SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DannyB chased by a bunch of wild rabid kangaroos writes . . .
Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS' bill to tax Amazon for underpaying workers
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. Sanders' Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act (abbreviated "Stop BEZOS") . . . 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.
Sanders announced his plans for the proposal last month. He emphasized today that "this discussion is not just about Amazon and [Amazon CEO] Jeff Bezos." But as the bill's name would suggest, he's been particularly critical of Amazon and Bezos who became the richest person in the world (and modern history) last year. "The taxpayers in this country should not be subsidizing a guy who's worth $150 billion, whose wealth is increasing by $260 million every single day," [ . . . rest omitted . . . ]
Food stamps, School Lunch, Medicaid, great . . . but what about employees who must shop at Walmart?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Thursday September 06 2018, @02:27AM (7 children)
It is precisely the conundrum that faces industry. Assume that all jobs can be automated. It would be a dream for any "captain of industry", right? Wrong!
Who the hell is going to buy whatever they are producing? It is people (mostly middle class and poor) who buy most of the stuff produced; if they have no money, they won't buy stuff and the economy goes into recession. Economists know this and smart business people know it too. It’s the average idiot (sorry CEO) who thinks only short-term and fuck everyone else long term who is driving us to the brink.
That was plainly demonstrated in the crash of 2008. The bankers knew it would collapse at some point, they just thought they would not be the ones holding the hot potato when it did. And when it happened? Well, they are too big to fail [wikipedia.org].
This must stop. Wells Fargo [wikipedia.org] committing fraud? No more slaps and fines, some big shot executive must face prison. HSBC [wikipedia.org] is laundering money?, no more slaps and fines, prison. Amazon is abusing the system, prison.
Very shortly idiot CEOs will be replaced by smarter ones and we will benefit greatly.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday September 06 2018, @02:56AM
Nobody's buying their primary product [youtube.com] -- I think a lot of popular artists mostly understand this.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 06 2018, @04:10AM
Ok.
No, it would be the automation buying most of the stuff produced. After all, it's not middle class and poor who buy most of the industrial or financial products available today, it's people in like sectors.
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Thursday September 06 2018, @05:45AM (4 children)
You are making a fundamental assumption: Namely that the main way to get money is to work. This is of course largely how our economy is currently organized, but it is not a law of nature; when that rule no longer benefits society, it simply can be changed.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Thursday September 06 2018, @02:21PM (2 children)
Let's take the example of the island nation of "Tiny Beach Land". TBL is maybe seven people living on an island in grass huts, enjoying the lap of luxury.
With no "money economy" such as gp assumes, the seven people living in TBL each spend some time each day fishing so they will have food to eat. Each produces, each consumes.
But wait! A TBL resident named "professor" invents something called the "fishing net". Now one or two people (maybe "skipper" and "gilligan"?) can provide more than enough fish just by casting the net one or two days a week.
What's the biggest problem with this scenario?
(a) ¡Zomg! look at all the unemployment, our economy is destroyed--no one will have any fishmoney to buy our industry captains' goods and services. Skipper and Gilligan will have so much food it spoils and everyone else will go hungry for lack of fishmoney.
(b) Oh wow, how are we going to find ways to enjoy our free time now that we have improved our economy so much--we'll advance in so many ways because the invention of net automation has taken (away the need for) our jobs.
If your answer is (a), I don't want to be stuck on a desert island with you paradise, or no. I submit that society would tend towards (b) in the absence of unnaturally inflexible people who insist on (a) for no good reason.
Agree.
(Score: 1) by charon on Friday September 07 2018, @03:09AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 07 2018, @03:15AM
Or they can continue to fish in the adequate way. And they can just do other things to earn said fishmoney. If the "Professor" can come with fish nets, he probably can come up with other things, for example.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jelizondo on Thursday September 06 2018, @02:22PM
Quite right. Work for wages is not a fundamental law of nature but I have little hope of seeing a change without bloodshed.
Does society benefit from "forever plus a day" copyright? There is no money for universal health care but there are 16 trillion dollars [forbes.com] to save foreign banks. There is no money for free (as in beer) higher education but the Pentagon can "lose" 6 trillion dollars [forbes.com].
I have little hope but I sure as hell would love to be wrong.