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
