4 ms·

> Define fair share. Fair share, the cost to run the country. For most people that's 33% of what we make a year. For megacorps that can be as much as nothing.

> Define fair share. Fair share, the cost to run the country. For most people that's 33% of what we make a year. For megacorps that can be as much as nothing. > I'll never understand this line of reasoning. While I understand how some people don't want to give individuals handouts, I don't understand how those same people are ok giving large corporations handouts. Take Walmart. If the poverty line where the local government steps up to help people out is $12.25 an hour (for 40 hours worked a week), and Walmart only pays out $7.25 per hour (for 40 hours), the it's on the local government to help those people out by giving them that extra $5 an hour. Well that means that walmart didn't pay the real rate for local wages, and the local tax payers got stuck with the bill. > Would you rather have people who can't earn enough to support themselves earn $0 and rely entirely on public assistance? Maybe, at least I'm subsidizing individuals and not the shareholders of Walmart. If we free up that person from the burden of working their dead end Walmart job, they would have an opportunity to improve themselves. Sure, many wont, but some will. I don't see how giving that same handout to Walmart helps any individual, those who own Walmart already have plenty. > Presumably Amazon delivery trucks are using gasoline, and fuel/sales taxes should cover some of those repairs. We could debate how fair those gas taxes are, and if they pay for themselves. I don't mind paying for the right to use the road, but many roads weren't built to handle the increased delivery traffic. That delivery traffic is a new burden that Bezos created and got rich off of. Surely the company that gained the most from using the public roads deserves to be billed for their upkeep.

bpt3 5y ago
> Fair share, the cost to run the country. For most people that's 33% of what we make a year. For megacorps that can be as much as nothing. That's your guess at what people pay now, not what their fair share is. Also, most people in the US don't have an effective tax rate anywhere close to 33%. > While I understand how some people don't want to give individuals handouts, I don't understand how those same people are ok giving large corporations handouts. I have no issue at all with individual handouts and think we should eliminate almost all corporate subsidies. The assistance given to people who aren't employable at a wage that allows them to support themselves are individual handouts, not corporate ones. > Take Walmart. If the poverty line where the local government steps up to help people out is $12.25 an hour (for 40 hours worked a week), and Walmart only pays out $7.25 per hour (for 40 hours), the it's on the local government to help those people out by giving them that extra $5 an hour. Well that means that walmart didn't pay the real rate for local wages, and the local tax payers got stuck with the bill. The poverty line (or whatever other metric is used to set the threshold for public assistance) is set based on the cost of living, and doesn't set the rate for wages. > I don't mind paying for the right to use the road, but many roads weren't built to handle the increased delivery traffic. That delivery traffic is a new burden that Bezos created and got rich off of. Surely the company that gained the most from using the public roads deserves to be billed for their upkeep. Jeff Bezos isn't sending trucks out on the roads unilaterally. His company is satisfying your area's demand for convenient shopping (that seems limitless). It's just as easy to claim you and your neighbors created the traffic, which is why everyone (including Amazon) should pay for road maintenance. Also, I have no idea how you determined that amazon has benefited the most from public roads, but that seems like a questionable claim.

bpt3 5y ago

> Fair share, the cost to run the country. For most people that's 33% of what we make a year. For megacorps that can be as much as nothing. That's your guess at what people pay now, not what their fair share is. Also, most people in the US don't have an effective tax rate anywhere close to 33%. > While I understand how some people don't want to give individuals handouts, I don't understand how those same people are ok giving large corporations handouts. I have no issue at all with individual handouts and think we should eliminate almost all corporate subsidies. The assistance given to people who aren't employable at a wage that allows them to support themselves are individual handouts, not corporate ones. > Take Walmart. If the poverty line where the local government steps up to help people out is $12.25 an hour (for 40 hours worked a week), and Walmart only pays out $7.25 per hour (for 40 hours), the it's on the local government to help those people out by giving them that extra $5 an hour. Well that means that walmart didn't pay the real rate for local wages, and the local tax payers got stuck with the bill. The poverty line (or whatever other metric is used to set the threshold for public assistance) is set based on the cost of living, and doesn't set the rate for wages. > I don't mind paying for the right to use the road, but many roads weren't built to handle the increased delivery traffic. That delivery traffic is a new burden that Bezos created and got rich off of. Surely the company that gained the most from using the public roads deserves to be billed for their upkeep. Jeff Bezos isn't sending trucks out on the roads unilaterally. His company is satisfying your area's demand for convenient shopping (that seems limitless). It's just as easy to claim you and your neighbors created the traffic, which is why everyone (including Amazon) should pay for road maintenance. Also, I have no idea how you determined that amazon has benefited the most from public roads, but that seems like a questionable claim.