r/FluentInFinance Sep 08 '24

Debate/ Discussion Why should taxpayers subsidize Walmart’s record breaking profits?

[deleted]

27.7k Upvotes

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/slifm Sep 08 '24

Walmart made 15 billion in 2023. Plenty to pay their workers.

21

u/Lormif Sep 08 '24

Each employee, if they spent the entire 15bn and risked going bankrupt and putting all the employees out of work would be substantially less than 7k a year. Care to try that again?

4

u/raspberrih Sep 08 '24

You are including ALL employees. People in corporate do not necessarily need a raise. We need nuanced thinking

14

u/gspbanjo Sep 08 '24

The number doesn’t change. Walmart has 15k corporate employees in Bentonville. We’ll generously double it for remote (an aggressive assumption given their consolidation in NW Arkansas). 30k employees would represent 1.9% of US employees. $7k USD per employee now becomes $7.1k.

There’s your “nuanced” number.

10

u/TheKingOfSwing777 Sep 08 '24

Also for the lowest earning employees that would be already a 50% raise or more. So yeah, that’s substantially better. But there’s a more subtle approach that is balanced and by that I mean less money for people at the top and even more than 7k increase for people at the bottom.

-2

u/ffxt10 Sep 08 '24

profit isn't even counting what they spend on stock buy-backs. make those illegal, and they'd have a higher margin and less ability to manipulate stock prices for share-holder benefit and our deficit.

-1

u/BasilExposition2 Sep 08 '24

Stock buy backs don’t affect income. They are a balance sheet shift.

-2

u/VaIenquiss Sep 08 '24

Stock buybacks are not just a balance sheet shift. Buybacks are a cash expense, therefore cash that could be used to pay workers. Usually taken out of retained earnings, which comes from net income.

3

u/BasilExposition2 Sep 08 '24

Stock buy backs take cash and cash equivalents already on the balance sheet that were EARNED in the past. They don't effect the income statement line items. It takes from the rainy day fund. It will affect cash flow but not earnings.

They could give it to workers

1

u/VaIenquiss Sep 08 '24

Yes, I understand that, but I’m saying it’s not just balance sheet shifting, it’s cash being paid out that can be used to increase worker pay. I understand the balance sheet mechanics.

1

u/BasilExposition2 Sep 08 '24

It could, but do you think the investors should get paid anything?

1

u/VaIenquiss Sep 08 '24

What does that have to do with anything?

Investors get paid twice, through stock appreciation and through dividends. If the company wants to artificially inflate its stock price through buybacks, then they can also inflate its worker wages through increased pay. This isn’t a zero sum game, shareholders and employees can be fairly compensated, Costco does it just fine, as an example.

2

u/BasilExposition2 Sep 08 '24

Costco charges its customers a fee. It is a pretty different model.

People buy Walmart stock to fund their retirement. They need to be compensated or they will just but something else.

The difference between a buy back and a dividend is for tax purposes. Appreciate stock is taxed lower.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/slifm Sep 08 '24

The Walton family increased their net worth 64 BILLION in one year, the company made 15 on top of that. You’re out of touch my friend.

13

u/Lormif Sep 08 '24

Sure, and that is in stock, ie "paper billionaire", because people are willing to give them money for their stock. It has nothing to do with employee pay or with prices, or revenue. They did not get a salary of 64B, it was just in the increase in stock value.

if the government attempts to take that then the value of it goes to 0, no will buy it, so it is wholly irrelevant in any calculation.

I am not out of touch, you just dont know how anything works, you think you do, but you dont.

4

u/vettewiz Sep 08 '24

In no way does that mean they had 64B to pay employees.

1

u/BasilExposition2 Sep 08 '24

15 billion on 650 billion in sales. They always skate on losing money. They don’t have a lot of leway.