PDA

View Full Version : 1 Walmart in Wisconsin cost taxpayers $900k from providing social safety net programs



Cigar
06-03-2013, 11:09 AM
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130603-todays-big-number.jpg


One Walmart's Low Wages Could Cost Taxpayers $900,000 Per Year, House Dems Find

Walmart wages are so low that many of its workers rely on food stamps and other government aid programs to fulfill their basic needs, a reality that could cost taxpayers as much as $900,000 at just one Walmart Supercenter in Wisconsin, according to a study released by Congressional Democrats on Thursday.

Though the study assumes that most workers who qualify for the public assistance programs do take advantage of them, it injects a potent data point into a national debate about the minimum wage at a time when many Walmart and fast food workers are mounting strikes in pursuit of higher wages.

The study uses Medicaid data released in Wisconsin to piece together the annual cost to taxpayers for providing a host of social safety net programs, including food stamps and publicly subsidized health care, to workers at one Supercenter in the state.

According to the report, Walmart had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in the last quarter of last year than any other employer, with 3,216 people enrolled. When the dependents of those workers were factored in, the number of enrollees came to 9,207.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html

:wink:

Chris
06-03-2013, 11:15 AM
"Could" Read closer.

jillian
06-03-2013, 11:18 AM
"Could" Read closer.

so you disagree that society is going to have to bear the cost, in one way or another, of walmart's refusal to pay a living wage?

if my memory serves, and i believe it does, walmart is the second largest employer in the country after the government. i'd say the question is a significant one.

Cigar
06-03-2013, 11:21 AM
Warning: Hair Trigger Defense System Activated

jillian
06-03-2013, 11:22 AM
Warning: Hair Trigger Defense System Activated

yes, i'll be looking for the ad hom and strawman meme any second now.

Mainecoons
06-03-2013, 11:22 AM
And what does that WalMart and its employees pay in taxes?

Come back when you have the answer.

Chris
06-03-2013, 11:25 AM
so you disagree that society is going to have to bear the cost, in one way or another, of walmart's refusal to pay a living wage?

if my memory serves, and i believe it does, walmart is the second largest employer in the country after the government. i'd say the question is a significant one.

I reject any cause and effect between the two. Walmart doesn't force society to become a welfare state.

And, yes, this is being used to promote a minimum wage increase. Raising the minimum wage though only serves to harm the poorest.

Chris
06-03-2013, 11:25 AM
yes, i'll be looking for the ad hom and strawman meme any second now.

Don't engage in logical fallacies and I won't point them out. Simple, isn't it.

Chris
06-03-2013, 11:26 AM
Warning: Hair Trigger Defense System Activated

It's called opposition. I don't wear jack boots.

Cigar
06-03-2013, 11:26 AM
And what does that WalMart and its employees pay in taxes?

Come back when you have the answer.

Since "you" brought it up, indulge us oh Internet Tax Expert :laugh:

Chris
06-03-2013, 11:37 AM
$7.1 billion in income taxes in 2010, cigar.

@ http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html

Mainecoons
06-03-2013, 11:41 AM
No answer, eh? Why am I not surprised?

As usual, you have posted a "lying by omission" thread since you left out what the store and its employees pay in taxes. So would you care to finish the job or, as usual, you can't do anything beyond your elementary half-assed threads and cartoons?

Should be easy for a self-professed "math expert."

$7.1 in corporate taxes, there's your starting point. Now come up with the property and income taxes.

We're waiting.

Chris
06-03-2013, 11:59 AM
And we should not omit as well that Walmart's cutting costs results in lower prices benefitting any consumer who shops there.

jillian
06-03-2013, 12:10 PM
And we should not omit as well that Walmart's cutting costs results in lower prices benefitting any consumer who shops there.

for 10 cents more a product, walmart would be able to provide health coverage and a living wage to its workers b/c of the huge volume sold.

but they intentionally drive down prices, which requires that people work for lower wages to make those products...

not to mention them being outsourced

they are destroying the US standard of living...

so you can save ten cents on a barbie doll.

Cigar
06-03-2013, 12:12 PM
No answer, eh? Why am I not surprised?

As usual, you have posted a "lying by omission" thread since you left out what the store and its employees pay in taxes. So would you care to finish the job or, as usual, you can't do anything beyond your elementary half-assed threads and cartoons?

Should be easy for a self-professed "math expert."

$7.1 in corporate taxes, there's your starting point. Now come up with the property and income taxes.

We're waiting.

Actually ... some of us work.

If anyone I employed was paid enough to clear a livable wage and requited "your-taxes" to live, that would reflect on me. Regardless of the amount of taxes my business and I pay.

Are you expecting a Thank-You Card :)

Chris
06-03-2013, 12:14 PM
for 10 cents more a product, walmart would be able to provide health coverage and a living wage to its workers b/c of the huge volume sold.

but they intentionally drive down prices, which requires that people work for lower wages to make those products...

not to mention them being outsourced

they are destroying the US standard of living...

so you can save ten cents on a barbie doll.

Perhaps it could but it chooses not to.


but they intentionally drive down prices

And that is a bad thing?


they are destroying the US standard of living...

Perhaps your socialist vision of America, not a free market vision.


so you can save ten cents on a barbie doll

Not accurate--where do you get your facts?


Columbus-based retail expert Chris Boring of Boulevard Strategies, said Walmart, as advertised, offers products at low prices in a one-stop shopping environment.

"From a consumer standpoint, Walmart has more choices and choices that are close to home so they don't have to drive as far," he said, noting that the store offers lower prices on brand-name products. It also stocks its own line, providing for more choices.

In their study, "The Local Costs and Benefits of Walmart," faculty members Elena Irwin and Jill Clark of The Ohio State University's Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics agree.

"Consumers from the local and neighboring communities enjoy tremendous benefits from access to a Walmart store," the report said, citing studies that found Walmart boasts average prices that are 14 percent lower than those charged by its competitors.

A Walmart can also affect prices at competing businesses, the study found, pushing prices at those businesses down by 7 to 13 percent in the long term.

"It's certainly true that Walmart offers low prices. That's how we built our company. And having a Walmart in the area tends to bring competition and lower prices," Wertz said, noting the company's $4 prescription program.

"When we introduced that immediately, other pharmacies came out with other programs," he said. "If Walmart had not done that, prices would not have been dropped."

According to Wertz, Walmart thrives on competition and customers win....

@ Experts say Walmart delivers both positives, negatives (http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/2011/10/02/2-Experts-say-Walmart-delivers-both-positives-negatives.html)

Mainecoons
06-03-2013, 12:21 PM
So, if this thread was really about the true cost of a Walmart, it would have included both the taxes paid by the store and its employees, the sales taxes generated by the store, the property tax generated by the store, the cost savings accruing to its customers, and the share of the corporate taxes attributable to this store.

Instead, as per usual for Cigar and his liberal fellow travelers, they leave out all the parts that blow their case up and focus on one aspect only.

OK, just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Micketto
06-03-2013, 12:34 PM
I'm with you, Cigar.... Walmart should pay a "living wage" (we'll let the left determine what that should be, or they can just keep being vague about it)...
and then lay off the millions they can't afford to keep.

Apparently Food Stamps + working income.... isn't as good as just Food Stamps.

Micketto
06-03-2013, 12:37 PM
Actually ... some of us work.

Yeah, some... but a lot less than before.

2838

Mister D
06-03-2013, 12:38 PM
Oh no! He went there!
Cigar si se puede! :laugh:

ptif219
06-03-2013, 12:57 PM
so you disagree that society is going to have to bear the cost, in one way or another, of walmart's refusal to pay a living wage?

if my memory serves, and i believe it does, walmart is the second largest employer in the country after the government. i'd say the question is a significant one.

What about the government?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-07/business/39092313_1_low-wage-workers-demos-wal-mart

jillian
06-03-2013, 01:01 PM
What about the government?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-07/business/39092313_1_low-wage-workers-demos-wal-mart

what about it?

ptif219
06-03-2013, 01:05 PM
what about it?

So you complain about WalMart yet you when it is even more in the government you don't care. More hypocrisy and double standards from the left

Chris
06-03-2013, 01:09 PM
What about the government?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-07/business/39092313_1_low-wage-workers-demos-wal-mart

Great find!! The government employ more low-wage earners than Walmart and McDs combined.

Silence on that is deafening.

Mainecoons
06-03-2013, 01:10 PM
The report from a public policy organization Demos, set to be released Wednesday, estimates that taxpayer dollars fund nearly 2 million private-sector jobs that pay $24,000 a year — about $12 an hour — or less. Those workers owe their incomes to government contracts, Medicare and Medicaid spending, and federal infrastructure funds, among other public sources. In contrast, Demos estimates that about 1.4 million workers earn that amount or less at Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, which are two of the largest employers of low-wage workers.

It's OK, Obama is in the White House.

:rofl:

Cigar
06-03-2013, 01:18 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen ... we finally got the Right to admit in writing that the Government should insist on higher wages, especially for Government Contracts.

Hallelujah ... it's a Glorious Day on The Political Forum.
:boozing:
... well folks ... it's been real ... but it's off to The Napa Valley Jazz Getaway http://napavalleyjazzgetaway2013.com/

Please ... whatever you do, don't go anywhere until I get back next Tuesday, :smiley_ROFLMAO:

ptif219
06-03-2013, 01:19 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen ... we finally got the Right to admit in writing that the Government should insist on higher wages, especially for Government Contracts.

Hallelujah ... it's a Glorious Day on The Political Forum.
:boozing:
... well folks ... it's been real ... but it's off to The Napa Valley Jazz Getaway http://napavalleyjazzgetaway2013.com/

Please ... whatever you do, don't go anywhere until I get back next Tuesday, :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Nobody said that except you

Chris
06-03-2013, 01:23 PM
Your God, the State, cigar, is the wrong God to celibrate.

Micketto
06-03-2013, 01:43 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen ... we finally got the Right to admit in writing that the Government should insist on higher wages, especially for Government Contracts.

Hallelujah ... it's a Glorious Day on The Political Forum.
:boozing:
... well folks ... it's been real ... but it's off to The Napa Valley Jazz Getaway http://napavalleyjazzgetaway2013.com/

Please ... whatever you do, don't go anywhere until I get back next Tuesday, :smiley_ROFLMAO:


Is this like last Friday when you were leaving to go golfing..... and then posted the entire rest of the day ?


If true... then have a good time... and you and the boys earn a lot of dough!

2840

patrickt
06-03-2013, 02:50 PM
so you disagree that society is going to have to bear the cost, in one way or another, of walmart's refusal to pay a living wage?

if my memory serves, and i believe it does, walmart is the second largest employer in the country after the government. i'd say the question is a significant one.

Of course. There is no such thing as your mythical "living wage" but it is nice rhetoric. When most of my friends on the left were ranting about WalMart I took a morning and went to the nearest WalMart. I was waiting when they opened. I went in and bought a few things I needed but mostly I strolled around and chatted with employees.

Most of the employees were middle-aged divorced women, high school graduates, with children and WalMart was their first full-time job. These were women at the bottom of the list for hiring. And, instead of standing around whining like liberals they were all upbeat. Every one had a story about a friend or colleague who had moved up in WalMart or moved out and up in a different organization. They saw WalMart as a foot in the door, a way to build a resume, a way to demonstrate their ability as a dependable employee.

I chatted with two young men with Downs Syndrome. One said, "The only other place that would even talk to me was Smith's Market." I realize liberals would much rather have this young man on welfare but he was proud of what he was doing and I was proud of him.

Now, here's the real news story for liberals. WalMart "could" be offering people a way off of welfare. Lord knows, the government doesn't want to do that and won't.

Dr. Who
06-03-2013, 06:21 PM
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/130603-todays-big-number.jpg

One Walmart's Low Wages Could Cost Taxpayers $900,000 Per Year, House Dems Find

Walmart wages are so low that many of its workers rely on food stamps and other government aid programs to fulfill their basic needs, a reality that could cost taxpayers as much as $900,000 at just one Walmart Supercenter in Wisconsin, according to a study released by Congressional Democrats on Thursday.

Though the study assumes that most workers who qualify for the public assistance programs do take advantage of them, it injects a potent data point into a national debate about the minimum wage at a time when many Walmart and fast food workers are mounting strikes in pursuit of higher wages.

The study uses Medicaid data released in Wisconsin to piece together the annual cost to taxpayers for providing a host of social safety net programs, including food stamps and publicly subsidized health care, to workers at one Supercenter in the state.

According to the report, Walmart had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in the last quarter of last year than any other employer, with 3,216 people enrolled. When the dependents of those workers were factored in, the number of enrollees came to 9,207.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html

:wink:

Cigar, are there any statistics on businesses displaced by Wallmart and what employment those businesses provided before Wallmart? I think it is a fair question. If Wallmart took away decent paying jobs and replaced them with Mcjobs, then Wallmart is the villain. If Wallmart simply entered a market where no jobs were otherwise lost, then Wallmart did not cause a problem, as those people were otherwise unemployed.

Chris
06-03-2013, 06:44 PM
Cigar, are there any statistics on businesses displaced by Wallmart and what employment those businesses provided before Wallmart? I think it is a fair question. If Wallmart took away decent paying jobs and replaced them with Mcjobs, then Wallmart is the villain. If Wallmart simply entered a market where no jobs were otherwise lost, then Wallmart did not cause a problem, as those people were otherwise unemployed.

Except none of that is true, Who, according to the study reported @ Experts say Walmart delivers both positives, negatives (http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/2011/10/02/2-Experts-say-Walmart-delivers-both-positives-negatives.html).

I reported this on page one of this thread, you must've missed it.

lynn
06-03-2013, 07:14 PM
Walmart employees in Wisconsin will soon be losing their coverage through Medicaid. The state is changing their poverty limit to 100% from 200%.

Dr. Who
06-03-2013, 07:18 PM
Except none of that is true, Who, according to the study reported @ Experts say Walmart delivers both positives, negatives (http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/2011/10/02/2-Experts-say-Walmart-delivers-both-positives-negatives.html).

I reported this on page one of this thread, you must've missed it. Your article does say this, but doesn't provide details:
"It also found that while jobs in an area may initially increase with the opening of a Walmart, the number of jobs in the area eventually decreases and Walmart often displaces other retail workers." So, this would seem to indicate that overall employment is negatively affected by Walmart.

ptif219
06-03-2013, 08:44 PM
Walmart employees in Wisconsin will soon be losing their coverage through Medicaid. The state is changing their poverty limit to 100% from 200%.

Next you will say that has nothing to do with Obamacare

ptif219
06-03-2013, 08:46 PM
Your article does say this, but doesn't provide details:
"It also found that while jobs in an area may initially increase with the opening of a Walmart, the number of jobs in the area eventually decreases and Walmart often displaces other retail workers." So, this would seem to indicate that overall employment is negatively affected by Walmart.

or it has to do with Obama failed policies that keeps the economy weak and unemployment high

lynn
06-03-2013, 09:27 PM
Next you will say that has nothing to do with Obamacare

Excuse me, that is why they are decreasing it.

Micketto
06-04-2013, 01:28 PM
Cigar, are there any statistics on businesses displaced by Wallmart and what employment those businesses provided before Wallmart? I think it is a fair question. If Wallmart took away decent paying jobs and replaced them with Mcjobs, then Wallmart is the villain. If Wallmart simply entered a market where no jobs were otherwise lost, then Wallmart did not cause a problem, as those people were otherwise unemployed.

I'm no fan of Walmart but even I would take their side against stupid comments like this one.

You are calling Walmart a villain..... for not avoiding opening business where other businesses already existed.

Unbelievable, some of the retarded excuses the left will come up with in order to put blame on big business.

Dr. Who
06-04-2013, 05:01 PM
I'm no fan of Walmart but even I would take their side against stupid comments like this one.

You are calling Walmart a villain..... for not avoiding opening business where other businesses already existed.

Unbelievable, some of the retarded excuses the left will come up with in order to put blame on big business.

I asked a fair question Micketto - one where the statistics would either support the contention of the right OR confirm the position of the left. If you would set your bias aside for a moment you would be able to read more than just the parts you expect to see. Walmart would only be a "villain" if they killed well paying employment in existing, thriving businesses, in favor of providing poor paying employment. If they simply came into a market and brought jobs that didn't previously exist, then they have improved that area. If you see it otherwise, then you are not actually participating in good faith, but rather looking for a reason to slam anyone who is associated with the left. If you support small business at all, a Walmart that destroys existing small business and well paid employment is not an improvement.

lynn
06-28-2013, 10:01 PM
According to the Arizona Insurance Commission, the largest pool of insured employees through Healthnet in the state and the employer is Walmart. Go figure!

Dr. Who
06-28-2013, 10:33 PM
I reject any cause and effect between the two. Walmart doesn't force society to become a welfare state.

And, yes, this is being used to promote a minimum wage increase. Raising the minimum wage though only serves to harm the poorest.Sounds like six of one and half a dozen of the other. Raise minimum wage and possibly employ fewer people and have the remainder on full assistance or leave it alone and have the people who are working receiving some assistance. It doesn't sound to me like the total cost of assistance will change in any remarkable way. Given the cost of post secondary education and the lack of federal funding for same, the people should get used to supplementing those who can't afford to pay to at least learn a trade. And, as it turns out, there aren't enough jobs to accommodate those who have paid tens of thousands to obtain university degrees, so the country can also look forward to supporting very well educated welfare recipients.

zelmo1234
06-28-2013, 11:00 PM
Of course there is those 11 million jobs that the illegals have? That would help!

But if we keep the the taxation and regulations The Government will continue to chase away jobs, and they are running out of Money so eventurally they will be forced to provide for themselves!

But this is ahst socialisn does ot countries. The collapse when they run out of other peoples money!

Chris
06-29-2013, 08:35 AM
Sounds like six of one and half a dozen of the other. Raise minimum wage and possibly employ fewer people and have the remainder on full assistance or leave it alone and have the people who are working receiving some assistance. It doesn't sound to me like the total cost of assistance will change in any remarkable way. Given the cost of post secondary education and the lack of federal funding for same, the people should get used to supplementing those who can't afford to pay to at least learn a trade. And, as it turns out, there aren't enough jobs to accommodate those who have paid tens of thousands to obtain university degrees, so the country can also look forward to supporting very well educated welfare recipients.

So the solution is to accept government failure?

lynn
06-29-2013, 10:50 AM
Government failure began with the first NAFTA agreement signed that allowed corporations to expand overseas. I knew then this was a disaster in the making for the economy in the future. The health insurance companies took a big hit in reduction of large healthy pools of individuals that once were employed by those corporations. The government then created further damage by telling banks to give home buyer loans to people that really should have never qualified in the first place. They also knew what corporations were planning on moving during the process of the created housing bubble but still insisted banks provide home buyer loans to those people that were going to lose their job due to lay offs.

At this point, it couldn't get any worse for the remaining working population but I was wrong. Now they are making us buy health insurance when we can barely afford to put food on the table. The government gets a failing grade for ruining the economy and I feel sorry for all of the younger generations that had to pay high cost for education only to find that there are no jobs for them.

Dr. Who
06-29-2013, 11:01 AM
So the solution is to accept government failure?I'm not sure what the long term solution is. Yes people could learn trades and in the short term that would provide better employment than working in retail, but ultimately advances in IT and automation will permanently replace millions of jobs and already are. Banks are shedding jobs at an alarming rate. Why? Because those jobs are now done by computers. With payrolls now more and more on direct deposit, electronic and online banking becoming the norm and the issuance of checks generally going the way of the dodo, there is less and less reason to have bank tellers. This is a world wide phenomenon. People employed in accounting related tasks will be the next to be replaced by advances in software. I'm sure many forms of engineering will be similarly affected as will architecture. Offices are increasing going paperless, so the need for clerical staff is disappearing. This produces an increased need for IT support, but does not come close to generating the number of jobs that are being lost. So forgive my pessimism, but in the long run there will be more and more people who are either underemployed or unemployed.

Mainecoons
06-29-2013, 11:12 AM
That's not pessimism, that is realism. Good post.

Mainecoons
06-29-2013, 11:28 AM
Let me follow up with a little economic heresy that neither doctrinaire conservatives or liberals will like.

On the one hand, capital is so productive now that it is within our grasp to literally have billions of people living decently. On the other hand, labor is less and less important to the productivity of capital, hence fewer and fewer people have the means to buy the products of that capital.

The reason that capital is so successful is not because of government, it is in spite of government. The owners of capital are demonstrating that Darwin was right, they are the fittest and they are not only surviving, they are prospering. However, they sit at the top of an increasingly shaky pyramid because if the great mass of the people continue to get poorer and poorer, at some point capital will not generate wealth because there simply aren't enough buyers.

So here we are at the beginning of the 21st century, having technology that can produce so much wealth with so few hands that it is a danger to itself. The problem here is how to distribute better the ownership of capital and the income it produces so that there will be purchasing power to sustain and grow.

Government is absolutely lousy at this because so much of it is handled like reprisal and punishment "soak the evil rich" and government wastes so much and produces arrogant cadres of "workers" who feed off of everyone like rampant parasites. Employee ownership doesn't really do the job because it doesn't address the reality that there are fewer and fewer employees to own anything.

So how do you transform a society based on everyone working for a decent wage but not owning a lot of capital, to one where the wealth generated by capital is spread around such that the purchasing power needed to sustain and grow that wealth exists.

Government is a failure at this. How else might it be accomplished without killing the incentive for the capitalists to create capital?

lynn
06-29-2013, 09:40 PM
Both Dr Who and Mainecoons bring some enlightening facts of a fast changing world, I shutter at the thought that millions of people that are no longer needed will be viewed as too big of a burden to society to support. Death camps come to mind in the future for the entire globe. All life since the beginning, doesn't matter what species you are, work to contribute to the environment on so many different levels that for us to achieve this level with automation and technology that will do everything for us with little effort could very well end with our extinction.

Dr. Who
06-29-2013, 10:13 PM
Both Dr Who and Mainecoons bring some enlightening facts of a fast changing world, I shutter at the thought that millions of people that are no longer needed will be viewed as too big of a burden to society to support. Death camps come to mind in the future for the entire globe. All life since the beginning, doesn't matter what species you are, work to contribute to the environment on so many different levels that for us to achieve this level with automation and technology that will do everything for us with little effort could very well end with our extinction.I expect that long before death camps could become a reality there will be world wide civil war. No need to explain who will be the targets of the peoples of the world.