Current Events > Bernie Sanders introduces the BEZO act to help end corporate welfare.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gizmodo.com/bernie-sanders-introduces-stop-bezos-act-to-end-corpora-1828828518

BEZO Actwould impose a tax on companies with 500 or more employees equal to the amount of federal benefits received by their low wage workers. Essentially, this would force large, profitable firms to pay into welfare programs the amount theyre currently getting for free from the federal government.

It wont pass but I support it.

I wonder what the conservative narrative against it will be, other than the non-starter of "no welfare anyways".
Why is it our responsibility versus their employer's?
---

So... a defacto cap of 499 employees then, and the rest are robots?
Toss applications of every reproductive-age woman right into the trash?
Hire nobody over the age of 65, ever?

Questionmarktarius posted...

So... a defacto cap of 499 employees then, and the rest are robots?

Walmart has 410 stores alone. 2.3 million employees.

Can I get a comment from someone that isn't a fucking complete idiot?

@Complete_Idi0t
---

Of course conservatives would not accept it. Because it's something that liberals support.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I wonder what the conservative narrative against it will be, other than the non-starter of "no welfare anyways".

Why wouldn't the counter-narrative be that this has no upper limit and explicitly harms places like Goodwill that go out of their way to hire disabled people to give them work? I also don't see how companies are "getting welfare for free" as is implied here.

I don't think it's a terrible concept, but without seeing the details of the execution this has a million ways to backfire horribly.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Why is it our responsibility versus their employer's?

People should only be responsible for themselves. Welfare programs should be ended entirety.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

So... a defacto cap of 499 employees then, and the rest are robots?
Toss applications of every reproductive-age woman right into the trash?
Hire nobody over the age of 65, ever?

I can't see Walmart or even Amazon able to drop that many employees. McDonald's, Subway, etc. They would need at least a single employee at every location. With the number of stores they have it would be impossible.
---

It's a start. It's a noble effort.

DifferentialEquation posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Why is it our responsibility versus their employer's?

People should only be responsible for themselves. Welfare programs should be ended entirety.

lol fuck off
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Walmart has 410 stores alone. 2.3 million employees.

Then the other two apply. Walmart will slowly (or rapidly) find excuses to replace its workforce with college-age single men and post-menopausal women, along with the legal wizardry to pull it off.

Or, Walmart will "incorporate" each of the 410 stores as separate entities, with Walmart Stores Inc. as a majority shareholder. Incidentally, this would also provide a convenient mechanism to deal with any given store unionizing.

s0nicfan posted...

Why wouldn't the counter-narrative be that this has no upper limit and explicitly harms places like Goodwill that go out of their way to hire disabled people to give them work?

They are non profit, so they wouldn't be effected.
---

s0nicfan posted...

and explicitly harms places like Goodwill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Industries

Revenue
$3.53 billion (2012)
$5.59 billion (2014)
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Then the other two apply. Walmart will slowly (or rapidly) find excuses to replace its workforce with college-age single men and post-menopausal women, along with the legal wizardry to pull it off.

I'm not sure I understand how that would make them exempt from this.
---

Mr_Rian posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Then the other two apply. Walmart will slowly (or rapidly) find excuses to replace its workforce with college-age single men and post-menopausal women, along with the legal wizardry to pull it off.

I'm not sure I understand how that would make them exempt from this.

Those are two groups that are generally less likely to collect public entitlements, unless student loans are considered "benefits".

Lol@bernie voting to slash billions from the food stamps program in 2014 but now spewing this horseshit

What a fraud
---

I didn't realize companies hired out of charity and not to fill a quota.

Imagine thinking a company so large could simply instate an illegal hiring process and change over hundreds of thousands of employees . . .
---

shockthemonkey posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I wonder what the conservative narrative against it will be, other than the non-starter of "no welfare anyways".

Why wouldn't the counter-narrative be that this has no upper limit and explicitly harms places like Goodwill that go out of their way to hire disabled people to give them work? I also don't see how companies are "getting welfare for free" as is implied here.

I don't think it's a terrible concept, but without seeing the details of the execution this has a million ways to backfire horribly.

Have you looked up the details?

Well the link has the full text of the proposed bill, so if you're looking for specifics:
1. It actually goes WAY farther than the TC implies and charges a 100% tax on "the qualified employee benefits" which includes food programs, section 8 housing, and medicaid
2. It makes no exceptions for nonprofits
3. It would begin the start of the calendar year not the fiscal year which just makes no sense at all
4. It makes it illegal for employers to inquire into whether they receive federal benefits, meaning a company has no idea how much extra they're going to have to pay for hiring someone.
5. Again, there's no upper limit here, meaning as the federal government decides to increase welfare, companies are forced to match the increase 100% perpetually.
---

Good start, but will probably need some fine-tuning
---

I never got the "well they will just get around these regulations" argument. So the other option is just letting them screw people/the country over? Alongside regulations, what's needed is an overhaul in our Justice Department so they actually start going after companies breaking the law, but sadly, that's another pipe dream like what Bernie is doing now.
---

fair next tbqh
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Those are two groups that are generally less likely to collect public entitlements, unless student loans are considered "benefits".

Less likely, because they are less likely to take jobs like this. If they did, that would be in the same spot as current employees, needing government assistance. But I don't think they'd be able to get that many employees that for that bill anyway.
---

Southernfatman posted...

I never got the "well they will just get around these regulations" argument. So the other option is just letting them screw people/the country over? Alongside regulations, what's needed is an overhaul in our Justice Department so they actually start going after companies breaking the law, but sadly, that's another pipe dream like what Bernie is doing now.

How is a company "screwing people over" by not matching government contributions to welfare programs by 100% for everyone they're employing? Like... you can sell me on companies screwing people over, but in this specific instance I don't see the correlation, unless your argument is "companies screw people over in OTHER ways, but rather than fix those let's just do this thing instead"
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Walmart has 410 stores alone. 2.3 million employees.

Then the other two apply. Walmart will slowly (or rapidly) find excuses to replace its workforce with college-age single men and post-menopausal women, along with the legal wizardry to pull it off.

Or, Walmart will "incorporate" each of the 410 stores as separate entities, with Walmart Stores Inc. as a majority shareholder. Incidentally, this would also provide a convenient mechanism to deal with any given store unionizing.

Like is your entire deflection just WalMart will try to avoid this because how is that worse than what is currently happening?

Deflection? This is a prediction.
Any company will comply to the absolute minimum degree possible, and immediately begin implementing a plan to lower that minimum.

All this will do, is punish the very people it's supposed to help, which is almost certainly going to be single-income working-poor families in this case. Single mothers are going to get screwed over extra hard.

s0nicfan posted...

How is a company "screwing people over" by not matching government contributions to welfare programs by 100% for everyone they're employing?

By not employing.

Questionmarktarius posted...

So... a defacto cap of 499 employees then, and the rest are robots?
Toss applications of every reproductive-age woman right into the trash?
Hire nobody over the age of 65, ever?

oh my god, this board
---

s0nicfan posted...

How is a company "screwing people over" by not matching government contributions to welfare programs by 100% for everyone they're employing? Like... you can sell me on companies screwing people over, but in this specific instance I don't see the correlation, unless your argument is "companies screw people over in OTHER ways, but rather than fix those let's just do this thing instead"

It's just a response to when people use that argument against regulations in general. I've seen it used against many things that are more direct in screwing people over like pollution, harmful products, tax evasion, predatory tactics, etc.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

People should only be responsible for themselves.

I sure hope nobody in your family ever has to rely on you for anything >_>
---

ultimate reaver posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

So... a defacto cap of 499 employees then, and the rest are robots?
Toss applications of every reproductive-age woman right into the trash?
Hire nobody over the age of 65, ever?

oh my god, this board

The middle one almost certainly happens right now, to some degree.

The last one generally does not, because it's possibly financially advantageous to hire someone who's already getting medicare, as that's less the company has to cover.
https://boomerbenefits.com/new-to-medicare/medicare-and-employer-coverage/

If people want more than 10 cents an hour they should have invented Walmart themselves

FLUFFYGERM posted...

fair next tbqh

BUT PROUDCLAD, THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO ASSERT ITS WILL OVER THE FREE MARKET

PROUDCLAD

IT'S THEY

HylianFox posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

People should only be responsible for themselves.

I sure hope nobody in your family ever has to rely on you for anything >_>

I would help certain people in my family and friends even.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre saying that theyre going to start using discriminatory hiring practices in order to skirt this law, you realize that right?

Yes. With layers and layers of legal obfuscation and plausible deniability.

There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences if it passes. Might end up making things worse.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences if it passes. Might end up making things worse.

Don't point out the obvious ways though - you'll just get shit on for it.

I can take it
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences if it passes. Might end up making things worse.

Don't point out the obvious ways though - you'll just get shit on for it.

Insane ramblings are not obvious ways and bills can be fixed. Baby, bathwater, etc.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences if it passes. Might end up making things worse.

There will also be intended consequences, like all of the millions of Americans living in poverty receiving food and shelter

What a catastrophe!

>American corporations are incredibly profitable, most so on the planet.
Hey can you pay a bit more in taxes?
"We will fucking NUKE EVERYTHING."

Here's a thought, with 2 corporations being worth over a trillion dollars (Apple is American, Ireland be damned) . . . fuck them and their excuses, and their white knight idiots.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre saying that theyre going to start using discriminatory hiring practices in order to skirt this law, you realize that right?

Yes. With layers and layers of legal obfuscation and plausible deniability.

So your entire argument comes down to not making laws because WalMart wont comply

Thats not much of an argument

No, they will maliciously comply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance

The argument is that the intended beneficiaries will end up worse off, because of compliance.

s0nicfan posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I wonder what the conservative narrative against it will be, other than the non-starter of "no welfare anyways".

Why wouldn't the counter-narrative be that this has no upper limit and explicitly harms places like Goodwill that go out of their way to hire disabled people to give them work? I also don't see how companies are "getting welfare for free" as is implied here.

I don't think it's a terrible concept, but without seeing the details of the execution this has a million ways to backfire horribly.

Why try making good and coherent points to a liberal? They'll just resent you even more for it.

I actually don't have a problem with this.

However, like most of Bernie's pea-brained ideas, this will end up costing many lower end workers their jobs. The folks making so little at large corporations that they're receiving federal welfare benefits are the most easily replaceable and/or likely candidates for automation and outsourcing.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

So... a defacto cap of 499 employees then, and the rest are robots?

Walmart has 410 stores alone. 2.3 million employees.

Can I get a comment from someone that isn't a fucking complete idiot?

@Complete_Idi0t

God damn
---

The Admiral posted...

I actually don't have a problem with this.

However, like most of Bernie's pea-brained ideas, this will end up costing many lower end workers their jobs. The folks making so little at large corporations that they're receiving federal welfare benefits are the most easily replaceable and/or likely candidates for automation and outsourcing.

Good because it'll SHOCK THE SYSTEM
---

shockthemonkey posted...

You literally just admitted that they wont be following the law.

Yes, they will, by specifically hiring people less likely to be on public entitlements, and being extra picky about existing employees they think may be.

The Admiral posted...

I actually don't have a problem with this.

However, like most of Bernie's pea-brained ideas, this will end up costing many lower end workers their jobs. The folks making so little at large corporations that they're receiving federal welfare benefits are the most easily replaceable and/or likely candidates for automation and outsourcing.

Speaking for progressives here, we'll take the risk. And if those corporations want the job done and can't automate it, they'll stop paying peanuts . . . and upgrade to organic cashews.
---