How do you refute this?

How do you refute this?

Education is free online for anyone interested in googling the information they seek.

It's their money and they earned it, why should any of it go to shit eating college kids?

If you aren't in STEM or finance you should have to pay completely out of your own pocket, no loans no grants nothing.

I don't like Walmart, but how is it their responsability to pay for a bunch of worthless people to go to college and trade school?

Didn't the Walton family work for that money?

Refute what?

If the gov received those taxes they wouldn't be used on education, duh
Sage

What about criminology to be police detectives and shit?

I got a scholarship for doing accounting (technically STEM) but I'd say something emergency service related would be more based

OP here, I'm asking more about the tax break aspect of it. I genuinely can't think of an argument against that.

Easily done at college level rather than university, sorry should have made it specific I was talking about university.

Probably because it's not true.

>free ride
Nigga that exactly is what a free ride is wtf is this logic

Walmart caters to the poor and oppressed yet liberals hate Walmart. Why do they go against their own interests like that...

Unfortunately it is true

>conservashits

Fucking college is a meme, some highschools in Aus are colleges, in U.S college is university.

Explain Canadian college/ Uni desu

There is nothing to refute. It implies something moral but never says it.
It never outright says it because it is ridiculous

SHART

That money shouldn't go to that. It's a completely irrelevant cause. It should go towards better, or in the case of Walmart (I've worked for them) FAIR wages. They cut so many corners at Walmart and essentially get away with slave labor and abuse their workers to death.

This is manufactured outrage.

What did they actually pay in taxes? And what were the tax breaks for? Charity? Maybe they DID use the money to put 500,000 kids through school and just did it without the government taking their commission from it first, which would have lowed the number to something like 150,000 after bureaucratic fees and processing.

The same company that Hillary Clinton was an administrator of and helped expand globally because of her husband and NAFTA?

>the government won't be stealing all of these EVIL RICH PEOPLE's money
>this is bad.

>6 billion in tax breaks
Just give me 0.10% of that and I'll be set for life.

When they say "tax breaks" do they mean government subsidies?

I can get behind that. No business should receive subsidies from the government.