Skip to main content

Earlier I read a couple of facts here at DKos

One, Walmart costs taxpayers approximately $420,000 per store because of food stamps, and other federal programs that Walmart employees use because of low wages and low hours.

Two, there are approximately 4000 Walmart stores in the US.

So, I got to thinking...(always dangerous)

I have no idea how to double check the amount paid to Walmart workers for federal social programs etc.  However I went to the Internet and on wiki.answers.com it stated there are 4,394 Walmart stores, Sam's Clubs, and Walmart superstores in the US.

So -- $420,000 * 4394 stores = $1,845,480,000 --- approximately $1.8B

Obama wants to raise the tax rate on families making over $250,000.  This rate increase would generate approximately $1.6T

The conclusion.  The proposed tax rate on incomes for families making over $250,000 would not even pay for the federal social services Walmart employees use.

How's that for perspective?

The block quote above should be changed to a rate increase of approximately $160B per year.  Which changes my conclusion -- thank heavens -- that the increase in revenues would cover these costs and much more besides.  

Assuming, of course, my assumptions are correct.

8:10 PM PT: VCLib caught an error in my diary.  Although the math itself was correct, it should have said approximately $1.8B for billion not $1.8T for trillion.

Also, as I was cooking dinner I realized I had made another error, that of comparing apples to oranges.  I understand the $420,000 figure is per year.  The President's rate increase would be $1.6T over 10 years, so it would increase the revenue by (I assume an average of) $106B a year.

This make much more sense. (cents??)

Sorry for the errors.


Originally posted to Debis Diatribes on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 04:46 PM PST.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    Truth is generally the best vindication against slander - Abraham Lincoln; 1864

    by Debis Diatribes on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 04:46:03 PM PST

  •  That's 1.8 Billion dollars, Dr. Evil, lol. (6+ / 0-)

    But if you multiply that by 4 or 5 decades (x 1/2 to account crudely for linear growth over the period), you get a number of the same order of magnitude as the Walton family net worth of around 100 billion dollars.

    Can't ascribe all their billions to having effectively transferred the proceeds of social welfare programs into their coffers, but clearly a sizable part of it.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 05:11:18 PM PST

    •  You're going to account for linear growth by (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      billmosby

      multiplying by 1/2?

      Not that I would mind that kind of linear "growth" in the case of WalMart, of course...

      •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

        I just took the latest year's costs, multiplied by the number of years (roughly 50) that Walmart seems to have been in existence (Wikipedia says founded in 1962), assumed linear growth since then, so that means a linear function of time, which means the sum over that time is = 1/2 times the product of time and its value today. A triangular area, in other words.

        Now of course the growth may be exponential, in which case the size of the company in prior years would have been much less than the linear assumption would indicate, and the overall sum less accordingly.

        And then there are other variables too, such as how good or bad their pay was decades ago, and how much less of a safety net there might have been.

        I could look all that up, but that would be more work for perhaps less of an indictment, so to speak.

        If anybody else has the time to do the math for real, let me see how it comes out.

        Moderation in most things.

        by billmosby on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 06:36:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  talk about parasites (4+ / 0-)

    the Walton family is just evil. How the hell are they ever going to spend $100 Billion? Oh, yeah, without an estate tax, Waltons will be rich and screwing with US politics for eternity. Meanwhile, their employees will be needing taxpayer assistence forever, too.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 05:20:05 PM PST

  •  Need a bigger, more effective (4+ / 0-)

    inheiritance tax.  When the already rich start with way to much money, there needs to be a way the economy can to some extent,  balance the money distribution.  

    Time is a long river.

    by phonegery on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 05:38:52 PM PST

  •  Debis - there is an embarassing math error (0+ / 0-)

    in your diary. Your number of $1.8 Trillion is off by an order of magnitude. The correct answer is $1.8 Billion. You should consider deleting the diary or a heavy edit.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 06:53:12 PM PST

    •  In addition, the $420,000 cost per store (0+ / 0-)

      is NOT a fact. It is an estimate based on a group's assumptions which may be accurate but may not be. There is no factual data available on this specific point.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 06:57:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        Thanks for double checkiing my math.  I've made a couple of changes to the diary as I realized I had mixed an order of magnatude in the years as well.

        I was not sure exactly where the $420,000 came from and could not find it again, so I mentioned I could not verify that from other sources.  Do you know what group came up with the figure?

        Truth is generally the best vindication against slander - Abraham Lincoln; 1864

        by Debis Diatribes on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:22:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No I don't but it's been floating around the site (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          billmosby

          I just never took the time to try and research the methodology because I didn't believe it.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 10:02:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One hint of data came from Alan Grayson.. (0+ / 0-)

            In an interview last week (CNN?) he said that most of the 2 million employees of Walmart make about $1200 a month, gross, and that they are eligible for food stamps.

            I did a quick mental calculation and although I don't remember the details came up with the estimate that they could be using about 4% of the food stamp program. In 2011, that would be 4 percent of about 77 billion, or $280 million, assuming most employees took advantage of it. So using my previous "methodology" from above, that would work out to about 1/2 times 48 years (food stamp act started in 1964) x 280 million, or 6.7 billion total over that time.

            That's a far cry from half the Walton fortune, but it is just the one program.

            However, all this estimate rests on is conjecture, really.

            I suppose that if I looked long enough I could find a real analysis out there. I tend to avoid Walmart already as much as possible though for a variety of reasons.

            Moderation in most things.

            by billmosby on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 07:03:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I remember now where the 4% came from, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            in 2011 about 46 million people were receiving food stamp assistant, so 2/46 = about 4 percent.

            If you assume some number of dependents per Walmart employee, that would increase the percentage.

            Too much guesswork already, though; not going to extend such even further.

            Moderation in most things.

            by billmosby on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 07:06:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Please link the source to costs of each (0+ / 0-)

    store.  Thanks.  

    Romney is George W. Bush without brains.

    by thestructureguy on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:59:44 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site