It’s dumbfounding how something so obviously fair about how we treat people as a society becomes controversial... a trillion dollar company’s employees shouldn’t have a hard time getting food and need government assistance. Period.
Taxes aren't as simple as "take from A, give to B." People respond to incentives, and greedy evil megacorps do too.
Also, categories are complicated. One reason Amazon is the target of discussion here, and not Google for example, is that Amazon operates warehouses, and warehouses hire low wage employees. If Google was running as many warehouses as Amazon, would they pay better? Maybe they would, but how much better? If Google's low wage workers are in factories in East Asia run by third parties we've never heard of, instead of actual employees on their payroll in the US, is that better?
So the bill just calculated how much federal benefits their low wage workers get, and sends that bill to the corproate entity?
That is not at all what I thought when it said ending subsidies, this is nothing, its not the punishment that this article suggests it is. This is a great way to balance welfare budgets in a national spending debate, or get companies to raise their employee's salaries above eligibility for federal programs.
The actual cost for companies though? Still negligible, but that only matters when it is improperly framed as a punishment.
> The bill is designed to create a “100 percent tax on corporations with 500 or more employees equal to the amount of federal benefits received by their low-wage workers.”
Not all low wage workers are equal in terms of the benefits they receive. If the new rule were as simple as this, employers would have an incentive not to hire e.g. parents with dependent children. Or not to hire people who are more likely to receive benefits in the future for whatever reason. I get that Sanders wants to enact transfers from the wealthy to the poor, but there are ways to do that that aren't a mismash of bad incentives.
Edit: Not to mention that this would give low wage employers a huge reason to oppose any new legislation to raise benefits. It just seems really poorly thought out. (Maybe no one expects it to pass, so it doesn't matter what the actual effects would be?)
Agreed, it would be far worse if Amazon were discouraged from exploiting desperate workers. No social cost is too high for cheap and fast order fulfillment.
What a moron. The idea Amazon is the problem... is he too much of a wimp to take on the actual subsidy recipients (ie Agriculture - particularly in livestock, Finance, and Oil/Gas).
Bezos is rich because he had a huge position the company he started and presided over taking to a $1T market cap. He pays himself relatively little in salary and stock grants on an ongoing basis. You might as well go after Warren Buffett.
edit: "This brings me great sadness, as Sanders' career has been to improve the lives of his constituents, and American people as a whole. I think this is uncalled for." It brings me great sadness, too, because I think it's opportunistic grandstanding on his part, and far beneath the standards he has set. And what saddens me more is that it appears to be part of a trend for him in the past 3 years.
This brings me great sadness, as Sanders' career has been to improve the lives of his constituents, and American people as a whole. I think this is uncalled for.
> Bezos is rich because he had a huge position the company he started and presided over taking to a $1T market cap. He pays himself relatively little in salary and stock grants on an ongoing basis.
Then tax his stock grants at wage based levels. Your argument is that there are "bigger fish to fry". There's no reason not to start with a trillion dollar company.
Get rid of those mentioned subsidies, and the price of food and fuel will jump. It will only screw the working poor. I could care less about the price of fuel (electric car) and food (small % of my income), but others it is a large amount.
I was initial against Trump's tariffs, but after reading what other countries have in place, I think he is justified. Other countries subsidize and tariff the shit out of certain industries.
[+] [-] xae342|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oconnor663|7 years ago|reply
Also, categories are complicated. One reason Amazon is the target of discussion here, and not Google for example, is that Amazon operates warehouses, and warehouses hire low wage employees. If Google was running as many warehouses as Amazon, would they pay better? Maybe they would, but how much better? If Google's low wage workers are in factories in East Asia run by third parties we've never heard of, instead of actual employees on their payroll in the US, is that better?
[+] [-] behringer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gammateam|7 years ago|reply
That is not at all what I thought when it said ending subsidies, this is nothing, its not the punishment that this article suggests it is. This is a great way to balance welfare budgets in a national spending debate, or get companies to raise their employee's salaries above eligibility for federal programs.
The actual cost for companies though? Still negligible, but that only matters when it is improperly framed as a punishment.
[+] [-] behringer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway5752|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 40acres|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmpafa|7 years ago|reply
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
[+] [-] oconnor663|7 years ago|reply
Not all low wage workers are equal in terms of the benefits they receive. If the new rule were as simple as this, employers would have an incentive not to hire e.g. parents with dependent children. Or not to hire people who are more likely to receive benefits in the future for whatever reason. I get that Sanders wants to enact transfers from the wealthy to the poor, but there are ways to do that that aren't a mismash of bad incentives.
Edit: Not to mention that this would give low wage employers a huge reason to oppose any new legislation to raise benefits. It just seems really poorly thought out. (Maybe no one expects it to pass, so it doesn't matter what the actual effects would be?)
[+] [-] anothergoogler|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ithilglin909|7 years ago|reply
I'd be interested to know if this is actually true/where they're getting their numbers from, and if these are full-time, or seasonal employees.
[+] [-] behringer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] paulcole|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway5752|7 years ago|reply
Bezos is rich because he had a huge position the company he started and presided over taking to a $1T market cap. He pays himself relatively little in salary and stock grants on an ongoing basis. You might as well go after Warren Buffett.
Oracle stands out among tech companies, if anyone wants to create a cutely acronymed bill for them: https://www.asyousow.org/reports/the-100-most-overpaid-ceos-...
edit: "This brings me great sadness, as Sanders' career has been to improve the lives of his constituents, and American people as a whole. I think this is uncalled for." It brings me great sadness, too, because I think it's opportunistic grandstanding on his part, and far beneath the standards he has set. And what saddens me more is that it appears to be part of a trend for him in the past 3 years.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|7 years ago|reply
This brings me great sadness, as Sanders' career has been to improve the lives of his constituents, and American people as a whole. I think this is uncalled for.
> Bezos is rich because he had a huge position the company he started and presided over taking to a $1T market cap. He pays himself relatively little in salary and stock grants on an ongoing basis.
Then tax his stock grants at wage based levels. Your argument is that there are "bigger fish to fry". There's no reason not to start with a trillion dollar company.
[+] [-] madengr|7 years ago|reply
I was initial against Trump's tariffs, but after reading what other countries have in place, I think he is justified. Other countries subsidize and tariff the shit out of certain industries.