Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
$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.
The problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.$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, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?
The problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.$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, 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.
If nobody applies for those jobs then walmart is forced to pay more. So the answer is to leave those jobs unfilled.
No, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?
Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.
yeah so.........Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.
$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.
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.$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.
They get labor out of that arrangement, jack ass.$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?
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.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?
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 richerTalk 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?
The problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.$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, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?
Hope she has time to do her homework. Wouldn't want to see her stuck at Walmart for the rest of her life.My daughter works at Walmart,,,makes $11.00 part time........still in hs ......
Lol what does a k-12 education do? Most ppl are high school graduates that work at WalmartThe problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.$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, 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.