7 ms·

>it is never proper for the legislature to target an individual or individual company. In general what you are talking about is a Bill of Attainder and it is u

>it is never proper for the legislature to target an individual or individual company. In general what you are talking about is a Bill of Attainder and it is unconstitutional. Notwithstanding the - not so clever - name of the Bill, it doesn’t exactly sound like anyone is being targeting so much as a legal framework is being proposed for recipients of corporate welfare to have to reimburse the government, based on corporate financials. Sure if it ONLY applies to Amazon there is a problem, but that isn’t likely. Seems to me when you have employers like Walmart who rely on taxpayers to subsidize their employees benefits and simultaneously are the beneficiary of 20% (or $14B) in taxpayer funded food stamps annually there is a problem. Basically you have a single low paying employer who has dug a $14B taxpayer moat around any potential competition which would potentially drive up wages. Shouldn’t lawmakers be able to look at employers as a whole and say...wow certain companies are really taking advantage and benefiting from corporate welfare and we need to take action to close the unwanted and unforeseen loopholes? I don’t think anyone is looking at Bezos and the Waltons and saying how do we target these rich people, they are saying these welfare programs are not fulfilling their intended purpose and the program needs to be re-evaluated.

sokoloff 8y ago
That $14B in SNAP benefits is because Walmart is a significant market share grocer and people who receive SNAP benefits buy food at Walmart with those benefits. I'm not sure how that makes Walmart a villain in the current discussion. Target takes in about $5B revenue from sales under SNAP, Aldi about $4.5B, and Kroger just under $4B. Companies who serve SNAP recipients should be lauded not vilified, IMO. They're serving a generally underserved constituency.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. Trying to pretend this is about Wal-Mart selling food, and not the wages they pay is incredibly dishonest.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    > Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. Literally the post to which I replied complained about "simultaneously are the beneficiary of 20% (or $14B) in taxpayer funded food stamps annually there is a problem". It seems that someone is upset about that.
    - ddingus 8y ago
      Look at the root cause of why. Parent comment nailed it.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      No. They are benefitting because they are having their labor subsidized by taxpayers because they don't pay enough. Again, pretending the reason people are upset is because they're selling food, and not because Wal-Mart is requiring you and I to subsidize their labor costs, is incredibly dishonest.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > They are benefitting because they are having their labor subsidized by taxpayers because they don't pay enough. That's not a labor subsidy, and if it was the simple fix would be to make employed people categorically ineligible for federal benefits—we don't do that, because we know it's not a wage subsidy, and all the hyperventilating about it being a wage subsidy is (at least on the part of public officials and other people that know anything about policy) dishonest grandstanding. (Now, work requirements in benefit programs do make them wage subsidies, because then the threat is “work at whatever job will have you or lose public benefits in addition to the marginal benefit of pay”; that's easily solved by removing such requirements.)
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        It is a labor subsidy, because Wal-Mart is not having to pay their workers a living wage because they can simply tell their workers to sign up for public assistance. I don't care about the nit-picky "Is it a direct labor subsidy or is it a wage subsidy" arguments; Wal-Mart benefits because they can pay lower wages and tell their employees to get public assistance. That's the story in its entirety. Wal-Mart is big enough, they can pay a living wage; they don't need my help.
notacoward 8y ago
> In general what you are talking about is a Bill of Attainder and it is unconstitutional. That's highly debatable. Does "attainder" as used in the constitution apply to corporations? To a large extent that depends on whether corporations are persons in the context of that prohibition, but there are other concerns as well. You're assuming that the answer to all such questions can be answered in favor of corporations, but that's hardly settled.
faster 8y ago
The idea of employees receiving food stamps seems like a clear case of manipulating the system. But I think there is more nuance than the 20%/$14B numbers describe. Imagine a single mom who wants to be home when her kids get home from school. She's working part time, and not making enough to feed her family. Who is responsible for her shortfall? In a community where Walmart is a big employer, many people may work part time and one consequence of that is that more people have jobs. Walmart benefits from that but so do those employees, even when they don't make enough to eat well. Sure, the system can obviously be manipulated. Yes, people (and company leaders) make bad choices. Who decides who pays?
- geezerjay 8y ago
  I woukd also add that it's hardly reasonable or desirable to dump on employers the responsibility of providing wellfare assistance. If the people, collectively, don't want to provide that service through state institutions, why should they dump that responsibility on someone who thought it would be a good idea to creatr jobs in a town?
- larksimian 8y ago
  > Who decides who pays? In the short term elected representatives. In the long-term their voters as they re-elect them, or not, to office.

sokoloff 8y ago

That $14B in SNAP benefits is because Walmart is a significant market share grocer and people who receive SNAP benefits buy food at Walmart with those benefits. I'm not sure how that makes Walmart a villain in the current discussion. Target takes in about $5B revenue from sales under SNAP, Aldi about $4.5B, and Kroger just under $4B. Companies who serve SNAP recipients should be lauded not vilified, IMO. They're serving a generally underserved constituency.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. Trying to pretend this is about Wal-Mart selling food, and not the wages they pay is incredibly dishonest.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  > Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. Literally the post to which I replied complained about "simultaneously are the beneficiary of 20% (or $14B) in taxpayer funded food stamps annually there is a problem". It seems that someone is upset about that.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    Look at the root cause of why. Parent comment nailed it.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No. They are benefitting because they are having their labor subsidized by taxpayers because they don't pay enough. Again, pretending the reason people are upset is because they're selling food, and not because Wal-Mart is requiring you and I to subsidize their labor costs, is incredibly dishonest.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > They are benefitting because they are having their labor subsidized by taxpayers because they don't pay enough. That's not a labor subsidy, and if it was the simple fix would be to make employed people categorically ineligible for federal benefits—we don't do that, because we know it's not a wage subsidy, and all the hyperventilating about it being a wage subsidy is (at least on the part of public officials and other people that know anything about policy) dishonest grandstanding. (Now, work requirements in benefit programs do make them wage subsidies, because then the threat is “work at whatever job will have you or lose public benefits in addition to the marginal benefit of pay”; that's easily solved by removing such requirements.)
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        It is a labor subsidy, because Wal-Mart is not having to pay their workers a living wage because they can simply tell their workers to sign up for public assistance. I don't care about the nit-picky "Is it a direct labor subsidy or is it a wage subsidy" arguments; Wal-Mart benefits because they can pay lower wages and tell their employees to get public assistance. That's the story in its entirety. Wal-Mart is big enough, they can pay a living wage; they don't need my help.

notacoward 8y ago

> In general what you are talking about is a Bill of Attainder and it is unconstitutional. That's highly debatable. Does "attainder" as used in the constitution apply to corporations? To a large extent that depends on whether corporations are persons in the context of that prohibition, but there are other concerns as well. You're assuming that the answer to all such questions can be answered in favor of corporations, but that's hardly settled.

faster 8y ago

The idea of employees receiving food stamps seems like a clear case of manipulating the system. But I think there is more nuance than the 20%/$14B numbers describe. Imagine a single mom who wants to be home when her kids get home from school. She's working part time, and not making enough to feed her family. Who is responsible for her shortfall? In a community where Walmart is a big employer, many people may work part time and one consequence of that is that more people have jobs. Walmart benefits from that but so do those employees, even when they don't make enough to eat well. Sure, the system can obviously be manipulated. Yes, people (and company leaders) make bad choices. Who decides who pays?

geezerjay 8y ago
I woukd also add that it's hardly reasonable or desirable to dump on employers the responsibility of providing wellfare assistance. If the people, collectively, don't want to provide that service through state institutions, why should they dump that responsibility on someone who thought it would be a good idea to creatr jobs in a town?
larksimian 8y ago
> Who decides who pays? In the short term elected representatives. In the long-term their voters as they re-elect them, or not, to office.