The idea that welfare programs are only for lazy bums is a right-wing meme, not data. The demographics of SNAP recipients are too diverse to support that generalization.
> The demographics of SNAP recipients are too diverse to support that generalization.
Let me rephrase it: Food stamps, social security and social housing should be something for those truly down on their luck, no matter why they are in the situation they are in, and it should be enough to live in at least reasonably healthy conditions. Any full-time employment, in contrast, should pay enough wages to live in a comfortable life without any sort of government assistance.
Everything else is just shifting taxpayer money to greedy, exploitative employers.
Consider that your example of a "greedy, exploitive" employer is one where less than 1% of their employees receive SNAP benefits.
Is it more likely that the life circumstances of that 1% (the people that actually receive the benefits) differ from the other 99%, or that the employer's entire wage structure is based on subsidizing a fraction of a percent of wages in the most indirect and inefficient way possible?
If you're really that concerned about your tax dollars it doesn't make sense to segregate single parents, adults supporting elderly parents, veterans with partial disability, and millions of other workers receiving SNAP out of the workforce and onto more welfare just because you think they're too down on their luck to be allowed to work.
And if you care about people living in reasonably healthy conditions, it doesn't make sense to stigmatize public assistance and punish working adults for not being able to bootstrap on the same wage as everyone else.
14,500 out of 1.6 million US employees (i.e. less than 1%).
For comparison there are over 40 million people getting SNAP.