Run a quick scan of any mid- to major-market city newspaper over the last six months, and I'm sure you'll run into stories about how so-and-so is considering moving from X to Y and will be given tax abatements as part of the enticement. Whenever a ball squad (be it base- foot- or basket-) considers moving, you can bet your bottom dollar that the owners are looking for tax incentives. YOU build it and WE'LL come.
What we're gradually seeing is a turning back of the tide. As it stands, citizens feel they are over burdened with taxes, and they believe that corporations aren't paying their fair share. And they're actually more right than wrong.
What the Maryland deal--which asks WalMart to either pay for a share of the health costs of their employees or pay a tax to the state--represents a long needed return back to sanity. As long as corporations are viewed as legal persons, states should make every effort to treat them like legal persons--which means giving them rights AND responsibilities. We give individual deals to corporations all of the time. Time to go the other way. Especially because the current way doesn't work.
Do you know how many employers in Maryland there are with more than 10000 employees? You've lived here longer than I have.
How many of them cover health care for their employees? Does Lockheed Martin? Does the state government? In Michigan I know the big three cover health insurance. What about here?
For those entities that don't cover health insurance, exactly WHO is paying for the health coverage their employees do get?
Posted by: Lester Spence at April 22, 2005 06:08 PMThe biggest employer in Maryland is the NSA, from what I've heard. The WalMart bill actually gets one other company than WalMart. But because they pay a higher percentage, for now, they are safe. I don't remember the company name.
From what I know, Wal Mart does offer health insurance, which is part of the reason why I don't get the reason for the bill.
I'm thinking, strongly, that it is just a matter of money grabbing.
Posted by: DarkStar at April 23, 2005 01:15 PMFrom the article:
Lawmakers said they did not set out to single out Wal-Mart when they drafted a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits -- or put the money directly into the state's health program for the poor.
WalMart spends 6% of their payroll on health care. Why is that not enough? Especially if they have a lot of part time workers who don't want to take part in the health care?
Posted by: DarkStar at April 23, 2005 01:18 PMWhere do the funds go? I'm pretty certain WalMart execs have health care. What about the person that rings up your sales? Does SHE get health care? How about the greeter that welcomes you when you walk into the door? Where do they get their coverage from? This isn't a matter of choice for these workers as they make a little above minimum wage...
Posted by: Lester Spence at April 23, 2005 06:01 PM
As long as corporations are viewed as legal persons, states should make every effort to treat them like legal persons--which means giving them rights AND responsibilities.
You are not required to pay for health care for your family.
You are not required to pay unemployment insurance in case you are without a job.
You are not required to disclose your financial condition to the world because you are a public servant.
Posted by: EBrown at April 13, 2005 08:32 PM