The New York Times Barnaby Fedder gives us another anti-WM soundbite--a minimum of $1 billion in government largesse has been given to the company (over an unspecified time period). Disgusting.
However, WM seems to be fighting back more than its opponents would like. It directly responds to charges that it takes too much from government:
In the last 10 years, she said, Wal-Mart has collected more than $52 billion in sales taxes, paid $4 billion in local property taxes, and paid $192 million in income and unemployment taxes to local governments.That's an incorrect comparison. The question is whether, absent WM, the government tax revenue would have been the same--but without the subsidy. Sloppy thinking on all sides on this one."It looks like offering tax incentives to Wal-Mart is a jackpot investment for local governments," she said.
WM also gives a new twist to the charges that it spends too little in wages:
Wal-Mart said its wages were "usually greater than those paid to other nonunion retail workers and virtually identical to those of unionized grocery workers."To my knowledge WM has never claimed that it pays its workers wages "virtually identical" to those of unionized grocers.
Posted by Kevin on May, 24 2004 at 10:09 AM
| TrackBack
cj wrote:The Kansas City Business Journal article regarding this stated that (quote=paraphase)"Wal Mart had no idea as to how much it has received in tax subsidies."
Sorry, there is NO WAY I can believe that. I'm quite sure that Wal Mart is very aware of the role of tax subsidies in every market segment it enters.
Perhaps they have chosen not to add X+Y+Z in any deposable document, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they know EXACTLY how much they are getting in tax subsidies.
-- May 28, 2004 12:07 AM ∞
Miscellany wrote in The Wal-Mart subsidy study:The New York Times reports a study conducted by Good Jobs First that claims Wal-Mart has been the recipient of over a billion dollars in government subsidies. In the companies defense, Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Mona Williams said: ...if $1 billion is...
-- May 29, 2004 08:04 AM ∞
