Posted on 04/14/2017 4:58:53 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
Wages: It's tax season, which means that union groups are once again out in force claiming that because Wal-Mart (WMT) doesn't pay its workers enough, taxpayers are forced to make up the difference. This is, to put it politely, pure poppycock.
The latest to make this claim is Lonnie Sheppard of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, who says that "every American taxpayer is paying a tax they never heard of: the Wal-Mart Tax."
"What is the Wal-Mart Tax?" Sheppard asks. Wal-Mart pays so little that "thousands of Wal-Mart employees are forced to rely on public assistance programs like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing. Programs funded by American taxpayers."
Sheppard goes on to write that "According to a 2014 report by Americans for Tax Fairness, Wal-Mart receives an estimated $6.2 billion in subsidies every year, primarily from the Federal Government." If Wal-Mart would only pay its workers more, the argument goes, taxpayers would save all this money.
USA Today's editors apparently didn't bother to look into that ATF report before publishing this piece, so we did. The ATF — a coalition of union and liberal advocacy groups — based its findings on a 2013 report written by Democrats on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. In other words, none of these sources is objective by any means.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Not a myth: IBD pimps its own columns here and FR contributors finance its advertising.
So, let me get this straight: IBD has no real numbers to refute this but writes an op ed on how the fudged numbers are proven to be fudged by fudging the numbers?
Got it!
People have to eat. I see nothing wrong with excerpts.
Fact: People come to FR to get information. FR gets most of its information for free from other sources.
Nothing wrong with that.
So, how many workers at Target are getting government health-care?! What about Walgreens, CVS, Big Lots, Home Depot, Lows, and the neighborhood barbershops in thousands of Locations?!
They write great articles. What’s your beef?
I’ve never heard of this complaint. Thanks for posting.
We have a 100 times as many pimps for the NYtimes, LAtimes, and WAPO on this site. The old media is our #1 enemy. IBD is one of our friends in the new media. Why slander them?
Buy local; bank local. As suggested by the great Gerald Celente many years ago.
That alone will rectify a whole host of problems right there.
To the extent that anyone can, they should shun anyone but the mom-and-pop stores and local establishments - keep the money and influence in your own community.
There ARE things we, as individuals, can do to make a difference.
Agree. Selling products for less, benefits millions of Americans. Let us remember when one of the first large union movement took us into WWII. It was called The National Socialist German Workers Party.
Hmmmm, I thought that every American taxpayer is paying a tax they never heard of: The Union Thug Boss Prog Socialist DemoRat Illegal Campaign Contribution Money Laundering Union Dues Scheme Tax.
Minimum wage isn’t the solution.
Inflation eating away everyone’s purchasing power, massive debt levels, and Management’s continued preference for feathering the nests of executives aren’t resolved by that.
According to my Walmartian friends, who are legion, the problem is not low wages. It’s not enough work hours.
Walmart is an excellent employment in some ways. Associates get training that is constantly updated, and they get an assoociate discount on most items. They get regular bonuses, four times a year.
But they have to format their hours of availability, giving Walmart a window of available hours they’ll work. For example, you might tell Walmart you’ll only be available for shifts assigned between 7am and 10pm on all but two days a week that you won’t be available at all. Then, Walmart assigns you something well under 40 hours a week within the parameters you set. And then — it’s always changing. One week you’ll work some 3 days of the 5, another week it’ll be 3 different days. Or four or two. Same thing with the hours, you never know which 8 out of the 15 you’ve set, or which 4 out of those 15, they’ll schedule you to work. And if you try narrowing down the availability they tell you you’ll get considerably fewer hours assigned. The more you try to regularize or pin them down, the less work you get.
And you can’t even dream of getting a second job because the Walmart schedule is all over the place.
So you have, generally speaking, between 25 and 30 hours a week. Some weeks, less, you don’t know beyond two weeks or so in advance. They won’t hear of extending it to 40 because that means additional benefits, their bottom line is best with part-time associates. 25-30 hrs a week @ $8 or $9 net. Most people can’t get by on that.
They can look to the govt to supplement...or if they’re smart they can look at Walmart as a supplement, something they do on 2 days a week (IF Walmart calls them in at all) in addition to their regular job.
“””And you can’t even dream of getting a second job because the Walmart schedule is all over the place.””””
Which is exactly why they do that.
The article does not go far enough in refuting the Democrats “report” on “Walmart subsidies”.
Two factors help determine any size of how many Walmart employees might be on Medicaid. The first is Walmart’s huge size - one of the largest employers in Wisconsin (where the “study” was done). The second is a condition relative to the entire retail industry - the sorts of people that take retail jobs.
Ignored in the “study” is the fact that many retail workers in any retail company who might be on Medicaid can be part time workers supplementing a household income that qualifies for Medicaid, and not career full time employees.
Ignored and not even looked at in the study was the rate, in Wisconsin, of “retail workers” altogether who were also on Medicaid. Is Walmart an outlier in that? No.
The myth the economic ignorant have been indoctrinated to think is that great revenue size is a bigger factor than rate of profit as to what any employer can afford. It assumes, wrongly, that Walmart’s massive revenue means it could afford to get away with paying massive salaries. It can’t.
Walmart, Costco, Amazon all have annual net revenue of less than 3 cents per dollar of gross revenue (2.8, 1.9, 1.6 respectively). Target’s latest is just over 3 cents on the dollar.
Retail is low paying because regardless of size of revenue profit margins are not high.
Jobs provided by Walmart include benefits. I don’t see the cost of those addressed, nor the benefit of them.
Perhaps, but +20% of Wal-Marts food sales on on EBT cards or "food stamps". That's a form of corporate welfare.
They are some the largest recipients of EBT card monies. I bet if I go look I can find them loving to support policies expanding and enlarging the program. Keep supporting China buy Walmart
Sigh. WM is a retail store, thus MOST of the jobs they provide are low skilled labor (cashier, stocker, etc.). If someone is trying to support a family on a cashier job, that is the problem. Move up or move out to a better paying job.
And the second problem is that the threshold for government benefits decreased under the zero administration so that more working people could be added to the rolls. So if you are working and getting free welfare, what is the incentive to improve yourself so that you do move up or out to a better paying job? None. So people stay in their medicaid/welfare supported part time cashier job and whine.
It took a few words but you did get to the important ones, Union Dues Scheme Tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.