No corporation should get a tax cut which has any employee on public assistance. Matthew Dowd

[Quixote1818]

No corporation or company should get a tax cut which has any employee on public assistance. If you don't pay your employees a living wage you shouldn't get a tax cut.


Matthew Dowd


https://www.facebook.com/reallyamerican/photos/a.942157972506564.1073741828.926650430723985/1525492870839735/?type=3&theater

[lkinwi]

1. Exactly!

[dhol82]

2. Excellent!

[kacekwl]

3. BINGO n/t

[ProudMNDemocrat]

4. That means Walmart, most big Fast Food resturant chains, Grocery and Big Box stores, etc.

We have to decide where we are going to shop and who gets our hard earned monies. I know that Walmart is the biggest offender. Which is why I avoid that place at all costs.

[Quixote1818]

5. Walmart could pay a living wage and still clean up big time!

Costco does it so why can't Walmart? They are just greedy fucking slime!

[ProudMNDemocrat]

8. Which is why I shop at Costco .

They have the best business model of any Big Box retail giant. People over Profits.

Costco does indeed pay good wages, treat their employees good, offer benefits, and allows unionization. When a company takes care of its people, the people takes care of the customer.

[SunSeeker]

27. Exactly. That's why the place is always mobbed. Great deals on quality products.

I get gas there every week and shop there about ever other week. I'd shop there more often if the lines weren't so long.

[GetRidOfThem]

13. I avoid them too. But I love Costco...

They seem to have solid policies...

[tecelote]

17. Call it what it is...

Corporate Welfare

Food stamps are not welfare for the poor. They allow Walmart to pay less. So, Walmart is benefiting.

Our taxes pay for food stamps so Walmart can pay less in wages and pocket more profit.

In other words, our taxes are their profits.

Damn takers!

[TexasBushwhacker]

31. This!

They use government benefits to increase corporate profits, and use extra cash on hand to do stock buybacks. This inflates the share value of the stock, benefiting the stockholders. Who owns over 80% of all stock? The wealthiest 10% of Americans. Just another example of the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle class.

[RandomAccess]

6. FDR had a good comment about corporations and wages --

[smirkymonkey]

15. +1000

Hear, hear!

[whathehell]

28. FDR got it..

[SharonAnn]

33. He used the term "business" (not limited to corporations)

There are many "businesses" which underpay their workers and many of them are not corporations. They are all manner of Private, Partnership, LLC, etc.

He said "business" and that's important.

[RandomAccess]

35. Good point

[marybourg]

7. I'll subscribe to that! nt

[Phoenix61]

9. Exactly

When their employees have to get federal assistance just to eat and keep a roof over their heads it's nothing more than corporate welfare.

[Doitnow]

10. Makes sense to me!!

[BadgerMom]

11. Agreed!!

[paleotn]

12. No corporation should get a tax cut

in a favorable economy, while they're sitting of gargantuan piles of case. That applies to pretty much the entire S&P and more. Use their own damn cash for dividend increases, share buy backs and M&A.

[forgotmylogin]

29. They should offer tax cuts for offering a living wage.

If all the full-time employees working for over a year clear 27k annually, the corporation can get a tax cut. I know that's low, but better than a lot.

None of this "if business have more money they'll pay more voluntarily!" The tax cut should be a balance for enabling more workers to get into higher tax brackets.

[ret5hd]

14. I will use this OP to illustrate a pet peave of mine:

Sample reply 1:
I get what you are saying and mostly agree. The problem I see is that this would stop companies from hiring those that are on public assistance for particular reasons: Maybe disabled, etc. But I think we could overcome those problems. I agree with the intent of the proposition.

Sample reply 2:
What about the disabled? You gonna throw them to the curb? My aunts husbands cousin gets disability payments and you've just told him he will get fired from the job he finally managed to get! This board sucks!!!

[dembotoz]

16. +1 if we put cuts at risk corporation will not hire the needy

Mc Donald's for whatever their numerous flaws...hire large numbers of special needs people. Would imagine the majority receive aid of some nature.. perhaps medical?
We do not need a reverse means test in hr....

[ret5hd]

18. So are you more emotionally attuned to reply #1 or reply #2?

[dembotoz]

22. 2

And not just the disabled. There a a lot of marginal employees out there. Somehow I seem to find folks barely getting by. Folks on the outside looking in. Displaced homemakers, single parents, recently out of jail, mental health issues... employer health benefits are not universal. Folks qualify for expanded Medicaid. We need to encourage business to hire them

[cstanleytech]

20. If it's the disabled they can provide an exception for hiring them.

But the issue here is a lot of companies like Walmart hire regular people every year but pay them a poverty-wage knowing the government will pick it up the slack and they have built their business around that so they can increase their profits.

[ret5hd]

21. I agree completely.

[SunSeeker]

30. Your concerns can be remedied by simply passing a law like what we have now in CA.

In California, employers can no longer ask about your prior salary. Job applicants can volunteer that information, if they wish. The new state law prohibits employers from relying on your salary history to decide whether to make you a job offer or decide how much to offer. And job applicants can request the pay scale for a position. The law is intended to narrow the gender pay gap, but it can certainly also help the disabled.


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB168

[Lee-Lee]

34. That wont fix anything

If companies are going to be treated differently depending on if an employee gets some form of assistance then they have to know if their employees or potential hires are in that category.

If you tried to penalize them on data they can’t legally know the courts would toss that out in a heartbeatZ

All this will do is give them reason to not hire anyone on public assistance.

And since a huge range of factors can play into if a person or family get assistance you can’t just say “well they just pay over xxx and it’s not an issue”. A single parent with multiple kids, one maybe special needs, can be making $15 a hour full time and still qualify for some programs, but their counterpart in the same job married with 1 kid won’t.

A better system would be to reward companies that hire people on assistance and get them off of it.

[SunSeeker]

36. I agree the reward system is the better way to go. nt

[cstanleytech]

19. Furthermore employers should be denied from asking an employee or an applicant if they receive

public assistance as well as they should be punished if they Implement any policy even a silent one to keep from hiring such people.

[AllaN01Bear]

23. yesss.

[Pobeka]

24. Only if the tax cut proceeds don't go directly to bottom line employees. n/t

[zentrum]

25. Sounds like Bernie.

And Warren.

Three great Democrats.

[PatsFan87]

32. Yep. Bernie often said Wal Mart should "get off of welfare" on the campaign trail.

2018 candidates should include this in their platforms.

[zentrum]

37. Absolutely.

[whathehell]

26. What he said..

Yes and Hell Yes, Matt Dowd.
..