Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS' bill

[Ray From Cleveland]

Better than no pay. We no longer have a closed down mall where only rodents lived that generated nothing and decreased property values, it's not a state of the art facility hiring people to be on the ground floor of a growing company.

You have poor paying jobs and a drain on tax payers.

The famously grueling jobs in Amazon warehouses have also created strains on local services. Bloomberg reported in October that emergency responders visit the Amazon warehouse in Licking County at least once a day to attend to an injured worker. Local residents have to fund those forays because Amazon pays no property tax in Licking County under their subsidy deal. Voters approved a $6.5 million property tax levy in November to keep the Fire Department operational.

"We’re hiring for fulfillment associate roles where employees will pick, pack and ship customer orders. We also have opportunities for operations leaders, HR managers, IT experts, engineers, financial analysts and more. Once we start hiring early next year, interested candidates can apply at www.amazondelivers.jobs. Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company also offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families."

In a village of around 1,100 residents, North Randall Mayor David Smith said there were some who didn’t believe Amazon would set up shop on the site of a former Randall Park Mall.

“We were told ‘stop, it’ll never happen,” but adversity builds character,” said Smith.

Amazon announced it’s bringing 2,000 jobs to the village, nearly double the size of its population.

While there’s no set date announced on when the 855,000-square-foot building will open, Mayor Smith said he’s beyond excited about what the move means.

“We don’t have to worry about being in fiscal emergency anymore. That’s sustainable income for the next 20-years plus.”

Amazon hiring for 2,000 jobs at new fulfillment center in North Randall

Yeah, they sure sound like a bunch of slave drivers, don't they? Healthcare benefits, education, paid family leave, just sickening I tell ya.

Nothing about wages there. They pay very little. I know people who have worked at them, unpleasant.

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

 

[Brain357]

You have poor paying jobs and a drain on tax payers.

The famously grueling jobs in Amazon warehouses have also created strains on local services. Bloomberg reported in October that emergency responders visit the Amazon warehouse in Licking County at least once a day to attend to an injured worker. Local residents have to fund those forays because Amazon pays no property tax in Licking County under their subsidy deal. Voters approved a $6.5 million property tax levy in November to keep the Fire Department operational.

"We’re hiring for fulfillment associate roles where employees will pick, pack and ship customer orders. We also have opportunities for operations leaders, HR managers, IT experts, engineers, financial analysts and more. Once we start hiring early next year, interested candidates can apply at www.amazondelivers.jobs. Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company also offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families."

In a village of around 1,100 residents, North Randall Mayor David Smith said there were some who didn’t believe Amazon would set up shop on the site of a former Randall Park Mall.

“We were told ‘stop, it’ll never happen,” but adversity builds character,” said Smith.

Amazon announced it’s bringing 2,000 jobs to the village, nearly double the size of its population.

While there’s no set date announced on when the 855,000-square-foot building will open, Mayor Smith said he’s beyond excited about what the move means.

“We don’t have to worry about being in fiscal emergency anymore. That’s sustainable income for the next 20-years plus.”

Amazon hiring for 2,000 jobs at new fulfillment center in North Randall

Yeah, they sure sound like a bunch of slave drivers, don't they? Healthcare benefits, education, paid family leave, just sickening I tell ya.

Nothing about wages there. They pay very little. I know people who have worked at them, unpleasant.

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

 

[bripat9643]

It has a tax return from each employee, but it doesn't tabulate figures on the employees of any corporation as a whole. Obtaining that information would require a multi-million dollar software project.

Wouldn't it be as simple as something you fill out on your tax return? Yes I work for a company with over 500 employees and this is how much welfare I collected? Doesn't sound that difficult to do.

It's easy to say that the imaginary bridge spanned 10 miles. Building one is another matter.

The employer doesn't collect welfare. He doesn't even know which of his employees is collecting welfare.

The employer would find out from the IRS.

It' currently illegal for the IRS to give out that information.

What information? Your employees collected $$$$ in welfare, here is your bill.

How does the employer know the government isn't overcharging it?

 

[bripat9643]

It's easy to say that the imaginary bridge spanned 10 miles. Building one is another matter.

The employer doesn't collect welfare. He doesn't even know which of his employees is collecting welfare.

The employer would find out from the IRS.

The IRS hands over personal tax information to employers??? WTF did that start happening?

No, the IRS would hand companies a bill for all the welfare collected by their employees.

The employer would be entitled to an accounting of what they are paying for. That mean the IRS would have to state how much they are being charged for each program that each employee is receiving benefits from.

Furthermore, once the employer knows what each employee is costing him in terms of taxes, then he will make hiring and layoff decisions accordingly. That means poor employees with a lot of children will be the first ones on the layoff list.

They would not have to be told who each employee was.

Again, how do they know they aren't being overcharged if there is no accounting of the bill? No private company would get away with it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't allow it.

 

[Brain357]

The employer would find out from the IRS.

The IRS hands over personal tax information to employers??? WTF did that start happening?

No, the IRS would hand companies a bill for all the welfare collected by their employees.

The employer would be entitled to an accounting of what they are paying for. That mean the IRS would have to state how much they are being charged for each program that each employee is receiving benefits from.

Furthermore, once the employer knows what each employee is costing him in terms of taxes, then he will make hiring and layoff decisions accordingly. That means poor employees with a lot of children will be the first ones on the layoff list.

They would not have to be told who each employee was.

Again, how do they know they aren't being overcharged if there is no accounting of the bill? No private company would get away with it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't allow it.

Well it would be the IRS.

 

[dblack]

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

Governments, state, local or otherwise, should not be allowed to collude with companies like that in the first place. We badly need a Constitutional amendment to address this.

 

[dblack]

This is a fascinating idea. Our biggest economic problem is stagnant wages. Could this be an answer?

Update: September 6, 2018: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced a bill that would tax corporations with more than 500 employees for the full amount employees receive in government assistance. The bill's title, "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act," or "Stop BEZOS," is an open jab at Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Sanders had previously criticized Amazon after a study found that some fulfillment center employees relied on a federal food assistance program. Sanders' criticism drew a heated response from Amazon, which prompted another detailed critique from Sanders' office, one that included testimonials from Amazon employeesabout working conditions.

Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS' bill

This kind of law would set terrible precedent. The basic logic of it is really screwed up. Amazon has no control over whether their employees file for assistance - nor should they. But laws like this would give them a powerful incentive to pry into the financial affairs of their employees. I'd imagine, for example, that they'd be very careful to screen out people who they deemed likely to file for government assistance (single mothers, elderly, etc ...). So much for the 'downtrodden'.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"We’re hiring for fulfillment associate roles where employees will pick, pack and ship customer orders. We also have opportunities for operations leaders, HR managers, IT experts, engineers, financial analysts and more. Once we start hiring early next year, interested candidates can apply at www.amazondelivers.jobs. Full-time employees at Amazon receive highly competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock starting on day one. The company also offers up to 20 weeks of paid leave and innovative benefits such as Leave Share and Ramp Back, which give new parents flexibility with their growing families."

In a village of around 1,100 residents, North Randall Mayor David Smith said there were some who didn’t believe Amazon would set up shop on the site of a former Randall Park Mall.

“We were told ‘stop, it’ll never happen,” but adversity builds character,” said Smith.

Amazon announced it’s bringing 2,000 jobs to the village, nearly double the size of its population.

While there’s no set date announced on when the 855,000-square-foot building will open, Mayor Smith said he’s beyond excited about what the move means.

“We don’t have to worry about being in fiscal emergency anymore. That’s sustainable income for the next 20-years plus.”

Amazon hiring for 2,000 jobs at new fulfillment center in North Randall

Yeah, they sure sound like a bunch of slave drivers, don't they? Healthcare benefits, education, paid family leave, just sickening I tell ya.

Nothing about wages there. They pay very little. I know people who have worked at them, unpleasant.

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

 

[bripat9643]

The IRS hands over personal tax information to employers??? WTF did that start happening?

No, the IRS would hand companies a bill for all the welfare collected by their employees.

The employer would be entitled to an accounting of what they are paying for. That mean the IRS would have to state how much they are being charged for each program that each employee is receiving benefits from.

Furthermore, once the employer knows what each employee is costing him in terms of taxes, then he will make hiring and layoff decisions accordingly. That means poor employees with a lot of children will be the first ones on the layoff list.

They would not have to be told who each employee was.

Again, how do they know they aren't being overcharged if there is no accounting of the bill? No private company would get away with it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't allow it.

Well it would be the IRS.

You mean we should trust the IRS not to overcharge us?

Are you serous?

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing about wages there. They pay very little. I know people who have worked at them, unpleasant.

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

 

[Weatherman2020]

This is a fascinating idea. Our biggest economic problem is stagnant wages. Could this be an answer?

Update: September 6, 2018: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced a bill that would tax corporations with more than 500 employees for the full amount employees receive in government assistance. The bill's title, "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act," or "Stop BEZOS," is an open jab at Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Sanders had previously criticized Amazon after a study found that some fulfillment center employees relied on a federal food assistance program. Sanders' criticism drew a heated response from Amazon, which prompted another detailed critique from Sanders' office, one that included testimonials from Amazon employeesabout working conditions.

Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS' bill

That’s why Socialism is just a collection of morons.

After just 18 months:

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office are the best since the Great Recession

Can’t wait to see what it’s like after 8 years.

 

[dblack]

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

That's why it's got to be a Constitutional amendment. The states are in a race to the bottom. A competition to see which state is the most willing to collude with business.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Nothing about wages because you didn't go to the link. That's besides the fact very few jobs have great benefits and great wages. Amazon seems to be focusing on benefits more than wages. Retirement plans, disability insurance, company stock. I mean come on, how many companies offer those kind of perks these days?

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

Downtown San Diego 30 Years ago was a ghetto. Today it is super high class tourist destination. It takes in billions in tourism every year now instead of being a crime cave.

How?

Companies and developers were given tax breaks to move into an area any sane person would avoid.

 

[bripat9643]

Any good company offers that.

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

You're ignoring the next step in the process:

If one state does it, then all the states have to do it or get left with the shitty end of the stick. So now all the states are out hundreds of billions in revenue with the rest of the taxpayers who aren't offered any of these cushy deals.holding the bag. The states collectively end up subsiding huge corporations and screwing the little guy. That's what we normally call "crony capitalism."

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you teach economics for the largest university in the world and can't figure out why deals like Foxconn are bad capitalism. Now that's the funniest thing I've heard today! BRAVO! hahaha

"Bad Capitalism," what a fucking retard...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh sure, those jobs are a dime a dozen.

Any company paid to come to a state sure better have them, and good wages. Amazon workers are often on welfare...

A state isn't paying anybody anything. A city is not paying anybody anything. All the village is doing is lowering taxes so Amazon will go to their village, tear down that eyesore of a mall, erect a brand new beautiful large building, and do business while providing thousands of jobs.

As for pay, if they are paying too little for a person to live off of, those people can go get a job somewhere else. Amazon doesn't put anybody on welfare---people put themselves on welfare. It's their responsibility--not their employers.

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

You're ignoring the next step in the process:

If one state does it, then all the states have to do it or get left with the shitty end of the stick. So now all the states are out hundreds of billions in revenue with the rest of the taxpayers who aren't offered any of these cushy deals.holding the bag. The states collectively end up subsiding huge corporations and screwing the little guy. That's what we normally call "crony capitalism."

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And the alternative being is an empty cow pasture in Wisconsin?
.

Brain357 has a net sum of zero grasp of economic terminology or principle.

"Bad Capitalism" is just so insanely ignorant. One might complain that an idea violates Laissez Faire principles or that free markets do not includegovernment incentives, but "bad capitalism" is nonsensical, something one would expect from a Jr. High kid.

If one is to criticize the use of tax credit stimulus to attract business as violating Laissez Faire ideals, then one must first consider whether it is the tax credit, or the tax that so violates?

Ludwig Von Mises observed that the presence of property tax renders the tutelary "owner" of a property a mere tenant to the government landlord who collects rents or evicts the tenant.

Hence property tax renders property rights null and void.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Henry Ford doubled wage in 1920 to the equivalent of today's 100$ an hour, and he became so popular the people wanted him to run for president. to all those billionaires who wanna run for president, why not just double wages?

Complete bullshit.

Ford paid $5 A DAY for a 12 hour shift, which was standard at that time. (the 12 hour shift, not the $5)

You think $0.30 in 1920 had the purchase power of $100 today?

Ford paid his workers less than $4 an hour in today's wages.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And the alternative being is an empty cow pasture in Wisconsin?
.

Brain357 has a net sum of zero grasp of economic terminology or principle.

"Bad Capitalism" is just so insanely ignorant. One might complain that an idea violates Laissez Faire principles or that free markets do not includegovernment incentives, but "bad capitalism" is nonsensical, something one would expect from a Jr. High kid.

If one is to criticize the use of tax credit stimulus to attract business as violating Laissez Faire ideals, then one must first consider whether it is the tax credit, or the tax that so violates?

Ludwig Von Mises observed that the presence of property tax renders the tutelary "owner" of a property a mere tenant to the government landlord who collects rents or evicts the tenant.

Hence property tax renders property rights null and void.

I don't understand what he meant by bad capitalism. From Dictionary.com

noun

1. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

So I don't see any violation of capitalism in getting or accepting tax breaks; especially the part that says "exchange of wealth." Seems to me that there is an exchange of wealth between the city/ state and the corporations. The city gives you X in exchange for X. Both parties are in agreement and satisfied with the arrangement.