1. larry1076's Avatar
    Is it possible to make a referendum that would force major multi-billion-dollar corporation to not allow their employees to be on government benefits in the USA?

    According to a NPR news report, major corporations are favoring temp jobs and contractors instead of full-time employees so that they can pay less.

    And the report also mentioned that growth of jobs in the last two decades has been mostly part-time and temp work.

    Many multi billion-dollar corporations do not give their employees livable wages force them to go on government benefits is stealing taxpayers money!

    And if profits are going down a bit, perhaps the CEO should get $5,000,000 instead of $7,000,000. There's an extra 2mil in revenue.

    Major companies that pay the least:
    The 10 Companies That Pay Americans The Least

    Walmart wages are why people are on welfare :
    Walmart Wages Are the Main Reason People Depend on Food Stamps | The Nation
    06-17-2016 07:18 PM
  2. anon(92475)'s Avatar
    Possible? Yes. Probable? No.

    You make the assumption that just because profits are down, CEO takes a lesser pay. That's not how it works. The higher ups will simply cut staff, cut back further on hours, raise prices, or renegotiate with vendors.

    I imagine the only way to force a company to do as you are questioning would be to nationalize it. And that's incredibly unlikely.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    06-17-2016 11:45 PM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I don't see how the government has any authority to require that of businesses. Heck, the logistics of it alone sounds like a nightmare. After all, welfare programs are signed up by people outside of their workplace, so it would require a lot of work for a check and balance. Not to mention, are you suggesting employers be punished if one of their workers signs up for a welfare program on their own?

    How about we do away with the various regulations and such that have encouraged those companies to go this route in the first place instead of piling on more regulation?
    06-18-2016 02:55 PM
  4. recDNA's Avatar
    With a Democratic President and Congress it is possible but the key thing is Walmart employees must vote in a union.

    With a republican congress? Heck, they'd like to take insurance away from working stiffs who already have it.
    06-18-2016 06:34 PM
  5. larry1076's Avatar
    Funny story from a 2013 article in Bloomberg magazine about Costco (about their $20/hour wage): Can we force WalMart to  their employees health insurance?-uploadfromtaptalk1469156798585.jpgCan we force WalMart to  their employees health insurance?-uploadfromtaptalk1469156812923.jpg
    07-21-2016 11:06 PM
  6. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Honestly it is not the fact that Walmart does not pay for the health insurance that is the root of the problem.
    It is a symptom of a overall larger problem. It is the fact that we expect businesses to have health care as part of there burden to cover. A better solution would be move it off of business and make it single payer. Increase the taxes to cover it and many of those taxes should be on businesses. The net cost to companies would be neutral as what they use to pay in health care is now shifted over taxes. To the works the increase taxes would be off set by the fact that the monthly deductions would be gone.

    This changes a lot of things as now people are no longer afraid to leave a job because of the health insurance. Far to many people are trapped at a job over that fear alone. My girlfriend suffers from that for a while as she always has to worry about needing health coverage and can never risk going with out it.
    Imagine a world where you could change jobs or open up your own business with out fear of losing health insurance.
    08-02-2016 11:48 AM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Increase the taxes to cover it and many of those taxes should be on businesses.
    Except businesses don't pay taxes, they only collect them from individuals to cover their tax burden. In other words you and I would still pay for that "free" healthcare.
    08-02-2016 12:22 PM
  8. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Except businesses don't pay taxes, they only collect them from individuals to cover their tax burden. In other words you and I would still pay for that "free" healthcare.
    I never said it was "Free" I said it takes the burden off the businesses directly and shifts it over to higher taxes.

    Right now pretending that health insurance is not a tax on business is kind of stupid. It is a tax with out the word put on it. Company have to eat a flat cost per employee to pay for the insurance. That being up to a few 100 a month. That not counting profit hits before profit.

    Instead it shifting the same burden to a different point but same burden. I noticed you left the rest of it off aka pointing out how the net cost to the company would be near zero as instead of paying for health insurance they are paying higher taxes to give the same benefit.
    Health insurance coverage required by employers is boat anchor and a hidden tax. Same anchor but now it a tax directly and no longer traps employees.
    08-02-2016 12:31 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Forgive my assumption. I think you're the first person I've seen that didn't equate single payer with free healthcare, so I'll give you credit for consistency on that point. Even still, making it a tax isn't removing a burden. It's just changing where the burden is levied (albeit still ultimately paid by individuals), and making it roughly the same across the board. It removes their ability to compete on that benefit, nothing more.

    I do agree, now with Obamacare, that coverage is a tax. If government is going to force you to spend money on something, it's a defacto tax. Before that, it wasn't a tax. There was no obligation that required businesses to provide any healthcare. It was a choice left up to each company to provide, and to what extent.

    At best, the argument could be made that coverage and other benefits came about as a result of wage regulations that limited employer competition based on wages. Basically a government regulation caused a problem that lead to additional benefits being offered as a workaround. Now government regulation is forcing more to buy into it even if they don't want to or can't afford it. Strike two, and you want to risk strike three by having more government regulation to fix the problems prior regulation created?

    As you said, it's currently a boat anchor. Any tax on production is a boat anchor, regardless if it's a tax or a hidden tax disguised as a forced purchase. Shuffling the numbers around changes nothing.
    08-02-2016 02:08 PM
  10. Timelessblur's Avatar
    It removes their ability to compete on that benefit, nothing more.
    Honestly that is the key part. It should be removed the ability to compete on the benefit. There should be a good floor standard which is single payer. They can offer better private insurance or something on top of it.

    The shear fear of going with out insurance traps a lot of people in a dead end job. They can not jump ship to better themselves or for their family for fear of no insurance. My girlfriend has that fear as she can not afford to go with out job. It hurt her in college as she had to take longer to get the masters due to having to have insurance that covered what she needed. This hurt her long term as that master was required for a few things she wanted to do.

    Hurt grades suffered because of the work for insurance requirements. If it was not for that one key piece it would of help long term.

    I am all about shifting that burden to be on the employers back as a must have which is a fix cost per employee to a tax. This would help out small business greatly as guess what you can start one now because you are not required to have another job for insurance reasons you are still safe.

    In terms of shifting the numbers around yeah it shift the burden more on the ones making more profit and can afford it. It prevents companies like Walmart from doing its BS to line the pockets of the investors as now they have to pay more in taxes which hurts the profits after taxes. But it prevents welfare companies from shifting their burdens on tax payers.
    Walmart is an example of a company that lives off of welfare. They should eat the cost of the extra burden they put on the rest of with their employees having to be on welfare.
    08-02-2016 02:21 PM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Wal-Mart and other companies won't just eat the cost. They will either take it out of their employees wages/hours (if not reduce employment numbers), curtail investment returns (held by many retirement accounts, not just the evil rich), or raise their prices.

    I don't trust the government to have any reasonable cost controls, so I do expect healthcare inflation, and higher taxes as a result. We already have a massive single payer system in the education system and it's not exactly a model to live up to. So while the large corporations may be able to better cover the added tax cost, the small business owners won't have that luxury. Congratulations, another government regulation to hurt small businesses and reduce competition.
    08-02-2016 05:55 PM
  12. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Wal-Mart and other companies won't just eat the cost. They will either take it out of their employees wages/hours (if not reduce employment numbers), curtail investment returns (held by many retirement accounts, not just the evil rich), or raise their prices.

    I don't trust the government to have any reasonable cost controls, so I do expect healthcare inflation, and higher taxes as a result. We already have a massive single payer system in the education system and it's not exactly a model to live up to. So while the large corporations may be able to better cover the added tax cost, the small business owners won't have that luxury. Congratulations, another government regulation to hurt small businesses and reduce competition.
    Well right now you are paying higher Tax thanks to Walmart putting most unlivable wages as it is and even telling employees how to get welfare.

    Right now in the USA we pay more for health care than other developed nations and we are getting less.

    The bold part is a problem where your argument falls flat on its face. Right now it is the larger companies that can afford the cost of healthcare for their employees. Small business can not and fail. That tax right now is a flat tax per employee with out the word tax but it is a tax. So your small business argument is invalid and was counter by my point above. You help them out because they do not have to shoulder the complete burden of health care cost. Right now they do when they are starting up before they are established.

    As for government controlling cost well medicare and medicaid are lower than most of the private. They are just bared from being able to getting better rates for drugs but cost wise they are doing pretty good.

    Nothing you have said gets around my point from eariler. We are shifting the "hidden" tax health insurance to a real one making a net neutral change. In reality it helps because you are not trapped at a job because of health care.
    08-02-2016 08:47 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Nothing you have said gets around my point from eariler. We are shifting the "hidden" tax health insurance to a real one making a net neutral change.
    And nothing you've said gets around the fact that businesses don't pay taxes in the end, yet big business is better able to avoid those taxes before passing that remaining burden off to individuals as a hidden tax in their products, wage cuts, and/or investment cuts.
    In reality it helps because you are not trapped at a job because of health care.
    Healthcare that only became a benefit issue thanks to government interference in the first place.
    08-02-2016 09:25 PM
  14. Timelessblur's Avatar
    And nothing you've said gets around the fact that businesses don't pay taxes in the end, yet big business is better able to avoid those taxes before passing that remaining burden off to individuals as a hidden tax in their products, wage cuts, and/or investment cuts.

    Healthcare that only became a benefit issue thanks to government interference in the first place.
    Again I ask how is that different than them hiding the flat fee per employee?
    I think you are missing the argument.

    Right now companies pay a few 100 per month per employee in health care. A hidden tax. They already are paying it. Transfer that to tax it is a neutral change. Aka it would be the same over all cost.
    08-03-2016 09:01 AM
  15. ptkelly's Avatar
    I was visiting the U.S. and most of my friends were boycotting Walmart because of how they treated their employees. So, not being a liberal, I went off to Walmart to visit with some employees. I was there when the doors opened on a Wednesday morning and spent a few hours chatting.

    The first thing I learned was that most of the employees I spoke with were middle-aged women, divorced, with children, high school graduates or some college, and this was their first job out of the home. All that I spoke to liked working at Walmart and were incredibly optimistic. They all knew someone who had built a record, a resume, and moved up in Walmart or out to another retail business like Nordstroms.

    I did meet two young men with Downs Syndrome. One took some time to talk with me. There were only two businesses in the city that would even give him an interview. One was Walmart and the other was a local grocery chain. Was he happy working at Walmart? You bet your bippy.

    Now, if we could just get the government to quit screwing with healthcare, maybe we could afford insurance again.
    08-16-2017 07:33 AM

Similar Threads

  1. Help me decide which phone to use
    By Snappy Phoenix in forum HTC 10
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 11:55 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2016, 04:16 AM
  3. How to stop Galaxy Tab S2 from connecting to another network
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2016, 06:52 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2016, 05:40 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2016, 05:37 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD