What GAO Found
"The 12 million wage-earning adults (ages 19 to 64) enrolled in Medicaid—a joint federal-state program that finances health care for low-income individuals—and the 9 million wage-earning adults in households receiving food assistance from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) shared a range of common labor characteristics. For example, approximately 70 percent of adult wage earners in both programs worked full-time hours (i.e., 35 hours or more) on a weekly basis and about one-half of them worked full-time hours annually (see figure). In addition, 90 percent of wage-earning adults participating in each program worked in the private sector (compared to 81 percent of nonparticipants) and 72 percent worked in one of five industries, according to GAO’s analysis of program participation data included in the Census Bureau’s 2019 Current Population Survey. When compared to adult wage earners not participating in the programs, wage-earning adult Medicaid enrollees and SNAP recipients in the private sector were more likely to work in the leisure and hospitality industry and in food service and food preparation occupations."
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-410t
Employers whose full time workers qualify for welfare should be steeply fined. It's welfare for the companies.
@Phranny said - "Employers whose full time workers qualify for welfare should be steeply fined. It's welfare for the companies."
-------------
That's a powerful statement, Phranny.
What do you think of a government that forcibly taxes the incomes of the working poor? A revolution, perhaps?
Something to think about
@Earl-of-Trumps saidIt's not about taxes. It's a cycle. The company doesn't pay a living wage so the full time employees have to apply for snap benefits to eat so they can keep working. The company and it's stock holders are the only ones who see the difference between a capitalist system that would require payjng living wages (less money in the billionaires pocket) and a cronyism system that asks the government to pay for their workers living expenses (less money in the taxpayers pocket).
@Phranny said - "Employers whose full time workers qualify for welfare should be steeply fined. It's welfare for the companies."
-------------
That's a powerful statement, Phranny.
What do you think of a government that forcibly taxes the incomes of the working poor? A revolution, perhaps?
Something to think about
The workers would still be poor if tax rates were zero.
@wildgrass saidwell, of course the poor would still be poor if the government did not tax them,
It's not about taxes. It's a cycle. The company doesn't pay a living wage so the full time employees have to apply for snap benefits to eat so they can keep working. The company and it's stock holders are the only ones who see the difference between a capitalist system that would require payjng living wages (less money in the billionaires pocket) and a cronyism system that ...[text shortened]... ses (less money in the taxpayers pocket).
The workers would still be poor if tax rates were zero.
and they'd still be poor if the company gave them a nice raise too, but it's a morals issue, wildg.
I mean, how do you steal from a poor person and then justify it by saying that they'd have been poor anyway??
Two things comes to mind;
You are incredibly prejudice or naive to think that all businessmen are billionaires, and that they are CHEAP.
Also, the low wage earners in my state make $15/hour. An average wage earner in Cuba makes $17-$20 USD a MONTH!!
@Earl-of-Trumps saidYer way off topic. The specific wealth number of the business owner is irrelevant.
well, of course the poor would still be poor if the government did not tax them,
and they'd still be poor if the company gave them a nice raise too, but it's a morals issue, wildg.
I mean, how do you steal from a poor person and then justify it by saying that they'd have been poor anyway??
Two things comes to mind;
You are incredibly prejudice or naiv ...[text shortened]... earners in my state make $15/hour. An average wage earner in Cuba makes $17-$20 USD a MONTH!!
The businesses who hire full time employees RELY on the federal government to buy food for their own employees. The poor persons situation would be the same either way (they don't starve) but the employer and stockholders get more wealthy because of government if the government pays for food. The effect of this system is that a lot of the welfare system is actually designed to profit business owners and stock holders.
I like the solution of requiring businesses to pay workers a living wage so the government doesn't have to subsidize it. Gets the government out of more people's lives.
@wildgrass saidyou know that artificial raises causes inflation, so why go that route?
Yer way off topic. The specific wealth number of the business owner is irrelevant.
The businesses who hire full time employees RELY on the federal government to buy food for their own employees. The poor persons situation would be the same either way (they don't starve) but the employer and stockholders get more wealthy because of government if the government pays for fo ...[text shortened]... wage so the government doesn't have to subsidize it. Gets the government out of more people's lives.
tell me. is there any real difference to the paycheck if cutting taxes gives lunchbox joe an extra $150 per week,
or if the employer gives joe an extra $150 per week?
It would not seem so but there really is a big difference if done en masse. It will cause inflation and
lunchbox joe - as well everyone else, ends up in a higher tax bracket.
you are consistent, wildgrass, about the government's role in out lives. and it is easy to see that you favor more involvement.
@Earl-of-Trumps saidNo I don't think your thesis about inflation is accurate and your description of me is completely backwards.
you know that artificial raises causes inflation, so why go that route?
tell me. is there any real difference to the paycheck if cutting taxes gives lunchbox joe an extra $150 per week,
or if the employer gives joe an extra $150 per week?
It would not seem so but there really is a big difference if done en masse. It will cause inflation and
lunchbox joe - as ...[text shortened]... ss, about the government's role in out lives. and it is easy to see that you favor more involvement.
By setting baseline salary ranges for full time employees, welfare programs would shrink dramatically. This would decrease government spending, decrease the size of government and there would be millions of people no longer reliant on welfare.
@wildgrass
Why should my tax dollars subsidize corporations by giving subsidies to the working poor?
@Phranny saidask Earl.
@wildgrass
Why should my tax dollars subsidize corporations by giving subsidies to the working poor?