The Walmart Tax for Ct.

[DawnCt1]

New England is lagging behind all of the other states for job creation. Connecticut is lagging behind all of the New England states. First of all, there is property tax on business equipment so many businesses are reluctant to purchase new equipment and invest in growth because when they take a risk in doing so, they will be taxed. The "new tax" that the Democratic legislature is considering however is a $2.35 tax per hour that Walmart will be assessed on their employees. (employers who employ greater than 10K ee's) Since Walmart employs many part timers and many of those who do work full time do not want to buy the offered health insurance, the adults and their children end up on the state insurance, "The Huskey Plan". Now this could impact the state in several ways; Walmart may just decide that this is the price of doing business and pay the $3.5 million a year, or they may decide that they will employ 9,999 workers, eliminating part time positions that work well for high school kids and "moms". If there are sizable lay offs, many of these people will end up on unemployment for a while and perhaps welfare, costing the state a lot more money. The other message it sends, and it is a perception that clearly exists, is that Connecticut is NOT a good place to do business and is not business friendly. Any thoughts on the Walmart tax. That is what it is being called because Walmart fits into this category.

 

[dennis99ss]

I think its a good idea.

What your post does not address is the cost of the health insurance plan that people decline to purchase, and the wages that those people are earning. I would be willing to wager that the percentage of their wages that would be required to go to a health plan is substantially higher than the percantage of wages that goes to healthcare for your family. There is likely not a real "choice" there, in that Walmart wages are low, below the poverty level low.

Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four.
The most common Wal-Mart jobs earn less.
A sales associate--the most common job classification--earns on average $8.23 per hour ($13,861 annually)
A cashier—the second most common job—earns about $7.92 per hour ($11,948 annually)
Sales associates and cashiers combined account for more than a third of all Wal-Mart jobs.
The world’s largest and richest retailer—with more than $250 billion in annual revenue--can afford wage increases. Wal-Mart could pay each employee a dollar more per hour if the company increased its prices by a half-penny per dollar. For example, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee.


And, with regards healthcare

High premiums and deductibles keep more than half of Wal-Mart workers from participating in the company health plan. While the national average of workers covered by employer health insurance is 67 percent, only about 47 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees are covered by the company’s health care plan.

The average worker would have to pay one fifth of his paycheck for health care coverage at Wal-Mart. On a wage of about $8 an hour and 29-32 hours of work a week, many workers must rely on state programs or family members or simply live without health insurance.
Employees must pay $218 per month for family health care coverage from Wal-Mart.
In Wal-Mart's employee health plan, deductibles range from $350 to as high as $3,000 for family coverage.

More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees--600,000 people--are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses’ plans—or live without any health insurance. Wal-Mart shifts the cost of health insurance to taxpayers and other employers, driving up the health costs for all of us.
Recent reports show that Wal-Mart tops the list of companies in many states whose employees and/or their children rely on taxpayers to foot the bill for health care:
In Alabama, Wal-Mart employees with children on Medicaid cost the state between $5.8 million and $8.2 million to cover 3,864 children.
Wal-Mart workers in California rely on the state taxpayers for about $32 million annually in health-related services.
In Tennessee, almost 10,000 Wal-Mart employees are on the state’s expanded Medicaid program.
In Georgia, over 10,261 children of Wal-Mart employees are enrolled in the state’s PeachCare program for health insurance in families meeting federal poverty criteria.
When other companies get tired of paying the bill for Wal-Mart, they drop or reduce health care benefits for their employees. There are more than 40 million uninsured working families. The more Wal-Mart grows, so do the number of the uninsured

In 2002, Wal-Mart further restricted the number of employees eligible for coverage by requiring full-time workers to work six months before become eligible to purchase the company’s health insurance. Part-time workers need to wait two years for health care insurance—which only qualifies for single coverage, not dependent coverage. Also in 2002, the company raised the bar for new full-time workers from 28 hours to 34 hours per week to be eligible to purchase the health care coverage.

Wal-Mart has increased the premium cost for workers by over 200% since 1993--medical care inflation only went up 50% in the same period. In 2002 alone, Wal-Mart’s health care premiums increased by 30%.—nearly triple the national average increase of 11%.
Wal-Mart further restricted the number of associates eligible for coverage by requiring fulltime associates to work six months before becoming eligible to purchase Wal-Mart health insurance. The company also raised the number of hours new employees must work from 28 to 34 hours per week to be eligible to purchase the expensive health care coverage.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2002, average spending on health benefits for each of Wal-Mart’s 500,000 covered employees was $3,500—almost 40% less than the average for all U.S. corporations and 30% less than the rest of the wholesale/retail industry.

The Walton family is worth about $98 billion. Just 1% of the family wealth could provide affordable health care for all Wal-Mart employees.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I think it makes sense - and as far as the "message" - I don't think Conn is going to be alone in this - do you really think Walmart will pull out of Conn and other states just because of this? I doubt it. If enough states join in - where are they gonna go?

Recently it was reported the NY taxpayers spent over $61 million to subsidize heathcare for Walmarts uninsured workers and their families. I would love to see NY do the same - and , you know what, I could care less if Walmart leaves - I would love to get some Costcos here!!!!!!

 

[DawnCt1]

I think it makes sense - and as far as the "message" - I don't think Conn is going to be alone in this - do you really think Walmart will pull out of Conn and other states just because of this? I doubt it. If enough states join in - where are they gonna go?

Recently it was reported the NY taxpayers spent over $61 million to subsidize heathcare for Walmarts uninsured workers and their families. I would love to see NY do the same - and , you know what, I could care less if Walmart leaves - I would love to get some Costcos here!!!!!!

They wouldn't have to pull out of Ct. They could hire less than 10K people, eliminating part time jobs. Some of those people will end up out of a job or on welfare, costing the state substantially more money. Many mothers will lose the opportunity to work "school hours". While the wages certainly are less than a skilled employee could make elsewhere, exactly how much is the job and the skills required worth? Is it worth $15 an hour? I don't think so.

 

[N.Bailey]

They wouldn't have to pull out of Ct. They could hire less than 10K people, eliminating part time jobs. Some of those people will end up out of a job or on welfare, costing the state substantially more money. Many mothers will lose the opportunity to work "school hours". While the wages certainly are less than a skilled employee could make elsewhere, exactly how much is the job and the skills required worth? Is it worth $15 an hour? I don't think so.

Do you happen to know how many employees Walmart employs in your state Dawn? Seems like it would be a good plan in a state like Texas, but Connecticut? I'm not so sure.

 

[Free4Life11]

Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four.

First off, are you assuming that only ONE parent is working? Growing up both of my parents ALWAYS worked. They just took opposite shifts and that solved the daycare problem. Dad worked 6-2 five days a week, mom worked 3-11 three nights a week.

Second of all, I hardly believe someone would work at Wal-Mart for the rest of their lives. I can't imagine being "stuck" there. I'm only 20 and I am at a job making $9.24 an hour.

EDITED:

I believe Maryland, which passed the law, has around 15K Wal-Mart employees. To reduce the workforce to below 10,000 would result in a substantial decrease in servce -- no way could they operate as many stores with 5K fewer employees and as a result stores would probably close. That's going to lead to lost revenue. All to save $3.5 million? (I don't know if this is the Maryland figure or the CT figure). Seems ridiculous! Some Wal-Mart stores make that much in probaly a week.

Why not ncrease the price of every product by $.01? The impact on shoppers would be insignificant, but if they have a high sales volume, it could add up.

 

[Free4Life11]

Wait a second. I am confused. Why are they considering this law, when Wal-Mart doesn't even employ 10,000 peopel in CT?

Employment Facts

* In Connecticut, the total number of Wal-Mart associates is 9,056 (as of January 2006).

 

[DawnCt1]

Wait a second. I am confused. Why are they considering this law, when Wal-Mart doesn't even employ 10,000 peopel in CT?

The State of Ct. rarely misses an opportunity to tax anyone or anything. There are a couple of answers to this; perhaps the legislature is assuming that Walmart has 10K. Perhaps they will lower the requirement to less than 10K, perhaps Walmart HAD 10K and saw this coming. The bottom line is, Ct. is the last in job growth in the region. Thinking of new ways to tax business is not going to enhance job growth. I understand that 800 people per day are moving into the state of Florida. Its sounds like they are developing an economy that is supporting their new population. What are they doing differently?

 

[dennis99ss]

e you are trying to stir the pot Dawn, using CT, and walmart as the trigger, but that your real problem is that CT taxes people to much in your opinion, and has a problem with job growth. I don't see how that effects the walmart law. Like others said, I doubt Walmart would pull out, or let sales suffer because of 3.5 million. Superstores gross 100-125k per day.

 

[N.Bailey]

First off, are you assuming that only ONE parent is working? Growing up both of my parents ALWAYS worked. They just took opposite shifts and that solved the daycare problem. Dad worked 6-2 five days a week, mom worked 3-11 three nights a week.

Second of all, I hardly believe someone would work at Wal-Mart for the rest of their lives. I can't imagine being "stuck" there. I'm only 20 and I am at a job making $9.24 an hour.

EDITED:

I believe Maryland, which passed the law, has around 15K Wal-Mart employees. To reduce the workforce to below 10,000 would result in a substantial decrease in servce -- no way could they operate as many stores with 5K fewer employees and as a result stores would probably close. That's going to lead to lost revenue. All to save $3.5 million? (I don't know if this is the Maryland figure or the CT figure). Seems ridiculous! Some Wal-Mart stores make that much in probaly a week.

Why not ncrease the price of every product by $.01? The impact on shoppers would be insignificant, but if they have a high sales volume, it could add up.

Well, there is no doubt about it, Walmart will not take the loss. They'll pass it on to their customer base, or they'll reduce pay by even more. One way or the other, the people will pay. It's just another tax the government is trying to get out of the people. I agree that Walmart will not close stores because of this.

 

[dennis99ss]

First off, are you assuming that only ONE parent is working? Growing up both of my parents ALWAYS worked. They just took opposite shifts and that solved the daycare problem. Dad worked 6-2 five days a week, mom worked 3-11 three nights a week.

How many of the workers have limited education? How many of them have single parent households? I am glad your parents were together and able to make it work, but, in today's society when approx. 50% of marriages fail, there are a large number of lower class (financially) single parent households. And, while you say you are 20 and you would not stay at walmart for ever, and use it as a stepping stone, there are some people who believe that the walmart job is the best job they can get, and they do stay for a long time. Next time you are in one, look at the pins the workers wear for longevity.

 

[DawnCt1]

How many of the workers have limited education? How many of them have single parent households? I am glad your parents were together and able to make it work, but, in today's society when approx. 50% of marriages fail, there are a large number of lower class (financially) single parent households. And, while you say you are 20 and you would not stay at walmart for ever, and use it as a stepping stone, there are some people who believe that the walmart job is the best job they can get, and they do stay for a long time. Next time you are in one, look at the pins the workers wear for longevity.

Walmart may be the best job they can get but what is "that best job" worth? Is it worth the same amount of money and benefits that a machinist can earn? Is it worth the same as an LPN, an electrician or a mechanic? Just because its the best job they can get doesn't mean that it needs to be compensated at the same rate that skilled labor is.

 

[Free4Life11]

How many of the workers have limited education? How many of them have single parent households? I am glad your parents were together and able to make it work, but, in today's society when approx. 50% of marriages fail, there are a large number of lower class (financially) single parent households. And, while you say you are 20 and you would not stay at walmart for ever, and use it as a stepping stone, there are some people who believe that the walmart job is the best job they can get, and they do stay for a long time. Next time you are in one, look at the pins the workers wear for longevity.

How many of them DON'T have a limited education? How many are going to college/taking classes to better their job opportunities? How many aren't single parent homes? How many aren't divorced? How many DON'T have more kids than they can afford? It goes both ways. Wal-Mart has over a million employees -- no way can you just group them together.

There are going to be "what about the people who..." in EVERY job. You can't please everyone.

 

[DawnCt1]

How many of them DON'T have a limited education? How many are going to college/taking classes to better their job opportunities? How many aren't single parent homes? How many aren't divorced? How many DON'T have more kids than they can afford? It goes both ways. Wal-Mart has over a million employees -- no way can you just group them together.

There are going to be "what about the people who..." in EVERY job. You can't please everyone.

Good points. How many are retirees looking for additional income AND something to do on a part time basis?

 

[DawnCt1]

e you are trying to stir the pot Dawn, using CT, and walmart as the trigger, but that your real problem is that CT taxes people to much in your opinion, and has a problem with job growth. I don't see how that effects the walmart law. Like others said, I doubt Walmart would pull out, or let sales suffer because of 3.5 million. Superstores gross 100-125k per day.

It sends the message to business in general that Ct. is NOT a business friendly state. Right now Sikorsky's teamsters are striking. Sikorsky has contracts to fullfill. They are planning on moving those particular jobs out of state.

 

[Bravosntha2g]

Sadly it looks like Virginia is headed in CT's direction. We've increased our budget from $30B to 72B in 14 years. Our budget went up $8B this year, we have a $6B surplus and the Republican Senate just passed new tax increases for transportation. Let's see if we raised spending from $64B to 72 and have a surplus and just increased taxes two years ago and we have to raise taxes again? What kind of Republicans are those. I surely won't be voting for any incumbent Republican in this state again!

 

[Bravosntha2g]

Just another reason for me to never move to the northeast, abandon Virginia which is becoming more and more like a New England state and move to sunny pro business Florida with no income tax, pro sports teams, and sunny weather.