>so Walmart can employ people at minimum wage and let the taxpayers foot the bill for their healthcare and food stamps.

Do those people magically start needing food and healthcare once they're employed by walmart? Why is it suddenly walmarts problem the moment they become a walmart employee? Would anyone stakeholder in this situation (the employees, society, walmart) be better off if the employee was no longer employed?

I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam.

If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly but instead the stamp system has many rules and restrictions that allow Walmart to strategically benefit by both positioning the role at just the right amount to qualify for the benefit (but no more) and frustratingly by being the vendor honouring the stamps.

>If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly

But we do? The EITC is basically a negative income tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

>I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam.

Ironically negative income taxes are closer to a labor "subsidy", than food stamps, because they're contingent on income (ie. labor), unlike food stamps which don't give you more money if you make more.

In that case, we’re not in a capitalist system at all, but a capitalist-socialist hybrid. Arguably, we’ve been in the hybrid since the New Deal, and it seems to have inherited the same socialism issues China is also grappling with.

Social democracy is the term that is usually used.