@broly Bezos is a scumbag billionaire. He's fully aware of his company's shady practices but those shady practices make him and Amazon's top share holders richer. Amazon is what, one of two or three traded companies valued at over a trillion dollars? He didn't get Amazon there by doing the moral thing.
Originally posted by Robtard
@broly Bezos is a scumbag billionaire. He's fully aware of his company's shady practices but those shady practices make him and Amazon's top share holders richer. Amazon is what, one of two or three traded companies valued at over a trillion dollars? He didn't get Amazon there by doing the moral thing.
That reminds me.
Do you want to invoice all large companies for any welfare their employees have to use (up to 2 children but not more because, holy shit, stop making babies if you're poor you moron)?
I think that would be amazing. Watch how wages skyrocket to livable wages. Watch how lobbyists now try and get the Federal Poverty Level to drastically increase so they can avoid having to pay more taxes for all the bills the rest of us are paying so their underpaid workers can eat. 🙂
Edit - This wouldn't be necessary at all with the Fair Tax System, FYI. Everyone would get a rebate. That would be similar to having a UBI.
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm curious...people always talk about the rich getting tax breaks, but surely they all don't get them. Who pays a majority of taxes? Isn't it the wealthy? They still contribute the most I'd guess.This doesn't mean corporations with a lot of power like Amazon aren't disturbing, but people act like every single wealthy person in the country isn't paying a dime in taxes.
It's often argued that the richest 1% pay 30% of the income tax which obviously sounds like they pay more than their share but it's less reported that they have over 50% of the wealth.
Although wealth and income are obviously 2 different measures.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Upper middle class.I pay significantly more in federal taxes each year than the lowest quintile of household income.
If I was allowed to keep even half of that, I would call myself "rich."
Are you externally contracted by your employer or directly employed?
Could probably keep a lot more of those taxes if the former by having the money paid into your own company and loaning it to yourself instead of paying yourself a salary. Better still, register your home address as your business address and claim back taxes on stuff you buy for your house under business expenses.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That reminds me.Do you want to invoice all large companies for any welfare their employees have to use (up to 2 children but not more because, holy shit, stop making babies if you're poor you moron)?
I think that would be amazing. Watch how wages skyrocket to livable wages. Watch how lobbyists now try and get the Federal Poverty Level to drastically increase so they can avoid having to pay more taxes for all the bills the rest of us are paying so their underpaid workers can eat. 🙂
Edit - This wouldn't be necessary at all with the Fair Tax System, FYI. Everyone would get a rebate. That would be similar to having a UBI.
You'd sink Walmart doing that, iirc, a large number (comparatively) of their employees also collect some form of welfare benefit to be able to survive
Originally posted by Robtard
You'd sink Walmart doing that, iirc, a large number (comparatively) of their employees also collect some form of welfare benefit to be able to survive
I see your point but raise you this counterpoint:
And raise you this research done by a 3rd party group, not using Walmart's dishonestly reported internal numbers:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/walmart-wages-15-hour_us_575ec8f4e4b00f97fba8e18d
Edit - It would cost Walmart $4.95 billion to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour (not raising it to exceed welfare eligibility, raising it to $15 an hour).
That means their profits would drop from 13 billion to 9 billion.
Just terrible. What ever will they do?
I bet not.
The Retarded Republican Talking Point about Walmart having financial struggles to pay their employees well enough to not have to be on welfare (they don't even need to pay $15 an hour in many places to meet this very low bar) is not even factual. They'd still make billions in profits with a strong majority of their profits still staying in place.
And most of those people would spend their money at Walmart, anyway...they'd have even more to spend.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That reminds me.Do you want to invoice all large companies for any welfare their employees have to use (up to 2 children but not more because, holy shit, stop making babies if you're poor you moron)?
I think that would be amazing. Watch how wages skyrocket to livable wages. Watch how lobbyists now try and get the Federal Poverty Level to drastically increase so they can avoid having to pay more taxes for all the bills the rest of us are paying so their underpaid workers can eat. 🙂
Edit - This wouldn't be necessary at all with the Fair Tax System, FYI. Everyone would get a rebate. That would be similar to having a UBI.
UBI recently failed its test in Finland.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
UBI recently failed its test in Finland.
They didn't implement UBI. $640 a month is not basic income. And it wasn't a universal income, either.
Also, they started with group of people who were unemployed to begin with rather than the random population.
I have no idea why they ran their test like this. They needed to increase the amount to $2400 a month. And they needed to select random people, not just the unemployed.
And if you mean it failed, how did it fail? Preliminary results show that they were happier than the control group. That's a success, isn't it?
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
People were happier but it failed to encourage people to work.
What's the point of UBI?
If it was to encourage people to get back to work, then they need to give them true UBI instead of what amounted to unemployment.
If it was to encourage the unemployed to get college educations more often, then they need to test in a country that doesn't already offer free tuition.
Let's test it in the US.
What's the logic in giving someone enough money to live basic, pay rent, bills and food and expecting them to work regardless? I know people have explained this before in the past and it did have solid reasons behind it.
Granted, I'd work as I can't see myself sitting around like a loaf; so to me the UBI would go into my savings each month. But not sure that would be typical, would it? Could see loafers just living off it and never really trying to find work, like some loafers live off welfare now.
edit: There's three "loaf" in that post
Originally posted by dadudemon
What's the point of UBI?If it was to encourage people to get back to work, then they need to give them true UBI instead of what amounted to unemployment.
If it was to encourage the unemployed to get college educations more often, then they need to test in a country that doesn't already offer free tuition.
Let's test it in the US.
And do we have to give illegal immigrants access to uBi?
While I don't agree with multi-million dollar companies not paying taxes; if Amazon's paying accounting firms to work around the system while not breaking any laws; who's to say they're doing anything wrong? Anyone can hire an accountant to pay less tax. It's the laws that have to change so that it's harder for companies to loophole their way out of paying.