DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus House Votes in favor of Illegal Immigrant Voting in elections

didn't amazon raise their pay to 15 an hour? I would think that someone so proficient in google as you pointed out to me in the other thread you are - that you would have known that by taking 10 seconds......

At least I understand the concept of using google rather than whine to others to do my homework then whine when they make a mistake.

Yes they did raise it to $15 dollars an hour. But my question still stands. How much in taxes do people who make $15 dollars an hour pay?

40 claimed the people amazon hires will make up for yhe millions upon millions of dollars that Amazon didn't pay. He was wrong. I don't see you questioning that.

No, look back, I never said that at all.

I bet you can google that answer as well. . . .

yall had to revive the thread. willit took the biggest L this week with this nonsense, and yet yall steady handing the W back to him. sad.

It would take somebody smarter than me and with access to more information to determine what the off-set point would be.

But let me ask you a hypothetical.. from what I've seen approximately 400,000 workers got a raise when the $15/hour thing took place.. would you rather that 400,000 people still made $13/hour but the corporation gave millions to the government?

You're asking me to pick between both things that a corporation should do.

And you're excluding the multi million dollars in state and local taxes Amazon avoids paying by shopping a deal to move to a community. So they double dip on avoiding to pay taxes.

From my perspective they use some of that tax to pay their workers more and pocket the rest. It's not an either or situation.

It's not bad enough you want me to do your homework, now you want me to do 40's too.

Fair enough, the left should definitely boycott them for not voluntarily paying artificially inflated wages AND wanting to pay tens of millions in taxes.. maybe actually leave their homes and go to a local store or something radical like that.. Maybe they could take energy from their very unhealthy fixation with Chick-fil-a and go after Amazon..

A wage that creates an atmosphere of people being able to pay rent and buy groceries isn't artificially inflated. It means it's been artificially deflated for a long time.

And Chic-Fil-A just contributed a huge amount of money to anti-gay causes. I don't blame anyone for boycotting them.

Nobody ever accused Amazon of "wanting" to pay millions in tax dollars. If they did working people wouldn't be picking up the bill for it.

[quote=PitDAWG

Nobody ever accused Amazon of "wanting" to pay millions in tax dollars. If they did working people wouldn't be picking up the bill for it. [/quote]That's a misleading line.

1. Working people are not "picking up the bill". If those workers made 15 an hour at amazon, or 15 an hour at mcdonalds, or 15 an hour at your local mom and pop shop - they are paying the same amount of taxes. They are not paying more because Amazon is not. that's fact #1.

2. If amazon is not there, are they making 15 and hour and able to pay taxes? maybe, maybe not. I would say probably not.

My contention is a very basic one. People who make $15 dollars an hour pay no taces if they are married and have children. They pay very little if they are married. They pay some taxes if they are single.

40 made the comment that the workers hired would make up for the taxes that places like amazon don't pay in taxes. In the case of Amazon that's simply not true.

For years on this very board I've watched people say that lower wage earners don't pay taxes and often get back more than they pay in. Suddenly in the land of Trump they think it's "opposite world".

Really?

Isn't that part of the problem then?

Once a family can live on what they're being paid it becomes a problem. Taking from the working poor seems to be a problem for some though.

I do have a problem with those who could live within their means but refuse to take the proper measures to do so. I understand that is a problem.

But I don't think trying to raise two kids on $15 dollars an hour falls into that category.

Personally, I think everyone should be taxed - rich and poor.

pay your fair share, as you and other others like to say.

Why am I not surprised that taking food from the mouths of the working poor would be something you support?

Nucor Steel. Check it out. There was an article in the Defiance Crescent newspaper on Tuesday I believe.

They wanted to build a new plant. Defiance was in the running, but ultimately didn't get the plant.

It would've meant hundreds of jobs. Multiple millions in construction jobs.

The city, AND the state of Ohio offered much in the way of tax relief. Why? Because the new jobs would've off set the tax breaks.

Defiance didn't get the plant. Some place in Kentucky did. Better offer from that state, as well as Nucor could barge scrap steel from a reclaiming plant they own down the river, as opposed to trucking it.

Kentucky felt the jobs were worth cutting/reducing taxes/giving tax breaks, etc.

You don't need to like it, I don't need to like it. It's just how it is.

Just like AOC being happy she was a part of Amazon not building in NY. She got what she asked for.

He's not. YOu put words in others mouths all the time.

Artificial is paying anything other than what you have to pay to get somebody to do the job.. if somebody is willing to do the job for less, then it's not artificial, it's market driven... if somebody is willing to do it for $10/hour, but you opt to pay that same person $13/hour, that's artificial... that's a business decision they can make for whatever reasons they see fit... Artificial has absolutely ZERO to do with cost of living or anything else.



Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Salvation Army, and Paul Anderson group home in Georgia for troubled teenage boys are anti-gay causes?

I simply reported the effects of what would happen under his proposal. When you force poor people to pay taxes you're taking the essentials of life away from them.

In your other post.....

I'm fully aware that in some cases communities get a great payback from giving tax breaks for jobs. But that works sometimes and doesn't work sometimes on a case by case basis.

It's just odd that when some people bribe others it's considered a crime. When a business uses leverage to extort a community to give them huge tax breaks it's considered the price of doing business.

Your last paragraph.

That is NOT what happened.

It's called a negotiation... I bet you absolutely despise the free agency period.. all of those players leveraging their unique talents to extort teams into giving them huge contracts...

MFLF Is A Project Of The Anti-Gay Marriage CoMission. The MFLF was created to be the “implementation and funding arm” for the Marriage CoMission, a coalition of groups formed in response to the “downward spiral of marriage and the traditional family in America.” [MFLF Executive Summary, accessed 10/28/11, Marriage CoMission, accessed 10/28/11]

Marriage CoMission Is Supported By Prominent Anti-Gay Activists. Since its inception, the CoMission has been supported by anti-gay activists such as Exodus International’s Alan Chambers and Citizens for Community Values’ Barry Sheets. [Marriage CoMission, accessed 10/28/11]

FCA Ministry Leader Application Condemns “Impure Lifestyle” of Gays. The application to become an FCA Ministry Leader requires applicants to agree with the FCA’s Sexual Purity Statement, which condemns gays as engaging in an “impure lifestyle”:

God desires His children to lead pure lives of holiness. The Bible is clear in teaching on sexual sin including sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts. Neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternate lifestyle acceptable to God.

Focus On The Family Is An Anti-Gay Group. Focus on the Family (FOF) has been listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In 2005, SPLC wrote:

Among the scores of anti-gay commentaries, stories and products on FOF’s Web site is a [FOF Founder James] Dobson essay that strikes a typical note: “Moms and Dads, are you listening? This movement is the greatest threat to your children. It is of particular danger to your wide-eyed boys, who have no idea what demoralization is planned for them.” Another article claims that “the homosexual agenda is a beast. It wants our kids.” [SPLC, Spring 2005]

Nobody said every charity they donate to has an anti-gay message.

That's what the mob used to call it too.

You're trying to compare an individual working within a signed contract agreement which allows this process as a part of that contract and a multi billion dollar corporation going around the nation and pitting one community against another for who will steal the most money from their taxpayers.

In one instance the team owners entered into a contract that agreed to free agent negotiations. In the other instance the taxpayers sit back while politicians give away money that could be used to fix roads and build schools.

Yep.

You have a player who has something in need (a unique skill set) and a group of teams making their best pitch, their best financial offer, to bring that skill set to their team and in the end they sign a mutual agreement.

You have a company who has something in need (jobs and economic benefits) and a group of cities/states making their best pitch, their best financial offer, to bring those jobs to their area and in the end they sign a mutual agreement.


If it was such a bad deal for these cities/states, why do they keep doing it? Why do the people who live in these places keep electing politicians who claim to want to bring jobs to the area if the only way to do that is by making such bad deals?

I was curious, so I did some googling.

As of June 2017 they had 540,000 US employees
Salaries at Amazon.com Inc range from an average of $58,578 to $147,825 a year.

so$60k/yr puts them in the 22% federal tax bracket

60,000 x 0.22 = 13,200 * 540,000 = 7,128,000,000

That doesn't include all the sales tax, gas tax, energy tax, communication taxes/fees etc, that each person would also pay beyond federal.

And the democrats want people to think they're seeking solutions on illegal immigration. Get the heck outta here!

Say one thing and do the opposite!!! What a joke! Democrats are 100% behind illegal immigration because it helps the voter base. Personally I think its Un-American and goes against the rule of law and what the majority of citizens want.

I want a voter ID law required to vote in ANY election, city, state, or federal. If you're not an American citizen than you don't get to vote, that's the law. There is no flexibility, stop trying to make it that way. End of story.

I think that. I am a right leaning person no doubt but do carry a open mind, but illegals and non-citizens shouldn't be anywhere near polling places on election day.

We are probably the only country in the world that thinks that is even a fairly good idea. I don't care if it is a national election or for county dog catcher.

I apologize, I was wrong on my numbers cocerning Nucor Steel.

It was a $1 billion investment. It was 400 jobs.

Ohio, and Defiance, didn't make it sweet enough.

How is that 'giving away money" when the money wasn't here to begin with? Tax breaks were an INCENTIVE to bring in jobs. Incentivize job creation. Get the jobs. Or don't.

400 people making $40-100,000 a year? Or, no jobs created.

It wasn't just Defiance that was all in on it, it was the state as well.

Imagine a $1 billion investment. Imagine all the jobs that would create or sustain. Logistics, construction, electricians, plumbers, concrete workers, steel workers, etc.

Imagine 400 new workers in the state. Well paid workers, that pay tax.





Yet you seem to feel not giving tax breaks to companies is the right thing.

Guess what? Your state gets no jobs.

and then there was Hillary’s emails and Obama’s birth certificate.

Not if the practice were illegal. If it were illegal to hand out corporate welfare every community would be working on a level playing field. As it is now it's a competition of who can grease their hands the most.

I see you haven't been following the thread. Or just wish to dismiss its contents.

Yes, if you have Amazon corporate jobs as a part of their investment in your community, it brings lots of high paying jobs which help your tax base.

If you are paying millions upon millions to bring an Amazon fulfillment center to your area, not so much.

See, let's look at what the premise was for this debate. 40 said that the jobs created by the tax cuts would compensate for the billions upon billions of dollars in tax cuts to big business. Amazon ended up paying zero in federal taxes while receiving tens of millions of local and state tax cuts to move jobs to communities.

The vast majority of those jobs were entry level positions at their fulfillment centers. So the jobs Amazon created after the tax cuts won't put a dent in paying back the money they saved in taxes.

You are looking at this as a one-for-one comparison, taking what the corporation would pay verses what the individual employees would pay, and it's not nearly that simple..

for the sake of argument, say a sweetheart deal brings in 1000 new jobs.. you have construction to build or renovate the facility, you have infrastructure, you have residential construction, you have need for additional restaurants, you might need a new school, all of those employ people who pay taxes, those businesses pay taxes, all of those individuals pay sales tax and property tax for years and years, they buy cars and clothes and food..

Plus, bringing in that kind of industry builds momentum, which attracts other businesses, business hubs are created, airports expand, mass transit is established.. the list is almost endless as to the ways in which bringing in jobs, even by sacrificing the short term corporate taxes, is great for the economic growth of a local economy...

Those construction jobs are short term. Only areas like the one where I live actually see all of the benefits you describe.

Let's say Dayton Ohio gets an amazon distribution center. How many of those employees can buy a newly built home. Very few. So there goes that.

What type of other businesses need to move there to support a distribution center? None.

Are you actually trying to make the case that 1000 new jobs to an area will produce those things you just described? Seriously?

Look at small towns all across America that have managed to bring a business paying low wages with 1000 jobs and tell me just how much of an economic boon they've experienced.

It is a nice story though.

Let me tell you a good way to attract good paying jobs that actually accomplish the things you mentioned. The Tennessee way.

You educate your people. Here a high school student gets two free years of college. This enables you to have a well educated population. Businesses that have good paying jobs need the available work force with the education to perform those jobs. Those jobs actually pay enough to accomplish the very things you describe. Those people will be able to buy new homes. Those businesses need supporting businesses around them.

Giving Jeff Bezos multi millions of dollars in tax abatement for a distribution center in your area isn't going to accomplish much in the grand scheme of things.

I posted earlier in this thread that it's a case by case basis. I still think a national moratorium on tax abatement is a far better solution to insure that businesses pay their fair share into communities is a far better solution than just saying, "Yeah, but look at the good things that happen when they come here."