"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]