Work that does not cover need
36%of adult Maryland SNAP recipients were employed in the 2025 study.1
View source [1]Maryland's public-cost pipeline
Low wages do not end at the paycheck.
The measurable path runs from working households with insufficient income, through SNAP, into food purchases at authorized retailers—and increasingly onto Maryland's own budget.
SNAP participation
675,100Marylanders received SNAP in an average month in federal fiscal 2025.2
View source [2]Benefits become food spending
$1.69Bin Maryland SNAP benefits budgeted for fiscal 2027, spent through authorized retailers.3
View source [3]Retail revenue
Authorized retailersreceive the purchases. This includes local stores, supermarkets, and large corporate chains.4
View source [4]The loop is real; the company-level allocation is not public. The available data establish employment among recipients, statewide participation, total benefit spending, and retailer redemption. They do not disclose how much of Maryland's $1.69 billion is redeemed at any particular chain. The graphic therefore does not assign an invented dollar amount to Walmart, Amazon, McDonald's, or another company.
The direct Maryland budget effect
The federal cost shift turns a federally funded benefit into a State liability.
Beginning October 2026, Maryland's administrative share rises from 50% to 75%. Benefit cost-sharing begins later and depends on the State's SNAP payment-error rate. Maryland's FY2024 rate was 13.64%, which is above the 10% threshold for the maximum 15% State share.3
Forecast State exposureDollars in millions
Benefit cost share
FY27
FY28
FY29
FY31
Source [3], pp. 47–51. The FY27 administrative figure and later benefit-share forecasts are separate cost categories and should not be treated as one continuous series.
Why wages matter
SNAP benefits are calculated from net household income. A wage increase can therefore reduce benefit need, although the change is household-specific and not dollar-for-dollar.5
Why the excise tax matters
If a covered employer keeps wages below the benchmark, the proposed tax collects revenue that can offset part of the public fiscal cost.
The intended result
Either workers receive more income, or Maryland receives revenue. A successful behavioral tax may raise little because employers close the wage gap.
Sources and evidentiary notes
- University of Maryland School of Social Work, Maryland SNAP Households, 2025 (May 2026), employment and earnings findings. This is the Maryland-specific basis for the 36% figure.
- USAFacts, How many people receive SNAP benefits in Maryland every month? (updated June 5, 2026), reporting USDA Food and Nutrition Service FY2025 participation data.
- Maryland Department of Legislative Services, Analysis of the FY 2027 Maryland Executive Budget: Family Investment Administration (2026), pp. 30–32 and 47–51. This source supports the $1.69 billion benefit budget, administrative match change, 13.64% error rate, cost-share tiers, and FY2028–FY2031 forecasts.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Administration, SNAP Retailer Management Year End Summary FY 2025 (updated July 10, 2026), retailer authorization and redemption data by state and retailer type.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Administration, SNAP Eligibility, explaining the benefit calculation based on net monthly income and the maximum allotment.
Observed, forecast, and modeled numbers are kept separate. Sources [1], [2], and [4] report observed program data. Source [3] includes enacted budget figures and official forecasts. The wage-shortfall calculator below is an illustrative proposal model using assumptions selected by the user; its outputs are not historical facts or a Maryland fiscal note.
Scenario builder
Set the policy assumptions
Employer tax if wages stay unchanged
$10.53M $21,060 per worker / yearEmployer cost to close the wage gap
$9.07M Includes employer payroll taxWorkers' estimated take-home gain
$6.94M $13,876 per worker / yearExtra cost of paying tax instead
$1.46MEmployer choice
Pay workers or pay the State
Behavioral response
What if the employer raises wages partway?
Move the slider. The model treats the chosen percentage as the share of the wage gap the employer closes.
Location test
Would moving the jobs lower the tax?
The proposal follows where employees physically work—not the company's headquarters or payroll address.
This simplified test assumes wages and employment stay unchanged after relocation. Real decisions would also include property, transport, hiring, productivity, and turnover costs.
Current-region annual tax$10.53M
Alternative-region annual tax$9.10M
Annual tax savings$1.43M
Simple payback period1.7 years
Transparent methodology
Exactly how the calculator works
Regional benchmark
floor × (1 + supplement)Annual wage gap
max(benchmark − wage, 0) × hours × 52Proposed excise tax
annual wage gap × tax multiplierCost of a full raise
annual wage gap × (1 + employer payroll rate)Worker take-home gain
gross raise × (1 − payroll rate − effective income-tax rate)Partial response
raise share closes gap; tax applies to remainderWhat this model does—and does not—claim
This is an illustrative policy calculator, not a revenue estimate, tax return, or legal conclusion. It uses user-selected effective rates and assumes 52 working weeks. It does not model deductions, credits, benefit eligibility, wage incidence, turnover, price changes, automation, reduced hours, or interstate relocation. Those effects require empirical analysis.