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

[Ray From Cleveland]

it is funny how little you understand economics. You still seem to think trickle down works. Sad.

I said nothing about trickle down. You're just trying to change the subject.

What I said is (using your example) that the rich have nothing to do with the poor not being able to eat at the restaurant. If people can't afford to eat at this restaurant, it's because they didn't earn enough money to eat there. It has nothing to do with inequity.

 

[Brain357]

it is funny how little you understand economics. You still seem to think trickle down works. Sad.

I said nothing about trickle down. You're just trying to change the subject.

What I said is (using your example) that the rich have nothing to do with the poor not being able to eat at the restaurant. If people can't afford to eat at this restaurant, it's because they didn't earn enough money to eat there. It has nothing to do with inequity.

Your one link you posted claimed we were just waiting for trickle down.

See you don't even understand simple examples. The fact there is lots of inequality and only the one guy can afford to eat at the restaurant means the restaurant fails. That is why too much inequality slows an economy. The restaurant needs lots of people who can afford to eat out.

I've used very simple examples, posted several studies supporting what I am saying, posted economists explaining why... You choose to ignore the facts.

 

[beagle9]

Once again you fall back on your Communist principles. That is not how we do things in this country. Why don't you seek out a country where they do these sort of things? I here Venezuela is nice this time of year if you don't mind starving to death.

It is very much how things are done in the US. Have you never heard of Anti-Trust Laws? Reagan gutted anti-trust legislation and merger mania began. And while merger mania has been very good for those at the top, the rest of the economy has suffered. Wages have stagnated. New companies can't compete.Back at the turn of the last century, when the monopolies were broken up, MORE jobs were created. Better paying jobs.This is a very American thing to do. Read your own history.

Walmart has tons of competition, so your example falls flat on its face. It is not a monopoly. Within a half mile of each other, my town has a Kmart, Target, and Walmart. You need to educate yourself in reality and get your head out of the Communist Manifesto.

. Ok, now go back in history for a second, and then name off the thousands of small businesses that were in play before the several you listed above took over in each town or city that you can name today in America. They don't call it consolidated corporate row for nothing anymore right? Corporations by there very nature are socialist/communist style operations anymore, and the government is falling lock step in with them.

 

[beagle9]

You seem to be the stupid one. While making billions of dollars the Walton's are paying so little that employees are on welfare. Welfare increases government dependence. As long as the rich continue to pay so little the government grows. To make it worse all this inequality slows the economy.

They will always be on welfare no matter what the National minimum wage is.

If they were making more they could not collect welfare. Why do you want the wealthy creating more government dependence?

Are we talking one person or one company paying more? Then the answer would be yes the would get off welfare.


Or

Are we talking raising the national minimum wage? The answer would be no, the welfare eligibility would have to be raised..because they are still making mw and still would be poor

I'm saying the rich paying so little while making billions increases government dependence. If you are for smaller government we need the rich to pay a living wage. How to make that happen can be debated, but there is no debate the Walton's paying so little increases government dependence. How "conservatives" can applaud them for increasing the size of government I have no clue. If we had lots of good paying jobs with good benefits people could be more independent and government would shrink. We'd have no obamacare if companies were giving good benefits.

Wal Mart is around $10-11 an hour to start right now, that is PLENTY as a beginning wage. Figure that out. $10 an hour times 2080 hours a year is obviously $20,080. That is low enough that there will be no income tax withholding and if you have kids and such, that's your fault, don't have kids you can't afford.

In real dollars the minimum wage has always been historically around $10 an hour. Need more money? Get a better job.

. Ok, for how long should a person doing a job be paid that minimum wage per hour ? You say need more money, get a better job right, but I say is there no raises from the 10 per hour ever ? What about companies that want to exploit their labor forces, and therefore they do this by trying not to give them a raise (profit sharing), and therefore they are attempting to work people by their mentalities, instead of working them by what they bring to the table as a whole person ? Then what about when a corporation does such a thing, and then turns to the government to help the employees it is screwing over ? Talk about profiting in everyway possible, and then having the taxpayer subsidize them and their employees while they make billions ? Wow.

 

[Dragonlady]

What I don't understand is why conservatives want to continue donating $4,000 per year of their income to subsidize these behemouths.

If your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees first and foremost, then they have no right to be in business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What I don't understand is why conservatives want to continue donating $4,000 per year of their income to subsidize these behemouths.

If your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees first and foremost, then they have no right to be in business.

And who made those rights, you?

A business has the right to be open provided it meets government and safety standards, and that they have customers willing to deal with them. That's all a business has to do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. Ok, for how long should a person doing a job be paid that minimum wage per hour ? You say need more money, get a better job right, but I say is there no raises from the 10 per hour ever ? What about companies that want to exploit their labor forces, and therefore they do this by trying not to give them a raise (profit sharing), and therefore they are attempting to work people by their mentalities, instead of working them by what they bring to the table as a whole person ? Then what about when a corporation does such a thing, and then turns to the government to help the employees it is screwing over ? Talk about profiting in everyway possible, and then having the taxpayer subsidize them and their employees while they make billions ? Wow.

A person is paid minimum wage as long as they are willing to work there.

A lot of people don't see cost of living raises or any other kind of raise. it's not exclusive to anybody really. It's just part of working for somebody else.

 

[Dragonlady]

A person is paid minimum wage as long as they are willing to work there.

A lot of people don't see cost of living raises or any other kind of raise. it's not exclusive to anybody really. It's just part of working for somebody else.

The the government needs to periodically raise the minimum wage so these people don't fall further behind. But earned income credits need to be scrapped. Increasing the minimum wage is a far more cost efficient way of getting money into the hands of the working poor, since it doesn't have to be paid to the government first, processed, filtered through qualifying criteria, and sent back to the recipients. Cutting the ridiculous subsidies would substantially reduce the size of government.

Realistically, such raises would only cost the employer $0.65 for each additional dollar paid, because the increased wages are a tax deduction to the employer. If the employer pays 35% income tax, then the resultant reduction in profits won't be subject to income tax, thereby reducing the company's tax burden, but more importantly, reducing the cost of such raises to the employer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

it is funny how little you understand economics. You still seem to think trickle down works. Sad.

I said nothing about trickle down. You're just trying to change the subject.

What I said is (using your example) that the rich have nothing to do with the poor not being able to eat at the restaurant. If people can't afford to eat at this restaurant, it's because they didn't earn enough money to eat there. It has nothing to do with inequity.

Your one link you posted claimed we were just waiting for trickle down.

See you don't even understand simple examples.

I've used very simple examples, posted several studies supporting what I am saying, posted economists explaining why... You choose to ignore the facts.

No, I pointed to the only facts that make a difference whether the restaurant stays open or not.

Your restaurant cannot stay open because poorer people don't have enough money to dine there. So our government takes all the money away from millionaires and billionaires. Does the restaurant now remain open? Will more poor people eat there now that the rich don't have any money either?

"The fact there is lots of inequality and only the one guy can afford to eat at the restaurant means the restaurant fails. That is why too much inequality slows an economy. The restaurant needs lots of people who can afford to eat out. "

Then the solution is to take money from those who have it and give it to those that don't, right? This is what you are getting at (but don't want to admit it) that in order to solve this problem, we need massive wealth redistribution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The the government needs to periodically raise the minimum wage so these people don't fall further behind. But earned income credits need to be scrapped. Increasing the minimum wage is a far more cost efficient way of getting money into the hands of the working poor, since it doesn't have to be paid to the government first, processed, filtered through qualifying criteria, and sent back to the recipients. Cutting the ridiculous subsidies would substantially reduce the size of government.

Realistically, such raises would only cost the employer $0.65 for each additional dollar paid, because the increased wages are a tax deduction to the employer. If the employer pays 35% income tax, then the resultant reduction in profits won't be subject to income tax, thereby reducing the company's tax burden, but more importantly, reducing the cost of such raises to the employer.

You have it so ass backwards you don't even know it.

First of all, you have to understand what a tax write-off is. I do because I'm a landlord and have to deal with it every year at tax time.

If I spend ten dollars and write it off on my taxes, that does not mean that government gives me that ten dollars back. It means I still spent the ten bucks, but I don't have to pay taxes on that ten bucks. So in reality, the only thing I get to save is a buck or so because that's what I would have had to pay in taxes had I not spent that money on a tax deductible item.

Secondly, since we are talking about Walmart: Let's say that Walmart (under pressure from consumers or forced minimum wage increase) has to pay each worker $2.00 per hour more. In a 40 hour week, that's $80.00. In a month, that's about an extra $400.00 each and every month. But wait? I that all it cost Walmart?

Not at all, because when Walmart increases wages, there are many other times that cost the employer money.

More pay equals higher unemployment insurance since if a employee lost his job, the payout would be higher because the employee makes more money. Workman's compensation. That's a huge increase to an employer because again, the payout for an injured worker is higher now that he makes more money. Vacation pay. Vacation pay is usually based on a 40 hour week. It's money your employer pays you, but does not get any work in return. It's just lost money. Now that's a larger cost because of the raise. Social Security. Your employer (by law) has to match your social security contributions as a worker. If you pay $250.00 per month in SS contributions, your employer must also pay $250.00 on your behalf. Medicare. Works the same exact way as SS. Your employer has to match your monthly Medicare contributions. Now that too is higher thank to the increase pay.

So you see, it costs an employer a lot of money to give you a large increase in pay.

 

[JoeB131]

We not are being beaten by anybody. We are being beaten by ourselves. For instance, when the Libtards protects our greedy unions and the unions run up the cost of goods and services then it is no wonder we can compete in a world economy.

Except- again- The Germans and Japanese have STRONGER unions than we do. They have higher taxation rates on the rich, they have stronger environmental regulations than we do.

Even more socialistic Ireland knows that it is better to have a low corporate tax rate than the US and because of that it is causing American corporations to relocate there.

Uh, guy, Ireland is a country in Europe that is constantly in trouble economically. It's up there with Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain as one of the PIGS. If it didn't have tourism from the US and UK to prop it up, it would be in even worse shape. so bad example, really.

Hong Kong is the economic model that works. Very little government interference in the free market and the result is tremendous economic growth, economic freedom and wealth creation. We use to be more like that and because of it the relatively more capitalistic US had twice the post WWII economic growth rate of the more socialistic European countries.

Hong Kong is in great shape because the British spent 100 years building it up as an economic conduit into China. So another poor example.

Nowadays due to the fact that the combined cost of government in this country is 40% of the GDP and we have have millions of pages of regulations and we have high taxation we can't even achieve 3% annual economic growth and the poverty rate is creasing. Big government has been a failure at producing jobs in this country and we need to stop it.

That's not true, either. As a matter of fact, as a Percentage of GDP spending, the US is on the LOW end. Most industrialized countries spend MORE than 40% of GDP on the public sector, and they are better off for it.

 

[JoeB131]

My suburb is over 70% black. How about yours?

I agree- it explains your racism. You hate your neighbors.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree- it explains your racism. You hate your neighbors.

And you must love them since you live as far away from them as your money allows.

 

[Brain357]

it is funny how little you understand economics. You still seem to think trickle down works. Sad.

I said nothing about trickle down. You're just trying to change the subject.

What I said is (using your example) that the rich have nothing to do with the poor not being able to eat at the restaurant. If people can't afford to eat at this restaurant, it's because they didn't earn enough money to eat there. It has nothing to do with inequity.

Your one link you posted claimed we were just waiting for trickle down.

See you don't even understand simple examples.

I've used very simple examples, posted several studies supporting what I am saying, posted economists explaining why... You choose to ignore the facts.

No, I pointed to the only facts that make a difference whether the restaurant stays open or not.

Your restaurant cannot stay open because poorer people don't have enough money to dine there. So our government takes all the money away from millionaires and billionaires. Does the restaurant now remain open? Will more poor people eat there now that the rich don't have any money either?

"The fact there is lots of inequality and only the one guy can afford to eat at the restaurant means the restaurant fails. That is why too much inequality slows an economy. The restaurant needs lots of people who can afford to eat out. "

Then the solution is to take money from those who have it and give it to those that don't, right? This is what you are getting at (but don't want to admit it) that in order to solve this problem, we need massive wealth redistribution.

Gosh you babble stupidly. Is your only defense making things up? The fact is too much inequality slows the economy. In our little example the restaurant goes out of business. What we need to do obviously is raise up the poor. How to do that is up for debate. One thing I would do was already mentioned. But rather than give corporations tax breaks you prefer the government continues to grow and tax payers subsidize the employees of billionaires. Your thinking is why the repubs do nothing. All they believe is wrong and damaging to the economy.

 

[Dragonlady]

No, I pointed to the only facts that make a difference whether the restaurant stays open or not.

Your restaurant cannot stay open because poorer people don't have enough money to dine there. So our government takes all the money away from millionaires and billionaires. Does the restaurant now remain open? Will more poor people eat there now that the rich don't have any money either?

"The fact there is lots of inequality and only the one guy can afford to eat at the restaurant means the restaurant fails. That is why too much inequality slows an economy. The restaurant needs lots of people who can afford to eat out. "

Then the solution is to take money from those who have it and give it to those that don't, right? This is what you are getting at (but don't want to admit it) that in order to solve this problem, we need massive wealth redistribution.

We're saying STOP taking money from the middle class and using it to subsidize those working for the 1%, whose wages have risen by over 200% since 1980. Raising the minimum wage would do that and give people who haven't had a real raise since Reagan came into office. The income of those who have taken more than their fair share of the profits, will go down, but their wealth won't. But by raising taxes on the 1% so they pay the same percentages as their workers, they won't get to keep as much in future.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We're saying STOP taking money from the middle class and using it to subsidize those working for the 1%, whose wages have risen by over 200% since 1980. Raising the minimum wage would do that and give people who haven't had a real raise since Reagan came into office. The income of those who have taken more than their fair share of the profits, will go down, but their wealth won't. But by raising taxes on the 1% so they pay the same percentages as their workers, they won't get to keep as much in future.

Again, government forced wealth redistribution.

Working people don't "subsidize" anybody. That's the way companies divide THEIR wealth that THEY created. All companies seek is to be the most profitable, and that takes talent at the top--not the bottom, because anybody at the bottom can do those jobs. Nobody at the bottom can attract investors to the company nor make it expand.

There is this fallacy that leftists believe whereas if you take money from the top, they just dig deeper into their pockets and do with less. That's never happened before and it won't happen in the future. When you take money from the top, they recoup that money in other ways.

They may cut healthcare benefits or make employees pay more towards it. They may increase the cost of their product or service which of course gets passed on to us. They may just move some or all operations overseas. They may make investments in automation as many companies have already. But they will do something, and those at the top won't suffer one bit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gosh you babble stupidly. Is your only defense making things up? The fact is too much inequality slows the economy. In our little example the restaurant goes out of business. What we need to do obviously is raise up the poor. How to do that is up for debate. One thing I would do was already mentioned. But rather than give corporations tax breaks you prefer the government continues to grow and tax payers subsidize the employees of billionaires. Your thinking is why the repubs do nothing. All they believe is wrong and damaging to the economy.

I don't know how many times I've had to explain this:

If the restaurant goes out of business, it's because the poor people can't afford to dine there. It has nothing to do with millionaires or those who have more. It has to do with people not bringing in enough income which has nothing to do with wealthy people. Income inequity means that the wealthy have too much and the non-wealthy have too little. The restaurant going out of business has nothing to do with how much the wealthy have. It has to do with the non-wealthy having too little which can only be solved by those who have too little--not the wealthy.

Government subsidizing workers is the call of the government--not companies. Companies don't care how their workers make ends meet. Government optionally offers those people goodies if they work less hours or don't make anything of themselves. It's a reward government gives to people that choose the life of being losers.

Now if you want to solve that problem, the solution is not forcing companies to pay more. The solution is to drastically cut social programs. Because if you cut social programs, people will be forced to better themselves one way or another. They will have to work more hours, get a second job, quit making irresponsible decisions like having children they can't afford. Getting an education so they don't have to work minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives. Learning a valuable trade or skill.

That's how you solve the problem, and in doing so, it will keep that restaurant open.

 

[Dragonlady]

Again, government forced wealth redistribution.

Working people don't "subsidize" anybody. That's the way companies divide THEIR wealth that THEY created. All companies seek is to be the most profitable, and that takes talent at the top--not the bottom, because anybody at the bottom can do those jobs. Nobody at the bottom can attract investors to the company nor make it expand.

There is this fallacy that leftists believe whereas if you take money from the top, they just dig deeper into their pockets and do with less. That's never happened before and it won't happen in the future. When you take money from the top, they recoup that money in other ways.

They may cut healthcare benefits or make employees pay more towards it. They may increase the cost of their product or service which of course gets passed on to us. They may just move some or all operations overseas. They may make investments in automation as many companies have already. But they will do something, and those at the top won't suffer one bit.

No, that's where you're wrong. Taking money from the middle class to subsidize the wages of the poor is forced wealth redistribution, and it's redistributing that wealth upward, to the 1%. The result is our stagnant economy because the rich aren't spending, they're not investing in new jobs at home, because there is minimal growth at home. The American consumer has no savings, and no income to buy their goods. They are now working on markets in developing economies, where new money means new markets.

Companies are facing higher costs for everything but labour. Any increase in wages goes to the top. The domestic economy cannot maintain it's growth without a healthy and vibrant middle class.

Corporate America has bled the working class white. They have no savings and they're barely getting by after 30 years with no real increase in wages. Now they're doing the same thing to the middle class.

When workers are no longer receiving earned income credits, and have more money, there is plenty of pent up consumer demand for goods and services, which will boost sales and create jobs, but without sufficient income at the bottom to provide basic living expenses, the economy will not improve.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, government forced wealth redistribution.

Working people don't "subsidize" anybody. That's the way companies divide THEIR wealth that THEY created. All companies seek is to be the most profitable, and that takes talent at the top--not the bottom, because anybody at the bottom can do those jobs. Nobody at the bottom can attract investors to the company nor make it expand.

There is this fallacy that leftists believe whereas if you take money from the top, they just dig deeper into their pockets and do with less. That's never happened before and it won't happen in the future. When you take money from the top, they recoup that money in other ways.

They may cut healthcare benefits or make employees pay more towards it. They may increase the cost of their product or service which of course gets passed on to us. They may just move some or all operations overseas. They may make investments in automation as many companies have already. But they will do something, and those at the top won't suffer one bit.

No, that's where you're wrong. Taking money from the middle class to subsidize the wages of the poor is forced wealth redistribution, and it's redistributing that wealth upward, to the 1%. The result is our stagnant economy because the rich aren't spending, they're not investing in new jobs at home, because there is minimal growth at home. The American consumer has no savings, and no income to buy their goods. They are now working on markets in developing economies, where new money means new markets.

Companies are facing higher costs for everything but labour. Any increase in wages goes to the top. The domestic economy cannot maintain it's growth without a healthy and vibrant middle class.

Corporate America has bled the working class white. They have no savings and they're barely getting by after 30 years with no real increase in wages. Now they're doing the same thing to the middle class.

When workers are no longer receiving earned income credits, and have more money, there is plenty of pent up consumer demand for goods and services, which will boost sales and create jobs, but without sufficient income at the bottom to provide basic living expenses, the economy will not improve.

Wrong.

There are several reasons those at the bottom don't have enough.

One of course is social programs. It's like Rush has always said "When you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't." Today we have over 1/3 of our working age population not working nor looking for a job. When you have 93 million people not working, of course you're going to have income inequity. How can you not?????

The only people taking middle-class money to subsidize the poor are the Democrats. Stop doing it now! Vote Republican and cut down on these government goodies forcing people to work and better themselves. Walmart doesn't put people on government programs--Democrats put people on government programs.

Build that damn wall and stop immigration legal and illegal. Create a law that says anybody caught here illegally after September 30th will face a minimum of five years in prison. Those illegals who have our jobs now will flee back to their own countries. That will create a huge shortage of workers which the only solution will be to increase salary offers to potential American workers.

 

[Dragonlady]

We're not talking about the unemployed. We're talking about people who have a full time job or multiple part time jobs, which pay minimum wage, which has not been increased since Clinton was in power.

I just said to cancel earned income credits and have employers assume the subsidies currently being paid by American taxpayers. That would reduce welfare for the 47%, down to 14%. These large corporations have the profits to support their own workers and should not expect taxpayers do it.

Food stamps too should be cancelled as well. This has to be the most expensive program to manage because it duplicates the states' work in deciding welfare eligibility, but is paid federally. The average benefit is less than $150.00 a month. I seriously wonder how much it actually costs each month to pay out this amount, given the convoluted manner in which it's paid. This will not only reduce welfare, but also the size of government.

You have 5,000,000 jobs which are going unfilled, because workers lack the skills. Teach them the skills, pay them while they're learning. Solve two problems at once.

There are lots of ways of reducing the need for wage subsidies, none of which involve giving full time workers one cent of middle class taxpayers' money. Make the corporations pay their own damn workers.