How can we take it back?

HSBC Global Head Of FX Cash Trading Arrested At JFK Airport

A historic event took place moments ago when Mark Johnson, the global head of cash FX at HSBC was arrested at JFK airport for his role in a "conspiracy to rig currency benchmarks", and specifically for frontrunning customer orders. He is the first person charged by the US in the ongoing FX rigging probe.

As Bloomberg reports, a "senior manager at HSBC Holdings Plc was arrested in New York for his role in a conspiracy to rig currency benchmarks, according to two people familiar with the matter, becoming the first person to be charged in the Justice Department’s three-year investigation into foreign-exchange rigging at global banks."

The DOJ adds that Mark Johnson, 50, a U.K. citizen and U.K. and U.S. resident, and Stuart Scott, 43, a U.K. citizen and resident, were charged by complaint with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Johnson was arrested last night at JFK International Airport in Queens, New York, and will be arraigned later today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the Eastern District of New York

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-20/hsbc-global-head-fx-cash-trading-arrested-jfk-airport


Nice to see arrests after the Libor scandal.
 
Are We Witnessing the Death of Representative Democracy?
Billionaires now sponsor presidential candidates (or run for president themselves) the way Renaissance popes and princes once patronized artists.
By Andrew Gumbel / The New Press
July 29, 2016

[...]

The corrupting influence of money hasn’t just upended the priorities of elected officials, who now spend more time raising funds than talking to constituents or researching the issues they vote on. It hasn’t just made campaigns more expensive, more media-saturated, and more vicious. The scenario that Schattschneider imagined in 1960 has largely come to pass. Magnates do outvote entire cities, at least in those cases—the majority—where media coverage of political campaigns cannot keep up with the relentless flow of money. For many people living in noncompetitive or uncontested districts, elections have indeed become just a formality. Billionaires now sponsor presidential candidates (or run for president themselves) the way Renaissance popes and princes once patronized artists; where those candidates previously had to sway party committees and state delegates to become viable office seekers, now they need to win over an audience of just one. As the Wall Street Journal observed of the record crop of billionaire-backed Republican candidates for 2016, “The life of their candidacies is now divorced from their ability to directly raise money from voters.” Whether money alone can translate into electoral success remains to be seen, but it can certainly catapult presidential candidates over the first hurdle and into the public limelight.

[...]

http://www.alternet.org/books/are-we-witnessing-death-representative-democracy


I have got a lot of money for establishing candidacies, :m151:
people call me things, but I am not one of those crazies,
buying stuff is my god-given right,
I care not for proletarian plight,
even if they will smear my face with lots of pieeees :cool:
 
In a Huge Win for Voting Rights, Federal Appeals Court Blocks North Carolina's Voter Suppression Law
Great news for the upcoming elections.
By Stephen Wolf / DailyKos
July 29, 2016

shutterstock_244411327.jpg

Photo Credit: Niyazz / Shutterstock

In an extraordinary ruling, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court ruling and granted a broad injunction against North Carolina Republicans’ sweeping voter suppression law. Crucially, the appeals court found that the legislation, which created a strict voter ID requirement, ended same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and pre-registration, was “passed with racially discriminatory intent.” And unlike recent rulings against new voter ID law in Texas and Wisconsin, which only ameliorated the impact of those laws, this decision blocks North Carolina’s entire voter ID measure.

This ruling is an enormous victory for voting rights, and not just because voter ID will no longer be required at the polls. The finding of discriminatory intent is key because it could ultimately serve as future grounds for placing North Carolina back under the Department of Justice’s “preclearance” regime for 10 years. Many states, mostly in the South, that had a history of racial discrimination once had to clear any changes to voting procedures with the Justice Department, and if they were found to restrict minority voting rights, they were disallowed.

But after the Supreme Court gutted a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, several states like North Carolina swiftly passed new voting restrictions that were no longer subject to the Justice Department’s review. However, a separate provision of the VRA allows the courts to reimpose preclearance, which would present a major obstacle if North Carolina Republicans ever try to impose similar restrictions in the future.

[...]

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...al-appeals-court-blocks-north-carolinas-voter



"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties."
- Chief Justice Roberts
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...decision_justice_roberts_doesn_t_believe.html


Let's turn on the tap to spending over the top,
now I know something, this can't flop,
bah! corruption,
what a seduction,
though, this is a really an unphenomenal crop
 
Walking Makes Strides in All Kinds of Communities
From inner-city Birmingham to small-town Iowa to racially diverse suburbs of LA.
By Jay Walljasper / AlterNet
July 30, 2016

Imagine living in one of America’s great walkable communities. Your day begins with a stroll—saying hi to neighbors, noticing blooming gardens and enticing shop windows, maybe stopping for a treat on your way to work.

Weekends are even better. You step out your door and join the hum of activity on the sidewalk en route to a coffeeshop, park, shopping district, friend’s home, recreation center or house of worship.

More time on your feet provides an opportunity to reflect on your life (you feel more energetic and creative now that you’re not driving all the time) and your community (it feels more alive now that everyone walks more). Even driving is more fun than it used to be with fewer cars clogging the streets.

And the really good news is that you don’t need to move to another town or a more expensive neighborhood to enjoy these pleasures. Any community can become more walkable if people are willing to get off the couch to make a difference.

That’s what my colleagues and I at the Every Body Walk! Collaborative and America Walks discovered researching our new book America’s Walking Renaissance, which can be downloaded for free.

[...]

http://www.alternet.org/books/walking-popular-across-america


A little bit of walking for you everyday,
initially, I feel rather like playing with clay,
do you want a crumpet?
no, I am out with the trumpet,
under that sunny ray, oh, what a savory day
 
ImaginaryBloke said:
Are We Witnessing the Death of Representative Democracy?
Billionaires now sponsor presidential candidates (or run for president themselves) the way Renaissance popes and princes once patronized artists.
By Andrew Gumbel / The New Press
July 29, 2016

[...]

The corrupting influence of money hasn’t just upended the priorities of elected officials, who now spend more time raising funds than talking to constituents or researching the issues they vote on. It hasn’t just made campaigns more expensive, more media-saturated, and more vicious. The scenario that Schattschneider imagined in 1960 has largely come to pass. Magnates do outvote entire cities, at least in those cases—the majority—where media coverage of political campaigns cannot keep up with the relentless flow of money. For many people living in noncompetitive or uncontested districts, elections have indeed become just a formality. Billionaires now sponsor presidential candidates (or run for president themselves) the way Renaissance popes and princes once patronized artists; where those candidates previously had to sway party committees and state delegates to become viable office seekers, now they need to win over an audience of just one. As the Wall Street Journal observed of the record crop of billionaire-backed Republican candidates for 2016, “The life of their candidacies is now divorced from their ability to directly raise money from voters.” Whether money alone can translate into electoral success remains to be seen, but it can certainly catapult presidential candidates over the first hurdle and into the public limelight.

[...]

http://www.alternet.org/books/are-we-witnessing-death-representative-democracy


I have got a lot of money for establishing candidacies, :m151:
people call me things, but I am not one of those crazies,
buying stuff is my god-given right,
I care not for proletarian plight,
even if they will smear my face with lots of pieeees :cool:
Click to expand...


I think Citizen’s United has a very limited life span at this point.
The same goes for Wall St., a second bail-out (which is highly probable at this point) will have to take place and should “our” representatives try and use taxpayer monies to do so it I don’t think the people will stand it for a second time, as even more of their 401-Ks or whatever retirement or pension is left is raped while no one goes to prison for the loss of millions of jobs, wealth, etc. etc.
But don’t touch our over-inflated military budget or the Republicans get their panties in a bunch.
And the next time they vote to not increase Social Security cost of living, the people should let them know loud and clear that shit isn’t going to fly anymore...it’s the people’s money that the government wasn’t supposed to tap - it was Reagan that fucked it up and “borrowed” money from it...since when did money you never intended to pay back embody the label of “borrowed”?
And you know what? I want my motherfucking interest on the shit too.
No brokers fees, no bullshit early withdrawal fees...fuck you, it’s the people’s money.
 
Skarekrow said:
And you know what? I want my motherfucking interest on the shit too.
No brokers fees, no bullshit early withdrawal fees...fuck you, it’s the people’s money.
Click to expand...

Contempt of court. Give this man a bar of soap and two weeks to cool off. No respect.
 
just me said:
Contempt of court. Give this man a bar of soap and two weeks to cool off. No respect.
Click to expand...

Contempt perhaps is a good descriptor.
 
13876380_10153860798891275_1773067537758535946_n.png
 
Goldman Sachs Subpoenaed for Connection to Global Corruption Ring
By Editor on August 2, 2016

Subpoenas were issued to Goldman Sachs for its alleged connections to a global corruption ring, according to reports Friday.
By Robert Donachie

Goldman Sachs, a worldwide leading investment bank with ties to the 2008 banking crisis, faces subpoenas from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday concerning its relationship with a Malaysian consortium at the heart of a global corruption scandal, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Goldman has cooperated thus far with authorities, providing the necessary documents to both the SEC and the DOJ.

In addition to the documents in question, authorities want to interview both current and former bank employees who have connections with the Malaysian group–1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).

The investigation focuses on compliance with the US Bank Secrecy Act, an act that requires domestic financial institutions to “assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering.”

Goldman is being investigated specifically regarding the $2.5 billion in profits it earned from 1MDB bond sales, which were “diverted from the fund to shell companies controlled by influential figures in Malaysia and Abu Dhabi,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

It isn’t just U.S. authorities looking into the matter. Singapore’s central bank stated Saturday that it too is investigating.

The investment bank has ties to 1MDB dating back to 2009 with some $6.5 billion in bond acquisitions over the course of the relationship.

Goldman says that it had “no visibility into whether some of those funds may have been subsequently diverted to other purposes.”

http://www.theeventchronicle.com/fi...subpoenaed-connection-global-corruption-ring/


Goldman cannot keep its hand out of the honey pot,
now with a warning, they better stop on the spot,
after plundering foreign lands,
they find themselves in quicksand,
despite paying their lawyers more than the worth of Camelot
 
One Man Holds a PATENT That Could Crush MONSANTO and Change The World
by admin · Published March 6, 2015 · Updated January 31, 2016

paul-stamets-mushrooms.jpg


This may be some of the most important information we ever share here at LoveClicks.org. What you are about to read holds tremendous potential to radically change the entire world in many positive ways.

Monsanto does not want this article to go viral, for if it does, it could very well bring about their demise.

In 2006 a patent was granted to a man named Paul Stamets. Even though Paul is the world’s leading mycologist, his patent has received very little attention and exposure. Why? As stated by executives in the pesticide industry, this patent represents “the most disruptive technology we have ever witnessed.” And when they say disruptive, they are referring to it being disruptive to their chemical pesticides industry.

We can no longer deny that the pesticide industry is causing incredibly detrimental effects to the earth, people, animals, plants & insects too. The rapid decline of the world’s bee populations is being attributed to Monsanto’s chemical concoctions that are being sprayed over farmers fields around the world. (Though the number of countries who have kicked out & banned Monsanto is growing) The use of chemical pesticides is a practice that absolutely must stop and new methods must be employed before it’s too late.

Yet with Monsanto generating nearly $16 BILLION dollars in 2014, they certainly do not want anything getting in the way of that money flow. That kind of revenue gives them a lot of resources and abilities to suppress information that may be damaging to them.

Like this patent of Paul Stamet’s. Paul has figured out how to use mother nature’s own creations to keep insects from destroying crops. It is what’s being called SMART pesticides. These biopesticides provide a safe & nearly permanent solution for controlling over 200,000 species of insects, and it is all thanks to the ‘magic’ of mushrooms.

I won’t go into the specifics of how it all works, for most of us won’t really understand it anyway, but to summarize, he does this by taking entomopathogenic Fungi (fungi that destroys insects) and morphs it into not producing spores. This in turn actually attracts the insects who then eat and turn into fungi from the inside out!

paul-stamet-change-the-world-1-300x225.jpg
paul-stamet-change-the-world-2-300x225.jpg


For those who do want to do their own further reseach on the topic, I have provided a list of links below to help you along.

As more people wake up to the damaging effects of Monsanto’s chemicals & GMO foods, the demand for truly nutritious, pesticide free, non-gmo, organic foods is on the rise. We are seeing more community gardens & urban forests being created. More people are starting to grow food, not lawns. Permaculture is becoming more widely talked about and understood. There is a major paradigm shift happening right now as our collective consciousness expands and awakens.

These truly are exciting, monumental times we live in. We are seeing old world ways crumble and power structures fall as we wake up and step up to collectively create a more healthy and sustainable way of working, living & playing together on this planet. The time has come. We can do this!

Here is a link to the patent we are speaking of: 7,122,176
http://www.google.com/patents/US7122176

A list of all the patents Paul has applied for:
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/paul-edward-stamets

Plenty of information about Paul Stamets:
http://www.fungi.com/about-paul-stamets.html

Wikipedia page about Paul Stamets:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Stamets

http://www.loveclicks.org/paul-stamet-patent/


Playing by the rules of Monsanto - the game of economic terrorism. That is a dangerous thing. He should open-source the patent in my view, subject only to recouping the cost.
 
Of course it’s Texas who files suit...everything is bigger there all right, including their idiocy.
(no offense to my Texas dwelling friends)​

U.S. Chamber sues over rules that discourage
companies from moving overseas to avoid taxes


imrs.php
Thomas Donohue, chief executive of US Chamber of Commerce, delivering annual State of American Business address at their auditorium in Washington, DC on Jan.8, 2014.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday sued to block the implementation of Obama administration rules that make it more difficult for U.S. companies to move their headquarters overseas to lower their tax bills.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, is a last-ditch effort by the business community to squash proposed regulations that have already scuttled plans by Pfizer to merge with Botox-maker Allergen in an $160 billion deal and become an Irish company.

The merger would have saved the pharmaceutical giant at least $35 billion in taxes, according to advocacy groups.

The regulations issued by the Treasury Department in April took surgical aim at some of the chief benefits of a so-called inversion, in which U.S. companies are technically purchased by smaller foreign firms and then move their headquarters to a low-tax country in order to reduce their U.S. levy.

The new rules made it more difficult, for example, for companies to use a practice known as "earnings stripping" that enables companies to lower their taxable U.S. profits.

But in its suit, the U.S. Chamber and the Texas Association of Business say the Obama administration rules went too far.

The Treasury Department "simply rewrote the law unilaterally.
This is not the way government is supposed to work in America,” U.S. Chamber President and Chief Executive Thomas J. Donohue said in a statement.

The Treasury Department said in a statement it would have preferred Congress adopt legislation to stop inversions, but acted in the absence of congressional action.

"This action was based on strong policy interests and clear legal authority," the statement said.
"We will continue to defend these regulations, which will help slow the erosion of our corporate tax base.”

The lawsuit will likely ensure that a simmering fight over the U.S. corporate tax code drags into next year as large American companies face pushback in the United States and Europe over the lengths they go to to lower their tax bills.

In the United States, the Obama administration and lawmakers in both political parties are frustrated by large U.S. firms that either stage inversions or leave their foreign profits overseas where it cannot be taxed by American authorities.

U.S. companies has about $2 trillion in such un-repatriated profits at the end of last year, including nearly $200 billion from Apple alone.

In Europe, U.S. multinationals have found themselves under investigation by multiple local authorities for their tax-dodging strategies.

The European Commission, for example, is preparing to rule in the next few weeks on whether Apple owes the Irish government billions in underpaid taxes.

But the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, argues corporations are acting appropriately given the broken U.S. corporate tax code.

The federal corporate tax rate, 35 percent, is one of the highest in the developed world, though few companies pay that much.

“Instead of breaking the rules to punish companies engaged in lawful transactions, Washington should just do its job and comprehensively reform the tax code,” Donohue stated.

“The real solution is tax reform that lowers rates for all businesses, allowing American companies to compete globally and the United States to attract foreign investment.”
 
13886508_10153881149531275_41517032367181757_n.jpg
 
13939420_10155031339802908_9118510747379034139_n.png


What a sad statistic.

I believe we can do better.

Keep fighting for a fair society!​
 
First: Research, lots and lots of research. They're more evil than you ever imagined. "Rome" is a start to understanding the globalist elite. Secondly, you must understand that we are on the Outer edge of the Galaxy and this is in Star Wars terminology "The Outer Rim". Second: more research. The whole thing is more corrupt and evil than you ever imagined. If you must follow only one person: Richard Dolan, Robert David Steele or James Corbett. YouTube them... free thought isn't illegal yet, but it would be if TPTB had their way.
 
Stark New Evidence on How Money Shapes America’s Elections
By Lynn Parramore

Aug 8, 2016

Oversights of two generations of social scientists have weakened democracy

[...]

Even today, many academics and pundits still insist that money matters less to political outcomes than ordinary citizens think, even as business executives throw down mind-boggling sums to dine with politicians and Super Pacs spring up like mushrooms. The few dissenters from this consensus, like Noam Chomsky, are ignored in the U.S. as “unpersons,” though they are enormously respected abroad.

This is a scandal. It has stymied efforts at campaign finance reform and weakened American democracy.

Political scientist Thomas Ferguson, Director of Research at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), has spent a career setting the record straight with clear empirical evidence in a field where such research has been shockingly rare. Ever since his 1995 book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition blasted through received academic wisdom by showing how wealthy individuals and businesses strategically invest in political parties for the biggest pay off, Ferguson has been the man to seek when you really wanted to know how elections work and who controls them.

[...]

Spend money, win votes
Now the researchers have turned their attention on political money in Congressional elections in a new paper for (INET).

They begin with a simple question: What are the facts about total campaign spending and election outcomes? As they write: “We can pool all spending by and on behalf of candidates and then examine whether relative, not absolute, differences in total outlays are related” to the differences in votes received by the major political parties.

Their answer is stunning: there is strong, direct link between what the major political parties spend and the percentage of votes they win – far stronger than all the airy dismissals of the role of money in elections would ever lead you to think, and certainly stronger than anything you read in your poli sci class.

They show the strength of this relationship through a simple graph. The line going out to the right in the graph shows the Democratic percentage of the total money flowing into the race for the major parties and runs from 0 to 100 percent. The vertical line shows the percentage of the major party vote that the Democrats won. Dots represent individual House races in 2012.

As Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen sum up:

At the bottom left Democrats spend almost no money and get virtually no votes; at the top right, they spend nearly all the money and garner virtually all the ballots, calculated as proportions of totals for the major parties.

Ferguson-2012-Election-Housing.png



If money and voting outcomes were unrelated, then the dots representing individual House races in 2012 would be scattered all over the square. If they were perfectly related, the dots would all cluster tightly on a line.

Not only in 2012, but in every election for which the data exists (from 1980 to 2012), Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen found that the graphs came out with neat, straight lines, with minimal scattering of dots. The link is clear: when the Democrats spend more than Republicans, their candidates win. When Republicans spend more than Democrats, they win.

There was but one exception, the Senate races of 1982, when Senator William Proxmire, whose disdain for fundraising was legendary but who still won elections, brought down the average. Otherwise, with alarming regularity, Democrats and Republicans candidates’ share of the vote was correlated, to an astonishing degree, with the amount money spent in the campaign.

Nothing like this graph has ever made its way into a political science textbook. That it now exists sure should change what Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen call the “optics” of the campaign finance discussion. But will it?

[...]

https://www.ineteconomics.org/ideas...idence-on-how-money-shapes-americas-elections



A gazillion tons of money of campaign contributions for my lore,
my business empire all the politicians without exception adore,
the gaze of the donating millionaire is creepy,
oh no, now I do not mean to be bleepy,
better finding a different life path, or else my ass will feel sore
 
ImaginaryBloke said:
Stark New Evidence on How Money Shapes America’s Elections
By Lynn Parramore

Aug 8, 2016

Oversights of two generations of social scientists have weakened democracy

[...]

Even today, many academics and pundits still insist that money matters less to political outcomes than ordinary citizens think, even as business executives throw down mind-boggling sums to dine with politicians and Super Pacs spring up like mushrooms. The few dissenters from this consensus, like Noam Chomsky, are ignored in the U.S. as “unpersons,” though they are enormously respected abroad.

This is a scandal. It has stymied efforts at campaign finance reform and weakened American democracy.

Political scientist Thomas Ferguson, Director of Research at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), has spent a career setting the record straight with clear empirical evidence in a field where such research has been shockingly rare. Ever since his 1995 book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition blasted through received academic wisdom by showing how wealthy individuals and businesses strategically invest in political parties for the biggest pay off, Ferguson has been the man to seek when you really wanted to know how elections work and who controls them.

[...]

Spend money, win votes
Now the researchers have turned their attention on political money in Congressional elections in a new paper for (INET).

They begin with a simple question: What are the facts about total campaign spending and election outcomes? As they write: “We can pool all spending by and on behalf of candidates and then examine whether relative, not absolute, differences in total outlays are related” to the differences in votes received by the major political parties.

Their answer is stunning: there is strong, direct link between what the major political parties spend and the percentage of votes they win – far stronger than all the airy dismissals of the role of money in elections would ever lead you to think, and certainly stronger than anything you read in your poli sci class.

They show the strength of this relationship through a simple graph. The line going out to the right in the graph shows the Democratic percentage of the total money flowing into the race for the major parties and runs from 0 to 100 percent. The vertical line shows the percentage of the major party vote that the Democrats won. Dots represent individual House races in 2012.

As Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen sum up:

At the bottom left Democrats spend almost no money and get virtually no votes; at the top right, they spend nearly all the money and garner virtually all the ballots, calculated as proportions of totals for the major parties.

Ferguson-2012-Election-Housing.png



If money and voting outcomes were unrelated, then the dots representing individual House races in 2012 would be scattered all over the square. If they were perfectly related, the dots would all cluster tightly on a line.

Not only in 2012, but in every election for which the data exists (from 1980 to 2012), Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen found that the graphs came out with neat, straight lines, with minimal scattering of dots. The link is clear: when the Democrats spend more than Republicans, their candidates win. When Republicans spend more than Democrats, they win.

There was but one exception, the Senate races of 1982, when Senator William Proxmire, whose disdain for fundraising was legendary but who still won elections, brought down the average. Otherwise, with alarming regularity, Democrats and Republicans candidates’ share of the vote was correlated, to an astonishing degree, with the amount money spent in the campaign.

Nothing like this graph has ever made its way into a political science textbook. That it now exists sure should change what Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen call the “optics” of the campaign finance discussion. But will it?

[...]

https://www.ineteconomics.org/ideas...idence-on-how-money-shapes-americas-elections



A gazillion tons of money of campaign contributions for my lore,
my business empire all the politicians without exception adore,
the gaze of the donating millionaire is creepy,
oh no, now I do not mean to be bleepy,
better finding a different life path, or else my ass will feel sore
Click to expand...


Funny...when you show such data to people it’s like it’s invisible to them or they suddenly can’t read or hear.
Very sad state of our election process.
 
This is what needs to stop...I doubt Trump will do anything to fix or increase the minimum wage.


Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers
$6.2 Billion In Public Assistance​

Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”

Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.

The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.

“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.”

Walmart spokesperson Randy Hargrove described this week’s report as “inaccurate and misleading,” referring to its use of extrapolated data and adding that public assistance program eligibility requirements vary from state to state.

“More than 99 percent of our associates earn above minimum wage,” he said.
“In fact, the average hourly wage for our associates, both full and part-time, is an average of $11.83 per hour.”

He said the company had no internal figures to share on the number of workers receiving public assistance.

“The bottom line is Walmart provides associates with more opportunities for career growth and greater economic security for their families than other companies in America,” he said.

“Our full and part-time workers get bonuses for store performance, access to a 401K-retirement plan, education and health benefits.”

Hargrove added that the number of Walmart employees receiving Medicaid is similar to the percentage for other large retailers — and comparable to the national average.

He pointed to a 2005 report by economist Jason Furman, now a White House adviser, describing Walmart’s Medicaid enrollment as “a reflection of [its] enormous size.”

Other large retail chains have been the focus of similar reports in recent months.
In October, two studies released to coincide showed that American fast food industry outsourced a combined $7 billion in annual labor costs to taxpayers.

McDonald's MCD +0.12% alone accounted for $1.2 billion of that outlay.

Yum Brands came in at a distant number two, with its Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC subsidiaries costing $648 million in benefits programs for workers each year.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top