• BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    You seem to like math how about taking the profits and seeing if they can cover all the welfare they recieve and tax breaks.

    I know Walmart can cover all the welfare it’s employees recieve

    • solstice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think wal mart is the biggest employer of people receiving Earned Income Credit in the US. Therefore the American taxpayer is effectively subsidizing wal marts wages expense.

      I point this out to people and their response many times is to kill the EIC, rather than raise minimum wages. Infuriating and frustrating beyond belief.

      • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Correct even if Walmart paid all the welfare they would still be profitable. So why do we not just make them pay for it

        • Piers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because they have so much money from raiding there tax payers pockets that they can get away with raiding the tax payers pockets.

      • Piers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What we need is a 100% tax on profits until the cost of government subsidised labour is repaid. Because that portion of the “profits” is just raided directly from tax payers in the first place.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree there should be more tax brackets at higher rates and income levels. It’s weird the personal tax rate maxes out at 37% for income around half a mil, ish. I regularly see my clients making a million, $10m, $50m+. It is hard to see that knowing we deny children lunches in school.

          • Piers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s true but I’m talking about a tax on employers who pay their staff too little not on individuals.

            • solstice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, yeah I forgot what thread this was about. Seems like it would be easier to raise minimum wage, no?

              • Piers@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Maybe. But there is some argument that not every employee needs the same income level so pushing minimum wage up to a level that accounts for employees that need a higher income is a harder sell than some midpoint plus support for those who need extra (single parent of multiple kids supporting their household on their income Vs rich kid working weekends for extra spending money.)