Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 3:44:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 5:42:21 GMT
Bernie Sanders...
“Last year, 4 members of the Walton family of Walmart made $12.7 billion in 1 day.
It would take a full-time Walmart worker making $11/hr over 653,000 years to make that much.
Thursday, @reprokhanna and I are introducing legislation to make Walmart pay its workers a living wage.”
Unless he is talking about nationally increasing the minimum wage, which doesn’t appear to be the case,why is it ok for the Feds to force a specific US business to pay its employees a specific wage?
I get that Walmart is notorious for not paying their employees much but isn’t it a huge overreach by the Feds if Bernie gets his way?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856 
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 14, 2018 5:48:54 GMT
That’s not my understanding of the bill. My understanding is that companies like Wal-Mart would be given the option of paying their employees a living wage OR paying the bills for public-assistance programs the employees are on. Are you talking about the BEZOS bill?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 3:44:00 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 6:31:52 GMT
Those are Bernie’s words, that the bill will make Walmart pay a living wage. But I did go to find the bill I think you may have been talking about.
From Vox,
“Sen. Bernie Sanders, hero of the left and a widely rumored 2020 presidential contender, is showing he won’t back down from powerful corporations like Amazon. If companies won’t pay their employees a living wage, Sanders argues, the government should recoup the cost of providing government services through a specific tax.
Sanders is partnering with prominent House progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) on the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (Stop BEZOS) Act, which would enact a tax on large corporations equal to the federal benefits their low-wage employees receive in order to make ends meet. Companies such as Amazon, Walmart, and American Airlines will have to pay every dollar in aid their workers get from the government back through taxes.
The bill’s goal is to curb so-called “corporate welfare” — part of an ongoing battle Sanders has been waging against corporations more broadly — but Amazon has been in his crosshairs of late. He hosted a worker town hall in July and last month put together a petition to demand Jeff Bezos implement better working conditions and pay. Last month, he also set up a web portal for employees to share their experiences, prompting Amazon, in an unusual move, to respond.”
First of all Bernie is not the hero of all on the left.
Second taxes like this IMO, are going down a slippery slope. There are other ways to get the Walmart’s and Amazons to pay higher wages without the Feds stepping in and “making” them unless it applies to all workers with an increase in the minimum wage.
Speaking of a living wage, does anyone have an idea how it would be determined? I know in San Francisco and the surrounding area a living wage averages right around $100,000 a year.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 14, 2018 7:09:40 GMT
First of all Bernie is not the hero of all on the left. Second taxes like this IMO, are going down a slippery slope. There are other ways to get the Walmart’s and Amazons to pay higher wages without the Feds stepping in and “making” them unless it applies to all workers with an increase in the minimum wage. Speaking of a living wage, does anyone have an idea how it would be determined? I know in San Francisco and the surrounding area a living wage averages right around $100,000 a year. This is where the Dems need to be careful about getting painted with an unwanted brush. Just as the Repubs wave their arms and say the misogynistic, racist, far right doesn't embody the GOP, not all of Sanders' (and others on the far left) ideas are palatable to the majority of the Democratic Party. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 14, 2018 10:41:00 GMT
Ah, I see now why Amazon is out front of this with the ads and the raising of the lowest wage they will pay nationwide. Bravo Bernie bravo. Shame works on some people.
First Sanders will not get anything like this thru the current or new Senate, nor will Trump sign it. Despite his hate for Bezos, he won’t attack the hands that feed him. He will protect his 1% with all he has. After all they’ll have his ear at Mar a lago.
And no, I don’t agree with Bernie’s bill. I don’t think the federal government can do anything other than raise the federal minimum wage. None of the republicans will do that. Nor do I see a way the federal government could target specific companies like that constitutionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Nov 14, 2018 11:31:25 GMT
It is not just the low wages that Wal-mart pays, and that they keep most of their employees scheduled for minimum hours.
From the non-partisan group Americans for Tax Fairness.
'The report estimates that Walmart and the Walton family—which co-founded the company and still owns a majority share—collectively profit from nearly $7.8 billion per year in federal subsidies and tax breaks.
The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid. It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.'
Those economic subsidies should be passed on to the employees, and not into the Walton's pockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Nov 14, 2018 12:01:35 GMT
I absolutely despise Walmart and the family behind it. We NEVER shop there (or Sams club).
This bill is a terrible idea, and it’s never going to pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Nov 14, 2018 12:01:46 GMT
So what can be done? Walmart is a very bad employer, yet they have employees. They are desperate for work. Is that right to profit off the backs of the desperate? I don't think so. I don't know that Bernie's answer is the right one, but it's not right that we, the taxpayers, pay subsidies for Walmart employees who can't survive on minimum wage jobs, while Walmart execs are making so much money they cannot spend it in their lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 14, 2018 12:04:15 GMT
It is not just the low wages that Wal-mart pays, and that they keep most of their employees scheduled for minimum hours. From the non-partisan group Americans for Tax Fairness. 'The report estimates that Walmart and the Walton family—which co-founded the company and still owns a majority share—collectively profit from nearly $7.8 billion per year in federal subsidies and tax breaks. The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid. It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.' Those economic subsidies should be passed on to the employees, and not into the Walton's pockets. Then that is up to the state and local authorities to revoke the subsidies they granted. If the federal government granted tax subsidies and the company is not living up to thier end if the bargain ( contract actually ) they also have the right to revoke the subsidies. The governments ( state, local or federal ) granting these subsidies and not requiring something in return and not monitoring the company to assure they get that return, are at fault there. And it’s over reaching for the federal government to tell state and local governments how to tax if it has not conflicted with the constitution. |
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Nov 14, 2018 12:09:21 GMT
I think subsidizing employers’ employees is corporate welfare. That said, there are other employers who subsidize wages using the taxpayer. I used to work in a rural area and had a principal who became a principal because as a teacher who had a wife and child, his salary was so low that it qualified them for government support. Almost every teacher with a child qualified. This was quite awhile ago, and I hope it has improved, but it is another example of an employer passing the buck to taxpayers.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 14, 2018 12:49:16 GMT
I think Bernie’s ideas are extreme, sometimes recklessly foolish, and he does not represent the majority of Democrats.
Bernie is to the Democratic Party what trump is to the “true” conservatives.
I hope he doesn’t try to run in 2020, and if he does, hopefully not on the Democratic ticket.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Nov 14, 2018 13:10:03 GMT
I think subsidizing employers’ employees is corporate welfare. That said, there are other employers who subsidize wages using the taxpayer. I used to work in a rural area and had a principal who became a principal because as a teacher who had a wife and child, his salary was so low that it qualified them for government support. Almost every teacher with a child qualified. This was quite awhile ago, and I hope it has improved, but it is another example of an employer passing the buck to taxpayers. During the teacher strike earlier this year, I saw an interview with with a teacher (don't remember where) who was receiving subsidies because his teacher pay from the governement was so low. Social Security hasn't had a decent raise in  And yet we have politicians who take fancy trips on the taxpayer's dime. When they retire or are voted out, they go to work for lobbyists making millions. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Targeting one or two large companies will not fix a larger issue. Raise the minimum wage. That combined with the low unemployment will drive up wages. |
|
|
|
Post by brina on Nov 14, 2018 13:17:36 GMT
When I was younger I believed in capitalism. I believed that companies would pay workers better because doing so was in their own (the corporations"s) best interest as it would lead to more loyal and productive workers. I also believed when we were told that increased automation would lead to shorter working hours and more leisure time. I believed that business owners and workers were in this together and that people wanted us all to do better. I was anti-union because I thought the had outlived their usefulness that corporations had accepted the concessions that unions had won and would continue to provide medical insurance and pensions - that corporations would do what was best because doing so was what was best and what was right.
Instead, I have learned as I have gotten older that corporations work in their own best interest, and they have figured out that paying workers more means less on their bottom line. With increased automation they did not give their workers shorter working weeks and more leisure time - they fired workers. And instead of motivating workers to be more productive and more loyal by paying them better they used fear. Fear that they would be the next people to lose their jobs. And they paid them the bare minimum they can get away with. They pay them just enough, or not quite enough, and let the government fill in the gap with food stamps and section 8 vouchers. And then they lambast those programs as government handouts. They eliminated health insurance benefits and pensions, and more money flowed into the executives pockets. And then they attend $500 a night galas and pat themselves on the back for charitable donations to 'cultural institutions' that their workers cannot afford to attend
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 14, 2018 14:09:56 GMT
This won’t even get a floor vote, but even if this was just a stunt, it has had positive effects: Amazon raised their minimum wage to $15, Target will be $15 by end of 2020 (raised it to $12 for now), Costco raised to $14-$14.50. With a tight job market, now is the time to do it. On Bernie's corporate welfare argument, of course we’re indirectly subsidizing the corporations because we, the taxpayers, pay for the gov’t assistance the employees need to augment their wages. What Bernie is creating here is pressure to better the lives of employees, something I applaud.
|
|
|
|
Post by jumperhop on Nov 14, 2018 14:22:37 GMT
If Walmart employees had a union would that help fix the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 14, 2018 14:28:39 GMT
If Walmart employees had a union would that help fix the problem? I doubt it, the laws no longer uphold the strength unions once had. In some places unions have abused thier ‘strength’ and caused hardship which has, over time, eroded the strength unions once had one lawsuit, one court ruling & one new law at a time. Of course fed by the corporate special interests |
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 14, 2018 17:27:14 GMT
When I was younger I believed in capitalism. I believed that companies would pay workers better because doing so was in their own (the corporations"s) best interest as it would lead to more loyal and productive workers. I also believed when we were told that increased automation would lead to shorter working hours and more leisure time. I believed that business owners and workers were in this together and that people wanted us all to do better. I was anti-union because I thought the had outlived their usefulness that corporations had accepted the concessions that unions had won and would continue to provide medical insurance and pensions - that corporations would do what was best because doing so was what was best and what was right. Instead, I have learned as I have gotten older that corporations work in their own best interest, and they have figured out that paying workers more means less on their bottom line. With increased automation they did not give their workers shorter working weeks and more leisure time - they fired workers. And instead of motivating workers to be more productive and more loyal by paying them better they used fear. Fear that they would be the next people to lose their jobs. And they paid them the bare minimum they can get away with. They pay them just enough, or not quite enough, and let the government fill in the gap with food stamps and section 8 vouchers. And then they lambast those programs as government handouts. They eliminated health insurance benefits and pensions, and more money flowed into the executives pockets. And then they attend $500 a night galas and pat themselves on the back for charitable donations to 'cultural institutions' that their workers cannot afford to attend This is all true, but I don't believe a bill like Sanders' is the way to solve the problem. |
|
And yet we have politicians who take fancy trips on the taxpayer's dime. When they retire or are voted out, they go to work for lobbyists making millions.
