I also don't see how 20% is so controversial when the employer sees a 15% reduction in FICA costs alone in gross employee cost.I guess if "gross employee cost" is 100% of retail prices that could be true.
The controversy is the 20% price reduction and what has to be eliminated to achieve it...giving up wages is only part of it.
Do you think if employee's at Walmart took a 20% wage cut that the prices could also be reduced 20%?
Guess what. Not everyone in America works for Wal-Mart. Are you still sitting on the 23%-30% divergence? LoL. Well, Looey, Huey, Dooey and Looey. You have a good point. The prices cannot go down if the workers don't take a pay cut..., hmmm, I guess we should continue with the Income Tax as it stands. Please. Should we?
The controversy is the 20% price reduction and what has to be eliminated to achieve it...giving up wages is only part of it.
Of course employee costs are not 100% of retail prices. We are not talking about reducing costs by 100%
Gross employee costs are part of the 20% cost savings. Check out Wal-Mart's income statement to see what they would save by not paying income tax.