- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tucker Carlson stokes the flames of class war
Posted on 8/31/18 at 11:38 am to Razorback Reverend
Posted on 8/31/18 at 11:38 am to Razorback Reverend
quote:
If Amazon, Walmart, And many other major corporations/companies would pay a living wage with benefits these folks wouldn't be sucking off the government tit that the rest of us pay for.
If these benefits didn't exist, then the wages would be higher to reflect that. Society pays a "living wage" one way or another. Our current system does that through an extremely inefficient redistribution system.
Tucker is right in this regard, although I don't think he's framing it properly.
0
Posted on 8/31/18 at 11:39 am to buckeye_vol
Maybe because the deal they made, propelled them to such heights. You must not work in the real world? You a lazy office peon?
Posted on 8/31/18 at 11:41 am to LoneStarRanger
quote:
Amazon is heavily subsidized by the state, folks.
They don’t pay even close to their fair share for shipping via the USPS
They also just recently eclipsed Walmart in subsidies received by various governments. $1.115 Billion.
That’s our money. We have a right to dictate terms to them if they accept OUR money. Otherwise, get off our tit, and do things ALL on your own.
Same goes for Walmart, etc.
If the subsidy is just a "tax break" that all corporations are able to access, then it's not "our money". The term "subsidy" has almost no meaning anymore. It's purposefully conflated for statistics such as those.
Posted on 8/31/18 at 11:45 am to LoneStarRanger
quote:Well successful companies make deals that they benefit from. But deals are not some zero-sum game and both sides often benefit, which is the case here.
Maybe because the deal they made, propelled them to such heights.
quote:Yes. I work in the real-world where I know they I don't have the same leverage, nor do I deserve it, as a revolutionary company worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
You must not work in the real world?
quote:
You a lazy office peon?
Well I am probably lazy, and I do have an office for my typical job. I do consulting on the side too, so I'm curious where the real world work is.Posted on 8/31/18 at 11:48 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:And I believe they're largely property tax abatements for the warehouses and data centers, etc. for some set humber of years. It's a very common practice here in my city for many bussinesses and has been a net positive on the local economy.
If the subsidy is just a "tax break" that all corporations are able to access, then it's not "our money". The term "subsidy" has almost no meaning anymore. It's purposefully conflated for statistics such as those.
It's concerning that so many people equate NOT PAYING CERTAIN TAXES with GOVERNMENT PAYING THEM WITH CITIZENS MONEY.
This post was edited on 8/31/18 at 11:50 am
Posted on 8/31/18 at 11:52 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:And I wonder if people outraged about "subsidies" consider their personal tax deductions, child tax credits, etc., the same way?
If the subsidy is just a "tax break" that all corporations are able to access, then it's not "our money". The term "subsidy" has almost no meaning anymore. It's purposefully conflated for statistics such as those.
I'm gladly taking the $24,000 standard deduction, $2,000 child tax credit, $5,000 dependent care account deduction, $1,000 deduction for our FSA, pre-payroll deductions for medical insurance and retirement, the $2,000 first time home buyer tax credit for my new mortgage, and all of the business deductions I will use for my consulting work.
So I don't know why I should he outraged by major corporations doing the same, maybe even at lesser percentage.
This post was edited on 8/31/18 at 11:57 am
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:02 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:That is an incomplete statement.
Welfare payments are not subsidies to low wage industries, they are subsidies to people earning low wages.
Welfare payments are not subsidies to low wage industries, they are subsidies to people earning low wages because they work for companies who pay low wages, which is an indirect subsidy to the company they work for.
quote:Did you actually write that? What the hell does it mean and why do you think it's true?
THE VERY POINT OF A WELFARE STATE IS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO WORKERS WHO ARE OF LITTLE VALUE TO THE ECONOMY
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:11 pm to LoneStarRanger
quote:You don’t understand fixed, overheads, bulk drop off, and volume discounts do you? Got any numbers suggesting their rates are unprofitable?
You’re not very well informed, are you? Amazon takes advantage of a special deal called a “workshare discount” via the Postal Regulatory Commission. Amazon used an army of lobbyists to get themselves a sweetheart deal that NOBODY else has.
You might want to have a look at the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act which makes it illegal for USPS to price parcel delivery below its cost.
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:13 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:They are a bulk shipper that presorts and drops everything together. They get “sweetheart” deal from every shipper they use. Silly to think they should pay retail rates.
I wonder why the leading E-commerce company, with almost 50% of the market share, growing at an exponential rate with hundreds of billions in sales annually gets a sweetheart deal?
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:14 pm to texridder
texridder, just to clarify:
Is it your assertion that welfare payments allow employers to get away with paying less to their workers?
Is it your assertion that welfare payments allow employers to get away with paying less to their workers?
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:14 pm to texridder
quote:But Amazon doesn't pay low wages. $15 an hour is not a low wage for warehouse work, especially with great benefits.
because they work for companies who pay low wages, which is an indirect subsidy to the company they work for.
The problem is the entitlement system creates disincentives for things like extra hours, pay raises, etc. which aren't really issues with the pay rates provided. It becomes upwards of nearly 100% effective tax rate on extra income when people each certain levels, and I don't blame people for considering that when choosing not to work extra hours.
It's exactly why Friedman, Hayek, etc., supported UBI. And while that may be a difficult thing to institute, the problems noted above won't go away until people aren't forced into a decision where a lowert income is actually a rational decision.
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:15 pm to texridder
quote:
which is an indirect subsidy to the company they work for.
no
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:18 pm to 90proofprofessional
90proof, I am getting hopeless trying to explain this to these people
They think a welfare state LOWERS wages, when basic intuition tells you that means tested welfare programs massively RAISE the reservation wage of workers
They think a welfare state LOWERS wages, when basic intuition tells you that means tested welfare programs massively RAISE the reservation wage of workers
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:18 pm to texridder
quote:No it isn’t — unless you’re suggesting those workers would stop working for Amazon if their welfare benefits were cut off. That would seemingly make no sense. “I’m not earning enough money without my subsidy, so I’m going to quit earning anything!”
Welfare payments are not subsidies to low wage industries, they are subsidies to people earning low wages because they work for companies who pay low wages, which is an indirect subsidy to the company they work for.
You’re making a great argument for ending the welfare state here. Not for seizing more of Amazon’s money. You just don’t realize it.
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
i agree, except you might be overstating the magnitude of the res wage increase. our welfare system isn't THAT generous
eta- and for EITC. that one actually does increase labor supply
eta- and for EITC. that one actually does increase labor supply
This post was edited on 8/31/18 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:27 pm to 90proofprofessional
Yes, I was going to qualify my post that EITC is an exception
The bigger point though is welfare payments are not subsidies to employers.
The bigger point though is welfare payments are not subsidies to employers.
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:28 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
unless you’re suggesting those workers would stop working for Amazon if their welfare benefits were cut off.
That's why I say that EITC is an exception- receiving it actually does require working and earning first
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:30 pm to texridder
quote:
because they work for companies who pay low wages, which is an indirect subsidy to the company they work for.
You don't understand economics very well.
Posted on 8/31/18 at 12:39 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
They pay what people will come and work to earn. If the govt didn’t pay welfare these people would work elsewhere or get two jobs.
A job is a resource. There are only a finite amount of resources. The option of getting a 2nd job is not always available.
I don't understand how people think having a free market is an excuse to not regulate certain aspects of business. There is a reason most Western countries have a welfare system, its because it covers the holes that a free market cant afford.
Posted on 8/31/18 at 1:04 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
which is an indirect subsidy to the company they work for.
no
Explain, please.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News