Bernie Sanders Introduces 'Stop BEZOS' Bill To Tax Amazon For Underpaying Workers (theverge.com) 679
A public spat between Amazon Sen. Bernie Sanders over workers' wages escalated Wednesday as the Vermont independent introduced a bill aimed at taxing big companies whose employees rely on federal benefits to make ends meet. From a report: Sanders' Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act (abbreviated "Stop BEZOS") -- along with Khanna's House of Representatives counterpart, the Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act -- would institute a 100 percent tax on government benefits that are granted to workers at large companies. The bill's text characterizes this as a "corporate welfare tax," and it would apply to corporations with 500 or more employees. If workers are receiving government aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), national school lunch and breakfast programs, Section 8 housing subsidies, or Medicaid, employers will be taxed for the total cost of those benefits. The bill applies to full-time and part-time employees, as well as independent contractors that are de facto company employees.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
https://qz.com/695763/a-web-of-terror-insecurity-and-a-high-level-of-vulnerability-hm-gap-and-walmart-are-accused-of-hundreds-of-acts-of-worker-abuse/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart
Will it help? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
And fourth, so many of their employees are claiming them that they wouldn't have enough employees left if they let them all go.
Between this and Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act, we might see some real change in the corporate monsters that are destroying the middle class right now.
That is, if either ever make it into law.....
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to think that the destruction of everything below the upper-class is somehow related to the top 1% of americans controlling 40% of the wealth [washingtonpost.com]. It allows a select group of americans to sway the outcome of elections and buy the loyalty of our elected "representatives".
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. And where did that wealth come from? From investments in businesses and the stock market. Both of which have been doing excellent due to record profits from businesses. And why do they have record profits? Because their labor costs are shrinking.
These bills don't immediately fix the problem at the top, but they do provide a bit of a safety valve on the wealth concentration pipeline.
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Informative)
Investments don't create wealth - they capture it. Wealth is generated by the person on the factory floor making something someone will buy, or the person providing a service that someone will buy. Everything else is just a question of how that wealth gets distributed,.
Re:Will it help? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you have a factory without investments?
Factories do not create themselves. It requires investments and risk management, planning and creativity as well as pioneering abilities.
The factory floor person is paid according to his market value, based on his skill set and ambitions.
Those who are not ambitious and wish only to show up at work, do their 9 to 5, be out the door without a worry in the world, do not get to reap a share of the wealth generated by the TEAM, except for the portion which represents his labor. His labor is compensated for in his salary and benefits, full stop.
If he is worth more, he can go find a job elsewhere, where someone will recognize his worth.
No one OWES anyone anything. Its an exchange of services. If you have no marketable skills, you cannot command premium pay. If you are too lazy to work on your skill set, either by putting in effort or going for training, it is no ones fault but your own.
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
And where did the money come from to make those investments? People bought products made in previous factories, by previous laborers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's mostly a self-created problem. The top 1% only makes about 19% of the income [irs.gov]. That they're able to leverage that to attain 40% of the wealth (integral of income minus expenses over time) tells you that (1) the 1% are more likely to spend their income on things that retain or grow in value, rather than disposable or transitory things like entertainment, and (2) the 99% are willing to pay exorbitant interest rates to borrow money from the 1% (that interest becomes income for the 1%). I call it self-created because this is something the 99% can solve on their own. They don't have to spend as much of their income on things which quickly or immediately lose value. And they can put off major purchases for some years while they save up money, rather than take out a loan to buy it right now.
The bigger concern should probably be that the bottom 60% also makes about 19% of total income. That is, the income of the top 1% just about equals the income of the bottom 60%. That is, for those income valuations to be correct, an individual in the top 1% has to be 60x as producitve as someone in the bottom 60%. I'm a fiscal conservative, and that sounds pretty hard to believe. Unlike spending, the bottom 60% aren't really in control of their income. Making it much more likely that the problem as that they're simply being underpaid.
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why only list entertainment on consumable and transitory things? The category also includes things like food, clothing, medicine, and transportation. It also includes costs of rented things, like rented housing versus home ownership, and the cost of loans and interest.
You're right that the upper echelons have more discretion to where they put it, they have the option to put it into income-generating and growth-generating items instead of consumable. To be sure they'll still buy more consumables, but they have the option to buy things that grow. The farther down the totem pole people get, the less of that option people have. Some have a small portion on the top, like a small amount of profit generated from selling food, but selling them is a wealth-gathering exercise to those who own the business already.
And that's the crux of the cycle. If you are poor you remain poor, you cannot cross that gap, you cannot buy a home but must rent housing, you cannot buy value-generating or value-retaining things because they are too expensive, you must rent where the value goes to someone else. If you are wealthy you can buy more of those things that further generate wealth, buy another home or even buy an apartment complex to rent out, letting the wealthy capture even more in successive rounds.
Re: (Score:3)
like food and rent...
Re: (Score:3)
Or for W-mart, they're "associates" already, just give them profit sharing of 0.0000000000000001% and now they're "owners".
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
The mandatory acceptance of trade unions at these companies is one way of stopping this. As long as workers act as individuals they can be picked off one by one; if they can organise collectively they you can have equal forces. I know that many do not like this, but without unions you have the large forcing the small.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that many do not like this, but without unions you have the large forcing the small.
Unions have their own set of issues. Now, don't get me wrong, I think both Amazon and Wal-Mart have gotten to the point where a union is needed to provide a counterbalance, but the folks who have issues with unions don't have those issues because they believe large corporations should be able to do whatever they want to their employees.
Unions help negotiate contracts for workers. That's generally a good thing. However, union strikes cause issues for people who aren't part of the problem - think transit unio
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Interesting)
might end up with employees claiming benefits getting fired by the company
If the bill doesn't address it, then my suggestion would be: Tax on benefits does not end with termination --- If an employee receiving government benefits is terminated, then the employer continues paying Tax for all government benefits that employee receives - Including any unemployment benefits or increase in SNAP or other program benefits caused by unemployment - for the earlier of 4 years, or until that employee is hired and maintains jobs for a total of at least 2000 hours of work with new employers, at which time the last year's "Benefits tax" amounts paid on that person's benefits by both their new and previous employers will be credited or refunded to their previous employer.
Re: Will it help? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The curious task of economics is to teach men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
How could you possibly think this wouldn't choke out almost all hiring and impose impossibly high costs? Corporations don't have unlimited funds, this sort of crazy plan would ensure employees who pose even the slightest risk of being a burden would never get hired.
Have you considered lifting people up individually? It's popular to cry for a "living wage!", but plenty of people already make that kind of money without your help.
Perhaps it's best to raise the skills and professionalism of people making minimum wage to match the abilities of the folks who make a good wage without your help. (See Mike Rowe)
Re: (Score:3)
The government tries to keep the amount an employer has paid in line with current and future expected unemploymen
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe it would necessarily result in employees getting fired for "claiming benefits." After all, who would Amazon, Walmart, et al. replace them with? There's a trouble with bills of this kind however, you're just squeezing a sponge. The water will run out elsewhere. Perhaps each retail outlet becomes it's own subsidiary.
Even if this bill did worked to bump up wages I'm not convinced it'd do much to address the underlying goal, reducing the number of at risk families. Financial insecurity is l
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile for teenagers starting out, who don't need welfare or a "living wage" this wouldn't prevent them from being hired for jobs or gaining experience, etc.
It seems like an ideal solution. My only concern is whether the jobs needed are sufficiently profitable to sustain the population without redistributing the GDP. If our country can sustain a population, but if there is no work of sufficient value to redistribute the wealth generated by the nation as a whole, then this tax could destroy the marginal growth in GDP we might experience. Will it tip the scales back towards recirculating the GDP throughout the entire nation by increasing the value of labor, or will it tip the scales towards a jobless economy by making the work not worth the cost?
Warren Buffet already answered your question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am thinking that the government doesn't have to necessarily *tell* the employer who is specifically claiming benefits... they would just know that some people are. I would think that a company as big as the ones being targeted would have several employees claiming assistance.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder, is it public information published by the Feds on who is on support?
Is this available via FOIA?
Re:Will it help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Funny)
Um... Bernie Sanders, the senator from Amazon, is having a spat with whom?
Re:Will it help? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only exception I can think of are retirees who can work a certain number of hours a week without losing benefits but they amount they earn is docked from their benefits now anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
How will the employer know who, specifically, is drawing the benefits? I would think that the government wouldn't have to share names... just send a bill....
Re: (Score:3)
Benefits are based on income.
How, oh how, will an employer possibly have any sort of hint about the income of their employees?! /snark
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Informative)
That wage includes all the very high salaried engineers in the same pool as the warehouse workers. Nobody is claiming the engineers need assistance. Its the scores of warehouse workers that need it.
Re:Will it help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Median wage would likely be more representative.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Good. Amazon is abusive. And they don't pay taxes. Stop the abuse, make them pay their share, both at once.
https://thenextweb.com/insider... [thenextweb.com]
Amazon is taking hits from the left and the right here. Amazon doesn't have a fan in the current white house either. They don't have many allies in DC.
Re: (Score:3)
But they do have money.
And in the end, that's all that matters, isn't it?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
> And in the end, that's all that matters, isn't it?
Power and money are somewhat translatable to the other, but ultimately power is power.
My core problem with this Sanders bill is that it makes it unprofitable to hire poor people.
Ex: Single woman is willing to work for X. Unwed mother is willing to work for X, and makes up the difference with WIC. Right now, you hire who you think is best. With this bill in place, you are heavily motivated to pick the first woman, because she costs you X, and the second woman costs X+W, where W is the cost of the WIC. The more children, the more the company pays. The poorer the person, the more the company pays. It strongly disadvantages poor people when they go to compete economically.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the contract for government cloud, it seems like they do indeed have some allies in DC.
Sanders (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope it works. AFAIC, Bernie Sanders would make (and would have made) a much better president than either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. Ideally, both houses of congress would change hands as well, so he could actually get some things done. It's well past time for a pendulum swing, IMHO.
My cynical side says that people, despite recognizing that congress as a whole is dysfunctional, will still vote the same congress-critters right back in, just as they have been doing pretty much most of the time. Round and round we go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bernie Sanders would make (and would have made) a much better president than either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Bernie would be disastrous as President, worse than the other two, and I can't stand either of them either.
The idea that Bernie, a failed everything before politics guy, can run anything is laughable. His only contribution to society is the butt of jokes about "The 1%", and showing how corrupt Hillary actually is.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is a symptom of the idiocy of the Kardashian Generation. Between him and Clinton, it shows that the average American can only pick psychopathic ego driven demons.
Re:Sanders (Score:5, Informative)
The democrat party should lean in his direction, but letting the far left of the party drive the bus is a terrible idea.
Sanders is hardly "far left". Single-payer health care and higher tax rates on the upper class are mainstream left-wing ideas. "Far left" would be actual Communist ideas like the general population (as represented by the government) taking ownership of factories, research labs, etc. There are people in the US who support those ideas, but it's such a small minority that they are completely negligible when it comes to elections.
If you think that you're a moderate liberal and that Sanders is far left, then you're really a centrist.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a ploy to extract donations from his base for his next reelection run. And that's all it is.
What would be the point? Sanders is the most popular senator in the country [morningconsult.com]. There's pretty much zero chance that he will lose a reelection, no matter how much or little money he raises.
Re: (Score:3)
But how does this square with UBI? (Score:5, Insightful)
Universal Basic Income is thought by many to be a necessary response to increasing replacement of human work by automation and A.I.
We could easily see scenarios not too far out where 50% of "able" adults are no longer required by the automated economy, because automation and AI are more cost-effective and possibly just outright more effective/high-quality than their labor.
A feature of UBI (the Universal part) is that it is supposed to apply to people whether or not they are supplementing UBI with employment income.
Can we say that the Bernie tax is the first attempt to reclaim from profitable automated industry the funds needed to support UBI?
If so, I think the incentive alignment is wrong with this tax. This tax is making it more expensive to KEEP employees, and cheaper to automated more.
A UBI-supporting tax should instead be a tax on automation-driven productivity, and should be REDUCED when more human employees are retained.
Re: (Score:2)
Question on app:
Do you currently receive any of the following benefits:
SNAP, Section 8 Housing Assistance, Medicare......
If so, please deposit application in the recycling box on your way out.
I truly like the idea of raising the minimums, don't get me wrong. However, this will make a pariah out of those that need a job/gig the worst. It's my belief that another method needs to be devised to tax corporations at a higher rate, with fewer exemptions and international income exclusions-- and tax them the way ou
Re: (Score:3)
> Levy taxes on shareholders
Great. Kick retirees and aspiring retirees in the balls.
Re: (Score:3)
Thought by many who have no idea what they're talking about.
There are excellent, valid economic arguments for a demogrant. The 200-year-old argument that "in 5 years everybody will be unemployed!" isn't one of them.
The modern direct attempts to tax automation (technology) as some sort of fix would actually cause unemployment: reductions in costs increase purchasing power at the expense of structural change (people become unemployed, while other people eventually become employed--not necessarily the sam
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of people from diverse backgrounds, on both the right and left, see UBI as likely a loss rather than a gain. Some are mystics, some are rational. Some do care about other peoples' birth control, and some don't. Some want the poor to all disappear and die, while others think the poor are people. Some think the government should micro
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck keeping a part time job if you are disabled and can only work a few hour with the help of a sympathetic employer.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Should Amazon be responsible for the full-time worker who chooses to have half a dozen children he/she can't afford on their salary?
Nice straw man. Look at both Amazon and Wal-Mart employees. You'll see single mothers with one, maybe two children who need benefits to survive. In the Wal-Mart case, they keep most employees "part-time" because they offer benefits to ALL full-time employees and they don't actually want to offer it to very many. It's very rare to get 32+ hours as a Wal-Mart employee - which drops your wage even further below a 40-hour worker from the start, even at the same hourly rate.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
When you systematically give 30 hours per week to a larger number of part time employees just to avoid having full time employees, you really should be responsible for the fallout. There are very few of these employees that don't want full-time hours. Instead, Wal-Mart can claim that 100% of full-time employees get all these great benefits and they're a great place to work - all while only having a handful of full-time employees.
Expecting a job that takes 30 minutes to train with no skill needed to support a single parent (not sure why you had to specify mother instead of parent - I'm a widowed dad of 2 kids) and that parent's family is ludicrous.
I specified single mother just because I'm thinking of specific, real people and not statistics. That 30 minutes to train really only applies to people who have much better intelligence and education - it takes longer than that. Giving up all of your working hours to anyone should be worth the huge percentage of a human life that it is. There is no excuse to cheap out just because a job is too "lowly."
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
The ACA (Obamacare) mandates employer-provided health care to all full time employees. FTE defined as anyone who works an average 30 hours or more weekly over a year. It was widely predicted this would lead to an explosion of sub-30-hour weekly jobs, and it did.
Re: (Score:3)
if you want to maximize profits for your shareholders (and you are required by law to do that)
No, you are not. Stop repeating this inane nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a straw man argument.
Yes, it is. It sets up an easily-attacked target that was not part of the original statement, and in fact barely even exists. The AC's response makes the unsupported assumption that everyone receiving public assistance is only in that situation because they chose to have at least 6 children. That creates a target that is easy to attack, instead of arguing based on actual data.
Re: (Score:3)
Your $250,000 figure and $14,750 was based on a middle-class income. For lower income, the figure comes closer to $9,700 per year. Somehow housing is a full 29% of the middle-class figure, but on the lower end poor people don't move when they have a child. Somehow transportation for a 2 year old is a full $200 more per year than no child. These figures are pulled from thin air, but loosely tied to consumer pricing. Children cost money, but these numbers are padded out well beyond any real-world budget
Re: (Score:3)
Presuming it was birth-without-adequate-means-of support, it'd be perfectly fine with me - more than fine - if she could go get them back if she could then demonstrate an ability to support them.
Children are people, not a toy possession for the rich. Maybe you can lose your home in bankruptcy, but not your family. That is just horrible.
Re: (Score:3)
breaking news (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just Bezos (Score:2)
They should do this to Wal-Mart also, unless the information I have regarding their employees not being paid enough and therefore having to take government benefits to get by is inaccurate. Don't just single out Amazon. Do it across the board.
they're all awful people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is a pretty interesting idea that could potentially garner bipartisan support (though the fact that politicians on both sides are in the pocket of big business will likely kill it). My rationale is that Republicans like to claim that there are all these 'slackers' collecting welfare benefits who should be working. In this case these are 'working poor' people though who are trying to earn a living but the jobs they have simply cannot cover the costs of living. If Republicans truly want to encou
Better than most ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with regular taxes is that they apply to everyone, regardless of how well they treat their employees and their clients. Normally, the good actors must pay to fix problems caused by the bad.
This targets companies specifically when their policies push employees toward poverty. With the death of unions, something needs to balance corporate power to ensure workers are treated fairly.
The law should waive the penalty when an employee has a spouse who is unable to work, however, as that contributes to poverty but is not the fault of the employer---and we don't want employers to have an incentive for discriminating against people whose partners are sick/disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
And instead, give them an incentive to discriminate against people who are single... nice.
Taxes = bribes (Score:2)
Amazon pays poorly? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is for people in the warehouses, doing all the logistics and shipping work essentially. They make a little more than minimum wage. Yes you are correct that those that work in the corporate HQ make a ton of money, it is the line workers Bernie's bill is looking out for.
Not for nothing, but.... (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Sounds Fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Need to do it for Walmart too.
How did Bernie Sanders become wealthy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How did Bernie Sanders become wealthy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
He is an author. He made over a million in royalties from the books he has authored, in just the last year alone.
Who are they exploiting? (Score:5, Insightful)
The law of unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Most states have explicit laws (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't hire poor people act (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a great idea (Score:3)
This would be really bad. Look at the real issue. (Score:3)
Let's not overlook the fact a senator is having an issue with a single company (Amazon). Bernie, you're not the CEO of the company (nor could he handle it), so don't tell them how to run their business. Last time I checked you can't keep your budget in order.
Here is the real issue:
The push for businesses to be able to regulate their own pay and finances. Who says these people qualify for these programs listed above? The government. So, you know what you're seen? Huge expansions in the people who qualify for the program. Now, since the government can't keep paying for it and the programs are failing (everyone wants free stuff, buy them votes) they do the usual next step to blame the businesses. It's their fault! They don't pay enough! So let's force them to pay more. But, this isn't just for Amazon, please look at all who would be snared by this.
Example of this:
Seattle city council tried the "Amazon Tax" earlier this year. Again, a socialist pushed this as they need to pay their fair share. Ignore the 40k's job they pay in Seattle which are mostly development jobs, not low paying jobs. The tax was a per head cost per year for businesses at a certain number of employees (sound familiar?) What they didn't think was how it impacted others besides Amazon. Dick's drive in burgers was a prime example. A main stay for many years, they work on a razors edge with profits. By the way, tax them suckers like Amazon, and don't forget, this place provides benefits and college tuition funding for employees who flip burgers. That will show that business.
The more we regulate and control business, the harder and more costly it is to run. And since government can't run itself correct, why would they know what to do best. Right, they don't.
Data Point (Score:5, Informative)
The average pay at an Amazon warehouse for a fulfillment worker is $12.35 per hour. Working full time that is more than $24k/year.
WIC eligibility is up to 185% of the federal poverty level, $30,451 for a family of two.
SNAP eligibility is up to 130% of the federal poverty level $21,398 for a family of two.
The federal poverty level numbers are
$12,140 for individuals
$16,460 for a family of 2
$20,780 for a family of 3
$25,100 for a family of 4
$29,420 for a family of 5
$33,740 for a family of 6
in 2018
A little confused. (Score:3)
There seems to be some real conflicts in the laws here.
How is it possible , someone who is earning minimum wage would be below the poverty level and qualify for SNAP?
I guess that is part of Senator Sanders point here.
It seems however , contradictory to add an additional tax to a company as basically a penalty for following the law. If it is unfair to pay wages that low , it would be better to simply raise minimum wage. The fact you can't get enough support to do that should tell you maybe you are thinking about it wrong.
I hope there is also a clause in the law that prevents a company from firing someone when they apply for SNAP or I would expect amazon to write it into their employment contract that , while working for them , you may not apply.
It's for the wingnuts plus Trump (Score:3)
Conservatives have been propagandized to be skeptical of the minimum wage - but that doesn't mean they want to pay more in taxes so more-money-than-god corporations like Amazon can make even more quarterly profits. So, you might not get Rand Paul's vote to raise the minimum wage, but you might get it to tax. And Trump has been bashing Amazon for some time now, so it might get some grudging support from the MAGA hat set.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One true, one false (Score:3)
Two axiomatic problems with Socialism
1. Those in power that advocate socialism never live by he very rules they set for everyone else.
2. Eventually you run out of other people's money.
Number 1 is correct. The old Russian joke of a man standing on the corner expounding communism:
Man on soapbox: "Communism is great! If I have two cars, I give you one. If I have two houses, I give you one"
Man in the audience: "What about shirts? If you have two shirts, will you give me one"
Man on soapbox: "No"
Man in audience: "Why?"
Man on soapbox: "Because I have two shirts."
In the case of Bernie, he lives quite the hypocritical life [washingtonpost.com] for a socialist.
But onto point two:
It is straightforward to fund UBI, so l
Re: (Score:2)
I think the spirit of the proposed bill is "Don't make the rest of the US pay for your penny-pinching bad practices". Which I'm totally in favor of.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how I read it as well. Heck I lean right but this is a nice targeted tax that will actually stop the "race to the bottom". Very few companies would be affected, and those that do are currently undercutting more responsible employers.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking for another job takes time that is often better spent earning whatever you can *actually* make, because even not making enough is better than not making anything until you are lucky enough to find something else that does pay what you want... a journey that one has no real way to control how long it will take, or even if they will necessarily reach their destination.
Re:Don't we have a free market system? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, that can be applied in so many ways.
Like, for example, "don't like this kind of laws, find another country".
Re: (Score:3)
That's apples and oranges.
1. Obviously, it's vastly more difficult to leave a country than a job. In the U.S., we have a free market system, which means you can use your legs and pocket books to cast your vote for or agains a company.
2. You can change laws (i.e., government policies) through a number of channels: voting, protesting, lobbying, ballot initiatives, etc...
Happens all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, hello!!
We've already reached socialism. Huge companies like Amazon and Walmart don't pay their employees enough to live on, so they MUST go on public assistance, which is... (*GASP*) government assistance! Which YOU and I pay for through our own taxes. It makes much better economical sense to tax these corporations to recoup the costs to the taxpayer. This won't bankrupt these companies. It just means that Bezos will only have access to nine diamond-encrusted, golden butt-scratchers a week instead of th
Re:Don't we have a free market system? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't think you're being paid enough, find another job. I don't like this idea that the government is going to get into the business of micromanaging how much companies pay their employees. A minimum wage is one standard for all, but to begin taxing companies as a way of penalizing them for not paying their employees enough: hello socialism.
The problem with "just find another job" at the rock bottom of the pay scale is that any other job they find is going to put them in the same boat. You have a whole class of people that are desperate, and basically have to take whatever bend-over-and-take it paycheck they can get.
One of the big benefits of UBI would be the elimination of this class of people, so that employers can't get away with this crap any more.
I don't like government meddling, either, but I also don't like supporting social safety net programs with my taxes so that big companies can use it as a subsidy.
Re: (Score:3)
How does TAXING the company help with giving them $2 more.
Because if they give them a higher wage and the employees don't need benefits, the tax goes away. This is more like having a variable national minimum wage - that varies by cost of living (Since if you don't make enough to survive in your area, you are eligible for benefits).
Re:Not the solution (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, you can't. You can, per TFS, have it "apply to corporations with 500 or more employees." Just like the Family and Medical Leave Act applies to private employers with 50 or more employees.
You fell for the catchy abbreviation and didn't even read the summary, much less the first sentence of TFA ("Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have introduced a bill that would tax companies like Amazon and Walmart for the cost of employees' food stamps and other public assistance.").
Re: (Score:3)
I like Bernie's politics in general, but this is not the solution. This is just being a political wingnut 101.
You're not paying attention. Sanders is introducing this bill, written in this way, because Trump has been railing against Bezos. If the Rethuglicans don't support this bill, it makes it look like they don't support the president. If they do support this bill, then it makes it look like they support Sanders. Either way, Republicans lose.
Re: lol (Score:3)
It would break the PHP on some news sites.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Consequences of Predatory Taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
The low paid workers in these big companies are warehouse workers at Amazon and checkout operators at Target. Can't really shift those jobs overseas.
If they shift the costs on to the consumer, that's increasing their prices compared to smaller companies.
Replacing humans with robots isn't going too well, and Amazon have been trying to do this in their warehouses for years.
If they could get away with hiring fewer staff, why haven't they done it already?