'How About Paying Your Taxes?': Walmart Responds To Amazon's Challenge Over Pay (nbcnews.com) 244
Amazon and Walmart are in war over worker pay -- and now corporate taxes. After Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos on Thursday issued a challenge to other retailers, not naming which ones specifically, to match Amazon's pay and benefits, Walmart snapped right back. From a report: "Today I challenge our top retail competitors (you know who you are!) to match our employee benefits and our $15 minimum wage. Do it! Better yet, go to $16 and throw the gauntlet back at us. It's a kind of competition that will benefit everyone," Bezos wrote in his annual letter to shareholders. "Hey retail competitors out there (you know who you are) how about paying your taxes?" tweeted Walmart's Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs Dan Bartlett on Thursday morning, sharing an article about Amazon paying $0 in federal taxes on more than $11 billion in profits last year.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Burn (Score:5, Funny)
They are just mad Amazon out-evil'ed them. :D
Re: (Score:2)
They are just mad Amazon out-evil'ed them. :D
Wow, can't believe someone marked you troll. Either funny or insightful, but not troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I was certainly not trolling. I have travelled to small communities in the US and heard about their problems and feelings towards Walmart. (And a bit of laughter when some other tourists wasn’t exactly getting the most friendly advice when asking directions to the nearest Walmart :D)
Re: Burn (Score:2)
Walmart is more evil, even here, and reading the comments, their tweet actually worked!
Amazon has invested at a HUGE loss for years. And that's a good thing. You see, the federal government understands that investment in your business is a good thing for you and it and everyone involved, so it taxes profits, rather than revenue. Now the problem is, some investments take more than one year. So the federal government allows business to make multi-year investments and "carry over" the loss. This way, when some
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart is more evil, even here, and reading the comments, their tweet actually worked!
The saddest part is that one group of billionaires can lay smack on another billionaire, and the po folktake up sides on it.
Walmart is playing on the tax code ignorance of the masses, and judging by what I'm reading on Slashdot, it's working.
Well, I suspect that they don't want WalMart yo go away. A lot of Slashdotters pictures are probably on the "People of WalMart" website.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually somewhat encouraged that the 1% suddenly seem to care what po folks think of them. This is a big change from corporate attitudes just 10 years ago during the Occupy Wallstreet movement.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to out evil a company that has HR practices on how to advise employees on application for public assistance.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
they aren't, really. they're still $11.00 an hour here with banners all over outside begging for workers at that rate. since *that* was a bump for just about everybody when it happened, long-time employees got a 'raise' to that figure, but nothing extra for their years of servitude. they have like 2 or 3 full time hourly workers in the whole fucking store, everybody else that isn't store management is sub-30 hours, not allowed to work more than that, and receives no benefits other than the in-store employee
Re: (Score:2)
Go Walmart? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Go Walmart! Can't believe they're on higher ground..."
They are? Amazon is playing by the rules in regards to what taxes they pay just like every single other company I've ever heard of. Otherwise the IRS would be after them big time. The problem with Amazon not paying taxes isn't Amazon, it's our broken tax system.
Meanwhile, for the type of unskilled labor both Walmart and Amazon employ a lot of people for, a $15 minimum wage and decent benefits is extremely generous in the context of what you often see in this sector of our economy. All Walmart does is give their employees a stack of pamphlets explaining how to take advantage of federal and state welfare programs because they know their employees need them.
To put it differently, sure, you can say that Walmart is just playing by the minimum wage rules but they also probably pay as little in taxes as they possibly can as well.
Re:Go Walmart? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are? Amazon is playing by the rules in regards to what taxes they pay
... and Walmart is playing by the rules in regards to what wages they pay.
This spat is about what companies SHOULD do, not what they are legally required to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Go Walmart? (Score:2)
The world's most valuable businesses should not spend large amounts of time and money finding loopholes to exploit as this hurts everyone (including them) in the long run. Stop defending the aristocracy. They won't thank you for it.
Re: (Score:2)
But in the *real world*, that's not what Amazon is accused of.
There are companies playing games with tax havens and whathaveyou.
What Amazon is regularly accused of is not *hiding* the profits, but *spending* them on expansion and R&D, which happens to be deductible.
Yes, they play the game on getting reductions in local taxes for placing headquarters--in that case, there were going to get something like 10% off of $30 *billion* in taxes they would pay locally . . .
But to complain that a company is plowin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"... and Walmart is playing by the rules in regards to what wages they pay."
You clearly didn't read my second paragraph.
"To put it differently, sure, you can say that Walmart is just playing by the minimum wage rules but they also probably pay as little in taxes as they possibly can as well"
If Walmart pays as little in taxes as it can just like every single company I've ever heard of and also pays as little as it can to its employees how is it better than Amazon who only does one of those things? It's not A
Re: (Score:2)
The Waltons saying "Pay Your Taxes!" after they bought and paid for the Tax Heist of '17 is hardly "higher ground"...
mnem
Can you hear me rolling my eyes all the way over there?
Re: (Score:3)
From this article [businessinsider.com]:
It said Amazon was able to pay so little tax because its finances were structured in a way that avoided liability. The institute highlighted Amazon's efforts to maximize tax credits and tax breaks for executive stock options as two examples of this.
"Amazon pays all the taxes we are required to pay in the US and every country where we operate, including paying $2.6 billion in corporate tax and reporting $3.4 billion in tax expense over the last three years," Amazon said in a statement issued Thursday.
"Corporate tax is based on profits, not revenues, and our profits remain modest given retail is a highly competitive, low-margin business and our continued heavy investment."
Wal-Mart isn't on higher ground, they're just not able to take as much advantage of the tax law (or not as good at it) as Amazon. In case you haven't heard, Trump isn't a big fan of Bezos and/or Amazon and wouldn't have gone out of his way to benefit them in the new Republican tax bill last year... so Amazon is only paying the taxes they're required to -- and they're not alone. As noted in this article [yahoo.com]:
Big businesses are faring better than ever under the Trump era tax law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). ... about 60 Fortune 500 companies avoided paying all federal income tax in 2018 (with their total average effective tax rate being roughly -5%).
That’s more than three times the number of companies that avoided paying corporate taxes on average from 2008 to 2015. During that period, 18 companies managed to pay 0% or less (with their total average effective tax rate over 8 years being roughly -4%).
Even Trump boasts about paying very little federal taxes because he "takes advantag
Screw You! (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it funny how corporate America is joking with each other about how they screw the American people. What a great country that they feel free to do this publicly!
Re: (Score:2)
In many respects (healthcare, rule of law, oligarchical rule) America is a 3rd world country, run and operated by corporations.
Governments in the EU have no problem with retroactively assessing corporations that who try to pay no taxes (Google), and telling them: "give us the money."
Aren't wages better than taxes? (Score:2)
When it comes to the benefit of the economy ( local and federal ), isn't worker wage a better way to spend that money?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is one rule for Industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
Highest. Wages. Possible.
That's not a typo or a misquote. Ford understood that long-term, you gotta pay your workers for them to be able to afford the goods being produced. Anything else isn't sustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
Wages engender loyalty to the corporation paying them. Taxes do so for the state. If you were the state, wouldn't you rather buy the fealty of your vassals with other people's efforts?
Re: (Score:2)
Blue states absolutely take in far more dollars for welfare. The catch is, we more than pay for it with our federal taxes. The red states do not. They pay for theirs with our taxes, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't wages better than taxes?
If you want your employees to live at the office, I guess so. But if you want to hire people that have their own house elsewhere, then you'll need a road from their house to the office.
If you want electricity and water/sewer to your office, then you'll need pipes under ground delivering such.
Sure, you could build a huge water-tower and generators at the office, but then you just changed your business model pretty drastically, and now you have all sorts of internal issues that were previously dealt with ext
Re: (Score:2)
US Bonds are literally the basis for our fiat currency. You may want to invest a little bit of time learning about how the monetary system works, it's actually interesting. Here [youtube.com] is a good video that explains it in just over 21 minutes.
In 2016, state and local governments spent $175 billion, or 6 percent of direct general spending, on highways and roads. Just because our government spends a lot of money on things other than roads, doesn't mean that they don't spend a lot on roads.
How about a meaningful tax? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know how companies declare their profit in their investor meetings? That's a public declaration.
Tax based on that. Or whatever they fill in their tax forms - whichever is greater. No having your cake and eating it too - no more Hollywood accounting and still claiming record income.
Ryan Fenton
EBITDA (Score:2)
Usually the only number investors care about is EBITDA, which is earnings before taxes, adjustments, amortizations, etc... It's, basically, how much the company made minus operating expenses, because all the other stuff can be used to fudge the numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
You know how companies declare their profit in their investor meetings? That's a public declaration.
Tax based on that. Or whatever they fill in their tax forms - whichever is greater. No having your cake and eating it too - no more Hollywood accounting and still claiming record income.
Ryan Fenton
That's pretty much what they do. There is gross revenue, minus expenses. That's called EBITDA - Earnings Before Income Tax, Depreciation, Amortization (basically taxes and legal deductions). Then you subtract your taxes, depreciation, amortization - and you end up with net profit. So it's all declared right there. And it's how taxes are paid.
I don't think there's ever been a charge that Amazon is not paying their legally required taxes; you may not agree with the deductions they get, but they are defin
Re: (Score:2)
You know how companies declare their profit in their investor meetings? That's a public declaration. Tax based on that.
They do tax based on that. It's not like they are able to give the IRS and SEC two different numbers. Tax evaders are very open about how they invade taxes which is exactly why we know things like that Google use Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich rules when declaring their numbers to the IRS. They declare the same numbers to their investors.
Actually, they probably *ARE* paying taxes... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they apparently properly owe $0 in taxes despite $11b in profits might be a failing in the taxation system, but it doesn't mean they aren't paying what they are legally required to. They are clearly using loopholes and the like to dodge what would otherwise be a considerable tax bill, but just because they are doing that does not mean it is actually illegal.
Instead of appealing to Amazon to pay their taxes, they should instead be appealing to Washington to get the taxation laws changed so that this sort of thing can't continue happen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that this isn't a reasonable concern, but it has nothing to do with Amazon. Most of their revenue is in the US and Germany and they're following the corresponding laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you're a US entity (corporation or individual)... You may be able keep offshore profits offshore, and not pay taxes on them, but it's not possible to shift domestic revenue to offshore. You're going to pay tax on that.
Companies that are strictly "cloud" based can move their revenues (datacenters, etc.) overseas without concern, but if you have hard sales and locations and distribution in the US? You're paying here.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought there was still a way to offset your earnings... For example:
Company X is a US operation that makes $100 million dollars
Company X2 is a company in a Tax Haven that isn't X, but coincidentaly owns a lot of intellectual property or whatnot that X is based upon.
X2 charges X coincidentally $100 million dollars in licensing fees for use of the intellectual property, and Company X gets to write off a $100 million dollar business expense.. in reality to themselves.
Note I'd be very interested to be update
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't they just bring it in when there is an expense that it is needed for.
Example, they're building a new headquarters that costs $100 million, they onshore $100 million and use it to build the building and that $100 million is a write off and the company has a $100 million headquarters to show off.
Another example, reccesion happens and company loses $100 million, they bring home that $100 million and break even.
There's also the question of if these tax write offs are actually legal. It takes an audit a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know why the parent is modded Funny, it's just correct. And it's not even loopholes, they are using the tax system exactly as it was intended to work. There's no Cayman islands or Irish double shit here.
I don't know nearly enough about the mess that is the US tax system to be able to investigate and explain it myself but it's basically down to R&D and equipment deductions and stock-based compensation. So they are spending in areas the government encourages them to spend and making the correspondin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actually, they probably *ARE* paying taxes... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point here is if either is ethical.
I call bullshit (Score:2)
This isn't just a matter of "If you don't like it, change the law". This is a complete subversion of the mechanism of Democracy. We've got Voter Suppression, consolidation of media into propaganda arms (e.g. Sinclair Media), outright voter fraud (e.g. North Carolina's vote
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the taxation system could be simpler and more effective if you calculated an effective tax bracket based solely on gross income or revenue, and then calculated the dollar figure for taxes as being the exact same percentage of the income or revenue after all of the deductions had been applied, instead of letting deductions affect what percentage of taxes is owed.
So let's say, for instance, they have to pay a% of the first $x, b% for every dollar between $x and $y, c% for every dollar between
LoL (Score:2)
From the people I know that work at Walmart, I suspect their "average worker" statement has to include management and executives because the people on the floor and running the cashier, and stocking, and cart collectors, etc, definitely do not reach $17.55, much less have that as an "average" pay.
Re:LoL (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it does - when talking numbers, "the average" almost always means the arithmetic average, otherwise known as "the mean" - add everyone up, and divide by their count. 1 guy makes $100M, while 100,000 guys make $1, the average pay is $1,001
That's very different than how the term is used in common conversation, where it typically means "the median" - line everyone up from smallest to largest (by whatever measure is being used), and pick the guy in the middle. He's probably fairly typical - "the average guy". In my above example, he'd be making $1.
The mean almost always skews higher than the median, simply because the large values tend to be very much larger than the mid-range values, looking at the difference between mean and median gives you a rough idea of just how uneven the distribution is. For a linear distribution, where someone making more than 80% of the population is making twice as much as someone at the 40% mark, and 4x as much as someone at the 20% mark, the mean and median will be the same.
By contrast, in the U.S. the median household income is $56k - half of all households make more than that, half make less. But the mean (average) income is $79k, 41% higher, thanks to the very few at the top who make massively more money than most. And because the US income is fairly linearly distributed until you get to the top ~10%, that means that (very) roughly 41% of the entire income in the country is being redirected to those at the very top, above and beyond what a you would expect from looking at the income distribution of the rest of the population.
https://wallethacks.com/averag... [wallethacks.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well now, that depends entirely on what point you're trying to make. They're obviously employees - they do collect a paycheck, which depending on who you ask makes them part of the working class.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is in the first line of your post:
But Walmart has said its average worker earns $17.55 an hour with wages and benefits.
This is misdirection by Wal-Mart (or whoever said it). Benefits are part of compensation, but are not "earnings" -- you can't pay your electric bill with your medical insurance. Many (most?) of their employees (in-store anyway) earn less *and* some get benefits. They've got apples and oranges in their grocery bag.
No (Score:2)
Amazon shareholders pay taxes on their investment gains when they cash out. What is the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon shareholders pay taxes on their investment gains when they cash out. What is the problem?
None, as far as I can see, but remember that long-term gains (usually held longer than a year) are taxed at a lower rate than short-term gains and ordinary income -- which I also don't have a problem with.
Snarky Bezos (Score:3)
Regardless of who has 'the high ground' in this pissing match, it's clear Bezos is being snarky, probably without realizing his own hypocrisy here.
Like how he threaten to move jobs out of Seattle [theguardian.com] because the local council wanted to add a head tax to fund housing, etc. and then made himself look noble by promising to donate several $million, if not more, to charities to help out with poverty and housing.... which, oh by the way, would net him a nice charitable tax deduction too - double win for him: no new head tax, and gets to claim a charitable deduction!
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me (Score:2)
or is the bloom coming off the rose for Amazon? Remember when they were this cute little outfit that just sold books? Now they are just another huge money grubbing multi-national. Bezos, if it is not completely obvious by now, is a complete and utter prick. Sometimes Amazon makes Microsoft look like choir boys in comparison.
Companies shouldn't pay taxes (Score:2, Insightful)
turd vs turd (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better to pay wages than pay taxes.
How about paying your employees enough so they don't have to go on public assistance to survive?
Pot, kettle, black as the souls of their corporate boards...
Re:harrumph (Score:5, Interesting)
Not every job is meant for an adult to try to support a household from....
Nope. If you work a job full time then you deserve to be able to live off of it. Anything else is slavery.
Re: harrumph (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a trope I hear from them a lot. That the local Tyson plant has hired all illegal aliens to replace them.
It's of course false as fuck- the feds stop by monthly and make sure they're not doing it.
Really, the people are economically depressed because their population is growing, and their economy is not.
As the US started requiring more chicken, they didn't put more of it through that factory, they built more factories.
It's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is completely ridiculous. It means that if I choose for my job to play the guitar in the park or throw rocks in the pond, I am entitled to a 'living wage' for my work.
Incorrect. If somebody hires you to play guitar in the park or throw rocks in the pond, then that person must pay you a living wage.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you've been moderated accordingly. You should be on TV.
Re:harrumph (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't like your job you go find a better one. If you can't find a better job because (education, training, travel, etc.)? Fix your problem.
Right now about 20% of Americans can't do it, living on a wage that is close to minimal wage. This is basically a disaster in waiting.
An employer is never obligated to fix your life problems for you.
Nope. They just must pay a living wage. If they can't do it, then they go out of the business. End of the story.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like your job you go find a better one. If you can't find a better job because (education, training, travel, etc.)? Fix your problem.
Right now about 20% of Americans can't do it, living on a wage that is close to minimal wage. This is basically a disaster in waiting.
Isn't it funny how free marketeer capitalists looooove to bray about how if you aren't making enough money, just make more money.
And the orgasmic part is that companies like WalMart are sucking hard at the teats od socialism because they pay their employees so little that they are eligible for assistance.
Fucking commies pretending to be capitalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking commies pretending to be capitalists.
This is so fucking true.
Another common manifestation of this is socialized losses, privatized profits.
And really, it makes sense.
Subverted socialism seems like the end-goal of any capitalist system, where the corporations have government influence, unless it is strictly regulated to prevent it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking commies pretending to be capitalists.
This is so fucking true. Another common manifestation of this is socialized losses, privatized profits. And really, it makes sense. Subverted socialism seems like the end-goal of any capitalist system, where the corporations have government influence, unless it is strictly regulated to prevent it.
Exactly. The think that is so inverted is that while Libertarians freak out about any regulation of restraint because that would be Government controlling the corporations - corporations are now the real government.
So, socialism. Yet people eat that shit up. It is like the concept of universal health care. The question the sycophants always ask is "How are we going to pay for this?"
The answer of course, is we are already paying more than that to corporatized medicine.
Socialism, dirty filthy sociali
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious because there are no commies/capitalists/whatever, there are only assholes trying to exploit you. And oh boy, are you all being taken for a ride...
I knew Dale Gribble was going to show up eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they pay what the job is WORTH. Again, not every job is meant for an adult to try to support a family.
No. Every job that requires full-time hours is meant to be able to support family. No ifs ands or buts. Anything else is pure slavery.
And about 'worth' - that's exactly why we have minimal wage, to avoid a never-ending spiral of race to the bottom. After all, there are always desperate people who would work for a dollar a day.
Re: (Score:3)
And if you start trying to force living wage on all full time jobs? Guess what?
No more minimum wage jobs...all part time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you start trying to force living wage on all full time jobs? Guess what?
No more minimum wage jobs...all part time.
That logic made my brain explode.
Do I need to explain to you why it's so bad?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, we've already seen similar things happen.
You force companies to give medical benefits to all full time employees, even low wag ones....what happened?
Employee hours were cut to just under the full time standard for many low wage employees.
IN areas that forced $15/hr for all min wage jobs, what happened?
A net loss of jobs.
So, sure, if you force a living wage on full time jobs as you say, even ones that are not worth it...you will see hours cut so that they are no lo
Re: (Score:2)
So prices rise to cover the cost of a living wage but then you need more money to pay the higher prices so the living wage has to increase. Where does it end?
And what about those who can't find a job?
Re: (Score:2)
The living wage is hourly.
A company will not reduce its amount of full time employees due to a living wage requirement.
Company needs X hours of labor. It matters not if it's X/40, or X/30. The pay is the same.
Now, as far as benefits are concerned- that is a different discussion that you're less wrong about, basically specifically on legal full-time benefit requirements, so quite obviously not relevant to the discussion regarding minimum compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you require a "living wage" for full time employees, and not for part time....then yes, you will see less full time jobs.
They'll hire 2x part time employees to cover the former full time employee, and cover the full time hours with two staggered employees.
Re: (Score:2)
IN areas that forced $15/hr for all min wage jobs, what happened? A net loss of jobs.
Nope. WA has imposed $15/hr min wage and the number of jobs has increased.
Re: (Score:2)
So prices rise to cover the cost of a living wage but then you need more money to pay the higher prices so the living wage has to increase. Where does it end?
At some equilibrium wage. Calculations show that the increases in min. wage will stop to be effective at around $25 per hour.
Re: (Score:2)
If you require a "living wage" for full time employees, and not for part time....then yes, you will see less full time jobs.
That's not the proposal. The "Living Wage" is an hourly rate that would be a living wage, if 40 hours are worked.
I'm not sure what you think it is.
2 employees working 20 hours a week will cost more than 1 employee working 40.
Wages will be the same, HR overhead will be higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you really saying that low skill people shouldn't be hired full time? Is it ok if they work two part time jobs?
No. I'm saying that the salary paid for work must be enough to be livable if worked full time.
98% of full time worker earn more than minimum wage. The other 2% are almost all entry level workers in their first 6 months of employment. So obviously employers are nearly all paying more than they have to.
You are lying by omission. This is the number of workers earning exactly the federal minimum wage and most of states have local wages that are higher. If instead you raise the cutoff to $10.10 per hour (still below the livable wage) to account for the state-specific minimum wages then you get an appalling picture: https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... [pewresearch.org] - 30% of all workers are paid less than $10.10 per hour.
Go to the Home Depot parking lot at 7 AM and try to hire an illegal Mexican for less than $10 per hour. Good luck. Even desperate people know the market value of their labor.
I will never
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:harrumph (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll let F.D.R., the president who signed the first federal minimum wage bill into law comment:
“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)
Minimum-wage jobs are vital to the smooth functioning of our society, we can't just eliminate them - which is what would happen if all the current employees somehow managed to get better jobs. The average age of minimum wage employees is 30, it's not a bunch of high school kids making spending money after school.
If you really want high school kids to be employable at lower wages - put a lower minimum wage for minors into the law, while requiring a living wage for everyone else. See how long it takes before the kids realize they're being cheated and walk out when the adult working next to them is getting twice the pay for the exact same work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It apparently blows right over your head that sentiments such as you quoted from FDR extended the great depression for another decade and that Germany and Israel just ran a nice experiment for us [econlib.org] with regards to switching from European-style worker laws toward U.S. style levels of regulation instead and demonstrated quite clearly the economic and jobs damage your suggestions cause empirically.
It's amazing, if you stop passing laws either making it illegal to employ the least fortunate people among us (min.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I like how you neatly fail to mention that these "unpopular experiments" that have been so successful have set the minimum wage in Germany to roughly $15/hour, which along with free health care for everyone makes for a pretty reasonable living wage, given modest living expenses of $1000/month.
Re: (Score:2)
And what percentage of your salary in Germany do you have to pay in taxes?
I"m easily 33% here, likely more with all state/parish/city taxes added in on things....
I pay enough.
And if you start trying to force living
Re: (Score:2)
I"m easily 33% here,
Not including state and local? In the US?
No, no you're not.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like Germany's tax starts at a marginal rate of 14%, you're presumably paying no more than that for a minimum-wage job.
No more full time jobs? You mean a whole lot of people are paying for a whole lot of work that doesn't need to be done? Unlikely. No doubt some jobs of marginal utility will be cut, but all those people making twice as much money (because you doubled the minimum wage) are going to be buying several times as much stuff, now that most of their paycheck isn't going to rent and bare s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're not worth paying a living wage for - then do them yourself. Is it not worth your time? Then it's at least worth paying someone else a reasonable portion of what you can sell an hour of your time for, to have them spend an hour of their life doing it for you. And the minimum reasonable portion to pay is what any non-desperate person might agree to - a living wage. Using someone's desperation as a weapon to get yourself a better deal is not an ethical negotiation strategy.
And as I said - I'm s
Re: (Score:2)
If the job isn't worth paying a non-desperate person to do it, then leave it un-done.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. But if we're talking flipping burgers or other supposedly "kid jobs" that are making someone a profit?
My inclination is that it it's a job that involves a formal employment agreement reported to the IRS, it should get a living wage.
Re: (Score:2)
And nobody said anything about full time with benefits. We're just setting a minimum price that you're allowed to pay when you buy an hour of someone else's life.
Re: (Score:2)
Not every job is meant for an adult to try to support a household from....
True. In fact, the other jobs are not, either. No jobs are "meant" at all.
They are offered, and either accepted or rejected by potential employees. And that acceptance may be canceled, if the employee finds the employer is not satisfactory. And that offer may be canceled, if the employer finds the employee is not satisfactory.
Frequently, low-paid jobs for low-skilled or unproven workers are held by people who are not adults, or by adults who are not trying to support a household with that job.
But tha
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon has destroyed more jobs than created. Of course they can pay $15 an hour today -- they're building robots to unemploy those people as fast as possible.
I don't understand laborers taking jobs for Amazon on anymore than a temporary emergency subsistence basis. Work for a shitty company that is trying to automate their way out of employing you (e.g. U
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't be bothered to depress the shift key why not skip the period key too? And why should people Sonic Hedgehog Tarantula Flea?