Income Inequality

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
to be fair, libertarians have a big issue with pretty much everything
Some recognize that tyranny doesn't just come from government and that faceless corporations can behave with just as little accountability. When corporations effectively wield government to achieve their ends, such as they seem to be doing with shameless impunity now, that is every bit as much of a problem as a foreign power's standing army would have been in the 18th century.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Interesting.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will soon introduce legislation that would require large employers like Amazon, Walmart and McDonald’s to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid and other federal assistance received by their employees. The goal, he says, is to force corporations to pay a living wage and curb roughly $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that currently go to funding federal assistance programs for low-wage workers each year.

The bill, which Sanders plans to introduce in the Senate on Sept. 5, would impose a 100 percent tax on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees. For example, if an Amazon employee receives $300 in food stamps, Amazon would be taxed $300.

Public records obtained by the New Food Economy, a non-profit news organization, show that thousands of Amazon employees rely on the government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program to make ends meet. As many as one in three Amazon employees in Arizona -- and about 1 in 10 in Pennsylvania and Ohio -- receive food stamps, according to an April report by the New Food Economy, based in New York.
LINK
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
that is an interesting approach. i don't think it will go anywhere though, but maybe it will move the needle some on paying folks decent wages.
I agree. Not entirely sure how I feel about the plan yet, but it's an interesting thought. At the end of the day, someone will be paying to feed and shelter Amazon's workers. Right now it's partly you and me. Even if there is no net financial change after Amazon passes the taxes onto consumers, these workers earning a living wage rather than food stamps might be a net positive.
 

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,344
39
167
Shiner, TX
I don't think anyone has a problem with the rich being rich per se. It's the unadulterated greed that bastardizes the American dream. Get rich while ruining others or at the expense of others. If you get rich while enriching others' lives (healthcare improvements through medicine or medical devices for example) and also creating good paying jobs for your employees, sweet. If you create a faux product to take advantage of others and pay your employees crap wages, then hopefully you'll burn in hell.

At some point, the greedy will get their just desserts...in this life or in the next. Karma seems to work itself out in the end.
 

day-day

Hall of Fame
Jan 2, 2005
9,937
1,659
187
Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
I can see how it appears that the government is subsidizing labor for American companies and Sanders' proposal aims to stop that but I don't think this federal assistance tax is a good solution. It seems simple but could get very complicated.

Any idea if this would apply to part-time workers?

Companies would have no control over the federal assistance programs but would be expected to cover the taxes for people that work for them. I'm afraid the government spending would get more out of control instead of less.
 

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,366
182
I can see how it appears that the government is subsidizing labor for American companies and Sanders' proposal aims to stop that but I don't think this federal assistance tax is a good solution. It seems simple but could get very complicated.

Any idea if this would apply to part-time workers?

Companies would have no control over the federal assistance programs but would be expected to cover the taxes for people that work for them. I'm afraid the government spending would get more out of control instead of less.
If it did not apply to part time workers then every company that wanted to avoid this tax could just make all their employees part time.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
The fastest way to get companies to invest millions of dollars in robotics and other human-replacing technologies?

Make it more expensive to employ humans.

Food for thought.
 

day-day

Hall of Fame
Jan 2, 2005
9,937
1,659
187
Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
If it did not apply to part time workers then every company that wanted to avoid this tax could just make all their employees part time.
That's what I was thinking. That would make it even more expensive per hour for the companies.

The article I read (couldn't read the original link; maybe it was the same) mentioned that part-time workers for Amazon get decent benefits. Companies would cut these benefits in order to pay the tax. Some companies have peak operational times and rely heavily on part-time workers to fill a short work shift.

It would be interesting to know how much this would affect the companies.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
The fastest way to get companies to invest millions of dollars in robotics and other human-replacing technologies?

Make it more expensive to employ humans.

Food for thought.
Still not sure how I feel about the plan, but a few counterpoints:
(1) One could make this same argument in favor of eliminating minimum wage and turning American factories into sweatshops.
(2) The moment a business finds it more profitable to replace humans with machines, they will. Barring some form of regulation, which you would presumably oppose, what you describe is an eventuality for a large proportion of jobs no matter whether workers get paid a livable wage in the meantime.
(3) If Amazon passes the tax to consumers, it would not necessarily impact their bottom line and affect the pace of automation.
 

MattinBama

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2007
11,144
5,453
187
Such a great booming economy. Surely all that trickling down will hit all these folks pretty soon.

Almost half of Americans can't pay for their basic needs

Four in 10 Americans are struggling to pay for their basic needs such as groceries or housing, a problem even middle-class households confront, according to a new study from the Urban Institute.

Despite the U.S. economy being near full employment, 39.4 percent of adults between 18 and 64 years old said they experienced at least one type of material hardship in 2017, according to the study, which surveyed more than 7,500 adults about whether they had trouble paying for housing, utilities, food or health care.

The findings surprised researchers at the Urban Institute, who had expected to find high levels of hardship among poor Americans but hadn't predicted so many middle-class families would also struggle to meet their basic needs. That may illustrate that a middle-class income "is no guarantee" of protection from hardship, said Michael Karpman, research associate at the Urban Institute's health Policy Center and a co-author of the report.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,557
18,299
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
Does this survey take into account how much money the people surveyed are spending on non-basic need items and services? Or is it an assumption the people surveyed don't have issues with purchasing things (non-basic needs) they can't afford or attempting to live a lifestyle they cannot afford? A LOT of middle class and upper middle class people don't struggle paying bills because they don't make enough money. A lot of them can't pay for their basic needs because they attempt to live a lifestyle their wages cannot support or sustain.

In another thread Bodhi gave an example of a guy he works with who both he and his wife make into the six figures yet are barely making it. They aren't an aberration in this country.

Disclosure: My question has nothing to do with politics and I want to make it clear I am not making an attempt to support or defend any political position or leader. Just asking a financial question.




Such a great booming economy. Surely all that trickling down will hit all these folks pretty soon.

Almost half of Americans can't pay for their basic needs
 
Last edited:

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
Income inequality and wealth inequality are related, but not identical, issues.

Givens:
1) 1 percent of the population owns 38 percent of the stock market.
2) The richest 10 percent owns 80 percent of the stock market.
3) Half the U.S. population owns no stock wealth whatsoever.

One interesting proposal that Clinton apparently toyed with but never pursued, was a government-run investment fund, in which all citizens receive one non-transferable share that pays out dividends in the form of a universal basic income. Alaska has a similar fund that is quite popular. Much more detail here: LINK.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
Such a great booming economy. Surely all that trickling down will hit all these folks pretty soon.

Almost half of Americans can't pay for their basic needs

Four in 10 Americans are struggling to pay for their basic needs such as groceries or housing, a problem even middle-class households confront, according to a new study from the Urban Institute.

Despite the U.S. economy being near full employment, 39.4 percent of adults between 18 and 64 years old said they experienced at least one type of material hardship in 2017, according to the study, which surveyed more than 7,500 adults about whether they had trouble paying for housing, utilities, food or health care.

The findings surprised researchers at the Urban Institute, who had expected to find high levels of hardship among poor Americans but hadn't predicted so many middle-class families would also struggle to meet their basic needs. That may illustrate that a middle-class income "is no guarantee" of protection from hardship, said Michael Karpman, research associate at the Urban Institute's health Policy Center and a co-author of the report.
Of course, you could write every household in America a check today for $10,000, wait a year, take that survey again, and almost certainly get the same results.
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,700
16
57
Does this survey take into account how much money the people surveyed are spending on non-basic need items and services? Or is it an assumption the people surveyed don't have issues with purchasing things (non-basic needs) they can't afford or attempting to live a lifestyle they cannot afford? A LOT of middle class and upper middle class people don't struggle paying bills because they don't make enough money. A lot of them can't pay for their basic needs because they attempt to live a lifestyle their wages cannot support or sustain.

In another thread Bodhi gave an example of a guy he works with who both he and his wife make into the six figures yet are barely making it. They aren't an aberration in this country.

Disclosure: My question has nothing to do with politics and I want to make it clear I am not making an attempt to support or defend any political position or leader. Just asking a financial question.
That is a valid question. I have tried to help people turn their financial situation around by volunteering at church to teach budgeting and financial stability. I was amazed at the expenses some of the people listed as things that were non-negotiable. Smart phones and Cable TV were among those. After looking at that type of list I struggled with how to best approach them about the fact that they held unrealistic assumptions about basic needs....
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.