The Fox is Guarding the Hen House
I was talking to someone the other day that said they had no problem that AMAZON PAID NO TAXES in 2018 to the government. Their take was that Amazon gives so much back to the economy by the amount of people they employ etc. that is works out. But do they pay their employees well?
Recently, Congresswoman Katie Porter questioned Jamie Dimon, CEO JP Morgan Chase, on how an employee of JP Morgan Chase was suppose to be able to live on the salary she was being paid as a full time employee of his bank.
He first questioned her figures, then he shut down and repeatedly gave a rote answer. Jamie got a little raise in January...I am not sure how he manages on $39,000,000.00 a year but someone has to do it.
Now, I wouldn't think a lot about this EXCEPT JP Morgan Chase took $25 billion of TARP funds even though said bank was actually in pretty good shape. According to Wiki...
This was the fifth largest amount transferred under Section A of TARP[33] to help troubled assets related to residential mortgages. It has been widely reported[34] that JPMorgan Chase was in much better financial shape than other banks and did not need TARP funds but accepted the funds because the government did not want to single out only the banks with capital issues. JPMorgan Chase advertised in February 2009 that it would be using its capital-base monetary strength to acquire new businesses.
I won't go into the whole Mortgage Crisis, but, why didn't they use taxpayers dollars to pay a liveable wage to Chase Bank employees? From what I can see, companies that are not paying federal taxes, and/or are getting massive tax breaks for various reasons (that may or may not have to do the the money they donated to campaigns) and NOT paying a living wage, are not giving back to the economy. They are simply getting rich, getting their stockholders rich, off the backs of taxpayers, the little guys....a double whammy per se.
Add in that many of the "business friendly" lawmakers (possibly on the receiving end of those large donations) allowing businesses to run basically tax free, are the same guys who bad mouth the, so called, entitlement programs that might help the people that are working for the same companies that are not paying their employees a salary that can live off of.
Now, factor in the concept that it is many of the same lawmakers that don't want women to be able to make reproductive health decisions, especially knowing that they CAN'T AFFORD to have a child and you got something I like to call "A vicious cycle of poverty".
I am not calling for socialism. I don't think liveable wage is too much to ask for.
That's all I got to say about that......for now.
Recently, Congresswoman Katie Porter questioned Jamie Dimon, CEO JP Morgan Chase, on how an employee of JP Morgan Chase was suppose to be able to live on the salary she was being paid as a full time employee of his bank.
Now, I wouldn't think a lot about this EXCEPT JP Morgan Chase took $25 billion of TARP funds even though said bank was actually in pretty good shape. According to Wiki...
This was the fifth largest amount transferred under Section A of TARP[33] to help troubled assets related to residential mortgages. It has been widely reported[34] that JPMorgan Chase was in much better financial shape than other banks and did not need TARP funds but accepted the funds because the government did not want to single out only the banks with capital issues. JPMorgan Chase advertised in February 2009 that it would be using its capital-base monetary strength to acquire new businesses.
I won't go into the whole Mortgage Crisis, but, why didn't they use taxpayers dollars to pay a liveable wage to Chase Bank employees? From what I can see, companies that are not paying federal taxes, and/or are getting massive tax breaks for various reasons (that may or may not have to do the the money they donated to campaigns) and NOT paying a living wage, are not giving back to the economy. They are simply getting rich, getting their stockholders rich, off the backs of taxpayers, the little guys....a double whammy per se.
Add in that many of the "business friendly" lawmakers (possibly on the receiving end of those large donations) allowing businesses to run basically tax free, are the same guys who bad mouth the, so called, entitlement programs that might help the people that are working for the same companies that are not paying their employees a salary that can live off of.
Now, factor in the concept that it is many of the same lawmakers that don't want women to be able to make reproductive health decisions, especially knowing that they CAN'T AFFORD to have a child and you got something I like to call "A vicious cycle of poverty".
I am not calling for socialism. I don't think liveable wage is too much to ask for.
That's all I got to say about that......for now.
Agreed, one hundred percent!
ReplyDeleteIt sounds right, Linda!
ReplyDeleteGAYmen, linda!
ReplyDeleteEverybody should have a living wage, not just the people at the top.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately this is inherent in the way American capitalism works. The executives of corporations are evaluated on how they maximize returns to stockholders, and all their incentives push them to prioritize that above other considerations. As long as they can get people to fill jobs at all, the system militates against treating them any better than the bare minimum necessary to keep them.
ReplyDeleteThe American model isn't the only way of doing capitalism. Germany has a vigorous private sector -- and unions so powerful they have a seat in the management of the corporations. It would take a lot of work to get there from where we are, though.
A higher minimum wage would be a start.