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

[Brain357]

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.

Walmart is the largest employer in the country. So you support using tax payer dollars to pay for workers that make the Walton's billions. You support government dependence.

 

[paulitician]

Let's be real, Walmart represents all that is ugly in today's America. Such evil greed. America needs to change its ways. Americans need to stop worshipping the Walmarts of the world. They need to get back to priorities. 'Shopping till you Drop' isn't the answer. It won't make them whole.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

How are conservatives promoting the increasing size of government? You are not using any logic! If Walmart closed their doors at this moment, would that grow government? Of course, because now all of those former employees would be out of work and eligible for more benefits.

Can the Walton's afford to pay a living wage? Of course they can, they are making billions not working. Yet conservatives think it is good to have tax payers pay for their workers. The government grows.

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

 

[paulitician]

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.

How are conservatives promoting the increasing size of government? You are not using any logic! If Walmart closed their doors at this moment, would that grow government? Of course, because now all of those former employees would be out of work and eligible for more benefits.

Can the Walton's afford to pay a living wage? Of course they can, they are making billions not working. Yet conservatives think it is good to have tax payers pay for their workers. The government grows.

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

We can treat or fellow Americans better. We are the richest nation in the world, no? For example, our nation's Minimum Wage is shameful. It's an embarrassment around the world. The richest nation on earth has to do better.

 

[Brain357]

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.

How are conservatives promoting the increasing size of government? You are not using any logic! If Walmart closed their doors at this moment, would that grow government? Of course, because now all of those former employees would be out of work and eligible for more benefits.

Can the Walton's afford to pay a living wage? Of course they can, they are making billions not working. Yet conservatives think it is good to have tax payers pay for their workers. The government grows.

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

As long as the rich pay so little, government dependence grows. The only way to shrink government is for private employers to pay well and offer good benefits. Our rich are choosing to do the opposite and we have increasing gov dependence and a slow economy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

How are conservatives promoting the increasing size of government? You are not using any logic! If Walmart closed their doors at this moment, would that grow government? Of course, because now all of those former employees would be out of work and eligible for more benefits.

Can the Walton's afford to pay a living wage? Of course they can, they are making billions not working. Yet conservatives think it is good to have tax payers pay for their workers. The government grows.

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

We can treat or fellow Americans better. We are the richest nation in the world, no? For example, our nation's Minimum Wage is shameful. It's an embarrassment around the world. The richest nation on earth has to do better.

Why do you want to put millions of workers on minimum wage for?

Why do you want to pay more for stuff?

 

[Brain357]

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.

How are conservatives promoting the increasing size of government? You are not using any logic! If Walmart closed their doors at this moment, would that grow government? Of course, because now all of those former employees would be out of work and eligible for more benefits.

Can the Walton's afford to pay a living wage? Of course they can, they are making billions not working. Yet conservatives think it is good to have tax payers pay for their workers. The government grows.

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

We can treat or fellow Americans better. We are the richest nation in the world, no? For example, our nation's Minimum Wage is shameful. It's an embarrassment around the world. The richest nation on earth has to do better.

Why do you want to put millions of workers on minimum wage for?

Why do you want to pay more for stuff?

Are you a trump supporter?

 

[paulitician]

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.

How are conservatives promoting the increasing size of government? You are not using any logic! If Walmart closed their doors at this moment, would that grow government? Of course, because now all of those former employees would be out of work and eligible for more benefits.

Can the Walton's afford to pay a living wage? Of course they can, they are making billions not working. Yet conservatives think it is good to have tax payers pay for their workers. The government grows.

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

We can treat or fellow Americans better. We are the richest nation in the world, no? For example, our nation's Minimum Wage is shameful. It's an embarrassment around the world. The richest nation on earth has to do better.

Why do you want to put millions of workers on minimum wage for?

Why do you want to pay more for stuff?

Our nation has to do better. Our Minimum Wage is a sad disgrace. It represents how the powers-that-be feel about their fellow Americans. Nothing more than worthless slaves. It's very sad.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How are conservatives promoting the increasing size of government? You are not using any logic! If Walmart closed their doors at this moment, would that grow government? Of course, because now all of those former employees would be out of work and eligible for more benefits.

Can the Walton's afford to pay a living wage? Of course they can, they are making billions not working. Yet conservatives think it is good to have tax payers pay for their workers. The government grows.

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

We can treat or fellow Americans better. We are the richest nation in the world, no? For example, our nation's Minimum Wage is shameful. It's an embarrassment around the world. The richest nation on earth has to do better.

Why do you want to put millions of workers on minimum wage for?

Why do you want to pay more for stuff?

Our nation has to do better. Our Minimum Wage is a sad disgrace. It represents how the powers-that-be feel about their fellow Americans. Nothing more than worthless slaves. It's very sad.

It is just a number it don't mean anything...it's frickin zero, no matter where you raise it, it's still zero, zilch, nadda...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Can the Walton's afford to pay a living wage? Of course they can, they are making billions not working. Yet conservatives think it is good to have tax payers pay for their workers. The government grows.

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

We can treat or fellow Americans better. We are the richest nation in the world, no? For example, our nation's Minimum Wage is shameful. It's an embarrassment around the world. The richest nation on earth has to do better.

Why do you want to put millions of workers on minimum wage for?

Why do you want to pay more for stuff?

Our nation has to do better. Our Minimum Wage is a sad disgrace. It represents how the powers-that-be feel about their fellow Americans. Nothing more than worthless slaves. It's very sad.

It is just a number it don't mean anything...it's frickin zero, no matter where you raise it, it's still zero, zilch, nadda...

If that were actually true, you would have no reasonable reason to complain about "raising" the minimum wage. It is in fact not zero. Someone that has $9 in their pocket has much more than someone who has $0 in their pocket.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Of course the Waltons CAN pay whatever they want. And likewise the employees can choose not to work there if they didn't like the wages.

See that's the thing you "living wage" people don't understand. There is a surplus of labor in this country, so as with anything, when supplies goes up, prices come down.The actual fact of the matter is you can 100% "blame" the drop in wages in this country on women entering the work force. When you double the work force, wages are going to hit bottom.. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that, I'm just pointing out the reality.

We can treat or fellow Americans better. We are the richest nation in the world, no? For example, our nation's Minimum Wage is shameful. It's an embarrassment around the world. The richest nation on earth has to do better.

Why do you want to put millions of workers on minimum wage for?

Why do you want to pay more for stuff?

Our nation has to do better. Our Minimum Wage is a sad disgrace. It represents how the powers-that-be feel about their fellow Americans. Nothing more than worthless slaves. It's very sad.

It is just a number it don't mean anything...it's frickin zero, no matter where you raise it, it's still zero, zilch, nadda...

If that were actually true, you would have no reasonable reason to complain about "raising" the minimum wage. It is in fact not zero. Someone that has $9 in their pocket has much more than someone who has $0 in their pocket.

What I am saying is MW started at 25 cents an hour, today's $7.25 is the new 25 cents an hour and the stigma that goes with it.

You raise it to $25 bucks an hour it will just be a New number for 7.25 an hour.

 

[Brain357]

We can treat or fellow Americans better. We are the richest nation in the world, no? For example, our nation's Minimum Wage is shameful. It's an embarrassment around the world. The richest nation on earth has to do better.

Why do you want to put millions of workers on minimum wage for?

Why do you want to pay more for stuff?

Our nation has to do better. Our Minimum Wage is a sad disgrace. It represents how the powers-that-be feel about their fellow Americans. Nothing more than worthless slaves. It's very sad.

It is just a number it don't mean anything...it's frickin zero, no matter where you raise it, it's still zero, zilch, nadda...

If that were actually true, you would have no reasonable reason to complain about "raising" the minimum wage. It is in fact not zero. Someone that has $9 in their pocket has much more than someone who has $0 in their pocket.

What I am saying is MW started at 25 cents an hour, today's $7.25 is the new 25 cents an hour and the stigma that goes with it.

You raise it to $25 bucks an hour it will just be a New number for 7.25 an hour.

Do you think it is better for people to get paid a higher wage direct from employer, or receive low wage from employer and collect welfare? Which do you think promotes less government dependence?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why do you want to put millions of workers on minimum wage for?

Why do you want to pay more for stuff?

Our nation has to do better. Our Minimum Wage is a sad disgrace. It represents how the powers-that-be feel about their fellow Americans. Nothing more than worthless slaves. It's very sad.

It is just a number it don't mean anything...it's frickin zero, no matter where you raise it, it's still zero, zilch, nadda...

If that were actually true, you would have no reasonable reason to complain about "raising" the minimum wage. It is in fact not zero. Someone that has $9 in their pocket has much more than someone who has $0 in their pocket.

What I am saying is MW started at 25 cents an hour, today's $7.25 is the new 25 cents an hour and the stigma that goes with it.

You raise it to $25 bucks an hour it will just be a New number for 7.25 an hour.

Do you think it is better for people to get paid a higher wage direct from employer, or receive low wage from employer and collect welfare? Which do you think promotes less government dependence?

What do you think?

As it has been already said walmarts profit margins are thin,. Ya can only pay 2 million people or whatever the number is so much.

 

[Brain357]

Our nation has to do better. Our Minimum Wage is a sad disgrace. It represents how the powers-that-be feel about their fellow Americans. Nothing more than worthless slaves. It's very sad.

It is just a number it don't mean anything...it's frickin zero, no matter where you raise it, it's still zero, zilch, nadda...

If that were actually true, you would have no reasonable reason to complain about "raising" the minimum wage. It is in fact not zero. Someone that has $9 in their pocket has much more than someone who has $0 in their pocket.

What I am saying is MW started at 25 cents an hour, today's $7.25 is the new 25 cents an hour and the stigma that goes with it.

You raise it to $25 bucks an hour it will just be a New number for 7.25 an hour.

Do you think it is better for people to get paid a higher wage direct from employer, or receive low wage from employer and collect welfare? Which do you think promotes less government dependence?

What do you think?

As it has been already said walmarts profit margins are thin,. Ya can only pay 2 million people or whatever the number is so much.

The Walton's make billions not working. Execs are making millions. There is plenty of money.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It is just a number it don't mean anything...it's frickin zero, no matter where you raise it, it's still zero, zilch, nadda...

If that were actually true, you would have no reasonable reason to complain about "raising" the minimum wage. It is in fact not zero. Someone that has $9 in their pocket has much more than someone who has $0 in their pocket.

What I am saying is MW started at 25 cents an hour, today's $7.25 is the new 25 cents an hour and the stigma that goes with it.

You raise it to $25 bucks an hour it will just be a New number for 7.25 an hour.

Do you think it is better for people to get paid a higher wage direct from employer, or receive low wage from employer and collect welfare? Which do you think promotes less government dependence?

What do you think?

As it has been already said walmarts profit margins are thin,. Ya can only pay 2 million people or whatever the number is so much.

The Walton's make billions not working. Execs are making millions. There is plenty of money.

Of course there is plenty of money, that isn't the point. The point is you must have both a minimum wage AND allow the marketplace to work in order to have a healthy economy. Is $7.25 an your a ridiculous minimum wage? Yes it is, it should be around $10-11 an hour, which guess what, that's right around what WM pays.

Let's look at it from the other perspective. Let's assume that there was a high demand for labor , driving wages up, Would you say "woah woah woah I know the market says WM should be paying $25 an hour for help, but that is crazy, let's force employees to work for $15 an hour" or would you support the free market deciding what those employees should make?

We, of course, know the answer to that.

What you propose is nothing more than government mandated stealing.

 

[Brain357]

Those who think we should not raise min wage because it may increase prices better think about trumps tariff plans:
Trump, as president, would have no power to tax the Chinese. But he can tax Americans, and that's what a tariff is. American consumers would be forced to pay higher prices for Chinese goods. The tariff would also raise revenues for the U.S. government. In other words, money out of your pocket and into the largest government pockets on earth. Trump, instead of shrinking the gargantuan U.S. government would, with tariffs, bloat it further.

In keeping with government tradition, Trump is essentially promising us "Always Higher Prices". Perhaps he can trademark that along with "Make America Great Again".

Protectionism is very dangerous. When governments get started in trade wars, they all too often lead to actual hot wars.

Trump's ideas must be thoroughly rejected.

Trump Wants To "Beat China" By Taxing Americans?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It is just a number it don't mean anything...it's frickin zero, no matter where you raise it, it's still zero, zilch, nadda...

If that were actually true, you would have no reasonable reason to complain about "raising" the minimum wage. It is in fact not zero. Someone that has $9 in their pocket has much more than someone who has $0 in their pocket.

What I am saying is MW started at 25 cents an hour, today's $7.25 is the new 25 cents an hour and the stigma that goes with it.

You raise it to $25 bucks an hour it will just be a New number for 7.25 an hour.

Do you think it is better for people to get paid a higher wage direct from employer, or receive low wage from employer and collect welfare? Which do you think promotes less government dependence?

What do you think?

As it has been already said walmarts profit margins are thin,. Ya can only pay 2 million people or whatever the number is so much.

The Walton's make billions not working. Execs are making millions. There is plenty of money.

Do you know how to divide?

2 million from 2 billion equals 1 measly dollar per person.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Those who think we should not raise min wage because it may increase prices better think about trumps tariff plans:
Trump, as president, would have no power to tax the Chinese. But he can tax Americans, and that's what a tariff is. American consumers would be forced to pay higher prices for Chinese goods. The tariff would also raise revenues for the U.S. government. In other words, money out of your pocket and into the largest government pockets on earth. Trump, instead of shrinking the gargantuan U.S. government would, with tariffs, bloat it further.

In keeping with government tradition, Trump is essentially promising us "Always Higher Prices". Perhaps he can trademark that along with "Make America Great Again".

Protectionism is very dangerous. When governments get started in trade wars, they all too often lead to actual hot wars.

Trump's ideas must be thoroughly rejected.

Trump Wants To "Beat China" By Taxing Americans?

Wrong

Trump doesn't want to put tariffs on products from China, he wants to threaten China with tariffs if they agree to more favorable trade deals.

Not sure why ANYONE would oppose the US fighting to get deals that actually benefit Americans.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Those who think we should not raise min wage because it may increase prices better think about trumps tariff plans:
Trump, as president, would have no power to tax the Chinese. But he can tax Americans, and that's what a tariff is. American consumers would be forced to pay higher prices for Chinese goods. The tariff would also raise revenues for the U.S. government. In other words, money out of your pocket and into the largest government pockets on earth. Trump, instead of shrinking the gargantuan U.S. government would, with tariffs, bloat it further.

In keeping with government tradition, Trump is essentially promising us "Always Higher Prices". Perhaps he can trademark that along with "Make America Great Again".

Protectionism is very dangerous. When governments get started in trade wars, they all too often lead to actual hot wars.

Trump's ideas must be thoroughly rejected.

Trump Wants To "Beat China" By Taxing Americans?

Trump is blowing smoke....

 

[Brain357]

If that were actually true, you would have no reasonable reason to complain about "raising" the minimum wage. It is in fact not zero. Someone that has $9 in their pocket has much more than someone who has $0 in their pocket.

What I am saying is MW started at 25 cents an hour, today's $7.25 is the new 25 cents an hour and the stigma that goes with it.

You raise it to $25 bucks an hour it will just be a New number for 7.25 an hour.

Do you think it is better for people to get paid a higher wage direct from employer, or receive low wage from employer and collect welfare? Which do you think promotes less government dependence?

What do you think?

As it has been already said walmarts profit margins are thin,. Ya can only pay 2 million people or whatever the number is so much.

The Walton's make billions not working. Execs are making millions. There is plenty of money.

Of course there is plenty of money, that isn't the point. The point is you must have both a minimum wage AND allow the marketplace to work in order to have a healthy economy. Is $7.25 an your a ridiculous minimum wage? Yes it is, it should be around $10-11 an hour, which guess what, that's right around what WM pays.

Let's look at it from the other perspective. Let's assume that there was a high demand for labor , driving wages up, Would you say "woah woah woah I know the market says WM should be paying $25 an hour for help, but that is crazy, let's force employees to work for $15 an hour" or would you support the free market deciding what those employees should make?

We, of course, know the answer to that.

What you propose is nothing more than government mandated stealing.

What have I proposed?

I've stated why billionaires paying very little is bad. It is promoting government dependence and slowing our economy.