Sanders rolls out 'Bezos Act' that would tax companies for welfare their employees receive

[Recursion]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanders-rolls-out-bezos-act-that-would-tax-companies-for-welfare-their-employees-receive-2018-09-05

New legislation rolled out by Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday would tax corporations for the federal benefits their employees receive.

The legislation, introduced by both the Vermont independent as well as Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, is aimed at companies including Amazon AMZN, -0.35% , Walmart WMT, -0.46% and United Airlines UAL, +0.83% that employ low-paid employees.

Not so subtly, it was named by Sanders the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies, or BEZOS Act. Jeff Bezos is the founder and chief executive of Amazon. (The House version is called the Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2017.)

The bill would establish a 100% tax on companies equal to the benefits their employees are receiving. Covered public assistance program include Medicaid, Section 8 housing, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs, for companies with more than 500 employees.

Unfortunately this would just mean companies would avoid hiring people with kids.

[redstatebluegirl]

1. He is getting desperate. He is thowing all kinds of things at the wall to see what sticks.

[HerbChestnut]

53. It's an article from last year...

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Should call it the Walmart Act maybe too. nt

[Hoyt]

3. Oh, great. Your kids get Medicaid, as a lot do, no need to apply.

[dlk]

4. Technically, Companies Aren't Supposed to Ask if Job Applicants Have Children

They manage to find ways around it, though.

[people]

5. Agreed - the Bezos Walmart Act

What a great idea!

[George II]

6. I don't know what to say. I'm speechless!

[still_one]

52. and some are so concerned about gaffes

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. Is he...trying to reinforce the techbro bubble?

[Autumn]

8. What a great idea! If their employees have to receive welfare to get by. Make them

fucking pay.

[Recursion]

10. If you're working at Amazon and receive welfare it's because you have kids

Amazon pays $15/hour minimum; WalMart pays $13. If you make it more expensive for them to hire people with kids, they'll figure out way to stop hiring people with kids.

[Autumn]

11. Make discrimination illegal, then they can fucking sue. We pay one way or another. nt

[Recursion]

12. I don't mind my taxes paying for kids' medical care or food stamps. Do you?

It's going to be a very weird economy if the lowest amount any company is allowed to pay is enough for a single earner to raise kids.

[PETRUS]

20. What do you mean by "weird?"

Not being snarky, just looking for clarification.

[melman]

22. Weird?

Sounds humane and civilized to me.

[George II]

33. That's the way I feel - I have no qualms about us helping children eat and get medical care....

That's the America I'm proud of - helping those less fortunate than us.

[ArcticFox]

43. Sounds good to me

There was a time when a kid could pay for college with a summer grocery job. It was once the norm to give health care to full time employees.

What's weird is families where both parents need to work just to survive, and one's income is almost completely eaten up by childcare.

What's changed is the wealthy have siphoned off more and more of the income generated by labor, leaving the rest of us poorer and poorer and more and more desperate year after year.

And unfortunately, we're all too paralyzed by whataboutism to take the first step to right the wrongs id the past forty plus years. Sure, Amazon might do something even more wrong if they have to pay a living wage. So maybe we'll just need to keep watching them.

I'm so tired of this defeatist attitude, especially on what I'd hope could be a progressive site.

[Recursion]

50. See Warren's "The Two Income Trap". If everybody can afford a 2BR apartment, nobody rents a studio

Which ends up meaning nobody can afford a 2BR apartment.

[Autumn]

55. No I don't mind at all, but Bezos and the Walton clan who can afford to pay their employees

a living wage so their employees don't have to rely on welfare sure do object to any money out of their pockets. And the fuckers wouldn't notice any of the drain on their income. Fuck them. They can pay wages or they can pay for the government benefits their employees get.

[melman]

21. "Amazon pays $15/hour minimum"

Not when this article was written they didn't.

[Doreen]

41. Where does Walmart pay $13.00? Where I live MAYBE if

you have been there for 4 years.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. Trump's USPS appointees

raised postal rates, some say to whack Bezos' Amazon. Rare for parties to be on the same page for different reasons.

[BlueMississippi]

34. There are MANY instances of said parties being in unison. nt

[crazytown]

14. Amazon and Walmart will pay it easily

those competing with them will be forced out of business.

[highplainsdem]

15. Good point.

[Joe941]

16. Bernie is on a roll. He is really on the cutting edge of policy - Brilliant!

The more I hear about his plans the more I like him.

[MrsCoffee]

24. Lol. How did this pan out?

[wasupaloopa]

27. None so blind as they who refuse to see!

With all the candidates running who have accomplished good things for Dems why praise one who hasn’t?

[BlueMississippi]

35. Bernie HAS accomplished

He named two post offices in 30+ years damnit!!

[ArcticFox]

45. 4 years ago

Bernie was the first politician to put the planet's health in the agenda. So why did CNN finally spend 7 hours on the topic if climate change? Bernie was a HUGE part of that, an essential part.

Now that everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon, just remember: Bernie Sanders is the one who righted it and pulled it out of the ditch in the first place.

[kstewart33]

17. The "Bezos Act."

Cute. And pathetic.

[melman]

18. This article is a year old

And here's what happened after the "roll out"

--

"“We listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead,” Bezos said in a statement. “We’re excited about this change and encourage our competitors and other large employers to join us.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has personally taken on Amazon as an example of worker exploitation by powerful companies in the United States. In September, Sanders introduced the “Stop Bad Employers Zeroing Out Subsidies Act” (aka the Stop BEZOS Act) that would penalize large companies if their workers are relying on government benefits like food stamps or Medicaid to survive.

Sanders commended Bezos for the decision to raise the minimum wage at Amazon.

“What Mr. Bezos today has done is not only enormously important for Amazon’s hundreds of thousands of employees,” Sanders said at a news conference. “It could well be, and I think it will be, a shot heard around the world.”

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yw4n7j/jeff-bezos-just-caved-to-activists-and-bernie-sanders-and-raised-amazons-minimum-wage-to-dollar15

[billpolonsky]

19. Hope and change?

"The surest sign that an aristocracy exists is the discovery of barriers against change. Curtains of iron or steel or stone or of any substance the excludes the new, the different."
Leto II God Emperor of Dune

[wasupaloopa]

28. Can't you find a quote from a real human? It seems fitting

that your quote is from a fantasy character.

[DrFunkenstein]

54. I'm Pretty Sure Frank Herbert Was a Real Human

Here's another relevant quote to our times:

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."

[melman]

23. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in history

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/jeff-bezos-is-now-the-richest-man-in-modern-history.html



Forgive me if I don't feel sad when I think about him paying more taxes.

[BlueMississippi]

32. He is not taxing Bezos

He is taxing Amazon and it will reduce the stock price enough to hurt a lot of middle class people who have Amazon shares in their 401Ks.

Bezos won't even notice the difference -- it matters little if he is worth 125 billion or 85 billion -- but someone's 401K of 100,000 will go down to 65,000 and that will hurt.

[melman]

36. "taxing Amazon"

Good.

"In 2018, Amazon paid $0 in U.S. federal income tax on more than $11 billion in profits before taxes. It also received a $129 million tax rebate from the federal government."


This is a disgrace.

[BlueMississippi]

47. It is not a disgrace

Amazon had net operating loss carryovers from the first 10 years of operation when they lost money. They are LEGALLY allowed to claim those deductions when they become profitable.

This deduction is available to EVERY business including mom-n-pop stores or ebay sellers and it is fair.

Just because Amazon's numbers are bigger doesn't make it a disgrace. Saying so is demagoguery at worst or a machiavellian political stunt at best.

[roody]

37. How about owning stock in socially responsible companies?

[BlueMississippi]

48. 401Ks are usually there to create retirement income

They are not there for charity or fulfilling ultra left dreams.

[LincolnRossiter]

25. Empty gesture with no chance of making it out of committee.

But what’s new.

[wasupaloopa]

26. Another Bernie bill that has gone nowhere.

Haven’t we learned by now that Bernie is all hat and no cowboy?

He gets people to follow him like a pied piper by saying shit he knows he will never have to back up with action.

[BlueMississippi]

29. I love the smell of desperation in the morning nt

[Gore1FL]

44. It seems like a good idea to me. If that's desperation, we need more of it. nt

[BlueMississippi]

46. It's a bill that won't pass the committee

and it is thrown out as an election year stunt.

More stunts don't help the people. This particular stunt is cleverly designed to attract people who hate rich people and want to sock it to them.

In the end, all tax is an expense to corporations and they pass it on to the end users. Ordinary people will pay -- as they are paying right now. Whether they pay it from income taxes or increased value of goods, ordinary people will still pay. Not Bezos.

[Gore1FL]

49. McConnell made the same argument as an excuse to not vote on gun legislation.

Just substitute "President" in for "Committee."

Similarly, "the let's not tax the rich because they'll charge everyone more" is the same argument that people opposed to raising the minimum wage make.


I applaud Sanders for making this part of the debate. Even if it doesn't work this go round, it's being discussed.

It's more than Bezos. It's all companies with more than 500 employees who don't pay livable wages.

[zentrum]

30. Thanks Bernie. Guy with a spine.

[EveHammond13]

31. I agree with this. No Billionaire Welfare.

[yaesu]

38. excellent idea but yep walmart should be in the name. nt

[AllaN01Bear]

39. when are they going to cut the subsadies that corperations get altogether .

[Hekate]

42. Just curious, but in all his years as US Senator, did he ever write a Walmart Act?

Because Walmart is the original offender, so to speak.

It has started to occur to me that much of what Senator Sanders proposes could and should start in the Senate and House, and can't be simply enacted by the POTUS. (Well, unless you're Trump.) So, how much legislation has this Senator written?

ETA Glad to see he has written this one

[Jirel]

51. It won't lead to hiring fewer people with kids.

Let’s not exaggerate the effects. There are already plentiful incentives to not hire people with kids, assuming the employer finds out prior to hiring, including employer-shared costs of health coverage, the likelihood of higher health coverage premiums due to use, absenteeism, increased likelihood of use of FMLA at some point, potential future pregnancy, etc. Some employers will always try to game the system, but on the other hand, there are only so many employees with good skills out there. I’m no Yang fan, but his statements about corporate plans to replace workers with AI/automation are well supported. That’s what everyone, with and without kids, in lower level jobs should be worrying about and planning for, not worrying about whether stopping a common, abusive cost-shifting practice will possibly hurt a few job prospects in the very short run.

[SaschaHM]

56. The Roberts court would find some way strike this down in a 5-4 decision in a heart beat.

What this bill does is give the federal government the ability to tax private companies for 100% of the federal benefits that the government decides that the employee is eligible for. It's quite literally pricing some people out of a job while keeping people whose employers choose to eat the cost in the exact same financial position.

That's also not taking into account the people that would be worse off if they didn't qualify for these programs. The eligibility limits are very strict and while a raise of 2-3 dollars might mean 320 ~ 480 a month(before taxes), it could also result in being kicked off multiple programs and having to eat the increased expenses. For the corporations eating the cost, it might just be cheaper to boost wages to avoid the tax while your employee becomes even poorer.