• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Taxes, Subsidies, Amazon, and Walmart

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
I don't think Bernie is lying. I don't think ANYONE really knows how economic policies will pan out.

Let's take your concerns of waste and corruption out of the conversation for now. I agree they are a problem, but I think they're obscuring the point. Are you okay with the fact that Bezos is worth billions and you and I help pay to feed his workers?

I realized that I didn't answer that question:

I'm ok with Bezo's wealth being the way it is. He actually has brought more value to my life than Bernie. IMO, he'll continue to bring more value to my life than Bernie. Should he be a billionaire? I don't know. That's just subjective to how much money he should own. I just know he should be rewarded for bringing a service that most to all Americans can benefit from.

The problem with limiting wealth is that it is a subjective notion. The logic to suggest a limit or cap will purely be subjective.

All I can say with certainty, is that trying to level the value of all people and actually implement an economy to sustain that is impossible.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I realized that I didn't answer that question:

I'm ok with Bezo's wealth being the way it is. He actually has brought more value to my life than Bernie. IMO, he'll continue to bring more value to my life than Bernie. Should he be a billionaire? I don't know. That's just subjective to how much money he should own. I just know he should be rewarded for bringing a service that most to all Americans can benefit from.

The problem with limiting wealth is that it is a subjective notion. The logic to suggest a limit or cap will purely be subjective.

All I can say with certainty, is that trying to level the value of all people and actually implement an economy to sustain that is impossible.

I'm not talking about limiting wealth. I'm talking about not being a parasite. I'm a prime member of Amazon, I agree that there is value in their service. But if many of their workers cannot survive on what Amazon pays, then to some degree Amazon is a parasite on society.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about limiting wealth. I'm talking about not being a parasite. I'm a prime member of Amazon, I agree that there is value in their service. But if many of their workers cannot survive on what Amazon pays, then to some degree Amazon is a parasite on society.

We're all parasites by your definition. Prove to me that he's doing something illegally.

Otherwise, every single one of us is trying to optimize out profits where we can. Some of us do it better than others.

Again, it's a subjective notion of how people can efficiently create wealth.

Or simply put, I don't agree with you.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Below is the text of an email I got from Bernie Sanders' organization. The summary is that many of our country's wealthiest people run companies that don't pay their employees living wages. So taxpayers monies are used to support these underpaid workers. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing Jeff Bezo's wealth. So Sanders is proposing legislation that would tax corporations who don't pay their workers a living wage.

While I don't support all of Sanders' ideas, this one seems like an idea that's headed in the right direction. While the details might be flawed, I think the premise is sound.

== Email from the Bernie Sanders organization:

How does it happen, icehorse, that the wealthiest man in the history of the world, Jeff Bezos, is also one of the largest welfare recipients in America?

It is quite simple, really.

Jeff Bezos and his company, Amazon, make huge profits by paying their employees wages that are so inadequate that many of them need public assistance just to get by. Today in America, thousands of Amazon workers are forced to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing because they can't survive on the wages they receive. Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos is now worth $158 billion, and his wealth increases by $260 million - every single day. How absurd is that?

And who pays for the public assistance subsidizing Mr. Bezos’ wealth? You do. The middle class subsidizes the wealthiest person in the world, while his workers struggle to put food on the table. That is what the rigged economy is all about. And in my view, that has got to end.

That is why I introduced a piece of legislation that aims to end corporate welfare by establishing a 100 percent tax on corporations with 500 or more employees equal to the amount of federal benefits received by their low-wage workers.

So, if a worker at Amazon receives $1,000 in food stamps, Amazon would be taxed $1,000 to cover that cost.

The bill gives large, profitable employers a choice: pay your workers a living wage or pay for the public assistance they need to get by. It’s common sense. Now I want you to send a message to my colleagues that it has your support, as well:

Add your name as an original Citizen Co-Sponsor of my Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act and send a message that taxpayers should not have to expend huge sums of money subsidizing profitable corporations owned by some of the wealthiest people in America.

Make no mistake about it, Jeff Bezos is not alone in this regard. Some of the most profitable businesses in America sustain their wealth through this kind of corporate welfare.

According to one report, in 2014, Walmart employees received at least $6.2 billion in public aid every year. Walmart is owned by the Walton family, the wealthiest family in the country.

More than half of employees in the fast food industry rely on some kind of public assistance.

McDonald’s workers are actually encouraged to sign up for assistance, and the co-owner of Burger King has a net worth of $25 billion, while his workers receive an estimated $356 million in subsidies each year.

According to a study from the University of California, low wages cost American taxpayers $150 billion every single year.

So let me be as clear as I can be: The government has a moral responsibility to make certain that every man, woman and child in this country has a decent standard of living and that we provide for the vulnerable in this country — our kids, the sick, the elderly and the disabled. It is not acceptable, however, that the American taxpayer is being asked to subsidize the wealth of some of the wealthiest people in the history of the world.

And it must end.

Please add your name as an original Citizen Co-Sponsor of my Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act and send a message that taxpayers should not have to expend huge sums of money subsidizing profitable corporations owned by some of the wealthiest people in America.

The economic and political systems of this country are stacked against ordinary Americans and in the favor of the most powerful among us.

The rich get richer and use their wealth to buy elections — just recently, it was announced that Jeff Bezos made a $10 million donation to a Super PAC that in one place is running ads supporting a candidate who will “work with President Trump to fight for Florida’s conservative values.”

For the rest of us, who don’t have the wealth it takes to buy the legislative outcomes they want, it’s survival of the fittest.

That is not democracy. That is oligarchy. Let's work together to end it.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders
Which details do you find flawed? What would you do differently?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
We're all parasites by your definition. Prove to me that he's doing something illegally.

Then you don't understand my definition. Some corps. pay their taxes, pursue environmentally sustainable policies, and pay their employees decent wages. This type of corporation is not parasitic.

As for illegality, I never said Amazon is doing anything illegal. My implication is that what they're doing is immoral and unsustainable. They will not survive without a financially healthy middle class, and they are a part of what's decimating the middle class.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
We're all parasites by your definition. Prove to me that he's doing something illegally.

Otherwise, every single one of us is trying to optimize out profits where we can. Some of us do it better than others.

Again, it's a subjective notion of how people can efficiently create wealth.

Or simply put, I don't agree with you.
So you're happy having your taxes going to subsidize Amazon, Walmart, et al?
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Then you don't understand my definition. Some corps. pay their taxes, pursue environmentally sustainable policies, and pay their employees decent wages. This type of corporation is not parasitic.

As for illegality, I never said Amazon is doing anything illegal. My implication is that what they're doing is immoral and unsustainable. They will not survive without a financially healthy middle class, and they are a part of what's decimating the middle class.

That's your definition of a "non-parasitic" corporation. But there is not a legal definition of what you're trying to define. Hence, it is subjective to your perspective. There is no baseline but your own to compare this to.
 
Last edited:

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
So you're happy having your taxes going to subsidize Amazon, Walmart, et al?

Again, that's the misdirection that Bernie wants you to believe. My taxes are going directly to the government. How it goes back to corporation, welfare, military, education, health care is not directly in my control.
 
Top