Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 133
Thanks Tree38Thanks

Thread: Amazon and Food Stamps

  1. #41
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    33,864
    Thanks
    7025

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by johnflesh View Post
    The results of tax breaks to this extent is corporate welfare. It's literally the definition. And that point has nothing to do with the workers receiving welfare.

    You don't have to be a party to member to X-Tribe to understand that.
    I see, all tax breaks to this extent are bad because they are corporate welfare. Are you aware that New York, you know that bastion of liberalism offers companies ten years of no state taxes to move there. They are of course, talking about manufacturing businesses or distribution warehouses not just a restaurant or law office. Now, is that bad? They don't see it as bad because everything they get is found money. The same with this situation. Anything Amazon pays is better than the land being vacant.

    https://esd.ny.gov/startup-ny-program

  2. #42
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    3021

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    This company is run by a wonderful liberal named Jeff Bezos. Isn't it neat to watch the forum liberals here try to eat one of their own?
    What's neat is watching the chaos-loving America-hating phony "conservatives" open up and show their true colors: they enjoy strife and discord.

    Glad you're embracing your true self.
    Thanks from Panzareta and Dragonfly5

  3. #43
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    33,864
    Thanks
    7025

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    What's neat is watching the chaos-loving America-hating phony "conservatives" open up and show their true colors: they enjoy strife and discord.

    Glad you're embracing your true self.
    Think we should oust Jeff Bezos from his own company? After all, how dare that son-of-biscuit-eater hire people for part-time jobs and not pay them enough that they can buy a Mercedes?

  4. #44
    SWED Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,453
    Thanks
    9684

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Because they are betting that Amazon is better than no Amazon.
    What does that mean? Amazon is on track to break $200b in 2017 alone. Are you suggesting that Amazon would be gone if they had to pay that $1b in taxes?

    Explain it to me if you'd be so kind.

  5. #45
    SWED Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,453
    Thanks
    9684

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    I see, all tax breaks to this extent are bad because they are corporate welfare. Are you aware that New York, you know that bastion of liberalism offers companies ten years of no state taxes to move there. They are of course, talking about manufacturing businesses or distribution warehouses not just a restaurant or law office. Now, is that bad? They don't see it as bad because everything they get is found money. The same with this situation. Anything Amazon pays is better than the land being vacant.

    https://esd.ny.gov/startup-ny-program
    No they aren't bad Southern Dad, they are terrible inefficient and you and I have to pay for something that should be Amazon's IMO.

  6. #46
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    33,864
    Thanks
    7025

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by johnflesh View Post
    No they aren't bad Southern Dad, they are terrible inefficient and you and I have to pay for something that should be Amazon's IMO.
    Do you understand the concept of found money? If a town has a piece of land that is sitting vacant, it brings in maybe a thousand dollars a year in taxes, if that. But if a company comes and locates there, it suddenly has the potential to generate a lot of growth for the community. These tax breaks do not cost the city anything. They do not have to write a check. They simply allow the corporation to not have to pay most of what they would have paid in taxes for a period of time. What does the city get? They get jobs for their citizens. They get some of the taxes, certainly more than they got for the vacant land.

  7. #47
    SWED Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,453
    Thanks
    9684

    From
    Colorado
    This would be an opposite argument in the Bush, Clinton and Reagan years which is sad because I'd actually be on the same side now as I was then. Fiscal.

  8. #48
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,470
    Thanks
    3875

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by johnflesh View Post
    The results of tax breaks to this extent is corporate welfare. It's literally the definition
    The definition of "corporate welfare" is apparently whatever the person using the term wants it to mean. In splansing's case, he thinks it means any worker who, despite having a job, qualifies for some sort of government assistance, that that's corporate welfare. It means whatever the person spewing the rhetoric wants it to mean.

    But more to your point, welfare denotes need. Amazon is not doing this out of need. It's doing it because it can. It's basically creating a de facto tax bidding war among local and/or state governments. That's not out of need. It's out of a savvy ability to demand the best (most competitive/business friendly) deal. They're not being bailed out or kept alive by government disbursements intended to keep them from failing. They're just able to tell the world they're going to make a big decision and watch the world bend to their liking.

    Should companies not have as much power as Amazon has? Maybe. But it's a tough proposition to just declare we should pass laws that gut and divest the company. That's probably quite self-harming in a lot of ways to suggest we be that rabidly anti-business. It tells the whole world that everywhere else but the U.S. is a smarter place to set up shop.

    And that point has nothing to do with the workers receiving welfare.
    That's right, it doesn't.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 9th January 2018 at 01:34 PM.
    Thanks from Southern Dad

  9. #49
    SWED Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,453
    Thanks
    9684

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    Do you understand the concept of found money? If a town has a piece of land that is sitting vacant, it brings in maybe a thousand dollars a year in taxes, if that. But if a company comes and locates there, it suddenly has the potential to generate a lot of growth for the community. These tax breaks do not cost the city anything. They do not have to write a check. They simply allow the corporation to not have to pay most of what they would have paid in taxes for a period of time. What does the city get? They get jobs for their citizens. They get some of the taxes, certainly more than they got for the vacant land.
    There is no need to rehash, I understand how it works. But in context of this subject - is your point is the bad outweighs the good? Because you left out the part about how that company that creates jobs also creates a smaller pool of welfare recipients... in context to this specific case.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,781
    Thanks
    2772

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    The definition of "corporate welfare" is apparently whatever the person using the term wants it to mean. In splansing's case, he thinks it means any worker who, despite having a job, qualifies for some sort of government assistance, that that's corporate welfare. It means whatever the person spewing the rhetoric wants it to mean.

    But more to your point, welfare denotes need. Amazon is not doing this out of need. It's doing it because it can. It's basically creating a de facto tax bidding war among local and/or state governments. That's not out of need. It's out of a savvy ability to demand the best (most competitive/business friendly) deal. They're not being bailed out or kept alive by government disbursements intended to keep them from failing. They're just able to tell the world they're going to make a big decision and watch the world bend to their liking.

    Should companies not have as much power as Amazon has? Maybe. But it's a tough proposition to just declare we should pass laws that gut and divest the company.



    That's right, it doesn't.
    He misses the days of the old soviet union when everybody had a job...nobody made or did anything, but they had a job.

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Maine Gov. Seeks To End Food Stamps bc Recipients Buy Junk Food
    By Madeline in forum Political Controversies
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 27th June 2016, 11:18 AM
  2. Food stamps .... what fun
    By BDBoop in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2nd May 2016, 06:25 PM
  3. According to the USDA: 1 in 5 U.S. Households on Food Stamps
    By meridian5455 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 24th January 2014, 01:09 PM
  4. Replies: 146
    Last Post: 7th September 2013, 01:12 AM
  5. Surviving on food stamps
    By BDBoop in forum Economics
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 21st June 2013, 05:00 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed