Stop Walmart Act

[OnePercenter]

The issue is stock manipulation, $4 trillion since 2009.

$4 trillion hasn’t been returned to shareholders. Sorry.

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

The Walmart seven are taking the company private. A shareholder either takes the market offer or stands the risk of their stock losing value. To pay for this, Walmart has paid their employees crap, taught their employees to live off of public assistance, and manipulated government subsidies to build stores. Once the subsidy ran out, the majority of the subsidized stores developed a nationwide plumbing problem and closed.

I think the absolute least Walmart can do is paying their employees $15.00 per hour.

The Walmart seven are taking the company private.

You're lying.

Why are they buying all of their stock back?

 

[Winston]

In your opinion it's OK for a companies employees to be a tax burden as long as the company enjoys their net profit?

I love that bullshit claim.
If WalMart fired every employee who collected "public assistance funding" would taxpayers spend more or less on "public assistance funding"?

You are looking at it wrong and you had it right with your first response. If the government eliminated that assistance Walmart would pay more. The best option is to tax Walmart the amount of any public assistance collected by their employees. Then Walmart would simply boost the pay because believe me, they can more than afford it. I have seen the numbers from inside. As it is, that government assistance is merely subsidizing Walmart's profits and half of those profits go to the Walmart family.

You are looking at it wrong and you had it right with your first response.

I'm looking at it correctly in both responses.

The best option is to tax Walmart the amount of any public assistance collected by their employees.

Why?

As it is, that government assistance is merely subsidizing Walmart's profits

You're looking at it wrong. WalMart is subsidizing public assistance.
Taxpayers would spend a lot more on assistance if WalMart didn't employ so many people.

Not sure you have a valid argument in regards to more assistance if Walmart didn't employ so many people. The Earned Income Credit increases as income increases to a certain point, then it begins to decline. Interestingly enough, that sweet spot, where the EITC is the maximum, is right around what a low level fulltime Walmart employ would make. With two kids, we are talking more than six grand a year. If they didn't work, it would be zero. And in the case of the Walmart employee that EITC is most certainly a wage subsidy.

Now the reason taxing Walmart the value of any government assistance received by their employees is the best option is because Walmart would derive no savings by using those public assistance programs as wage subsidies. But yet it would not eliminate those public assistance programs from those that really need them. And don't get me wrong, every company that has employees receiving public assistance should be taxed the amount those employees are receiving. In regards to the EITC there is already a program in which the employee can get that credit on their weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly paycheck. The employer pays the credit forward and then deducts that payment from their tax liability. We can just eliminate the deduction from the employers tax liability and poof, we have just taxed them the value of the EITC. Hell, Trump could probably do that with an EO.

 

[Winston]

That legislation would be unconstitutional on its face.

Bullshit. All corporate stock buybacks were illegal before 1982. It is nothing more than artificial manipulation of the market.

Buybacks return capital to shareholders, just like dividends but in a more tax-efficient manner.

Yeah buddies, it worked really efficiently for Sears.

 

[Winston]

FANTASTIC!

Bernie Sanders targets Walmart: Bill would block stock buybacks unless workers get $15 minimum wage

Maybe the socialist could sell a few of his homes to help the poor.

The issue is stock manipulation, $4 trillion since 2009.

$4 trillion hasn’t been returned to shareholders. Sorry.

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

 

[Winston]

A company that took government subsidy can't be held to a higher standard?

You could apply that to companies allowing employees to use Obamacare. However that would result on no Obamacare.

They are taxed for that already hoss.

http://files.kff.org/attachment/employer-responsibility-under-the-affordable-care-act-2-flowchart

 

[EGR one]

Next Bernie will enter a bill to forgive student loan debts for those making less than a million a year.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

You plan on hitting every hook we put in the water today?

The problem with student loan debt is colleges have priced themselves too high. A cost that did not exceed 10% of a person's starting salary would result in debt repayments and a financially sound employee/graduate.

The answer is: Profit based schools have been at the forefront of rising tuition.

Who could have guessed that rising tuition rates would bring in profit based schools? Government ignorance and interference worked so well for the public hospitals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$4 trillion hasn’t been returned to shareholders. Sorry.

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

The Walmart seven are taking the company private. A shareholder either takes the market offer or stands the risk of their stock losing value. To pay for this, Walmart has paid their employees crap, taught their employees to live off of public assistance, and manipulated government subsidies to build stores. Once the subsidy ran out, the majority of the subsidized stores developed a nationwide plumbing problem and closed.

I think the absolute least Walmart can do is paying their employees $15.00 per hour.

The Walmart seven are taking the company private.

You're lying.

Why are they buying all of their stock back?

Because you're incredibly bad at math.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In your opinion it's OK for a companies employees to be a tax burden as long as the company enjoys their net profit?

I love that bullshit claim.
If WalMart fired every employee who collected "public assistance funding" would taxpayers spend more or less on "public assistance funding"?

You are looking at it wrong and you had it right with your first response. If the government eliminated that assistance Walmart would pay more. The best option is to tax Walmart the amount of any public assistance collected by their employees. Then Walmart would simply boost the pay because believe me, they can more than afford it. I have seen the numbers from inside. As it is, that government assistance is merely subsidizing Walmart's profits and half of those profits go to the Walmart family.

You are looking at it wrong and you had it right with your first response.

I'm looking at it correctly in both responses.

The best option is to tax Walmart the amount of any public assistance collected by their employees.

Why?

As it is, that government assistance is merely subsidizing Walmart's profits

You're looking at it wrong. WalMart is subsidizing public assistance.
Taxpayers would spend a lot more on assistance if WalMart didn't employ so many people.

Not sure you have a valid argument in regards to more assistance if Walmart didn't employ so many people. The Earned Income Credit increases as income increases to a certain point, then it begins to decline. Interestingly enough, that sweet spot, where the EITC is the maximum, is right around what a low level fulltime Walmart employ would make. With two kids, we are talking more than six grand a year. If they didn't work, it would be zero. And in the case of the Walmart employee that EITC is most certainly a wage subsidy.

Now the reason taxing Walmart the value of any government assistance received by their employees is the best option is because Walmart would derive no savings by using those public assistance programs as wage subsidies. But yet it would not eliminate those public assistance programs from those that really need them. And don't get me wrong, every company that has employees receiving public assistance should be taxed the amount those employees are receiving. In regards to the EITC there is already a program in which the employee can get that credit on their weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly paycheck. The employer pays the credit forward and then deducts that payment from their tax liability. We can just eliminate the deduction from the employers tax liability and poof, we have just taxed them the value of the EITC. Hell, Trump could probably do that with an EO.

Not sure you have a valid argument in regards to more assistance if Walmart didn't employ so many people.

OK, assume the Americans for tax fairness claim above, WalMart workers cost taxpayers $6.2 billion every year.

Assume those employees all lose their jobs.
Show me how much less the government pays them in "government assistance programs".

Here's the source for the blurb.

U.S. Taxpayers Subsidize Walmart’s Low Wages and Low Benefits: $6.2 Billion a Year (Estimate)

This $6.2 billion estimate is based on a study prepared by the Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May 2013.9 The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs. It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.10

This report takes the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplies it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million employees11 in order to estimate the nationwide cost to taxpayers of Walmart employees’ use of public assistance programs. Programs that are included in this estimate include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Section 8 Housing Program, Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as food stamps). Table 2 presents estimates of public assistance costs for Walmart employees by state, which range from $2.6 million in the District of Columbia to $682 million in Texas.

Ironically, while Walmart relies on public subsidies to support its employees, the company also makes billions from sales to customers who depend on SNAP and other taxpayer-funded benefits. In February, Walmart executives even cited cuts to the food stamp program to help explain the company’s declining sales.12 In a subsequent disclosure to shareholders, risk factors cited by Walmart management included downward pressure on revenues from “… changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans …”13

Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market.14 Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion15 in food stamp sales in 2013. See Table 3 for state-by-state estimates of Walmart’s revenue from food stamps and an explanation of the methodology used to derive these estimates.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-Americans-for-Tax-Fairness-11.pdf

The Earned Income Credit increases as income increases to a certain point

As you can see, they weren't talking about the EITC.

Now the reason taxing Walmart the value of any government assistance received by their employees is the best option is because Walmart would derive no savings by using those public assistance programs as wage subsidies.

Excellent! You've discovered that the best way to help low skilled employees is to make sure they're never hired in the first place.

We can just eliminate the deduction from the employers tax liability and poof, we have just taxed them the value of the EITC.

Eliminate the deduction, the employer stops "paying the credit forward".
Poof! Employees can wait to receive it until they file.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Next Bernie will enter a bill to forgive student loan debts for those making less than a million a year.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

Thanks, Obama

 

[Darkwind]

That legislation would be unconstitutional on its face.

Make your point.

He did. The government does not have this authority.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

Which most Congressional members are profiting from

But hey, we're all about f*king the kids , IF there's a $$ in it, right?

go ahead, look it up......

~S~

Obama, world's greatest Predatory lender

 

[Weatherman2020]

Maybe the socialist could sell a few of his homes to help the poor.

The issue is stock manipulation, $4 trillion since 2009.

$4 trillion hasn’t been returned to shareholders. Sorry.

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Next Bernie will enter a bill to forgive student loan debts for those making less than a million a year.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

Proves there’s a sucker born every minute. Nothing like a $300,000 college debt to get a degree in Women’s Studies!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Next Bernie will enter a bill to forgive student loan debts for those making less than a million a year.

Student loan debt is a $1.5 Trillion dollar detriment to the US economy.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: UC Administrators: ‘Masculinity Is Not Attached to a Gender.’

 

[Winston]

I love that bullshit claim.
If WalMart fired every employee who collected "public assistance funding" would taxpayers spend more or less on "public assistance funding"?

You are looking at it wrong and you had it right with your first response. If the government eliminated that assistance Walmart would pay more. The best option is to tax Walmart the amount of any public assistance collected by their employees. Then Walmart would simply boost the pay because believe me, they can more than afford it. I have seen the numbers from inside. As it is, that government assistance is merely subsidizing Walmart's profits and half of those profits go to the Walmart family.

You are looking at it wrong and you had it right with your first response.

I'm looking at it correctly in both responses.

The best option is to tax Walmart the amount of any public assistance collected by their employees.

Why?

As it is, that government assistance is merely subsidizing Walmart's profits

You're looking at it wrong. WalMart is subsidizing public assistance.
Taxpayers would spend a lot more on assistance if WalMart didn't employ so many people.

Not sure you have a valid argument in regards to more assistance if Walmart didn't employ so many people. The Earned Income Credit increases as income increases to a certain point, then it begins to decline. Interestingly enough, that sweet spot, where the EITC is the maximum, is right around what a low level fulltime Walmart employ would make. With two kids, we are talking more than six grand a year. If they didn't work, it would be zero. And in the case of the Walmart employee that EITC is most certainly a wage subsidy.

Now the reason taxing Walmart the value of any government assistance received by their employees is the best option is because Walmart would derive no savings by using those public assistance programs as wage subsidies. But yet it would not eliminate those public assistance programs from those that really need them. And don't get me wrong, every company that has employees receiving public assistance should be taxed the amount those employees are receiving. In regards to the EITC there is already a program in which the employee can get that credit on their weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly paycheck. The employer pays the credit forward and then deducts that payment from their tax liability. We can just eliminate the deduction from the employers tax liability and poof, we have just taxed them the value of the EITC. Hell, Trump could probably do that with an EO.

Not sure you have a valid argument in regards to more assistance if Walmart didn't employ so many people.

OK, assume the Americans for tax fairness claim above, WalMart workers cost taxpayers $6.2 billion every year.

Assume those employees all lose their jobs.
Show me how much less the government pays them in "government assistance programs".

Here's the source for the blurb.

U.S. Taxpayers Subsidize Walmart’s Low Wages and Low Benefits: $6.2 Billion a Year (Estimate)

This $6.2 billion estimate is based on a study prepared by the Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May 2013.9 The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs. It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.10

This report takes the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplies it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million employees11 in order to estimate the nationwide cost to taxpayers of Walmart employees’ use of public assistance programs. Programs that are included in this estimate include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Section 8 Housing Program, Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as food stamps). Table 2 presents estimates of public assistance costs for Walmart employees by state, which range from $2.6 million in the District of Columbia to $682 million in Texas.

Ironically, while Walmart relies on public subsidies to support its employees, the company also makes billions from sales to customers who depend on SNAP and other taxpayer-funded benefits. In February, Walmart executives even cited cuts to the food stamp program to help explain the company’s declining sales.12 In a subsequent disclosure to shareholders, risk factors cited by Walmart management included downward pressure on revenues from “… changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans …”13

Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market.14 Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion15 in food stamp sales in 2013. See Table 3 for state-by-state estimates of Walmart’s revenue from food stamps and an explanation of the methodology used to derive these estimates.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-Americans-for-Tax-Fairness-11.pdf

The Earned Income Credit increases as income increases to a certain point

As you can see, they weren't talking about the EITC.

Now the reason taxing Walmart the value of any government assistance received by their employees is the best option is because Walmart would derive no savings by using those public assistance programs as wage subsidies.

Excellent! You've discovered that the best way to help low skilled employees is to make sure they're never hired in the first place.

We can just eliminate the deduction from the employers tax liability and poof, we have just taxed them the value of the EITC.

Eliminate the deduction, the employer stops "paying the credit forward".
Poof! Employees can wait to receive it until they file.

I believe you might want to reread your link, it specifically mentions the Earned Income Tax Credit. Then I suggest you read this article

https://www.thesocialcontract.com/reports/eitc_2011apr/eitc_2011apr_part_5_low_wage_jobs.pdf

I got to tell you, reading the widgets example really bought it to life. I mean have you seen some of the employees at Walmart? I often wondered how they could afford to have such obviously unproductive people on their payroll. That example made it perfectly clear how, the EITC.

 

[Winston]

The issue is stock manipulation, $4 trillion since 2009.

$4 trillion hasn’t been returned to shareholders. Sorry.

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

 

[peach174]

Bernie loves the loss of jobs that always happen with 15.00 per hr.

Bullshit. Amazon just raised their minimum to $15.00. Chick-fil-A is paying a minimum of $17.00. My companies pay a minimum of $23.50. All three are doing very well.

You really need to back-off the Putin concept of companies can't afford to pay their employees a living wage.

Bernie loves the loss of jobs that always happen with 15.00 per hr.

Bullshit. Amazon just raised their minimum to $15.00. Chick-fil-A is paying a minimum of $17.00. My companies pay a minimum of $23.50. All three are doing very well.

You really need to back-off the Putin concept of companies can't afford to pay their employees a living wage.

Bernie loves the loss of jobs that always happen with 15.00 per hr.

Bullshit. Amazon just raised their minimum to $15.00. Chick-fil-A is paying a minimum of $17.00. My companies pay a minimum of $23.50. All three are doing very well.

You really need to back-off the Putin concept of companies can't afford to pay their employees a living wage.

You need to.
Some jobs are not suppose to be a living wage.
You get full time permanent jobs in order to get a decent living wage.
It is a fact that some get laid off and some locally owned resturants and businesses close down when 15.00 an hour is forced.

Some jobs are not suppose to be a living wage.

Who told you that, the Walmart seven?

College basic business 101.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love that bullshit claim.
If WalMart fired every employee who collected "public assistance funding" would taxpayers spend more or less on "public assistance funding"?

You are looking at it wrong and you had it right with your first response. If the government eliminated that assistance Walmart would pay more. The best option is to tax Walmart the amount of any public assistance collected by their employees. Then Walmart would simply boost the pay because believe me, they can more than afford it. I have seen the numbers from inside. As it is, that government assistance is merely subsidizing Walmart's profits and half of those profits go to the Walmart family.

You are looking at it wrong and you had it right with your first response.

I'm looking at it correctly in both responses.

The best option is to tax Walmart the amount of any public assistance collected by their employees.

Why?

As it is, that government assistance is merely subsidizing Walmart's profits

You're looking at it wrong. WalMart is subsidizing public assistance.
Taxpayers would spend a lot more on assistance if WalMart didn't employ so many people.

Not sure you have a valid argument in regards to more assistance if Walmart didn't employ so many people. The Earned Income Credit increases as income increases to a certain point, then it begins to decline. Interestingly enough, that sweet spot, where the EITC is the maximum, is right around what a low level fulltime Walmart employ would make. With two kids, we are talking more than six grand a year. If they didn't work, it would be zero. And in the case of the Walmart employee that EITC is most certainly a wage subsidy.

Now the reason taxing Walmart the value of any government assistance received by their employees is the best option is because Walmart would derive no savings by using those public assistance programs as wage subsidies. But yet it would not eliminate those public assistance programs from those that really need them. And don't get me wrong, every company that has employees receiving public assistance should be taxed the amount those employees are receiving. In regards to the EITC there is already a program in which the employee can get that credit on their weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly paycheck. The employer pays the credit forward and then deducts that payment from their tax liability. We can just eliminate the deduction from the employers tax liability and poof, we have just taxed them the value of the EITC. Hell, Trump could probably do that with an EO.

Not sure you have a valid argument in regards to more assistance if Walmart didn't employ so many people.

OK, assume the Americans for tax fairness claim above, WalMart workers cost taxpayers $6.2 billion every year.

Assume those employees all lose their jobs.
Show me how much less the government pays them in "government assistance programs".

Here's the source for the blurb.

U.S. Taxpayers Subsidize Walmart’s Low Wages and Low Benefits: $6.2 Billion a Year (Estimate)

This $6.2 billion estimate is based on a study prepared by the Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May 2013.9 The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs. It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.10

This report takes the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplies it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million employees11 in order to estimate the nationwide cost to taxpayers of Walmart employees’ use of public assistance programs. Programs that are included in this estimate include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Section 8 Housing Program, Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as food stamps). Table 2 presents estimates of public assistance costs for Walmart employees by state, which range from $2.6 million in the District of Columbia to $682 million in Texas.

Ironically, while Walmart relies on public subsidies to support its employees, the company also makes billions from sales to customers who depend on SNAP and other taxpayer-funded benefits. In February, Walmart executives even cited cuts to the food stamp program to help explain the company’s declining sales.12 In a subsequent disclosure to shareholders, risk factors cited by Walmart management included downward pressure on revenues from “… changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans …”13

Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market.14 Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion15 in food stamp sales in 2013. See Table 3 for state-by-state estimates of Walmart’s revenue from food stamps and an explanation of the methodology used to derive these estimates.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-Americans-for-Tax-Fairness-11.pdf

The Earned Income Credit increases as income increases to a certain point

As you can see, they weren't talking about the EITC.

Now the reason taxing Walmart the value of any government assistance received by their employees is the best option is because Walmart would derive no savings by using those public assistance programs as wage subsidies.

Excellent! You've discovered that the best way to help low skilled employees is to make sure they're never hired in the first place.

We can just eliminate the deduction from the employers tax liability and poof, we have just taxed them the value of the EITC.

Eliminate the deduction, the employer stops "paying the credit forward".
Poof! Employees can wait to receive it until they file.

I believe you might want to reread your link, it specifically mentions the Earned Income Tax Credit. Then I suggest you read this article

https://www.thesocialcontract.com/reports/eitc_2011apr/eitc_2011apr_part_5_low_wage_jobs.pdf

I got to tell you, reading the widgets example really bought it to life. I mean have you seen some of the employees at Walmart? I often wondered how they could afford to have such obviously unproductive people on their payroll. That example made it perfectly clear how, the EITC.

Thanks for the link.
You should definitely push to eliminate the EITC, to stick it to WalMart.

Gereffi: “Wal-Mart is the biggest, most respected company in the United States, but it's very interesting to compare Wal-Mart with General Motors, which was the best known, largest, most respected company 50 years ago. I think these two models are radically different models. The Wal-Mart model is premised on global efficiency. The General Motors model was premised on having workers that could afford to buy the products that they made.”

WalMart workers can't afford to buy stuff at WalMart? That's awful!

Gereffi: “Wal-Mart is pushing wages down to a level where the people that work in Wal-Mart stores are going to be forced to buy in Wal-Mart stores, because they can't make enough money to buy goods elsewhere in the economy.

WalMart workers will buy at WalMart because it's cheaper? That's really awful......DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$4 trillion hasn’t been returned to shareholders. Sorry.

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them

Why?

 

[Weatherman2020]

$4 trillion hasn’t been returned to shareholders. Sorry.

Do the math.

I thought you were referencing Walmart.

If the government passed a law making buybacks prohibitively expensive like in that bill, companies would stop buying back stock and start paying their cash out in dividends. They wouldn’t increase the pay of their employees.

The reason why is because what shareholders want is cash returned to them. Right now, it’s more tax efficient to return cash via buybacks than dividends. But if you made it more tax efficient to return cash via dividends by raising taxes on buybacks, companies will just increase dividends.

Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

Companies should be outlawed from owning their own shares?

You have to go to a university to learn such dumbass Stalinist thinking.

They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

Since the first stocks were sold that’s been a practice. And very good practice to invest in your own business.

Which university dumbed you down so much your aren’t familiar with basic principles of investing?