed business plan over a long period. It's not fair that they have so much and unemployment and welfare pays jack

Six Waltons Have More Wealth Than the Bottom 30% of Americans
ForbesBy Tim Worstall | Forbes – 20 hours ago


Different people will take this different ways, but Jeffrey Goldberg tells us that six members of the Walton family (the original owners of Walmart) have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans. Here's where he says it:

In 2007, according to the labor economist Sylvia Allegretto, the six Walton family members on the Forbes 400 had a net worth equal to the bottom 30 percent of all Americans.

And given that he quotes us here at Forbes on the point, he's almost certainly right.

The question is, what are we to make of this point? I think we all know what Mr. Goldberg wants us to make of it, it's a telling indictment of American wealth inequality, the world's going to the dogs and something must be done about rising inequality.

The Waltons are now collectively worth about $93 billion, according to Forbes.

Well, yes, but. Total U.S. household wealth is in the $50 trillion (yes, trillion) to $70 trillion range. The range is depending on whether you want to take before the housing crash or in the middle of it. So the statement is that these Waltons have, between the family, 0.13% of US wealth. Which, for the people who inherited the world's largest (well, certainly the country's) and most successful retailer doesn't sound like a particularly terrible concentration of wealth. It's certainly less than John D. Rockefeller had all by his lonesome when he was in his pomp.


But I think it's possible that the comment is more revealing about Mr. Goldberg really, for as Felix Salmon points out, Mr. Goldberg himself has more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans.

This sounds outrageous, until you stop for a second and take note of the fact that Jeffrey Goldberg, individually, has a net worth greater than the bottom 25% of all Americans.

In fact, given that I have equity in my home and no other debt than mortgage, I have, as is highly likely do all readers of these pages, more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans added together. For as Felix points us to:

In 2009, roughly 1 in 4 (24.8%) of American households had zero or negative net worth, up from 18.6% in 2007, and 37.1% of households had net worth of less than $12,000, up from 30.0% in 2007.

Wealth is always more unequally distributed than income. By the way, it isn't even true that all of those households with zero or negative wealth are what we would call poor either. It's entirely possible to have no net assets while having a good income, even a high income. All you need to have is debts higher than your assets: something that will almost certainly be true of anyone with student debt and fresh out of college for example. Fresh out of grad school you might well have $100,000, $200,000 of debt, hey, possibly even from medical school you might be carrying $500,000. None of us are actually going to weep all that hard for you though, not you with that associates job at a Wall Street law firm on $100,000 or more, not a newly qualified doctor on hundreds of thousands a year.

I certainly don't mean that all those with negative net household value are in that situation: There are an awful lot of people who are "properly" poor in the way that we all usually understand it.

But this comparison of wealth doesn't show us quite what Mr. Goldberg thinks it does. If you've got no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than that 25% of Americans have collectively that is.

That a family who has inherited the majority of one of the leading global retailers have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans, when compared with how high up the tree a single ten dollar bill gets you, is pretty much worthy of a heartfelt "Meh."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-172819426.html

 

I dont think anyone should have the "confiscate their money" mentality, especially in a functioning and still somewhat rational society. Wal-mart has acquired their money legally, which all people should be able to respect. But, I do strongly disagree with them on an ethical basis, which means next to nothing these days, but it should at least motivate people to help change the environment which allows Wal-mart to continue their economic devastation to the US.

For example, another way that a group of people could "confiscate" walmart's wealth legally would be to start a mass unionization of walmart employees. Walmart immediately shuts down any walmart that chooses to unionize. They do this because they do not want it to spread. Unfortunately, walmart does not employ the best and brightest, so they may never catch on..

Walmart has indeed played the perfect scam which appeals to many people. I dont like them one bit :/

 

Lil' Hitler will require the jewish boys' desk as well....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2WbuOz6OXU"]li'l Hitler - YouTube[/ame]​

 

then how do you propose that the money be taken and redistributed to those who were not as fortunate to have worked hard building a business?

The family does no good at all for society


When Sam and Helen Walton launched their modest retail business in 1962, one of their goals was to increase opportunity and improve the lives of others along the way. This guiding principle has played a major role in the phenomenal growth of their small enterprise into a global retail leader. This principle – to the benefit of deserving people and inspiring projects around the world – also drives the philanthropic mission of the Walton Family Foundation.

Today the foundation is more focused than ever on sustaining the Walton’s timeless small-town values and their deep commitment to making life better for individuals and communities alike. By working with grantees and collaborating with other philanthropic organizations, the foundation is dedicated to making a positive difference in three focus areas:

* Systemic K-12 education reform
* Freshwater and marine conservation
* Quality of life initiatives in our home region

During 2010, the foundation invested more than $1.49 billion in domestic and international projects that addressed significant social and environmental issues, and sought to create exciting new opportunities. The foundation continues to implement and expand grant making to fund a positive difference in many diverse communities – and in the lives of the people who call them home.

 

This is an outrage.

This is America where everyone should be able to live the lifestyle they wan whether they have a career of job.

Shame, shame.

 

agreed

for a family to have that much wealth is simply "un-new-American"

this is not the land of opportunity. No, it must be the land of gimme what they have

 

And what happens when the poor get the Waltons money? Oh, they go to some big name store and spend all that newly given money...say, walmart? Oh, the waltons are rich again and probably have more money than when they started with. Good thoughts. Wonder why the rich keep getting richer?

 

First, I don't see where you get confiscate all their money or that any significant group is saying such a thing, including the OWS movement.

Second, Do you think it is right that these 6 people most likely pay a lower tax rate than you do, well at least if you work hard and are successful. I would bet they pay a lower tax rate than I do.

Third, the right wing always whines about welfare, like that is the problem. Somehow, welfare is keeping the budget deficits and welfare is keeping peole from working. This is a load of BS. All social safety net programs are just 12% of the budget. That includes money to support disabled people who can't work. That includes money to support wounded veterans that can't work. That includes money to give school lunches to kids who probably don't get another good meal each day. If you really break it down and say, OK how much is going to people that are just too lazy to work and have chosen to live crappy lives in public housing popping out kids and living on a few dollars of welfare, there are a few, but it is a small number, and maybe 1% of the budget at best. So somehow the right wing thinks this 1% of the budget is all of the ills of this country. This, "the liberal want to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor" craps is a delusion the right wing has to try to feed their hatred.

Fourth, the point of the 99% group is that corporations are not people. Money is not speech. The government should be for the people, not for the corporate donor. And the wealthy should pay tax rates that are at least equal to the middle class.

Fifth, I agree to cut spending. The right wing believes we need to cut spending on hungry children and handicapped people so they go hungry, in order to maintain subsidies for companies making over a billion in profits each year and to buy more lasers in space. Personally, I would rather cut corporate welfare, cut military spending, cut paying farmers to not grow food and keep food in a poor kids stomach.

Finally, money has become too concentrated in the hands of a few, as shown by the fact that wealth is more concentrated than at any time in the past 100 years. The reason the wealthy are paying more of the taxes, while paying the lowest tax rates in 80 years is because they have so much more of the income. The reason the bottom 50% are paying less in taxes is because they are getting the least amount of income than they have in 80 years. No mainstream democrats or liberals are saying to "confiscate" their money, they are saying to tax their income at a fair rate, say like what I pay as an upper middle class, lower upper class person. And I would add that corporate boards and corporations need to rein in executive compensation. Over $50 Million a year compensation is excessive.

 

I am a firm believer in one's own hard work making them successful. However, I have also familiarized myself with the workings of modern Wal-Mart. While taking their personal fortunes away is extreme, let us not kid ourselves that the current people running the shop pulled themselves up from their bootstraps, when in fact those members of the family who founded the enterprise did most of the work and then passed on the results. When one inherits all of their wealth, rather than works for it, the only respect one can derive for that person is in how they use it.

Simply put, the modern Wal-Mart strategy of wielding their economic influence openly and bluntly towards only the goal of enriching themselves would be completely at odds with Sam Walton's method of doing business.

 

Three lovable, fuzzy liberals have a combined net worth of $130 billion, but it's the hated, anti-union, greedy Walton family that Goldberg holds up as an example of wealth disparity.

I wonder why? *wink wink*

 

Agreed, since the family is the benefactor of the plan initiated by the dad then the money must be taken from them. How can we in America allow a parent to hand down a business to their children??The 99'ers must do this and confiscate their wealth and re-distribute to those who are not fortunate enough to work hard.

 

I want to focus on those 2 lines from you. I could not agree more. We must let the govt dictate what is a fair wage in the Dreaded Private Sector. We also cannot let people amass wealth no matter how successful they are. It must be taken by the govt and redistributed to the unproductive. It is not the fault of the unfortunate and unproductive that they did not take risks. There is no reason that they aren't entitled to the fruits of another man's labor or success.

 

More rightwing bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Don't people ever come up with new talking points?

 

do you agree that we must take the Walton family money and redistribute it to where the govt best sees fit?

 

I agree they should be taxed higher.

 

I applaud libs for being able to say such a thing with a straight face.

You almost had me going there for a while.

 

Maybe we should feed them to the OccuTards after they're through stuffing their bourgeoise liberal pie-holes with salmon cakes...



Let them eat Waltons!

 

I hope this post is a joke. I consider myself left leaning and would never advocate gov't taking away money of wealthy just because. This is stupidity, un-american and anti-democratic. I'm ok with increased taxes on some of the wealthier brackets but not straight wealth redistribution and i think most liberals/democrats would agree.

Sec you seem to be puposely putting bogus ideas just to discredit the left. You've done a great job of rileing up the RWers. Why are you posting nonsense and trying to divide people in an already heated and disjointed political climate?

 

This is not what Sec or Liberals think. Sec is just posting radical ideas under the guise of a Liberal to rile up people. Shameful.

 

So, what do you think Owebama means when he says we have "redistribute wealth"? His current theme of "fair" taxation is just a re-branding of his unpopular "tax the rich theme".

So, if we give him more money, what do you think he will do with it?

Spend it!

And, based on his record, what do you think he will spend it on?

Social programs!

 

Well, as a professor I once had used to say "in order to see, you have to look."

What do you think it means when a group of people camp out en mass and demand, among other idiotic things "a living wage regardless of income"?


What do you think it means "forgive all student loans"/

Where do you think that money will come from?

People who have more.


This is a basic concept that has not changed since Karl Marx put it all into words...the only thing that has changed is the people now chanting it have completely useless BA's and can't get the nice cushy job they envisioned.

Tax the rich! has been a chant since the Tsars were overthrown and murdered. Look how that turned out.

 

There is a huge difference between slightly increased tax percentages and this BS Sec posted of just grabbing the money and running. Fact is the wealthiest brackets are paying the least amount of taxes historically then ever before while the tax rates of every other class has gone up. Why are the those brackets exempt? Oh ya.. they have the lobby money.

Hopefully it will be spent. On debt reducution, infrastructure and rebuilding the economy.

 

Why is this in current events? shouldn't it be in the conspiracy section?
　
　
I mean seriously, anybody who believes Wallyworld did everything they have done "legally" to reach the level they have gotten, is a first class loon. They have more politicians on the pay roll than illegal aliens cleaning their bathrooms, so just because they haven't been found guilty doesn't necessarily make them innocents.
　
　
You just don't reach this level of wealth by being ethical. Palms have to be greased in this society, and corrupt business practices are your friend, and just like the cops say when they are investigating any crime, to get to the truth just follow the money. When it comes to organized criminal activity (AKA corporate America), you don't and shouldn't have to follow the money, since in most cases it is basically flaunted for the world to see and notice.
　
Wallyworld is certainly no exception to that rule.

 

because it is a recent article and in-line with what the 99'ers are saying. There is far too much wealth in a small population.

The Walton family would be a good place to begin the taking and redistribution of their wealth. We the people are the reason they are so wealthy. It has absolutely nothing to do with risk or a business plan and execution

Aren't you outraged at the amount of the ealth of the Waltons? How much is enough? I think legislation should be passed that people can't be worth more than what the lowest paid person has.

 

umm, no

sec posted an article about a very wealthy family and the article addresses a current event of wealth inequality.

We the 99 cannot sit idly by and allow that family to keep the money