"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

In article ,
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply wrote:

Well, my neighbors down the street who think Walmart is God's gift to
this country don't have internet access. They barely even have a
computer, and they might not have one any more.

Hehehehe. And this implicates Walmart?
--
:)
JR

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

Uh, not exactly. The parent company of Kmart bought Sears, and then
changed their name to Sears. Sorta like Baby Bell SBC bought the
remnants of Ma Bell ATT, then renamed themselves ATT.

Do you remember seeing The Colbert Report where he explained and listed
the transition of AT&T, SBC, Verison, yadda yadda until it all came back
to be named the SAME THING years later? It was an absolute SCREAM!

I couldn't find it on YouTube. Sorry.

30 years from now, corporate genealogy students will have a hell of a
time, what with deals like this, and other historical companies selling
off product lines along with the rights to use the former company's
brand name on the product. (Makes me sad, to see the quality brand names
of my youth, *******ized into some crap Pacific Rim generic product.

Amen, brother. Amen.

When a brand name dies, they should give it a decent burial, IMHO, and
not deceive the public like that.)

Agreed.
--
sigh
JR

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:08:20 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

This guy is going to make a terrible replacement for Leno.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

You must be so proud.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

ya, kind of like that four eyed drew MF carey taking bob barkers place.....

s


"mm" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:08:20 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

This guy is going to make a terrible replacement for Leno.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Today, the biggest rule, by far and away, is that one does NOT
work off the clock. Management is adamant about it. There are
large (bilingual) signs at each time clock forbidding working
unless clocked-in.

So do the signs reach out and prevent this or are they there for show?

What part of "Management is adamant about it" don't you understand?

All of it. I do understand how big corporations typically work. When
they get caught doing something rotten they make a big point to put up
posters and hold coffee clatch meetings while quietly telling managers
just don't get caught next time.


I had clocked-out once and, while on my way out of the store,
encountered my Assistant Manager. *I* stopped and spoke with him about
my work schedule. We chatted for about five minutes. Prior to going on
my way, he asked if I was "on the clock". When I told him I had
clocked-out, he advised that I should go to personnel and have my time
CORRECTED as I would have otherwise worked off the clock. That's good
enough to convince me that they are serious about the issue.

Walmart is extremely accommodating with merchandise returns
and other customer concerns.

For good reason, it costs them almost nothing.

And it sure makes for good customer relations.

So the end justifies the means. So you are saying it is a good thing
that they screw their suppliers?


Ask any vendor how returns are handled. Someone can purchase an
item and literally destroy it and haul it back to the store.
Even though there were no defects Walmart simply dings the vendor
and makes them eat the cost.

Welcome to the (capitalist) party, pal.

Again the end always justifies the means? You are just trotting out the
same nonsense everyone uses to defend Walmart. If you don't agree that
morality should be set aside then somehow you are anti-capitalist and a
Hussein Obama supporter.


No one is forcing a vendor to do business with anyone, Walmart included.

As for your contention that the customer can "literally destroy" the
product and get an easy return is simply untrue.

Sorry no. Lots of evidence how Walmart has a free tool rental service.


There are many returned products that have been simply opened and are
returned for various reasons. Given today's theft-resistant packaging,
it is nearly impossible to open a package without rendering it unsalable
should it be returned. Such returns (among others) are returned to the
vendor for repackaging. Defective merchandise is likewise returned - as
it is by ANY retailer.

A customer with a purchase older than 30 days, that has proven
defective, is directed to the manufacturer (vendor?) for warranty
adjustment. Walmart is not involved in these cases.

Merchandise that is obviously used or "virtually destroyed" is not
accepted as a return, even for in-store credit.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:


Absolutely. But the government didn't pay for my lot and let me use it
for free or install my driveway or extend the mains just for me and
install the sewer lateral or water lines into the house.

Which, of course they are also not doing solely for WalMart. Every WM
I have seen is surrounded by other buildings, many coming to the area
specifically for the traffic WM generates. I would find it hard to
beleive that the city buys the lots, too.


They don't, it is a state program where the state acquires the property
and then Walmart gets to use it for cheap.


Also, nobody ever builds anything
near a WalMart to use the infrastructure so it is only built for Walmart
and nobody else benefits and n0 other buildings are built so no other
tax money comes in.
Not in my area. So far the original Walmarts and the new sites we
prepared for or are preparing for them are occupied only by them.
Well then your area is the only one in the known galaxy where that
has occurred. Heck the WMs LIKE to have other places around because it
also tends to drive even more traffic to them.


I live in a mountainous area. All of the primo spaces in the valley
plain areas are occupied. So if you need to accommodate a super wally
and have it anywhere near the population you need to do some heavy duty
blasting and prep work to create a terraced space. I know exactly what
you are describing but that doesn't work here because of topography. The
closest will be when we move local Walmart #3 across the street. There
is already a complex that was build by a private developer (its a novel
idea). From the plans I saw at my friend's office the new Wally site we
are building will almost touch the existing complex.

Also, are they really the only ones that the infrastructure goes to?
The roads just stop and there is absolutely nobody between where the
roads and sewers stopped before and where they go now? Nothing further
on? Again, outside normal.


No, not really. If we run utility lines to a terraced space on a
mountain who else can use them? And in this area the prospective user
pays for utility extensions. My brother had to pay $6,000 to have a
natural gas line extended 150' down the public borough road so he could
get service. My buddy built a garage for equipment for his business and
it cost him over $100,000 for relatively minor extensions. But we pay
for Walmarts expenses.



The
highway interchange, traffic signals etc are solely for their use. And
even if they were shared by others why would the taxpayers need to pay
for it? Let a developer buy and prepare the property and lease it to
their commercial customers or as in the case of some organizations that
have multiple properties have their property management division acquire
and prepare the site for their use.


That is a good question, but I doubt it is a WM only question.
Manufacturers, wharehouses, other big boxes, heck even banks get the
same economic development incentives in our area and I would bet yours,
too.

I know Target for example didn't. I know Lowes didn't. I know a regional
market who built two large stores here didn't. Walmart without a doubt
is the welfare queen.




Sounds like more of a problem with the local tax authority. WM is
pretty much required by its fudiciary responsibility to try and get the
most out anyone they are negotiating with.
The program is run by the state and the locals have little to say. Sure,
everyone should negotiate for the best deal and then there is greed. I
don't see any particular other reason why Walmart needs to be a welfare
queen.

Which of course boils down the entire discussion, to WM offends you
so you don't think they should get what many others of similar size get.

As I said lots of other outfits don't get welfare. Can you give me a
good reason why Walmart should be on welfare?

Before you answer consider this. I know a guy and his son because they
belong to the same shooting club I do. And an old friend happens to work
for them as a property manager.

Years ago the guy opened a food market and then grew the business all on
his own. Now he owns 3 large modern complexes (with a 4th in planning)
anchored by a large food store, the plazas include gas stations, large
hardware/garden stores, mini-marts and around 15 spaces for the typical
bank, laundry & medical offices. The guy is tough, no-nonsense, wealthy,
not a supporter of Hussein Obama and doesn't spout "God bless America, I
am sure God would want me to do whatever it takes to make money etc) but
he is an adamant believer in not being greedy so unlike Walmart he pays
his help well and also provides real benefits and his business isn't on
welfare.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

mm wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:07:54 -0500, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

Pre-packaged, consumable food is not subject to
SALES tax in many areas but virtually everything else is.

Around here it's the opposite. Candy bars are taxable, and maybe
cooked rotisserie chickens are, but food that needs to be cooked
isn't. The borderline is not obvious, sort of arbitrary , but has to
be drawn somewhere.

Same here. If you buy a loaf of bread and a pound of cheese it isn't
taxable. If you buy a sandwich at the deli it is. It gets a little
bizarre with other things. Certain types of wrapping paper/film and bags
for example are taxable and others aren't.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

mm wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:15:52 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:


And Walmart allows Salvation Army bell-ringers during the Chrismas
season in contrast to Target who has the Army's kettle thrown in the
dumpster and the bell-ringers beaten and arrested (I may be
exaggerating here).

Maybe I'm naive, but I thought the stores that kept out bellringers
didnt' want to have to distinguish between the Salvation Ary and the
Moonies or whatever the competing group is.

That's what they SAY. And Target makes a point of noting their charitable
contributions.

Logic, however, says differently. They don't contribute to EVERY charity,
therefore they DO pick and choose. They could just as easily choose to allow
only the Salvation Army (as does Walmart). That they don't is evidence
sufficient they are familiars of Satan.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

In article ,
George wrote:

So the end justifies the means. So you are saying it is a good thing
that they screw their suppliers?

WM doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head. The contract is clear and
many people have walked away content. It is hard to screw someone who
entered into an agreement voluntarily (unless one is a hooker, then it
is a requirement).



Ask any vendor how returns are handled. Someone can purchase an
item and literally destroy it and haul it back to the store.
Even though there were no defects Walmart simply dings the vendor
and makes them eat the cost.

Welcome to the (capitalist) party, pal.

Again the end always justifies the means? You are just trotting out the
same nonsense everyone uses to defend Walmart. If you don't agree that
morality should be set aside then somehow you are anti-capitalist and a
Hussein Obama supporter.

There is no ends and no means. Every dealing with WM is a dealing
voluntarily entered into by both sides. Just because the results offend
someone's sense of equity after the fact (and largely not those involved
in the deal..which I find very enlightening) is hardly WM's fault.
It isn't like WM is able to sneak up on people any more and
surprise them. WM has been well known for years for how it works with
vendors. Hardly the only one that does it, either.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Aug 20, 9:25*pm, mm wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:08:20 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Dave
What is best in life? * *"To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

This guy is going to make a terrible replacement for Leno.

Amen to that! I have tried to watch him (follows Leno here) and can
see no humor at all in his monologue. His "apeing" is way overboard
also.

I suspect "The Tonight Show" will tank within 6 months of the
replacement.

Harry K

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

The contemporary Supercenter dedicates about 1/3 of the store to its
grocery operation. Pre-packaged, consumable food is not subject to
SALES tax in many areas but virtually everything else is. Given they
are not a not-for-profit entity, they pay taxes on their profit. They
pay property tax.

Not in my state. When they want to build a store we obtain the site and
prepare it for them for free (corporate welfare by transferring wealth
from taxpayers) including the infrastructure such non-trivial costs as
utilities, highway interchanges etc and give them a nine year tax
exemption. They *explicitly* do not pay property taxes and they pay a
very reduced corporate franchise tax or whatever that tax is called to
the state. When the nine years is about to run out they move across the
street to restart the nine year clock. The third local walmart is about
to move across the street as I write this.

If this is a BAD THINGtm, perhaps you should express your
dissatisfaction for such accommodation at the ballot box. It is, after
all, your (presumably) elected representatives that are giving the
accommodations. Walmart, and any OTHER business, can ASK for the sun,
moon and stars. Those in the position to GIVE those things are
responsible for the "gift" - not the recipient.

Only a fool would turn down legitimate gifts.

Actually lots of businesses choose not to take the welfare. Would you
proudly announce to your friends you were on welfare?

Also I am only one voter and can call this to the attention of a few
family members and friends. Maybe if just a few people read my words
and think "gee, we have a tiny house and pay $5,000/year property taxes
and Walmart doesn't pay anything" it might get thenm to act differently
at the poll.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:42:29 -0400, mm
wrote:

[snip]



If you put toothpaste in boxes, it all leaks out at the ends, where
the openings are. It's better to use tubes.

AFAIK, toothpaste is almost always sold in boxes. There's a tube in
there, so among other things, you get a lot less toothpaste than it
looks.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

I thought that about the PIR after drew MF carey took it over....... but
he's still there.

s



"Harry K" wrote in message
...

I suspect "The Tonight Show" will tank within 6 months of the
replacement.

Harry K

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

If you have a 'tiny' house and are paying 5K in taxes..... You need to
move... That's YOUR fault.

s


"George" wrote in message
. ..
Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

The contemporary Supercenter dedicates about 1/3 of the store to its
grocery operation. Pre-packaged, consumable food is not subject to
SALES tax in many areas but virtually everything else is. Given they
are not a not-for-profit entity, they pay taxes on their profit. They
pay property tax.

Not in my state. When they want to build a store we obtain the site and
prepare it for them for free (corporate welfare by transferring wealth
from taxpayers) including the infrastructure such non-trivial costs as
utilities, highway interchanges etc and give them a nine year tax
exemption. They *explicitly* do not pay property taxes and they pay a
very reduced corporate franchise tax or whatever that tax is called to
the state. When the nine years is about to run out they move across the
street to restart the nine year clock. The third local walmart is about
to move across the street as I write this.

If this is a BAD THINGtm, perhaps you should express your
dissatisfaction for such accommodation at the ballot box. It is, after
all, your (presumably) elected representatives that are giving the
accommodations. Walmart, and any OTHER business, can ASK for the sun,
moon and stars. Those in the position to GIVE those things are
responsible for the "gift" - not the recipient.

Only a fool would turn down legitimate gifts.

Actually lots of businesses choose not to take the welfare. Would you
proudly announce to your friends you were on welfare?

Also I am only one voter and can call this to the attention of a few
family members and friends. Maybe if just a few people read my words and
think "gee, we have a tiny house and pay $5,000/year property taxes and
Walmart doesn't pay anything" it might get thenm to act differently at the
poll.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

In article ,
George wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:


Absolutely. But the government didn't pay for my lot and let me use it
for free or install my driveway or extend the mains just for me and
install the sewer lateral or water lines into the house.

Which, of course they are also not doing solely for WalMart. Every WM
I have seen is surrounded by other buildings, many coming to the area
specifically for the traffic WM generates. I would find it hard to
beleive that the city buys the lots, too.


They don't, it is a state program where the state acquires the property
and then Walmart gets to use it for cheap.


And this is only for the Dreaded WalMart? This isn't a program
available to others who qualify under whatever the criteria are? Solely
and utterly a plan at the beck and call from the Boys from Arkansas. The
WalMart Act?
Or is it just the use by WM that offends you?


That is a good question, but I doubt it is a WM only question.
Manufacturers, wharehouses, other big boxes, heck even banks get the
same economic development incentives in our area and I would bet yours,
too.

I know Target for example didn't. I know Lowes didn't. I know a regional
market who built two large stores here didn't. Walmart without a doubt
is the welfare queen.
Sounds like a problem with the government instead of WM. Vote 'em
out.



Which of course boils down the entire discussion, to WM offends you
so you don't think they should get what many others of similar size get.

As I said lots of other outfits don't get welfare. Can you give me a
good reason why Walmart should be on welfare?

If qualifies under the state law, why shouldn't they?


Years ago the guy opened a food market and then grew the business all on
his own. Now he owns 3 large modern complexes (with a 4th in planning)
anchored by a large food store, the plazas include gas stations, large
hardware/garden stores, mini-marts and around 15 spaces for the typical
bank, laundry & medical offices. The guy is tough, no-nonsense, wealthy,
not a supporter of Hussein Obama and doesn't spout "God bless America, I
am sure God would want me to do whatever it takes to make money etc) but
he is an adamant believer in not being greedy so unlike Walmart he pays
his help well and also provides real benefits and his business isn't on
welfare.

Cool. Does HE have any problems with WalMart getting this
largesse?

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

So moving to where the taxes are less wouldn't help ??? Hmmmmmmmmm


s


"h" wrote in message
...

"Steve Barker DLT" wrote in message
...
If you have a 'tiny' house and are paying 5K in taxes..... You need to
move... That's YOUR fault.

I have a tiny house and I pay 5K in taxes. Moving wouldn't help. That's
just what it costs to live in upstate NY. We pay the highest taxes in the
nation, and my county is near the top of the list.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

"Steve Barker DLT" wrote in message
...
If you have a 'tiny' house and are paying 5K in taxes..... You need to
move... That's YOUR fault.

I have a tiny house and I pay 5K in taxes. Moving wouldn't help. That's just
what it costs to live in upstate NY. We pay the highest taxes in the nation,
and my county is near the top of the list.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Aug 20, 11:32 pm, Jim Redelfs
wrote:
In article
,

Pat wrote:
There was a long story on NPR about this a while back. Yes, the main
reason is to increase sales. Most of their stores have very little
natural lighting but they are moving that way in the grocery depts to
increase sales. The natural light motivates people to buy more food,
particularly fresh produce.

This flies in the face of "my" store, built perhaps 7 years ago.

The entire store is pocked with large skylights. During the day, when
the sun goes behind a cloud, the ENTIRE store's array of fluorescent
lamps fire-up. Moments later, when the sun reappears from behind the
cloud, the whole stores-worth of fluorescents switch off. This folly
goes on EVERY day.

This is INCREDIBLY annoying when working in the photo department, trying
to color-correct images and do other visual work. I suspect the effect
is as distracting while trying to color-match paint or select fabric for
a sewing project.

Given the CO$T of incorporating the skylights into initial construction,
the ongoing thermal loss during heating and cooling and the
wear-and-tear on the light fixtures themselves, Walmart isn't saving a
damned dime. It's all "feel good" green effort for show.

As for the produce department: It's the only part of the store with
always-on quartz lamps shining on the product. You tell me...
--
:)
JR

We don't have any store like that around here, but if you can keep the
lights off, say, even half of the time during summer, it seems like
you'd be saving a bundle. You'd only lose money if they were flashing
on and off every 30 seconds or so.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

"Steve Barker DLT" wrote in message
...
So moving to where the taxes are less wouldn't help ??? Hmmmmmmmmm

Let's see...we both quit our jobs, yank the kids out of school, and move out
of state? Yeah, that makes sense. Top-posting moron. Plonk.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

You were the one bitching about the taxes.... So now we're name calling.
Hmmmmmm.

s


"h" wrote in message
...

Let's see...we both quit our jobs, yank the kids out of school, and move
out of state? Yeah, that makes sense.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Aug 18, 5:18 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
"[PLAINFIELD, Penn] Walt Neidlinger spent years trying to keep a
Wal-Mart-anchored shopping complex from being built...

"The traffic would have been suffocating for their little community,
neighbors argued, so when the massive retailer and its partners packed up
their plans and left ... Neidlinger was ecstatic. He figured he'd wait for
the next plan to come along and remembers thinking, 'What could be worse
than Wal-Mart?'

"Over the past year, Neidlinger says, he's gotten an answer: RPM
Recycling -- the metal-shredding plant on the same land -- causes daily
noise that sounds like a freight train rumbling down the street, and
frequent explosions that shake his walls."

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...,5038048.story


Still better than having an ever-****ing wal-mart in the neighborhood.

Dave

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Aug 21, 8:27*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
mm wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:15:52 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

And Walmart allows Salvation Army bell-ringers during the Chrismas
season in contrast to Target who has the Army's kettle thrown in the
dumpster and the bell-ringers beaten and arrested (I may be
exaggerating here).

Maybe I'm naive, but I thought the stores that kept out bellringers
didnt' want to have to distinguish between the Salvation Ary and the
Moonies or whatever the competing group is.

That's what they SAY. And Target makes a point of noting their charitable
contributions.

Logic, however, says differently. They don't contribute to EVERY charity,
therefore they DO pick and choose. They could just as easily choose to allow
only the Salvation Army (as does Walmart). That they don't is evidence
sufficient they are familiars of Satan.

Target has a political "agenda" which the Salvation Army does not fit,
but underneith their elitist facade they buy/sell proportionally as
much Chinese goods and sweat shop clothing as anyone.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Aug 21, 8:28*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*George wrote:
So the end justifies the means. So you are saying it is a good thing
that they screw their suppliers?

* * WM doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head. The contract is clear and
many people have walked away content. It is hard to screw someone who
entered into an agreement voluntarily (unless one is a hooker, then it
is a requirement).



Ask any vendor how returns are handled. Someone can purchase an
item and literally destroy it and haul it back to the store.
Even though there were no defects Walmart simply dings the vendor
and makes them eat the cost.

Welcome to the (capitalist) party, pal.

Again the end always justifies the means? You are just trotting out the
same nonsense everyone uses to defend Walmart. If you don't agree that
morality should be set aside then somehow you are anti-capitalist and a
Hussein Obama supporter.

* * There is no ends and no means. Every dealing with WM is a dealing
voluntarily entered into by both sides. Just because the results offend
someone's sense of equity after the fact (and largely not those involved
in the deal..which I find very enlightening) is hardly WM's fault.
* * *It isn't like WM is able to sneak up on people any more and
surprise them. WM has been well known for years for how it works with
vendors. Hardly the only one that does it, either.

A small manufacturer can hit the jackpot overnight with a WM contract,
there is a constant flow of vendors traveling to Arkansas for an
evaluation by WM buyers.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Aug 21, 8:30*am, Harry K wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:25*pm, mm wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:08:20 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Dave
What is best in life? * *"To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

This guy is going to make a terrible replacement for Leno.

Amen to that! *I have tried to watch him (follows Leno here) and can
see no humor at all in his monologue. *His "apeing" is way overboard
also.

I suspect "The Tonight Show" will tank within 6 months of the
replacement.

Harry K


Steve Allen was still the best IMO, followed by Johnny Carson. All
the others are about the same but Letterman annoys me more than Conan.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply wrote:

Well, my neighbors down the street who think Walmart is God's gift to
this country don't have internet access. They barely even have a
computer, and they might not have one any more.

Hehehehe. And this implicates Walmart?

No, it was only one possible factor as to why Walmart has tons of
shoppers whereas many people here don't like them. -- bad sampling of
the online poll.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

George wrote:

Same here. If you buy a loaf of bread and a pound of cheese it isn't
taxable. If you buy a sandwich at the deli it is. It gets a little
bizarre with other things. Certain types of wrapping paper/film and bags
for example are taxable and others aren't.

The most ludicrous sales tax policy I ever heard of was when we were
driving from Pennsylvania to Georgia, and my mom went in a store in some
state to buy a pair of socks. The clerk asked if the socks were for
someone over or under the age of 14 (or some teenage, under-18 number),
and my mom asked why and was told that clothing for people on one side
of the number was taxed and for people on the other side of the number
wasn't -- I forget which was which at this point; I was a very young
child then. My mom asked the clerk if that meant that clothing for
[whichever age group had their clothing taxed] was optional.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

In article ,
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply wrote:


The most ludicrous sales tax policy I ever heard of was when we were
driving from Pennsylvania to Georgia, and my mom went in a store in some
state to buy a pair of socks. The clerk asked if the socks were for
someone over or under the age of 14 (or some teenage, under-18 number),
and my mom asked why and was told that clothing for people on one side
of the number was taxed and for people on the other side of the number
wasn't -- I forget which was which at this point; I was a very young
child then. My mom asked the clerk if that meant that clothing for
[whichever age group had their clothing taxed] was optional.

What time of the year would that have been? Some states have a back
to school "tax holiday" of a couple weeks with similar age restrictions.
That, of course, are pretty much ignored.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"(Marina)
 

Trashy won't wear off on you
Jerry




http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutc...oodWorkingPage

http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/CARWRECK

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"(HeyBob)
 

What are they giving for copper ? I have a 55 gallon barrow full of 2"
peices of 1/2 " copper pipe.
Jerry




http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutc...oodWorkingPage

http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/CARWRECK

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:42:29 -0400, mm
wrote:

[snip]


If you put toothpaste in boxes, it all leaks out at the ends, where
the openings are. It's better to use tubes.

AFAIK, toothpaste is almost always sold in boxes. There's a tube in
there, so among other things, you get a lot less toothpaste than it
looks.
The only tubes I have ever seen sold without boxes or blister packs were
the plastic kind, containing lotions and shampoos and such. Foil tubes
would look like hell after being bulk-packed in one of those plastic
shipping boxes. By tradition and practicality, toothpaste comes in metal
foil tubes, since you can't roll up plastic tubes to force stiff
contents to the top.

--
aem sends...

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
(Makes me sad, to see the quality brand names of my youth, *******ized into
some crap Pacific Rim generic product. When a brand name dies, they should
give it a decent burial, IMHO, and not deceive the public like that.)

--
aem sends...

Amen Aem. Pardon the pun :)

Colbyt

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

"Steve Barker DLT" wrote in message
...
I can assure you the reason for the skylights is savings on the electrical
bill. It's not just a 'side effect'. It's the main reason. Natural
lighting could hardly increase sales. And it's used equally all across
the
store, not just the food section.

s
Missed the original thread, but catch the drift. It's amazing that America
created the society and economic environment that generated the Wal-Mart
phenomena, and now mostly detests it.

Sure, I want dirt cheap endless consumer goods, just not in *my*
neighborhood.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:03:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply wrote:


The most ludicrous sales tax policy I ever heard of was when we were
driving from Pennsylvania to Georgia, and my mom went in a store in some
state to buy a pair of socks. The clerk asked if the socks were for
someone over or under the age of 14 (or some teenage, under-18 number),
and my mom asked why and was told that clothing for people on one side
of the number was taxed and for people on the other side of the number
wasn't -- I forget which was which at this point; I was a very young
child then. My mom asked the clerk if that meant that clothing for
[whichever age group had their clothing taxed] was optional.

I'd bet that it's chidren's clothes that weren't taxed.

What time of the year would that have been? Some states have a back
to school "tax holiday" of a couple weeks with similar age restrictions.
That, of course, are pretty much ignored.

Tax holidays like that tend to be newer than the original tax versus
no tax situation, in response to complaints by merchants that everyone
was going to Delaware (and Pennsylvania?) to avoid the sales tax on
clothes. So instead of repealing the tax all year they gave them a
busy time like before school starts.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RickH
wrote:

On Aug 21, 8:30*am, Harry K wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:25*pm, mm wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:08:20 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Dave
What is best in life? * *"To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

This guy is going to make a terrible replacement for Leno.

Amen to that! *I have tried to watch him (follows Leno here) and can
see no humor at all in his monologue. *His "apeing" is way overboard
also.

He was editor of the Harvard Lampoon, but that's all print, right? It
has nothing to do with being funny on tv. Even when I can see how it
might have been funny, he ruins it. He drags it out too long, and
overdoes it, and even if writers write it, he's supposed to show them
how to make it his style and funny. Unfortunately his style isn't
funny.

Unless there are a lot of people younger than I who think so. Sort
of like the people who think Saturday Night Live is still funny.

I suspect "The Tonight Show" will tank within 6 months of the
replacement.

Harry K


Steve Allen was still the best IMO, followed by Johnny Carson. All
the others are about the same but Letterman annoys me more than Conan.

Either I couldn't stay up that late, or I lived in the city with only
one tv channel when Steve Allen was on. I'm sure I woudl have liked
him. I liked Jack Paar.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:29:01 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:42:29 -0400, mm
wrote:

[snip]


If you put toothpaste in boxes, it all leaks out at the ends, where
the openings are. It's better to use tubes.

AFAIK, toothpaste is almost always sold in boxes. There's a tube in
there, so among other things, you get a lot less toothpaste than it
looks.
The only tubes I have ever seen sold without boxes or blister packs were
the plastic kind, containing lotions and shampoos and such. Foil tubes
would look like hell after being bulk-packed in one of those plastic
shipping boxes.

My first tube of Ambroid Cement was all beat up like that, but I
bought it anyhow and love it. I bought it at a hardware store. It was
the big size and lasted more than a decade or two, and when I needed
more, I couldn't find it. I was lucky, before the web, that someone
knew the product and told me I had to go to a hobby store, and they
had it although only the small tube. It sticks to everything, dries
quickly, breaks apart if necessary, and smells good (but I don't make
a practice of sniffing it. I'm losing brain cells fast enough as it
is.)

By tradition and practicality, toothpaste comes in metal
foil tubes, since you can't roll up plastic tubes to force stiff
contents to the top.

You certainly can't, but a lot of toothpaste is coming in plastic
tubes now, Crest at least, at least some kinds and places and times,
like when I lost bought some. It's been a wyhile since I bought two
tubes and they might not have been in boxes, or the second one, that I
just started, woudl have been in a box. Since you can't roll them
up, keep your eyes open for a advertising "gift", with a slot in it,
designed to be pushed up the toothpaste tube, since there's no other
way to close the back door. They're too cheap to sell, so they print
company names on them and give them away. Maybe dollar stores would
have them. Overpriced but better than none at all.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!" What does DLT mean?
 

Steve Barker DLT posted for all of us...

What does DLT mean?

--
Tekkie - I approve this advertisement/statement/utterance.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

mm wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:29:01 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:42:29 -0400, mm
wrote:

[snip]


If you put toothpaste in boxes, it all leaks out at the ends, where
the openings are. It's better to use tubes.
AFAIK, toothpaste is almost always sold in boxes. There's a tube in
there, so among other things, you get a lot less toothpaste than it
looks.
The only tubes I have ever seen sold without boxes or blister packs were
the plastic kind, containing lotions and shampoos and such. Foil tubes
would look like hell after being bulk-packed in one of those plastic
shipping boxes.

My first tube of Ambroid Cement was all beat up like that, but I
bought it anyhow and love it. I bought it at a hardware store. It was
the big size and lasted more than a decade or two, and when I needed
more, I couldn't find it. I was lucky, before the web, that someone
knew the product and told me I had to go to a hobby store, and they
had it although only the small tube. It sticks to everything, dries
quickly, breaks apart if necessary, and smells good (but I don't make
a practice of sniffing it. I'm losing brain cells fast enough as it
is.)

By tradition and practicality, toothpaste comes in metal
foil tubes, since you can't roll up plastic tubes to force stiff
contents to the top.

You certainly can't, but a lot of toothpaste is coming in plastic
tubes now, Crest at least, at least some kinds and places and times,
like when I lost bought some. It's been a wyhile since I bought two
tubes and they might not have been in boxes, or the second one, that I
just started, woudl have been in a box. Since you can't roll them
up, keep your eyes open for a advertising "gift", with a slot in it,
designed to be pushed up the toothpaste tube, since there's no other
way to close the back door. They're too cheap to sell, so they print
company names on them and give them away. Maybe dollar stores would
have them. Overpriced but better than none at all.

You sure they are all-plastic? I just went and looked at my Crest shelf
stock, and there is still a foil core, although the plastic skin is a
whole lot thicker than it used to be, and it seems to well resist the
sharp creases of an old-style tube. These did come in boxes, but maybe
they are gonna try going boxless. These were SamsClub bulk pack- don't
know if they have same purchase specs as wally world, even if they are
the same company. Stores will probably hate it- they would have to alter
the gondolas from shelves and facing, to bins. (You can't stack naked
tubes.) Plus you need bigger signs, with the trademark, versus using the
boxes themselves as the sign.

--
aem sends...

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply wrote:

The most ludicrous sales tax policy I ever heard of was when we were
driving from Pennsylvania to Georgia, and my mom went in a store in
some state to buy a pair of socks. The clerk asked if the socks were
for someone over or under the age of 14 (or some teenage, under-18
number), and my mom asked why and was told that clothing for people
on one side of the number was taxed and for people on the other side
of the number wasn't -- I forget which was which at this point; I was
a very young child then. My mom asked the clerk if that meant that
clothing for [whichever age group had their clothing taxed] was
optional.

Every sales tax has its weirdness:

In Texas:
Donuts - six or more, no tax. Less than six, pay it.
Fertilizer - For your yard, taxed. For your tomato plants, no tax.
Rabbit - As a pet, pay the tax. If you're going to eat it, tax free.

"We kept Wal-Mart out of our town!"
 

On Aug 21, 6:31*am, George wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
*George wrote:

The contemporary Supercenter dedicates about 1/3 of the store to its
grocery operation. *Pre-packaged, consumable food is not subject to
SALES tax in many areas but virtually everything else is. *Given they
are not a not-for-profit entity, they pay taxes on their profit. *They
pay property tax.

Not in my state. When they want to build a store we obtain the site and
prepare it for them for free (corporate welfare by transferring wealth
from taxpayers) including the infrastructure such non-trivial costs as
utilities, highway interchanges etc and give them a nine year tax
exemption. They *explicitly* do not pay property taxes and they pay a
very reduced corporate franchise tax or whatever that tax is called to
the state. When the nine years is about to run out they move across the
street to restart the nine year clock. The third local walmart is about
to move across the street as I write this.

If this is a BAD THINGtm, perhaps you should express your
dissatisfaction for such accommodation at the ballot box. *It is, after
all, your (presumably) elected representatives that are giving the
accommodations. *Walmart, and any OTHER business, can ASK for the sun,
moon and stars. *Those in the position to GIVE those things are
responsible for the "gift" - not the recipient.

Only a fool would turn down legitimate gifts.

Actually lots of businesses choose not to take the welfare. Would you
proudly announce to your friends you were on welfare?

Also I am only one voter and can call this to the attention of a few
family members and friends. *Maybe if just a few people read my words
and think "gee, we have a tiny house and pay $5,000/year property taxes
and Walmart doesn't pay anything" it might get thenm to act differently
at the poll.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you, of course, are prepared to prove that. Not jsut _say_ it
happens but prove that some business has turned down such a golden
goose.

Harry K