TheMaxRebo
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
I'm not sure either.
I do mean a literal bill though, not necessarily a tax hike. We should have the info. You had 500 employees that we had to pay $x towards their food costs, and they work for you, so here's your bill....So even if it's cheaper to the company to pay the food stamp bill, at least we get some relief, and new funds to go elsewhere.
Now there are lots of intricacies. At what point would a company be responsible? Is it by profit margin? Revenue? Total Profit? EPS? That is where it would get tricky, for sure. But thanks to IFRS and GAAP, there isn't much legal shifting they could do. They also are all required to comply with SOX as they are publicly traded. Would a company purposefully not take a larger profit to get out of paying that bill? Maybe, but then stock price would suffer, and that 10% would get rowdy......
The tough part with that is that people can need subsidies for a lot of reasons - maybe health care or a family member has financial issues or just other financial issues that come up - perhaps through no fault of their own - and no fault of the company ... that they are paying the person that in "normal" conditions wouldn't need additional support but due to these extreme issues now does. But why is that the responsibility of the company? Should be societies issue to support people that are doing everything they can but due to unforeseen situations just can't get out the whole they are in
and if the person isn't doing all they can to provide for themselves, then isn't that on them, and again, not the companies?
I certainly get your point and at a high level the idea of executives making millions and then those lower needing food stamps doesn't *feel* right, but I think putting something into practice is much more difficult