If Americans Are Stupid Enough To Fall For This - They Deserve Whatever They Get.

[Heywood]

The 7 billion that you refer to are the same kinds of taxes we all pay for maintaining our society. Their current tax burden has nothing to do with this issue. Unlike Walmart, I don't receive a government subsidy from those taxes. Consequently, some of MY tax money is going to Walmart, indirectly subsidizing their labor costs.

The two solutions to this inequity in tax burden are:
1. Raise the minimum wage so Walmart pays for their own labor costs with no government subsidy, direct or indirect.
2. The government bills Walmart for the cost of feeding their employees PLUS government administrative fees to issue the food stamps to their employees. All this would be in addition to their current tax burden.

All forms of corporate welfare should be abolished! For-profit businesses need to foot their own bills.

Why is Walmart obligated to make sure its employees are fed? If you hire a tile contractor to tile your bathroom....are you obligated to feed him and his family?

[DeistPaladin]

I think the government should just print a million dollars and give it to everyone. Then there would be no more poverty.

Again, how about a minimum wage where you could work 40 hours and be above the line that would make you ineligible for food stamps? That way, no corporation will have it's labor costs subsidized by the government.

Seriously, you libertarians should like this idea. I thought you believed in market forces. I thought you believed businesses should stand or fall on their own profitability. Why are you defending government subsidies of a corporation's labor costs?

[DeistPaladin]

Why is Walmart obligated to make sure its employees are fed? If you hire a tile contractor to tile your bathroom....are you obligated to feed him and his family?

OK, I'll go really slow for you since you are having so much trouble keeping up.

Let's say you hire me. You offer to pay me a salary that's not enough for me to feed myself. What do you think I will do? Work full time and still starve?

There is a natural minimum wage set by the markets you adore so much. No one will work 40 hours and still be below base subsistence. Even in the Gilded Age of the 19th century, economists and businesses understood this.

So natural market forces are what obliges a corporation or business to pay a living wage. People won't work for less. Why bother if you're going to starve either way?

With me so far?

Now, along comes corporations like Wal-Mart who pay below subsistence. My goodness! How do they get away with it? Because their employees can get government assistance in addition to their pay which allows them to survive.

Therefore, the government program makes it artificially possible for Wal-Mart to pay so low, below the point they could get away with if food stamps didn't exist.

Still with me?

So, since the government is feeding Wal-Mart's employees because Wal-Mart is paying below the subsistence wage, below what they could if we relied on market forces alone, it means the... government... is... subsidizing... Wal-Mart's... labor... costs.

Got it?

I hope so. I can't go any slower.

[Losty]

Meh I don't want to be in this discussion lol

[KUSA]

I think the government should just print a million dollars and give it to everyone. Then there would be no more poverty.

Again, how about a minimum wage where you could work 40 hours and be above the line that would make you ineligible for food stamps? That way, no corporation will have it's labor costs subsidized by the government.

Seriously, you libertarians should like this idea. I thought you believed in market forces. I thought you believed businesses should stand or fall on their own profitability. Why are you defending government subsidies of a corporation's labor costs?

If you raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour the price of everything would go through the roof the next day.

Basically everyone making more than minimum wage would get a $7.75 an hour pay cut.

The government just needs to get the fuck out of everyone's business.

[Heywood]

Why is Walmart obligated to make sure its employees are fed? If you hire a tile contractor to tile your bathroom....are you obligated to feed him and his family?

OK, I'll go really slow for you since you are having so much trouble keeping up.

Let's say you hire me. You offer to pay me a salary that's not enough for me to feed myself. What do you think I will do? Work full time and still starve?

There is a natural minimum wage set by the markets you adore so much. No one will work 40 hours and still be below base subsistence. Even in the Gilded Age of the 19th century, economists and businesses understood this.

So natural market forces are what obliges a corporation or business to pay a living wage. People won't work for less. Why bother if you're going to starve either way?

With me so far?

Now, along comes corporations like Wal-Mart who pay below subsistence. My goodness! How do they get away with it? Because their employees can get government assistance in addition to their pay which allows them to survive.

Therefore, the government program makes it artificially possible for Wal-Mart to pay so low, below the point they could get away with if food stamps didn't exist.

Still with me?

So, since the government is feeding Wal-Mart's employees because Wal-Mart is paying below the subsistence wage, below what they could if we relied on market forces alone, it means the... government... is... subsidizing... Wal-Mart's... labor... costs.

Got it?

I hope so. I can't go any slower.

So lets get rid of the government program and then Walmart will be forced to pay a living wage.

[DeistPaladin]

If you raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour the price of everything would go through the roof the next day.

No, corporations that receive a government labor subsidy would have to raise prices. Businesses like mine would be unaffected and not have to raise prices. Therefore, Wal-Mart and other corps would no longer have an artificial government-subsidized competitive advantage.

Of course, Wal-Mart doesn't set prices. The markets do. It may be that they can't raise prices and remain competitive. In that case, executive salaries and bonuses may have to be cut or the Stockholders will just receive fewer dividends. Poor things but that's how the markets work.

And that's how it WOULD work if you had your dream of abolishing food stamps and letting poor people starve. Wal-Mart would lose it's ability to pay so low either way.

The only difference is your approach would create more suffering, crime and hunger.

[DeistPaladin]

So lets get rid of the government program and then Walmart will be forced to pay a living wage.

Your way or my way would create the same outcome for Wal-Mart, et al, I agree.

Your way would result in starvation, crime and suffering. Mine would not.

Let's go with my way, what do you say?

[KUSA]

And that's how it WOULD work if you had your dream of abolishing food stamps and letting poor people starve. Wal-Mart would lose it's ability to pay so low either way.

The only difference is your approach would create more suffering, crime and hunger.

Where / when did I say that my dream was to abolish food stamps and let poor people starve?

[Heywood]

So lets get rid of the government program and then Walmart will be forced to pay a living wage.

Your way or my way would create the same outcome for Wal-Mart, et al, I agree.

Your way would result in starvation, crime and suffering. Mine would not.

Let's go with my way, what do you say?

My way would be to get rid of the minimum wage and all welfare programs....including social security and unemployment. To keep people from starving just give them money in the form of a negative income tax and let them be free to spend it as they wish.

Why should a person on food stamps be told they have to use those funds to buy food when they might be better served by buying diapers? Poor people deserve the same dignity and freedom everyone else has and that includes the ability to make their own purchasing decisions in accordance with their needs and wants. In addition we don't need to waste tax payer money paying for an army of bureaucrats to enforce spending habits on poor people.