> The fact is if employers in this country simply paid workers a living wage, taxpayers would save about $150 billion a year on federal assistance programs. I'

> The fact is if employers in this country simply paid workers a living wage, taxpayers would save about $150 billion a year on federal assistance programs. I'm not at all convinced that removing people from federal assistance programs (i.e. necessitating a need for a reduction in those programs' budgets) would in fact directly result in less taxes being paid by me. > This bill would establish a corporate welfare tax on large employers equal to the amount of federal benefits received by their low-wage workers. But it does not establish a means to reduce my tax burden whatsoever. I feel this is a valid criticism as the basis of the argument is that it's costing "the taxpayers." Well, I'm a taxpayer. I'm a shareholder in this organization, what's my get? I'm seeing large corps raising prices to offset the new tax, no new benefits for the underprivileged it's supposed to be helping, and no reduction in my personal costs. The net to me of that arrangement is less money in my pocket due to increased prices at the big companies. > Large companies, not taxpayers, should be required to pay for federal public assistance programs that their employees are eligible to receive. No, the system should be setup such that taxes are fair and equitable enough to cover the operating costs of the government. I'm seeing way too much of an "us" vs "them" in this arrangement, which I'm not surprised by given who is proposing it. > The Stop Bezos Act gives large employers a choice: pay workers a living wage or pay for the public assistance programs low-wage workers are forced to rely upon. We have no constitutional right to "living wage" and for the government to attempt to enforce a right that does not exist is a problem. I'll leave that argument at that.