Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[initforme]

If nobody applies for those jobs then walmart is forced to pay more. So the answer is to leave those jobs unfilled.

 

[bripat9643]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Worst spin attempt ever.

It also makes the assumption that none of the employees would be working somewhere else and ignores the equally valid argument that if, oh…pick a company…., was not here the taxpayers would supposedly be supporting them too tip to toe.

There is the door candy leave..find another job

Too hilarious….hayseed retard tries to tell someone what to do.

You're telling us what to do.

 

[bripat9643]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

The problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.

No, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?

No, that's liberalism. You just admitted that you and your ilk wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone if the government wasn't paying their bills.

 

[Wyatt earp]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

The problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.

No, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?

No, that's liberalism. You just admitted that you and your ilk wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone if the government wasn't paying their bills.

That's my point the democrats are picking up the tab if company's like walmart don't subsidize them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If nobody applies for those jobs then walmart is forced to pay more. So the answer is to leave those jobs unfilled.

And that's the way the free market is supposed to work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?

It may not be considered compassionate, but it is considered tough love.

What do you think we did years ago when government programs didn't pay crap and you didn't make enough money? You found a job where you made better money. If you couldn't get one of those jobs, you got a weekend job or otherwise another part-time job.

When I was younger many of us had more than one job. Until I became a landlord, I always had two jobs, and in a way, I still do.

Today, I don't know one younger person who does have more than one job. If the job doesn't pay enough, steal it from taxpayers. It's certainly not your fault you don't make enough money, it's Walmart's fault, not yours. How could it possibly be your fault???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.

That's because you've been duped into believing that all Walmart employees make crap money.

Walmart offers the best opportunity for advancement. While some of their workers do make minimum wage or near, Target and K-Mart don't pay all that much more. It's just that because Walmart is so big and not union, the Democrats get people to focus on them instead of the big picture.

The big picture is Walmart management makes a pretty good living, so do their assistant managers and department heads. Their warehouse workers make a pretty good buck as well as their truck drivers. Their offices all over the country are filled with employees that make a pretty good living.

And let's not forget that minimum wage workers in this country are about 3% of our US workforce, and most of those making minimum wage today will likely be making more next year.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.

yeah so.........

 

[Preacher]

I look forward to the day the rich bastards are given their just due for harming millions while they get rich doing nothing

 

[Dragonlady]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

No aga

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

No you are not listening it is walmart who subsidize the US government welfare program.with out them us tax payers would have to shell out another 15 grand per employee

Talk about being ass-backward. American taxpayers have been subsidizing the wages of some of America's most profitable companies, and Walmart has been the WORST offender. It is to be noted that Walmart has changed direction and is now paying higher wages, as of this year. In large part, this change is due to the negative publicity they have received over the years and the public's outrage over their practices.

In 2012 or 13, while Walmart was bragging about being the second most profitable company in America, every American taxpayer contributed $2500 to Walmart's bottom line, even if they never set foot in a store. In total, Walmart employees received $9B in benefits. Had the corporation paid its workers just $100 a week, it's profits would have been reduced from $26B to $15B, and instead of Walmart's employees being part of the 47% who pay no taxes, they wouldn't qualify for social assistance, and would be part of the taxpaying public. The corporation would still be very profitable, just not the second most profitable in the USA.

The workers would be better off because they have more money to spend. And the government wouldn't need as many employees to process applications for social assistance and payments to the Walmart, McDonald's and other workers who are underpaid for their efforts, thereby reducing government, and taxes. The taxpayers would see their tax burden reduced by the amount currently used to subsidize minimum wage workers, and the amount paid to the government workers who deal with such assistance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Talk about being ass-backward. American taxpayers have been subsidizing the wages of some of America's most profitable companies, and Walmart has been the WORST offender. It is to be noted that Walmart has changed direction and is now paying higher wages, as of this year. In large part, this change is due to the negative publicity they have received over the years and the public's outrage over their practices.

In 2012 or 13, while Walmart was bragging about being the second most profitable company in America, every American taxpayer contributed $2500 to Walmart's bottom line, even if they never set foot in a store. In total, Walmart employees received $9B in benefits. Had the corporation paid its workers just $100 a week, it's profits would have been reduced from $26B to $15B, and instead of Walmart's employees being part of the 47% who pay no taxes, they wouldn't qualify for social assistance, and would be part of the taxpaying public. The corporation would still be very profitable, just not the second most profitable in the USA.

The workers would be better off because they have more money to spend. And the government wouldn't need as many employees to process applications for social assistance and payments to the Walmart, McDonald's and other workers who are underpaid for their efforts, thereby reducing government, and taxes. The taxpayers would see their tax burden reduced by the amount currently used to subsidize minimum wage workers, and the amount paid to the government workers who deal with such assistance.

Let me ask this question, and I will capitalize the main words here:

How is WALMART responsible for what GOVERNMENT gives WALMART workers? Walmart simply offers jobs and employs people. Walmart is not responsible for giving out government goodies. That's the responsibility of your local Democrat politicians.

But instead of going to your Democrat leaders and telling them to quit giving people taxpayer money, you blame Walmart for government giving them this money.

If the government decided to give all Walmart workers a new car, would you blame Walmart for that cost too?

 

[JimBowie1958]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

No, you stupid fuck, they would have better paying jobs at the Mom and Pop shops that price slashing Walmart put out of business using cheap unregulated manufacturing in China.

Good Gawd, you libertarins still have your heads buried way up your ass too far to breathe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Worst spin attempt ever.

Prove me wrong...

Walmart solely exist to support th US government welfare program...

What else could it be?

They get labor out of that arrangement, jack ass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How is WALMART responsible for what GOVERNMENT gives WALMART workers? Walmart simply offers jobs and employs people. Walmart is not responsible for giving out government goodies. That's the responsibility of your local Democrat politicians.

But instead of going to your Democrat leaders and telling them to quit giving people taxpayer money, you blame Walmart for government giving them this money.

If the government decided to give all Walmart workers a new car, would you blame Walmart for that cost too?

Walmart rolls into communities, sets up their Big Baox stores then runs prices below the cost of stocking them for a while to drive all the locals out of business, then they raise their prices back to profitable levels, and old corporate strategem for taking over retail in a local community that has been going on for centuries.

And the trade off has always been that the corporate chain stores would at least offer competitive wages in compensation to the people who used to be business owners, often hiring the people that they put out of business.,

But now Libertarians and Conservatarians dont even see the corporations have even that much responsibility.

Good Gawd I will be glad to see retarded Vulture Capitalists like that purged from the GOP and we Middle Class Americans can have at least one party we can count on once again.

 

[Dragonlady]

How is WALMART responsible for what GOVERNMENT gives WALMART workers? Walmart simply offers jobs and employs people. Walmart is not responsible for giving out government goodies. That's the responsibility of your local Democrat politicians.

But instead of going to your Democrat leaders and telling them to quit giving people taxpayer money, you blame Walmart for government giving them this money.

If the government decided to give all Walmart workers a new car, would you blame Walmart for that cost too?

Because WALMART has people in their HR Department whose job it is to determine what government assistance their employees qualify for, and helps them through the application process.

Because employees receiving said government assistance are closely monitored by WALMART in terms of hours and wages, to ensure that they do not work so enough hours or make enough money to lose said benefits.

Because WALMART has actively lobbied for no increases to the minimum wage, which would see their employees disqualified from receiving government assistance.

Democrats have been trying to raise the minimum wage since Bush was first elected. They've been opposed on every occasion by REPUBLICANS. GEORGE W. BUSH refused to raise the minimum wage. Instead, he raised earned income credits. It's not the Democrats who are promoting the use of earned income credits, otherwise known as "free shit", it's Republicans.

 

[Preacher]

Talk about being ass-backward. American taxpayers have been subsidizing the wages of some of America's most profitable companies, and Walmart has been the WORST offender. It is to be noted that Walmart has changed direction and is now paying higher wages, as of this year. In large part, this change is due to the negative publicity they have received over the years and the public's outrage over their practices.

In 2012 or 13, while Walmart was bragging about being the second most profitable company in America, every American taxpayer contributed $2500 to Walmart's bottom line, even if they never set foot in a store. In total, Walmart employees received $9B in benefits. Had the corporation paid its workers just $100 a week, it's profits would have been reduced from $26B to $15B, and instead of Walmart's employees being part of the 47% who pay no taxes, they wouldn't qualify for social assistance, and would be part of the taxpaying public. The corporation would still be very profitable, just not the second most profitable in the USA.

The workers would be better off because they have more money to spend. And the government wouldn't need as many employees to process applications for social assistance and payments to the Walmart, McDonald's and other workers who are underpaid for their efforts, thereby reducing government, and taxes. The taxpayers would see their tax burden reduced by the amount currently used to subsidize minimum wage workers, and the amount paid to the government workers who deal with such assistance.

Let me ask this question, and I will capitalize the main words here:

How is WALMART responsible for what GOVERNMENT gives WALMART workers? Walmart simply offers jobs and employs people. Walmart is not responsible for giving out government goodies. That's the responsibility of your local Democrat politicians.

But instead of going to your Democrat leaders and telling them to quit giving people taxpayer money, you blame Walmart for government giving them this money.

If the government decided to give all Walmart workers a new car, would you blame Walmart for that cost too?

Walmart needs to pay more simple as that and people would not need government help. Walmart won't so it's the governments right and job to help people or force Walmart off the tit of stealing people's labor AND having Americans subsidizing them so they can get richer

 

[Preacher]

Walmart is greed at its absolute worst

 

[JBond]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

The problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.

No, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?

Compassion is providing a free K-12 education. To bad so many people waste that opportunity. Not to mention the trillions of dollars a year in handouts. Add up of the State and Federal programs to assist the poor. We spend more than any country on the poor.

 

[rdean]

My daughter works at Walmart,,,makes $11.00 part time........still in hs ......

Hope she has time to do her homework. Wouldn't want to see her stuck at Walmart for the rest of her life.

 

[Preacher]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

The problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.

No, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?

Compassion is providing a free K-12 education. To bad so many people waste that opportunity. Not to mention the trillions of dollars a year in handouts. Add up of the State and Federal programs to assist the poor. We spend more than any country on the poor.

Lol what does a k-12 education do? Most ppl are high school graduates that work at Walmart