Consider that your example of a "greedy, exploitive" employer is one where less than 1% of their employees receive SNAP benefits. Is it more likely that the li

Consider that your example of a "greedy, exploitive" employer is one where less than 1% of their employees receive SNAP benefits. Is it more likely that the life circumstances of that 1% (the people that actually receive the benefits) differ from the other 99%, or that the employer's entire wage structure is based on subsidizing a fraction of a percent of wages in the most indirect and inefficient way possible? If you're really that concerned about your tax dollars it doesn't make sense to segregate single parents, adults supporting elderly parents, veterans with partial disability, and millions of other workers receiving SNAP out of the workforce and onto more welfare just because you think they're too down on their luck to be allowed to work. And if you care about people living in reasonably healthy conditions, it doesn't make sense to stigmatize public assistance and punish working adults for not being able to bootstrap on the same wage as everyone else.