- Joined
- Mar 27, 2018
- Messages
- 14,163
- Reaction score
- 21,196
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Recently, Jeff Bezos said he supported an increase in corporate taxes to 28%, which to many might seem like paying his fair share to benefit the commonwealth...until one realizes that Amazon pays nothing in corporate taxes. Corporate tax rates could go back to 90% and Bezos would not pay a penny in them, and it would only damage what little competition he has.
So these monopolistic corporations, especially those like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Amazon, Comcast and their ilk, get away with paying their workers starvation wages, and passing on the savings not to the consumer (it is to laugh), but rather, the passing them on to the shareholders of corporate stock. Thus, too many corporations pays little to nothing in corporate taxes, and they pay little to nothing in payroll taxes because so many employees work close to the poverty level. Thus, as many
If our country is letting Unions go the way of the Dodo bird leaving employees unable to collectively bargain for higher wages or better working conditions (if indeed they are even considered "employees" and not independent contractors), and the Federal government is increasingly hesitant to pursue anti-monopoly actions against these dominant firms who crush all competition and keep the price of labor low, we need a better solution that forces these companies to pay their fair share both to employees and to the commonwealth through payroll taxes. I therefore have a modest proposal that would not require some radical rewriting of the tax code that corporations would just skirt around anyway through a variety of loopholes.
For all small private companies and small-cap companies with a market capitalization of less than $2 billion, keep the state/federal minimum wage where it is wherever the company has operations.
For mid-cap corporations, i.e., those with a market capitalization between $2 billion and 10 billion, they shall be required to pay their employees no less than the minimum wage plus an additional 50%. Thus, if the minimum wage for one state in which the corporation's branch is $10.00, the least the company can pay their employees is $15.00 per hour. And this applies to contract workers and independent contractors as well.
And for large-cap corporations, i.e., those with a market capitalization of $10 billion or more, they shall be required to pay their employees and independent contractors no less than twice the present minimum wage for the state in which any branch of the corporation. Therefore, if the minimum wage of one state in which the corporation is located is $10.00, the corporation must pay its employees and independent contractors working in that state no less than $20.00 per hour.
This would increase the livelihoods of millions of workers who do not enjoy union protection and it would force corporations to pay greater taxes through payroll. And if larger corporations balk and threaten to pull up stakes from certain states where they were busily wiping out competition, I say good riddance. Better to have thirty small companies in a particular market competing for consumer's dollars and for labor rather than three large corporations (or even fewer) creating anti-consumer and anti-labor cartels.
What say you all?
EDIT: I would add the proviso that any small corporation with a majority of shares owned by a large-cap corporation must pay the greater wage that would have applied to the larger corporation. That way a company like Amazon or Wal-Mart could not simply form hundreds of tiny corporations whose stock is placed in trust in holding companies or buy up small local chains in order to keep wages depressed.
So these monopolistic corporations, especially those like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Amazon, Comcast and their ilk, get away with paying their workers starvation wages, and passing on the savings not to the consumer (it is to laugh), but rather, the passing them on to the shareholders of corporate stock. Thus, too many corporations pays little to nothing in corporate taxes, and they pay little to nothing in payroll taxes because so many employees work close to the poverty level. Thus, as many
If our country is letting Unions go the way of the Dodo bird leaving employees unable to collectively bargain for higher wages or better working conditions (if indeed they are even considered "employees" and not independent contractors), and the Federal government is increasingly hesitant to pursue anti-monopoly actions against these dominant firms who crush all competition and keep the price of labor low, we need a better solution that forces these companies to pay their fair share both to employees and to the commonwealth through payroll taxes. I therefore have a modest proposal that would not require some radical rewriting of the tax code that corporations would just skirt around anyway through a variety of loopholes.
For all small private companies and small-cap companies with a market capitalization of less than $2 billion, keep the state/federal minimum wage where it is wherever the company has operations.
For mid-cap corporations, i.e., those with a market capitalization between $2 billion and 10 billion, they shall be required to pay their employees no less than the minimum wage plus an additional 50%. Thus, if the minimum wage for one state in which the corporation's branch is $10.00, the least the company can pay their employees is $15.00 per hour. And this applies to contract workers and independent contractors as well.
And for large-cap corporations, i.e., those with a market capitalization of $10 billion or more, they shall be required to pay their employees and independent contractors no less than twice the present minimum wage for the state in which any branch of the corporation. Therefore, if the minimum wage of one state in which the corporation is located is $10.00, the corporation must pay its employees and independent contractors working in that state no less than $20.00 per hour.
This would increase the livelihoods of millions of workers who do not enjoy union protection and it would force corporations to pay greater taxes through payroll. And if larger corporations balk and threaten to pull up stakes from certain states where they were busily wiping out competition, I say good riddance. Better to have thirty small companies in a particular market competing for consumer's dollars and for labor rather than three large corporations (or even fewer) creating anti-consumer and anti-labor cartels.
What say you all?
EDIT: I would add the proviso that any small corporation with a majority of shares owned by a large-cap corporation must pay the greater wage that would have applied to the larger corporation. That way a company like Amazon or Wal-Mart could not simply form hundreds of tiny corporations whose stock is placed in trust in holding companies or buy up small local chains in order to keep wages depressed.
Last edited: