NYMag: Bernie Sanders's BEZOS Bill Would Hurt the Working Class, Not the Rich

[ehrnst]

The Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act, which Sanders has co-sponsored with left-wing House Democrat Ro Khanna, imposes a tax on large corporations equal to the value of the social spending — specifically, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), rental subsidies, and free or reduced-price school meals — collected by their employees. Its intent is to force these firms to raise their employees’ wages high enough so that they no longer qualify for public assistance, in order to avoid paying the new tax.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a center-left think tank, points out several crippling flaws in this proposal. Penalizing firms who have employees receiving federal benefits would create several perverse side effects. Those firms would have an incentive to avoid hiring employees more likely to receive Medicaid and other forms of assistance — i.e., employees who have families or expensive medical needs. They would also be incentivized both to pressure their employees not to sign up for public assistance and to lobby politically against the expansion of social welfare benefits. State Medicaid expansion would become a large new cost to these companies, and the BEZOS Act would give them a new incentive to oppose it.

The imagined positive effects of the new law would be ineffectual. “Companies that raise wages would have to do so for all workers in particular job categories, not just those who receive public benefit,” the CBPP analysis points out. “That would be more expensive to companies than paying the tax penalty.” As the Center notes, there are several ways to encourage higher wages for low-income workers that, unlike this one, would work. If the goal is to punish companies for paying workers too little, raising the minimum wage (which Sanders also supports) is a more effective tool.

Concerning the backlash to the CBPP in the wake of their analysis:

CBPP is not a far left think-tank, but it obviously does not follow the self-interest of the Walton Family. CBPP’s analysts have spent decades picking apart the economic and fiscal rationale for cutting taxes on rich people, businesses, and (of special interest to the Waltons) the estate tax. Moreover, its expertise in,and devotion to, the cause of supporting the social safety net for the most vulnerable Americans is unmatched anywhere. To smear it as a pawn of the rich because it decisively refuted a terribly-designed Sanders message bill says more about Sanders than his target.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/bernie-sanderss-bezos-bill-would-hurt-the-working-class.html

[pnwmom]

1. And why should a law like this apply only to large corporations?

If it was a good idea -- which it isn't, as the article does a good job of setting out -- then it would be good for medium and small corporations as well.

[ehrnst]

6. Good point. (nt)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. Did you have the same beef with some of the ACA provisions only applying to large corporations?

conservatives on both sides of the aisle consistently squawk about hurting mom and pop business so smaller business is routinely exempted from wage and healthcare reform.

This is now news to you?

[pnwmom]

41. This law applies only to large corporations.

The ACA applied to everything except very small companies.

But, as I said, this is only one thing that's wrong with the proposed law.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. Well if you put it that way...

[ehrnst]

87. You keep trying to make the "Bezos bill is like the ACA" happen.

And it's not happening.

[George II]

78. I personally don't think that's even legal -

singling out different types of corporations for Federal laws and penalties.

[dsc]

89. It certainly is legal

nearly every federal regulation on companies exempts company having fewer than a certain number of employees (the number varies depending upon the regulation). Even the minimum wage doesn't apply to companies with fewer than 5 employees. The ACA has a cut off of 50. Some regs cut off at 20.

[George II]

91. That's totally different. If I read the summaries of the bill (I don't know if the full text and..

...details are available yet) correctly, this bill will penalize companies whose employees do something outside of their "jurisdiction", for example - enroll in Federal assistance programs.

[ehrnst]

176. That concerns the size, not type, of business.

[PoliticAverse]

102. You don't think the Affordable Care Act is legal? n/t

[George II]

106. What does that have to do with this? We're talking about the BEZOS bill.

[PoliticAverse]

156. It has to do with whether treating large corporations differently than small is legal or not.

The Affordable Care Act does so and is certainly legal.

[George II]

158. As some like to say around here, "straw man"!

[pnwmom]

164. No, it's not whether it's legal or not. It's whether it's STUPID or not.

And this proposed bill is profoundly flawed.

[pnwmom]

135. The ACA doesn't apply to only large corporations. A company with 50 employees

isn't comparable to Amazon or Walmart.

Even so, the ACA even benefits the smallest companies, because it makes healthcare plans available to their employees on the exchanges.

[George II]

147. I just wonder why some immediately throw out the ACA when this discussion comes up....

...they address entirely different issues and and go about it in entirely different ways.

[PoliticAverse]

157. Because (1) it's probably the most important new legislation in the last decade.

and (2) it treats large corporations differently than small, which you implied isn't legal.

[George II]

159. Ahem, it's not "legislation", it's proposed legislation which I don't even know has been....

....formally proposed. I haven't been able (in my limited capabilities of searching) to find the complete text of the bill or the details, just summaries.

So, please answer the question I've asked several times here since he "introduced" his bill why doesn't he immediately discontinue sales of his books from Amazon? That would be a VERY powerful statement, but.............

[pnwmom]

160. It might be the most misguided, least well-thought-out "progressive" legislation in the last decade.

In that sense it IS important.

From the article in the OP:

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a center-left think tank, points out several crippling flaws in this proposal. Penalizing firms who have employees receiving federal benefits would create several perverse side effects. Those firms would have an incentive to avoid hiring employees more likely to receive Medicaid and other forms of assistance — i.e., employees who have families or expensive medical needs. They would also be incentivized both to pressure their employees not to sign up for public assistance and to lobby politically against the expansion of social welfare benefits. State Medicaid expansion would become a large new cost to these companies, and the BEZOS Act would give them a new incentive to oppose it.


The imagined positive effects of the new law would be ineffectual. “Companies that raise wages would have to do so for all workers in particular job categories, not just those who receive public benefit,” the CBPP analysis points out. “That would be more expensive to companies than paying the tax penalty.” As the Center notes, there are several ways to encourage higher wages for low-income workers that, unlike this one, would work. If the goal is to punish companies for paying workers too little, raising the minimum wage (which Sanders also supports) is a more effective tool.

[PoliticAverse]

162. Whether it is a good idea or not and whether it is "legal" are different issues. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

155. The ACA treats large corporations differently than small. You agree doing so is legal, right?

Beyond the ACA there's a plethora of legislation that exempts small companies from requirements, you agree
that is legal, yes?

[Andy823]

117. K&R

nt

[LiberalFighter]

140. Agreed.

Have different tax rates based on number of employees.

[Cha]

2. KICK!

[treestar]

3. Some thought put into it is good

Better just to have the social safety net and quit worrying about who to blame. Those in need require help, not looking for blame and penalties.

[ehrnst]

21. But that doesn't give one a dragon to slay, does it?

And doesn't make for a very attention getting piece of legislation, when one is up for re-election, does it?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. We can do both.

Bernie has a voice. And he’s calling out Bezos and his sweat shops. Now that’s a bad thing?

The law has no chance of passing. I have news for people squawking about that - neither does ANY legislation Democrats propose or co-sponsor (unless it’s the trump tax cuts and the $696 billion dollar defense spending bill).

This has been all over the news. Sure, the usual suspects (and their recent converts apparently) are squawking about socialism and how Bernie is a big meanie to business. But what’s also being covered is how many Amazon and Walmart employees are on public aid WHILE employed.

I don’t think a lot of people realize how many people work full time and still require help.

Both Walmart and Amazon hire people and send them right to the state for help. Something is seriously wrong with that picture.

Good for Bernie firing a shot across their bow.

[ehrnst]

85. There's a difference between serious legislation

And symbolic legislation that if put into practice will hurt middle class Americans, put forth by someone in an election year when they are trying to stay relevant and get people angry.

Angry people donate more $$.

Tad Devine doesn't work for cheap.

That tweet about the CBPP being "corporate" was a prime cut of red meat, right up there with the tweets that fooled otherwise critically thinking people to swear that factcheck.org, Politifact and WAPO were "do the bidding of the Koch Bros."

[George II]

94. +1,000,000

[George II]

93. If he really has a "voice" and wants to hit at both Amazon and Walmart....

...and stand on principle, he can immediately suspend sales of his books on both of them.

[joshcryer]

124. Amazon is not going away.

But the jobs are. The jobs are fucking going to die in a massive fire and there's nothing that anyone can do about it. And we need to get working on it right the fuck now. Human civilization is going to be fucked if we don't get on it right now. Today.

Amazon is going to take over the whole goddamn world and there's nothing that can be done about it. AI and automation are changing everything.

[George II]

150. Certainly not if those who criticize Amazon continue to support them financially by allowing them...

....to market their books and other items.

[Blue_true]

73. Often Bernie doesn't seem to consider consequences.

Bernie torpedoed healthcare proposals during the past because he felt they didn't go far enough. The all or nothing mindset causes lots of problems and his admirers gloss over that reality.

[SkyDancer]

103. What health care proposals did Bernie "torpedo"?

People in this day & age are struggling to survive, there's millions of us. Wages have fallen so much that millennials are the first generation to ever make less than their parents.

We need drastic change & we need it to happen fast.

[QC]

104. {crickets}

[SkyDancer]

109. Is this the new talking point now?

"Bernie killed health care proposals"?

I hear he has a jacket too.

[Blue_true]

121. The Clinton health care plan was basically torpedoed by Bernie and republicans

when it was put forth during Bill Clinton's first term. Bernie didn't feel that it went far enough. So lots of people that could have lived died between the Clinton effort and passage of the ACA in 2010.

To the other poster that gave the crickets insult. Were the crickets loud enough for you? I didn't post because I was busy with other affairs for the last few hours.

[QC]

127. WATCH OUT, HILLARY!! HE'S GOT A TORPEDO!!!

Interesting video here: www.c-span.org/video/?c4536221/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-1993

[Blue_true]

128. She basically kissed his behind to get him fully behind the healthcare iniative.

He chose to stay outside and never gave it his blessing. The picture you showed, with the note from Hillary was her attempt to get him onboard, as I pointed out, he never got onboard. Her efforts to placate him were wasted.

[QC]

129. The Clinton plan never made it to the House or Senate floor,

so nobody in the Congress was really able to "torpedo" it, least of all one representative out of 435.

(Some of us are old enough to have first-hand memories of the 1990's.)

I will always believe that HRC made a heroic effort then and was treated cruelly for it. That was the work of the corporate interests, not a few congresspeople who advocated single payer, like Jim McDermott, John Conyers, and Bernie Sanders. We should not let Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation off the hook.

[Blue_true]

133. She needed people like Bernie to get fully behind it.

He chose to get into the photo ops, but do NOTHING TO HELP the plan get a foothold in Congress, mostly because it was not his precious idea. Then came years of people being uninsured until 2010 when the ACA was pushed through.

[Blue_true]

134. I pointed out that republicans sunk the plan, Bernie didn't help give it support in Congress. nt

[progressoid]

179. No, you said, "The Clinton health care plan was basically torpedoed by Bernie and republicans"

Interestingly, you don't criticize other Democrats who didn't support it, like Pat Moynihan, who Hillary coincidentally succeeded as Senator of NY.

[Blue_true]

180. I should have put republicans before Bernie.

They and the insurance industry did by far the most damage. But Bernie was one of the largest skeptics on the progressive side, because he felt the proposal did not go far enough (the same complaint often made about the ACA, which is not perfect, but is the ONLY healthcare plan outside on Medicare and CHIP passed in the last 68 years.

[joshcryer]

113. This bill was envisioned by its name.

They thought up a way to spell out BEZOS and worked from there.

[Blue_true]

123. It is a poorly thought out, even foolish bill.

The best recourse is to shame Bezos into paying a higher minimum wage. Bernie's proposal will cause companies to adjust employment to make paying the tax platable.

[joshcryer]

126. The bill would require workers to disclose their assistance needs.

Which would denigrate them to the core.

There's no tracking of this stuff at the federal level so the only way it could be implemented would be disclosure by employees. Yes you could theorize a system where that wouldn't be necessary but such a system doesn't exist now and couldn't without many years of work to modify each office at the local level. We're talking about changing procedure for tens of thousands of social workers and writing new software, etc.

[manor321]

4. Yes, it is a dumb approach

Fighting for higher wages for workers, stronger unions, etc. is better.

[ehrnst]

5. It's an approach based in tunnel vision.

But not surprising from one with a history of deliberate refusal to acknowledge even the possibility that one's approach my have unintended negative consequences.

It's a "punish this bad entity!" bumper sticker slogan approach, simplistic and emotional.

[Eliot Rosewater]

90. Fighting for things that CAN happen, makes more sense.

[mcar]

7. K&R

[JHan]

8. Now Sanders' policy adviser has decided to smear the CBPP

Remnants of 2016.

Link to tweet

Anyone who dares, just dares to point out ANY policy flaw of Sanders, is slandered as a corporate shill... as usual ....

And I shouldn't be wary of populists?

The CBPP has done stellar work for decades analyzing the impact of policies on the poor and middle class. They raise valid concerns and are immediately tarnished by a Sanders aide as being compromised.

Gunnels doesn't actually address any of those valid concerns, in one of the tweet replies, he even contradicts himself:

"It’s absurd to think this bill will spur CEOs to lobby for cuts to the social safety net. News flash: CEOs have been lobbying to privatize or cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and virtually every other program benefiting the working class since the 1930s." -

Not all corporations are the Koch Brothers. Fact is, Corporations have been happy to have Government take up the slack.

Gunnels logic: it's absurd to think CEO's will lobby cuts to the social safety net, but on the other hand, they've been lobbying for cuts to the safety net since the 1930's. ------Impressive how he manages to make CBPP's point without realizing it.

In another tweet reply he argues that Sanders' history of sponsoring and co-sponsoring progressive bills are evidence that we should ignore CBPP's concerns and not approach this as if we were in a "policy vacuum" ( whatever this means). The problem here is, Sanders has no bona fides since these bills never passed Warren

Gunnel then misconstrues valid points about the impact of the bill on workers who depend on public assistance as some kind of stigmatization of poor people. Then he taps into populist outrage by declaring how bad all these billionaires are and we really oughta show them when grievance should never be the impetus of legislation. Pointing fingers at the chosen enemies of the Populist should never be the point of legislation. Legislation is implemented to improve conditions, not blame individuals.

Of course, this bill won't be passed. Thoughtful legislators will raise the same concerns the CBPP did, and be slandered for doing so. We'll then hear for two years how Sanders didn't get his bill passed because of "the establishment".

2016 redux.

[ehrnst]

9. Yeah, the inevitable lashing out at any analysis that doesn't support Sanders

100% as being the product of "corrupt rightwing" sources.

This looks far more like a FoxNews "rebuttal" on a Politifact analysis of a DT statment by calling Politifact "a left wing Soros puppet" on Trump than it does an actual rebuttal of the CBPP using statistics, facts and data.

But as we've seen, that's a common reaction by Sanders and many supporters to any org or entity, no matter how reputable, expert and unbiased it may have always been, to even a hint of disagreement with Sanders' legislation or statements.

[JHan]

11. "Anyone who disagrees with me is the enemy" - Even when they're acting in good faith.

When Gunnels finally sorta addresses the issue he lashes out petulantly:

"It doesn't allow corporations to discriminate against low-income workers. If any corporation discriminated against hiring workers who could qualify for public assistance their CEO should face stiff criminal and civil penalties."

One breath: It doesn't allow corporations to do that.
Next breath: If it DID then SOMETHING should be done.

So write a bill addressing that something or maybe factor in these externalities in the bill itself.

[ehrnst]

17. I think that the purpose of writing the bill wasn't getting it to pass.

I believe the purpose was to make a politician make the case that they alone are trying to slay this dragon.

Indeed, the fact that it likely won't pass will further the knight in shining armor's claims that anyone who disagrees with him "is protecting and enabling" the dragon.

It's similar to what GOP did with repeated attempts to "repeal and replace Obamacare" when they knew they wouldn't be called on to actually accomplish it. It served to give those introducing it cred for "trying to do something" and the ability to blame Democrats for their inability to deliver. All those GOP reps understood it was a legislative fool's errand voted for it anyway, because their supporters had not the first clue of its futility, but needed to see their reps get up in Obama's face.

They knew that they'd be primaried if they didn't do it, so they created the false narrative that it was possible to slay that dragon, to give their base some red meat and get donations for their campaign.

Anger brings in $$....

[JHan]

33. "Anger brings in $$.." - word.

Also the idea that everything is easy. That all along, getting shit done was always an easy task and the only reason it never happened was because of corporatists and shills and spineless politicians.

"And here I am with all my ideas cuz I have the best ideas!"

................................................................................................

A sign lawmakers are serious is when they doggedly work at improving something over a long period of time- meaning they have a deep desire to make a law that's going to work.

Pushing a quickie flawed bill just to make a "statement", a bill you know won't pass, is the opposite of that ^

[Me.]

53. A Dollar Fifty For A Candidate & A Dollar Fifty For Him

seems like a better get than pushing bad ideas

[ehrnst]

62. Well, Tad Devine's got to be paid somehow.

and I see his handiwork all over the pushback.

[Me.]

69. After All Ten Million Is Ten Million

and who cares how you come by it, he certainly doesn't

[betsuni]

138. +1

[ismnotwasm]

51. That twitter thread is interesting

To say the least

[JHan]

59. isn't it just.

but you know, we're all "hating".

[joshcryer]

111. This bill is just a talking point BS thing.

And it's actually quite fucked up because if you read the text of it the only way it could be implemented is if the people on assistance had their entire assistance known by the employer: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/stop-bezos-act-2018?id=C2E88AC5-C629-4680-8F8D-9EE74F343560&download=1&inline=file

This means you have to go to Wal-Mart and say "hi, I'm on foodstamps, btw, this is how much I get." Then Wal-Mart would know your private business, and then if they wanted to, they could fire you for whatever reason so that they don't have to pay the fees.

[JHan]

137. ++ it is fucked up.

""hi, I'm on food stamps, btw, this is how much I get." - an incredibly humiliating thing to have to do too.

It really ticks me off that they've decided that CBPP should now be in their crosshairs.
Scorched earth politics. ..*Sigh*

[JCanete]

152. 2 Million dollars aint nothing. I'm sure the organization is doing legitimate work, but regardless,

that is bordering dangerously on a conflict of interest because this bill is literally something that would impact Walmart.

Gunnel's point, it seems to me, is not that its absurd that these companies would attempt to do this, but that they already do this so how does this change things. That isn't a contradiction, though you may have read the two sentences that way.


I think Sanders bill had one advantage that we had to go and squander on this side of the aisle. As a talking point it was impervious to the attacks to its credibility by the right without the right having to admit that companies DO do this sort of thing. The GOP constantly wants to frame CEO's and the rich and big companies as job creators with a conscience, looking out for people and simlply being decent. In a rhetorical battle on this subject they could try to explain why such a thing shouldn't be done, but they couldn't come at this from an angle of why it would be ineffective-that would imply intent by corporations to maximize profits at the expense of employees.

I agree though that this is more a posturing measure meant to put companies like Walmart and Amazon in the cross-hairs of citizen discontent. They should be in those cross-hairs. They don't simply work within the system...they lobby to create this system of laws that work so well for them and continue to suck wealth from local communities.

The better option is to get the 15 dollar minimum wage, or better still, a basic income guarantee, both of which would rely less on regulatory bodies to ensure that companies follow regulations.

[JHan]

153. "2 million dollars ain't nothing"

"I'm sure the organization is doing legitimate work, but regardless" ....

Which is it? They're compromised or not?

Deal with the points they raised instead of lending credence to the smear. This is as bad as the attacks on the Urban Institute and Planned Parenthood when the former analyzed a Sanders plan and the latter didn't endorse Sanders. Every time a body or organization dares point out flaws in something Sanders does this is the result- attacks on their credibility and tired tropes of being "Corporatist " and "centrist"

No , Corporations do not lobby to gut the social safety net. I don't know where you got this idea from. Not all corporations are the Koch Brothers.

Typically they don't. They are quite happy to let government pick up the slack.

Stick to dealing with what the study says.

"The better option is to get the 15 dollar minimum wage, or better still, a basic income guarantee, both of which would rely less on regulatory bodies to ensure that companies follow regulations." -

Well right, On that, we can sort of agree although I'm revisiting my original enthusiasm for basic income. It's best to get these things done slowly. The first step is addressing wage stagnation, and protecting what we have under the affordable care act imho. Yes , the much dreaded "Incrementalism".

[SkyDancer]

10. CBPP is owned by Walmart

Why aren't you showing this and how the article has been updated & only a one sided slanted view brought to you by the CBPP who is in Walmart's pockets

It's not surprising an otherwise friendly think tank that gets at least $2 million from the Walmart Foundation disagrees

[JHan]

12. Have you sorted out in your head that Senator Blumenthal and Cornyn don't look alike yet?

[SidDithers]

14. !!!

Sid

[emulatorloo]

15. Never apologized for that thread either, as far as I know. Or admitted he was wrong.

I am glad he deleted his original post though.

[ehrnst]

22. Never admit any mistake - just double down or refuse to discuss it further....

Sound familiar?

[Eliot Rosewater]

83. self censor...oops, careful

[ismnotwasm]

48. + infinity

[NurseJackie]

97. Daaaamn!

[JHan]

99. I genuinely wanted to know though lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

[mcar]

131. ...

[George II]

144. I can help:

MY Senator, Richard Blumenthal:



John Cornyn:

[JHan]

154. Like.. how do you even confuse the two?

[ehrnst]

18. Right on schedule.....

Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2018, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Responding even without reading the OP...which if you actually read before firing off a retort, you would have seen that was in it along with the rebuttal.



But it's good to have the opportunity to again share the debunking of the tweets that you shared:

CBPP is not a far left think-tank, but it obviously does not follow the self-interest of the Walton Family. CBPP’s analysts have spent decades picking apart the economic and fiscal rationale for cutting taxes on rich people, businesses, and (of special interest to the Waltons) the estate tax. Moreover, its expertise in,and devotion to, the cause of supporting the social safety net for the most vulnerable Americans is unmatched anywhere. To smear it as a pawn of the rich because it decisively refuted a terribly-designed Sanders message bill says more about Sanders than his target.

I'm sure Tad Devine is smiling at all the shares of that tweet. He really earns those big $$ fees paid for by Sanders donors, I'll give him that.

But do carry on kicking the post.

[ehrnst]

20. And Blumenthal and Cornyn are the same guy, right?

But all Republicans and Democrats are the same to you, aren't they?



Seriously, you're not going to live that one down.

[Amimnoch]

23. LOL

Really.

[Gothmog]

169. LOL

[ehrnst]

63. You probably also think that Kaiser Family Foundation is "owned" by Kaiser Permanente...

[honest.abe]

71. You realize you have zero credibility here with your dubious past performance.

In fact it's to the point that whatever you write I would automatically assume the exact opposite is true.

[pnwmom]

163. No, it's not owned by Walmart. And the President Emeritus is Marian Wright Edelman.

You might have heard of her. She's sort of progressive.



https://www.cbpp.org/about/board

[Gothmog]

168. You are using facts against a silly talking point

[SkyDancer]

174. Yes, it is "owned" by Walmart

I think you're taking the word "owned" by it's dictionary definition and not it's slang meaning.

[Gothmog]

167. LOL-Jared Bernstein does not work for walmart and this attack is dumb

The concept that the organization that Jared Bernstein works for is controlled by walmart is so dumb that it is funny. Here are some facts https://www.cbpp.org/jared-bernstein

Jared Bernstein joined the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in 2011 as a Senior Fellow. From 2009 to 2011, Bernstein was the Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, Executive Director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, and a member of President Obama’s economic team.

Bernstein’s areas of expertise include federal and state economic and fiscal policies, income inequality and mobility, trends in employment and earnings, international comparisons, and the analysis of financial and housing markets.

Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Bernstein was a senior economist and the director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

Between 1995 and 1996, he held the post of Deputy Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor.

I have no idea who gunnels is and from what I have seen, he is not credible in the real world. I do know who Jared Bernstein is and I trust this source.

[Gothmog]

181. Vox has a good explanation of this silly proposal

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

194. You seem to be unaware of a few things that Gunnels is counting on you not knowing

They are very reputable:

(Yes, I know that Harvard is very, very "establishment.&quot

https://www.cbpp.org/about/finances

And that you won't know about how reputable think tanks work in terms of donors. Donors give money because they want to support the work that a think tank is doing.

Perhaps you can tell me how these CBPP analysis promote Walmart's business goals?

Corporate Tax Cuts Mainly Benefit Shareholders and CEOs, Not Workers


The tax framework that the Trump Administration and congressional Republican leaders announced on September 27 proposes cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has repeatedly argued that the Administration’s “objective” for corporate tax cuts is boosting workers’ wages because “many, many economic studies show that more than 70 percent of the burden of corporate taxes are passed on to the workers.” This claim is misleading, however, and the assertion that most of the benefits would go to workers misses the mark. The evidence indicates that most of the benefits from a corporate rate cut would go to those at the top, with only a small share flowing to low- and moderate-income families. Mainstream estimates conclude that more than one-third of the benefit of corporate rate cuts flows to the top 1 percent of Americans, and 70 percent flows to the top fifth. Corporate rate cuts could even hurt most Americans since they must eventually be paid for with other tax increases or spending cuts.[1]

?itok=Qi7fcqNP

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/corporate-tax-cuts-mainly-benefit-shareholders-and-ceos-not-workers

Reform Prevents Corporations from Hiding Profits in “Tax Haven” Subsidiaries

To avoid state corporate income taxes, a number of large, multistate corporations have devised strategies to move profits out of the states in which they are earned and into states in which they will be taxed at lower rates — or not at all. They do this by creating subsidiaries largely or solely as tax shelters in “tax haven” states like Delaware and then artificially shifting funds to them in the form of royalties or rent.

For example, Wal-Mart has transferred ownership of all of its stores to a Wal-Mart subsidiary. In most states, this enables Wal-Mart to deduct the “rent” it pays the subsidiary (i.e., the rent it pays itself) from the income that is subject to state corporate taxes. The subsidiary receiving the rent isn’t taxed because it qualifies as a tax-exempt “Real Estate Investment Trust” under federal and state law.

Strategies like these cost states billions of dollars in revenue, forcing individuals and small businesses — which lack the resources to exploit the loophole — to pay higher taxes than would otherwise be necessary. They also give multistate corporations an unfair tax advantage over in-state corporations and smaller businesses.

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-gop-shouldnt-again-shortchange-working-families-with-20-tax-plans-child-credit

https://www.cbpp.org/press/press-releases/press-release-several-states-considering-closing-major-corporate-tax-loopholes

https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/greenstein-house-republican-tax-proposal-repeats-flaws-in-2017-tax-law

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/indexing-capital-gains-for-inflation-would-worsen-fiscal-challenges-give


The CBPP had done more for the poor than any politician because they are a source for reliable data, and they have lasted and gotten support because of it. They are more reputable than any politician who dispute them, (which until now have been GOP), especially during a campaign to get elected.

https://www.cbpp.org/about/mission-history

Just because a think tank/fact check/analysis isn't skewed your way doesn't mean they are skewed against you.

That's a right wing talking point, and it's sad to see it here on DU. But unfortunely not surprising....

[betsuni]

195. +1

[TheFarseer]

13. No, this is not the right approach

We need to raise corporate taxes and provide tax credits for things we want corps to do. Sadly the current approach is to provide tax credits for whatever corporate lobbyists want.

[NurseJackie]

16. This whole thing seems to be not very well thought-out...

... and even with so many obvious flaws and shortcomings, I do not understand why it's being hailed as being brilliant and groundbreaking by Sanders' followers.

To smear [the CBPP] as a pawn of the rich because it decisively refuted a terribly-designed Sanders message bill says more about Sanders than his target.

Yes. I agree. It certainly does say a lot, and the message isn't very flattering, is it?

[ehrnst]

19. Looks like some posters here are not that different from FoxNews viewers

who reflexively believe Politifact, the NYT, Factcheck.org and CNN are "Soros puppets."

[Yavin4]

24. Wouldn't raising the minimum wage to a living wage for large corporations do the same thing?

With the additional benefit that ALL employees would benefit, not just the large ones.

[ehrnst]

28. But that's not headline grabbing - this is. And it's a great fundraising ask.

Tad Devine doesn't work for peanuts.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. Then conservadems and conservatives would scream bloody murder you are hurting mom and pop business

That’s why much of this type legislation, including some ACA provisions, is aimed at large corporations.

[ehrnst]

34. Conservadems?

Who are they?

And can you reference the parts of the ACA you are talking about, and give us a comparison of their counterparts in the Bezos bill? That would indicate that you had a valid point in comparing the two.

I can't understand why anyone would propose a bill without doing the research on what the negative impact could be on the middle class, at least if one was writing a bill that they expected would pass.

[JHan]

37. I like the dig at the ACA, a bill that expanded health insurance and saved lives.

You can't fucking win sometimes.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

39. It's not a dig at the ACA. It's a fact.

[JHan]

40. It's your reconfiguration of reality.

I prefer the real world.

[ehrnst]

45. Ditto - along with well crafted legislation that actually passes and helps people

and serves a larger purpose than helping in fundraising emails.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

46. Here. Just for you. I guess I assumed too much that this wouldn't be news here.

https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers



Affordable Care Act Tax Provisions for Employers
The Affordable Care Act, or health care law, contains benefits and responsibilities for employers. The size and structure of your workforce determines what applies to you. An employer’s size is determined by the number of its full-time employees, including full-time equivalents.

For help with determining the size of your workforce each year, see our page on Determining if an Employer is an Applicable Large Employer.

Why does the size of an employer’s workforce matter?

If you have fewer than 25 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, you may be eligible for a Small Business Health Care Tax Credit to help cover the cost of providing coverage.
Generally, employers with 50 or fewer employees may be eligible to buy coverage through the Small Business Health Options Program or (SHOP Marketplace). Learn more at HealthCare.gov.
If you have 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, you are an applicable full-time employer and need to issue statements to employees and file an annual information return reporting whether and what health insurance you offered employees. ALEs are subject to the employer shared responsibility provisions.
Some states allow employers with up to 100 employees to buy coverage through the Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP Marketplace.
Regardless of size, all employers that provide self-insured health coverage to employees must file an annual return reporting certain information for each covered employee and provide the same information to covered individuals.
Certain affiliated employers with common ownership or employers that are part of a controlled group are considered part of an aggregated group. In this case, you must aggregate, or combine, your employees to determine your workforce size. Learn more on the page for Determining if an Employer is an Applicable Large Employer.

Applicable large employers can find resources and the latest news at the Applicable Large Employer Information Center.
Employer Topics

HealthCare.gov
Small Business Health Care Tax Credit and the SHOP Marketplace
Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions
Information Reporting by Applicable Large Employers
Information Reporting by Providers of Minimum Essential Coverage
Affordable Care Act Information Return AIR Program
ACA Information Center for Tax Professionals
Related Links

Small Business Administration
Department of Labor
BusinessUSA.gov

[ehrnst]

55. OK that's half. A cut and paste is a start, but certainly not a support for your claim.

What is the part of Bezos bill that compares, and what are the things that make them similar in what they do?

Remember your high school essay writing? Supporting your thesis that two things are similar in what they address and what they accomplish involves your own words. Otherwise it's just copy and paste.

I don't expect you to have an answer this any more than I expect an answer to who you mean when you say "conservadems."

For the same reason...

[JHan]

67. I can't top this reply. +

[Eliot Rosewater]

95. conservadems is a ATTACK on democrats, it must NOT be tolerated here

It comes direct from GOP and KGB land.

[QC]

105. Go start an Ask the Administrators thread about it. n/t

[George II]

148. Ask the Administrators?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

166. Like the old folks say, Bazinga!

[ehrnst]

65. crickets...

Not surprised.

[George II]

81. That's entirely different from what this so-called "BEZOS Bill" is attempting to do. But....

...I don't think we really know what that bill is all about. Unless I missed it has the text of the bill actually been fully introduced, or just an executive summary?

[ehrnst]

43. Then you won't have any problem showing us just how they are similar.

Still waiting for the basis for your analysis on the elements of the ACA that line up with the similar ones in the Bezos bill.

If you just want to say that they both affect "the big corporations" you could also compare the Bezos bill with Trump's tax breaks. But

I'm sure that you have the goods to show that you're not simply just grabbing for any comparison to a progressive bill that actually got passed, and made an actual difference for people in need.

[pnwmom]

161. The ACA was a well-thought out, carefully considered bill.

This is a mish-mash, and it will hurt those it's designed to help.

[George II]

80. Didn't see this at first so just asked exactly the same question. And yet those who wish to....

....bash a large group of Democrats also subscribe (rightfully) to the idea of the Democratic Party being a "big tent". Yeah, a big tent but make sure you sleep in your own sleeping in the back of the tent.

[JHan]

35. lol "conservadems"

[Blue_true]

75. That insult is intended to send progressives that don't worship Bernie running for the hills.

Holding our buttholes, moaning "woe is me".

[JHan]

76. pretty much +

[George II]

112. That's not going to happen to me - I've been a Democrat since Sanders was a member...

....of the Liberty Union Party, even before that.

[Yavin4]

36. Why should Mom and Pop businesses get huge discounts on labor?

They don't get discounts on equipment, space, raw materials, etc. Why should they get labor for next to nothing? If you cannot afford labor, then don't start your own business.

I fucking hate that talking point.

**Not attacking you, per se.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. I agree. You are not running a viable business if you can't pay more than minimum wage.

Unless it’s a lemonade stand.

[George II]

84. "You are not running a viable business if you can't pay more than minimum wage"...

Then why bother with having a minimum wage?

One runs a viable business if it's a viable business. Quite an obvious concept.

[kcr]

47. If that's the reason, then why is Bernie effectively pandering to them?

All workers deserve living wages, not just the ones at large corporations.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. Do all workers deserve the benefits of the ACA and all the other protections that only apply....

.... to larger corporations?

This is pretty standard stuff.


Lol. But now it’s “pandering”

[kcr]

50. You claimed that Bernie is pushing for this because small businesses are some kind of third rail.

He can't challenge that status quo because ACA? Wow. What a hero.

[ehrnst]

56. You keep trying to compare this legislation to the ACA, and it's just not working.

First of all, the ACA is a much larger, more complex bill that deals with a much larger and more complicated issue - the health care system.

Also, it actually passed and actually helped people, unlike symbolic legislation.

And I thought that you want to replace the ACA with M4A, because it eliminates many entities that the ACA regulates.

[George II]

79. "Conservadems"? You enjoy bashing a whole group of Democrats?

What / who exactly are "conservadems"?

[betsuni]

142. I just assume they mean Manchin: this one guy somehow means there and lots and lots

of "conservadems." There's never an answer. Surely there's a list somewhere. Only once did I get an answer when asking about "corporate Dems." I was told to do my own research (so there must be a list somewhere too) and given a list:

Cory Booker
Kirsten Gillibrand
Barney Frank
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
Hillary Clinton

Yes, Hillary was on the list twice. When we talk about how terrible Republicans are, it's easy to give evidence. Why are those who complain about conservadems and corporate dems so suddenly shy about giving proof of their allegations?

[George II]

145. Like it or not, Joe Manchin IS a Democrat, and he votes with Democrats more than....

....a republican would.

Of those candidates I've seen over the years from West Virginia, Joe Manchin has the ability to win and give us 80% as opposed to any republican who would give us 0%.

[betsuni]

149. But he MIGHT do something bad sometime in the future.

These allegations about Democrats are based on vague worries of things that might happen. Maybe that's what "conservadems" means: the conviction that Democrats will turn into conservatives if one does not constantly worry about things they might do if the worrier stops worrying and calling them names.

[pnwmom]

98. Yeah, but that wouldn't be "new" and "original."

[sheshe2]

25. K&R

[Gothmog]

26. This is a dumb bill that has not chance of passing

[NurseJackie]

30. Maybe it was just intended as fundraising fodder...

This is a dumb bill that has not chance of passing

It's been suggested that this kind of thing is just a "stunt" that's was just intended as fundraising fodder. One of those grandstanding moments that would never work in the real world... but which touches all the emotional triggers when used in a fundraising email.

I wonder if those who've made that suggestion are right.

[ehrnst]

52. I guess we'll soon see, won't we? (nt)

[Me.]

70. Of Course

he's got a great gig going with that 50/50 split too...wonder if that was tried in Ukraine first just "like lock her up"

[joshcryer]

115. These people haven't spent a day of their life thinking about how the real world works.

You look at the text of the bill and it outlines several federal assistance programs which would be counted for the fees. Each assistance program therefore would be directly tied to the finances of a large corporation.

Now here's how SNAP works:

You go down to the local assistance office (usually the social security office but it can vary wildly by state or county), tell them how much you make, how much your bills are, and ask for assistance. The lady (usually it's a nice lady) will write up your paperwork, using a pen and piece of paper, and someone in the office will determine whether or not you are eligible.

The person at the federal level who signs off on disbursements does not know that lady, and will never ever see that piece of paper you filled out. That piece of paper will sit in a filing cabinet. It may be scanned, but it will not be sent up to the federal level. At the federal level they only see numbers.

At the federal level does SNAP know where you work? No. That piece of paper you filled out was just a piece of paper to tell the worker to press the button for your benefits, to say you're qualified. At the federal level they don't even know who you are. All digital tracking is done by each state itself, on websites administered by their own DHHS. And they themselves don't know where you work. Just that you qualified.

So how do you implement telling an employer how much SNAP their employee is getting? Go back to the nice lady taking your piece of paper where you wrote down the employer information. She puts it in to the system somehow and it gets shot up to the state level. How does the federal level get this information? They have to set up an entirely new system to track employers and employees on assistance. The federal level is ignorant of what is happening at the state and local level. They just send the funds. That's it.

So how would this be implemented in the real world?

You go to the employer and tell them you're on SNAP and tell them how much you make. Employers would have a separate piece of paper you have to fill out about your "assistance." It's a goddamn disgrace.

[NurseJackie]

119. There must be some sort of adrenaline rush that comes from "fighting the power"...

... and therefore the (he) gives little regard to the collateral damage. As long as he gets his fix and his ego boost.

[joshcryer]

120. It's a goddamn facade.

The more I think about this bill the madder I get. I'm legit pissed off. These people actually made a "hit list" of federal programs that the conservatives bash and their bill completely fucks with the dignity of the working poor.

Of course it won't pass, but it's such an abusive type thing, the very idea is so asinine and cruel. Using poor people as a wedge.

[NurseJackie]

125. But it's BS approved, so it must be great!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

132. Lol. You are saying snap recipient benefit information is on a piece of paper in a file cabinet...

... and the data isn’t linked by social security number? And there is no way to link up the data?

Gee. Too bad there wasn’t some sort of device where we could store bits of information. And some person to, I don’t know, program I would call it, something like a code or something. Maybe we could set up something like a network, I would call it, where one machine would communicate with the other. If only....

Or we could use The Pony Express. I’m just spit ballin’ here.

This is the state communicating with the feds over federally taxable state disbursed unemployment benefits:

If only...

[joshcryer]

151. The SSN is the only thing they have on file at that level.

And they cross reference that with the IRS to see if anyone made too much money. But they're not actively aware of where people are working.

I'm not saying it's not possible to do this, just that there's no mechanism in place to do it now.

And employers would still require disclosure of assistance if this were to be put in to place even in the event you had a fully digitized system.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

165. Why would it require disclosure?

No reason that would need to be a requirement.

And the social security number is all they need to match it up with the employer federal I.D. number.

Where do you think these stats come from any way? This stuff is all being tracked. Look at the USDA site. They have reports out the yin yang.

[ck4829]

27. OK, what will cure the rich of their affluenza? Let's hear what the CBPP has to say.

[ehrnst]

29. What does that have to do with the CBPP analysis of this bill?

I guess when a bill to do that comes up, they'll give it an analysis as well.

In the meantime, they will be continue to actually be effective in what they do - from the OP:

CBPP’s analysts have spent decades picking apart the economic and fiscal rationale for cutting taxes on rich people, businesses, and (of special interest to the Waltons) the estate tax. Moreover, its expertise in, and devotion to, the cause of supporting the social safety net for the most vulnerable Americans is unmatched anywhere.

https://www.cbpp.org/about/mission-history

We are a nonpartisan research and policy institute. We pursue federal and state policies designed both to reduce poverty and inequality and to restore fiscal responsibility in equitable and effective ways. We apply our deep expertise in budget and tax issues and in programs and policies that help low-income people, in order to help inform debates and achieve better policy outcomes.

Perhaps you should be asking lawmakers who make it their talking point, no matter what they are asked about, what they have actually accomplished in this area.

[pnwmom]

44. To start with, reversing the Trump tax cut. n/t

[emulatorloo]

54. Well, stigmatizing benefits and the people who receive them certainly won't help

Bernie’s great, but I don’t believe he thought this through.


https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-amazon-stop-bezos-bill-jeff-backfire-2018-9?

The most troubling potential consequence, in Bernstein's opinion, is that the Stop BEZOS Act could further the stigmatization of worker benefits.

"My concern is that there is already a political movement afoot to vilify public benefits and even though I know for a fact that the main sponsors of this bill — Sanders and Ro Khanna — don't feel that way, I worry that this idea unintentionally provides the hard right with another argument," Bernstein told Business Insider.

Many Republicans have already attempted to curtail public benefits to cut spending and address the federal debt, and Bernstein believes Sanders' bill could in turn provide fodder for their argument.

Bob Greenstein, the founder of CBPP, wrote in an analysis that the move could also result in corporations joining the anti-benefits fight.

"In addition, the legislation would likely lead to substantial corporate lobbying efforts to restrict eligibility and cut benefit levels for core low-income assistance programs, because doing so would reduce companies' tax bills — effectively making a cut in Medicaid, SNAP, school meals, or rental subsidies akin to a direct corporate tax cut," Greenstein wrote.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

57. You really think THIS is going cause corporate mouthpiece organizations like the US Chamber...

... to start working toward cutting benefits?

As if that hasn’t been going on for 60 years...


Good lord.

[ehrnst]

60. What do you mean by "THIS"

When you say "You really think THIS is going cause corporate mouthpiece organizations like the US Chamber...
... to start working toward cutting benefits? "

The CPBB analyzing legislation?

[emulatorloo]

64. I posted an answer to another poster's question. Not interested in engaging with you. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

66. You don't have to engage with me. But post some ridiculous assertions that THIS ...

... proposed legislation is what’s going to release the hounds of the corporate think tanks and I get to respond. That’s how an open discussion forum in GD works.

[ehrnst]

86. Corporate think tanks? Are you on the right thread?

There are no corporate think tanks on this thread.

Some misinformation trying to smear an independent, non-partisan think tank, worthy of conspiracy theories, but nothing anyone with some common sense and google couldn't debunk.

That's up there with the right wing foil hat brigade claims of Soros-paid protesters.

[JCanete]

96. wait...what is an independant non-partisan thinktank? One that is funded out of one's own piggy

bank? I don't think that on the surface the study's conclusions seem unreasonable here, but come on...you get money as a think-tank because people like the kind of material you are producing. Sometimes they specifically like the subject you are producing it on and the angle you can be expected to be viewing things from. It is fair to take into account the source, though that doesn't mean that the materials or the analysis don't reflect good, important work. It still does represent a perspective though, and data is always about what information you privilege and what information you don't.

But in the absence of any examination of their methods or any seemingly glaring holes in their logic, or else a competing study, I don't personally have any objections to this study's findings.

[ehrnst]

100. The definition of an independent, non partisan think tank is exactly that.

Whether or not you "have objections to this study's findings" says more about your lack of bias on this specific piece of legislation than it does about the the credibility of this think tank.

Sometimes they specifically like the subject you are producing it on and the angle you can be expected to be viewing things from.It still does represent a perspective though, and data is always about what information you privilege and what information you don't.

No an independent, non-partisan think tank doesn't skew their data based on funding - however, misrpresenting where the funding comes from indicates a bias on the part of the accuser that has everything to do with "representing a perspective."

but come on...you get money as a think-tank because people like the kind of material you are producing.

Despite your insinuation, that doesn't mean that donors have a say in what is researched, nor does it mean that the research outcome or topic choice is done with the goal of getting funding from a particular donor. People donate to orgs that do work they "like," and think are doing important work. I donate to Planned Parenthood because I "like" the work that they do, but they don't alter the medical care they provide to get donations from more people...

I also see nothing to the effect that they take targeted funding for specific research. There are no calls for sponsorship or restricted gifts. You donate, and it goes to what they determine to be a topic that relates to their mission statement.

https://www.cbpp.org/donate

Here is a list of their donors:

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/honorroll-2017.pdf

We are a nonpartisan research and policy institute. We pursue federal and state policies designed both to reduce poverty and inequality and to restore fiscal responsibility in equitable and effective ways. We apply our deep expertise in budget and tax issues and in programs and policies that help low-income people, in order to help inform debates and achieve better policy outcomes.

Because they focus on issues that the left traditionally focuses on, they are considered center/left, however they are highly respected for the accuracy of their research.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-center-on-budget-and-policy-priorities/

The accusations here on this thread that they are "owned by Walmart" are as clueless as the accusations of factcheck.org having it "in for Bernie" because they are puppets of the Koch brothers.

It really doesn't speak well for Sanders's team to be promoting that, as per the tweets that have been posted to this thread as "evidence" that this think tank has "corporate marching orders."

[JCanete]

108. I didn't say it meant that they had a say. Oddly enough it is levied against TYT here often

that their funding from Roemer is an indication that they are bought, which it is not. As I stated, what it does say is not that results will be cherry-picked or rigged because of funding, though you know that such things exist in the wild- which is why it is at least valid to point out that Roemer connection to TYT. The argument I made is that the people who wish to contribute to this think-tank appreciate this think-tanks results, for whatever reasons.


Also, who said that Factcheck.org were puppets of the Koch brothers? I had a long exchange with you on that, and that was never ever what I was suggesting. I said they were trying really hard to make sure that the intentions of the study VERSUS the results of the study were heard by the public, which I don't think is because they love the Koch's, but I'd argue that it is because they have an implicit bias(not a nefarious one) against Sanders. Their inclination was to assume Sanders was the one fudging the representation. That was where they decided to focus, among all of the things they could have focused on. Those choices are indicative of something.

And again, what they came up with was just kind of silly. They basically said that the study didn't mean to say something that EVERYBODY knows the study didn't mean to say, and that Sanders never tried to pretend that it TRIED to say. The problem is that its numbers were saying somethign entirely different.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

114. This "study" is just as ridiculous.

Basically they are saying if we make Bezos and friends actually pay for their externalities they will lobby against the social safety net.

WHICH THEY ALREADY FUCKING DO. Since day one.

How’s this for logic: we won’t hire poor people if you make us responsible for keeping poor people poor while scarfing billions in profits.

We’ll only hire wealthy people for those minimum wage sweat shop jobs.

We wouldn’t want them to lobby against the safety net. Better not be mean to Bezos.

[JCanete]

122. That's a good point...they have to get their employees from somewhere. But it is still a

hirer's market. They've got a big pool of employees to choose from.

Still, I imagine that health issues, etc. are already on their radar as reasons why they might take one employee over another(as much as they can make that determination legally) since they don't want people missing work, having to deal with special considerations, etc.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

141. The data could easily be made anonymous.

The state reports snap and other benefits by social security, the feds know where every employee works due to w2 reporting. A report can be made to bill the employer.

Large corporations aren’t going to be snooping to figure out who is using what benefit. Maybe a small mom and pop outfit but not large organizations.

If it’s not illegal to inquire about public aid utilization it should be anyway.

I’m not a big fan of this bill. But the teeth gnashing is ridiculous. This bill is not going anywhere. Neither is any other bill suported by Democrats. Unless it’s tax cuts for the rich or bloated defense spending.

I just like the fact this issue is being discussed in the media. I think most people believe public aid only goes to unemployed lazy bums and not the working poor.

[joshcryer]

118. Please read the text of the bill:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/stop-bezos-act-2018?id=C2E88AC5-C629-4680-8F8D-9EE74F343560&download=1&inline=file

It's a disgrace, man. An utter disgrace.

[ehrnst]

88. Crickets...

[ehrnst]

61. Good points. (nt)

[joshcryer]

116. If you "read what the CBPP has to say" you'll see what they have to say.

They outline quite a few things to solve the problem.

[Blue_Tires]

74. It's just feel-good vanity legislation that would never, ever pass anyway

So let's call it what it is, which is an indirect campaign commercial....

[JCanete]

77. My same thoughts when I first heard the proposal. With the right additional regulations I'm sure it

could be done, but then those are unlikely to be implemented nor enforced, particularly by Republicans.

I've heard it put that this is, as a probably DOA proposal, more of an appeal to the "fiscal" conservative thinking that doesn't like our tax dollars going to social programs as a way of framing the need to make companies like Amazon take responsibility for worker treatment, but as an actual policy this one feels half-baked to me. On the other hand, its an impossible argument for the GOP to attack head-on without suggesting that corporations would do shady shit if given the opportunity...which is pretty funny. In a way, its kind of too bad that we're doing the work for them at this stage. This could just be good rhetoric given that its immune to this very attack, except by others on our side of the aisle.

[lunamagica]

82. K&R for visibility.

[George II]

92. ehrnst, your link is incomplete and does not work, here's the full link:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/bernie-sanderss-bezos-bill-would-hurt-the-working-class.html

[ehrnst]

101. Thanks! That might explain a few replies that appear

to have come from people who didn't bother to read the article.....

[Le Gaucher]

107. That is why I did not vote for him .. when I rubber hits the road

Bernie's vehicle will disintegrate.

[SkyDancer]

110. lol Bernie's vehicle is so disintegrating

He's 'Burnin' rubber!" straight forward into the future.

[mcar]

130. Is that seriously the name of the bill?

[betsuni]

136. I know! I feel BAD (Bothered by Acronym Decisions).

[mcar]

146. ...

[JI7]

139. what of combined income with spouse is enough to be living wage ?

[betsuni]

143. K&R

[Gothmog]

171. Here are some good comments from Jared Bernstein

I have no idea who this gunnels person is but I do trust Jared Bernstein https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanders-rolls-out-bezos-act-that-would-tax-companies-for-welfare-their-employees-receive-2018-09-05?mod=mw_share_facebook

Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and previously Vice President Biden’s chief economist, said he had two concerns about the Sanders proposal.

One concern from Bernstein is that it “joins the right in vilifying benefit receipt.” Another is that employers would discriminate against hiring those who they think might trigger the tax.

[oasis]

172. +1

[JI7]

173. like single mothers

[ehrnst]

175. Yep.

I think that the "qualifications" Gunnels has consists of marching orders from Tad Devine and Sanders.

[Gothmog]

192. I never heard of this person

I have heard of and approve of Jared Bernstein

[ehrnst]

193. Warren Gunnels is Sanders' policy director

He fired off the tweet accusing the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities of being paid by Walton family to smear Bernie.

Gunnels appears to be counting on Sanders' supporters to go straight to rage by falsely connecting Walmart with CBPP , so they will dismiss the credibility of the organization.

Much the same way that DT counts on his supporters to go straight to rage by connecting refugees from South America with violent crime so they will dismiss the credibility of statistics and analysis that debunks that claim.

Tad Devine used those sorts of tactics in the Ukraine. Sanders' has used it twice in less than a month - first when Factcheck.org/Politifact and WAPO all pointed out the difference in the claim that he made concerning the Mercatus study vs what the study author say are the claims, and now he's smearing Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

When one has to use false smear tactics to defend oneself from being factchecked, it doesn't support one's credibility.

[Gothmog]

196. So he is employed by sanders to back up sanders' claims

I know Jared Bernstein and I trust Jared over this person

[ZX86]

177. So it's a bad idea because business wouldn't like it?

They will try every under handed and discriminatory tactic to screw their workers so we should just surrender now because they might get mad? Better we should just subsidize billionaires obscene profits and pick up the tab for the substandard wages they pay?

[ehrnst]

178. Did you read the OP?

Because it sounds like you didn't but posted something anyway.

Better we should just subsidize billionaires obscene profits and pick up the tab for the substandard wages they pay?

You are the only one who is suggesting this, so why don't you tell us?

[Gothmog]

186. This is a horrible plan that would not work in the real world

[Gothmog]

182. The controversy over Bernie Sanders's proposed Stop BEZOS Act, explained

This bill makes no sense https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/11/17831970/stop-bezos-bernie-sanders

Taken literally, Bernie’s bill is unworkable nonsense
The main provision of the Stop BEZOS Act (an acronym for “Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies”) is an attempt to get big companies to raise worker pay. It would impose a tax on any company with more than 500 employees whose workers draw means-tested social assistance benefits — Medicare, food stamps, housing aid, etc. — of $1 for every $1 worth of benefits the workers receive.

But if implemented, it wouldn’t work because of how benefits payments are structured. Instead, it would create a lot of perverse incentives, due to the way benefits eligibility works.

The implicit presumption of Sanders’s proposal is that paying a low-wage worker an extra dollar would result in a dollar less of benefits usage and thus a dollar less of tax burden. Therefore, it would make sense for companies to respond to the bill by paying up.

But in the real world, the programs in question are structured to mostly ensure that $1 in extra earnings does not reduce your benefits by a full dollar. After all, if benefits were fully crowded out, then the programs would massively disincentive working.

This is a sort of a boring technical point, but it’s important: While raising the minimum wage would force employers to pay their low-wage workers more, under the Stop BEZOS Act it would still be cheaper to pay the tax than to hand out raises.

But it gets worse. The proposal conceptualizes low wages as the sole driver of benefits eligibility, but that’s not the case. Benefits eligibility is determined at the level of household income versus household size, which is related to but quite different from hourly wages.

[JHan]

183. I guess we can add Matty to the long list of "haterz"...... along with..

Urban Institute
CBPP

...and whoever else dares criticize any "bill" he produces, no matter how flawed.

But Matty really tried, because he realized it'll look too bad to keep defending something which is not a serious piece of anything.

[Gothmog]

185. Taxing benefits use is a bad idea

Link to tweet

[JHan]

187. I guess Matty is a corporate shill now /sarcasm.

[Gothmog]

188. Is Vox owned by Walmart also?

Does Ezra Klein know that Vox is owned by Walmart?

[JHan]

189. Must be. There could be no other explanation why Matt did this.

Another progressive fallen to "centrist value signaling" ?

[Gothmog]

191. I wonder if Ezra Klein knows this?

[ehrnst]

190. Is Matt "owned by Walmart" too?"

Wow.

[NurseJackie]

184. "Taken literally, Bernie's bill is unworkable nonsense"

Taken literally, Bernie’s bill is unworkable nonsense

Absolutely. It's unclear to me why people are still defending it (and why some are attacking those who point out the obvious truths.)

The proposal conceptualizes low wages as the sole driver of benefits eligibility, but that’s not the case. Benefits eligibility is determined at the level of household income versus household size, which is related to but quite different from hourly wages.

Unless someone is trying to pull the wool over someone else's eyes... wouldn't something as fundamental as this been brought up in a group discussion or review?