AOC vs Amazon: Fighting For The Taxpayers and Workers' Rights.

[SpiderManFan2002]

I know AOC is disliked by many on here. I am a supporter of AOC and I am not afraid to say that I am a supporter of hers. She is amazing.

One prime argument people seem to have on here is: "How can AOC care about the jobs of many when she chased Amazon out of her district? All those people lost their jobs!"

Firstly, income taxes! Do you not think it is very greedy to be earning over $11 billion and not to be giving a single penny back to the public (in income taxes) when the public is the reason they managed to earn over $11 billion in profit? Because the public buys their products. And you're probably going to ask me 'why would you care? You're British.' If Amazon can do this in the US, then who says they won't do that in the UK?

And if you're going to ask me the question why should they care about schools, firefighters, infrastructure, research, and healthcare here's why. People buy from Amazon from all these demographics. I fit under the 'school' demographic, I bought the majority of my revision guides from Amazon, my pencil case and other school supplies that contributes to the profit they make.

And I'm sure they'll be millions of school children in the US who will also buy from Amazon. They'll be many firefighters in the US who buy from Amazon. Many people in infrastructure, in the US who buy from Amazon. Many people in research and development in the US who buy from Amazon.

By not paying taxes to support their industries is suggesting that Amazon doesn't care about those industries they're just in it for the profit.

And if they're not going to pay tax why reward them with $3 billion?

If you didn't pay tax, you would probably be sent to prison and then gain a criminal record for not paying your tax. Even if you couldn't afford it.

Evidently, Amazon is a multi-billion dollar company and can afford to give an amount of that money back to their customers, the public. However, they're not paying the tax so, what do they get? Offered $3 billion?

I don't see the sense in that. Would you be offered $3 billion if you didn't pay tax?

Now a lot of you seem to be outraged by AOC "chasing" Amazon out of her district. However, are any of you outraged by the way Amazon is accused of treating their employees?

One woman, who was an Amazon employee, had told amazon she was unable to perform specific tasks due to her pregnancy.

Her safety manager responded: "It is not what you want, it is what we decide."

Another pregnant woman said: "I am pregnant and they put me to stand 10 hours without a chair … They are telling me to work hard even they know I am pregnant. I am feeling depressed when I am at work.”

What effect must that be having on her unborn child?

A national officer of a workers' union has stated: "Hundreds of ambulance call-outs, pregnant women telling us they are forced to stand for 10 hours a day, pick, stow, stretch and bend, pull heavy carts and walk miles – even miscarriages and pregnancy issues at work."

One woman who was an Amazon employee was a victim of a miscarriage, whilst working. She believes what contributed to her miscarriage was the continuous pressure to hit performance targets.

Many workers have claimed that constant pressure to hit performance targets makes it difficult for them to even take time out for a drink of water, or even to go to the toilet. Those are basic human acts!

“We are not robots. We are human beings. We cannot come into work after only four hours of sleep and be expected to be fully energized and ready to work. That’s impossible,” said an Amazon employee. “I feel like all the company cares about is getting their products out to the customers as quickly humanly as possible, no matter what that means for us workers in the end.”

In what way is this at all humane? Yes, 25,000 people may have gained jobs from Amazon in AOC's district but what would the quality of their life be? Who's to say by working at Amazon would a large proportion of those 25,000 workers wouldn't have been depressed? Yes, they're earning money, but to me, it is like slave labour.

A pregnant woman being forced to do physical labour for hours, having miscarriages at work? That reminds me of when black women were enslaved and forced to work on the fields, despite their pregnancy. It's disgusting.

Perhaps AOC is fighting for the rights of these workers? These women who are being forced to work whilst they are heavily pregnant? Maybe she's also fighting for these unborn babies who need their mother to be relaxed and stress-free whilst she is carrying them, so they are actually born healthily? The taxpayer like you.

Amazon cannot go on evading tax and treating their workers like their slaves. Harming pregnant women. Unborn babies. Amazon could potentially be responsible for the miscarriages their workers are having. Does that mean they are killing unborn babies?

Do they really deserve that $3 billion?

[Kitty46]

Amazon should not be so greedy, it makes them ugly & selfish. Poor pregnant women should not do physical labor, they should be taking it easy, taking care of their unborn child, they should speak up, what more important the safety of your unborn children or doing heavy work for hours that can really hurt your baby, might lead to a miscarriage. Other people should speak up too. I don’t shop at Amazon, I shop at Walmart. But I do have a streaming device, I watched Amazon Prime. I feel bad for those people.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Exactly! I cannot believe some people would favour Amazon over these women!

[Kitty46]

Thanks for the MHO

[SpiderManFan2002]

No problem :)

[z3lda]

I've heard so much stuff about how crappy the workers at Amazon are treated... I'm glad someone is actually speaking out about it. Good take.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Thank you :)

[SCARRED]

TAX the rich and the corporate fokes, then give the working fokes
a break. im a state government employee, they don't pay like
the private companies. wish they would pay a little more
let the public employees have both pensions amounts. fs

[Hawky_]

Bang on. Well said. Amazon is being let off the hook and its the average Joe that loses out

[SpiderManFan2002]

Thank you! :)

[Wharvey98]

Amazon didn’t pay corporate taxes in 2018 because the government gave them an alternative option to invest directly into government programs. I’m not a fan of AOC. I think she has good intentions, but she has a penchant for big plans with no way to back them up. The green new deal for example. By far the worst planned proposed law I’ve ever heard of. One of the many things she proposed in there was to “put charging stations everywhere”. Well AOC, first of all very few people have electric cars, second of all the electricity for those charging stations is going to come directly from coal power plants that harm the environment (kind of counterproductive), third where exactly is everywhere? Because that could mean literally every square in of the United States, every 5 feet, every block, every mile, every 20 miles? Where is everywhere? Like I said, I think she has good intentions, but I just don’t think she’s very smart. Hell I even agree with a lot of her policies in principle, it’s just that in practice it’s a little more complicated.

[Wharvey98]

As for the lifestyle of those workers, what’s better. Having a job that pays well but works you hard, or living off of a government stipend that barely gives you enough to live? It’s a workers economy right no, if they were truly dissatisfied with their jobs they could have found work somewhere else. The fact that they didn’t do so speaks volumes, because they thought it was their best option. Now that option has been taken away from them.

[tartaarsaus]

Yes, the practices of Amazon can be despicable. In terms of protection of the workforce, the USA apparently tends to fail spectacularly.

The argument behind clearing companies from paying taxes, such as in the Netherlands (this is apparently a tax heaven), is that we expect companies to invest if it is relatively cheap.

Attain distribution centres by e. g. Amazon, Alibaba or whatever, and you important lots of jobs.

The argument further goes that clearing a company of the magnitude like Amazon from paying tax actually increases employment (which is beneficial for tax revenue, as lack of employment costs tax money).

I don't question the logic in itself, it makes sense to me. But *clearly* without proper protection of the workforce, you get Draconian situations.

But that's the thing here, balancing economic development and the workforce.

But in the Netherlands we have a lot of protection of the workforce (things would seem insane for Americans). Companies are legally forced to pay vacation money to employees, it is basically impossible to fire anyone, 2 years of sick pay by law (at least 70% of income). Yet the country still pulls in distribution centres all the damn time. Obviously, it has to do with geographical location, but I can't imagine the same is not true in the US.

So yeah, I'd agree with tax exemption while simultaneously protecting the workforce far more.

[SpiderManFan2002]

The way I see it is Amazon can afford to pay income tax, people from the demographics in which income tax benefits, are customers of Amazon and without them, Amazon would not have made over $11 billion profit.

Even them paying $1 million in income tax would still mean they have over $11 billion, so I personally think they should pay.

:)

[tartaarsaus]

Hmm true with small amounts such as in the tens of millions they might as well pay.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Precisely. Think of the difference they could make within the community because what is a little amount to them, would be a great amount to schools, national services, infrastructures, and research and development.

[tartaarsaus]

I honestly doubt whether a couple ten million would make such a significant difference, to be honest. (But better than nothing)

Big gains are made when you gain billions, but then that nifty little trade-off comes into place where you want them to pay taxes but you also don't want them to pay taxes.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Well, I mean, if a school was in over £1 million debt, and the council cannot afford to pay it off I'm sure £10 million would help them dearly.

[tartaarsaus]

That's true

[SpiderManFan2002]

It is indeed.

[tartaarsaus]

Lmfao I'm glad you agree with your own statement 😂

[SpiderManFan2002]

I wasn't only referring to the agreeing with the statement.

[tartaarsaus]

Aha okay

[SpiderManFan2002]

Do you understand what I was trying to get at?

[tartaarsaus]

I don't really know for sure, I just assume that you refer to smaller amounts of tax revenue also helping, thus them paying a bit of income tax helps

[April_Wine]

Here's where I get confused:

Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese imports, to level the playing field between the two countries and encourage people to buy American. A lot of people are complaining that this will raise the prices of all the Chinese crap we buy. Fair enough, because it will.

Now people want Amazon to pay corporate income tax, which will just raise the price of all the Chinese crap we buy from them. Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.

Trump gave tax breaks for the middle class so they'd have more money in their pockets. The Dems said that was bad, because it wasn't enough of a tax break. I believed they called them "crumbs." Hmm, that sounds nice, right? But now they want their crumbs back!
So I guess we only like money based on who's idea it was to let us have it.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Paying income tax may raise the price of what we buy, but income tax also goes back into society.

If you didn't pay income tax, you'd get a criminal record. Even if you couldn't afford it. But Amazon can more than afford it, and they're not paying it, and somehow it is lawful for them not to pay income tax? Even though it is evident they can afford to?

[tartaarsaus]

The notion that companies pay no taxes but that consumers do is just false.

Companies a) do not operate in a vacuum without competition and b) Deal with price elasticity of demand.

If they raise prices by the exact amount of taxes, they would inevitably lose out to the competition.

[April_Wine]

Yes, the income tax revenue would go from your pocket to Amazon, and then to the government. Hopefully that will make it's way back in to the economy, but it was already in the economy in the first place. I'm sure Bezos and the stockholders pay a lot in personal income tax, even though the corporation doesn't.

[tartaarsaus]

No, it wouldn't. Companies that deal with competition (or even basic consumer behaviour) can't just increase prices 1 to 1 with taxes. They'll eat up a significant chunk of taxes themselves

[SpiderManFan2002]

@April_Wine Bezos may pay income tax. That's good of him if he does.

Amazon can clearly afford to pay income tax, so why shouldn't they?

[April_Wine]

@SpiderManFan2002
I'm not siding with Amazon, because Bezos is an ass. But I do think that AOC really screwed up when she ran them out of New York.
During the last presidential debates, Hillary accused Trump of buying Chinese steel for his buildings. His answer was priceless: "Of course I buy Chinese steel, it's cheaper! I'm not stupid. But if you don't like that, then why did you do absolutely nothing to change the rules? Just change the laws, and I'll stop buying it. What do you politicians do all day up their on Capital Hill?"

My point is; Amazon isn't going to pay one penny more than they have to by law. So either the law makers need to change the rules, or Amazon's customers should shop elsewhere. I've never bought a thing from them.

[SpiderManFan2002]

I personally, think she did right not allowing them to have the $3 billion.

Them treating the workers the way they have been. They don't deserve more money for the misery and distress they've caused people.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, nor am I a Trump supporter. I know you didn't say I was a supporter of either but I'm just putting it out there.

As for what you said I agree: The law should be changed.

[0112358]

Your comments are so confusing I’m not sure that you understand anything about taxes which it makes it hard to discuss this with you.

AOC understands this stuff about as well as Trump (ie not at all and frequently says things that show he/she don’t even understand the meaning of the things they then try to argue about).

Amazon employees pay lots of income tax.

Amazon has paid over $2.5 billion in corporate tax in the US in the last three years.

They didn’t in 2018 because the government creates all sorts of incentives for certain type of investment the government thinks benefit the country. Amazon made them. The investments happened, the people were hired, the equipment paid for from other companies that pay tax. They will be paying tax next year unless they continue to make massive investments in areas the government chooses to encourage them to - in which case people should be happy because that’s the hoped for result of those tax credits.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Corporate tax benefits businesses, not the people.

Their employees who are poorly treated by them, pay income tax, who are on a minimum wage salary and if they don't they could face prison. Amazon employees and Amazon the business are two separate stakeholders.

If Amazon paid income tax, what would they be losing? A few million? They earned over $11 billion profit this year what would be the harm if they paid $1 million, $2 million or even $10 million income tax? They would still be a multi-billion dollar company at the end of it.

Do you think $10 million is a lot to a multi-billion dollar company? I tell you what that amount of money would be a lot too. Schools, public services, infrastructure, research and development, and healthcare.

[0112358]

People on minimum wage are not paying any income tax.

Amazon’s corporate tax last year before tax credits was $1.2 billion. Without the past earned credits that’s what they’d be paying.

What is this stupid 10 million rounding error you’re imagining is important?

It’s also worth pointing out that amazon doesn’t take its profits and light fire to them. They’re either invested or they go to people. In the former case the owners pay tax on capital gains when they exit the position. In the latter they pay taxes on dividends.

High corporate taxes are a terrible idea and most of the developed world is dropping them. The United States actually has fairly high corporate taxes compared to Scandinavia and it’s a bad idea.

[SpiderManFan2002]

If people on minimum wage do not pay income tax, I'm sure they pay some other form of tax, right? Apologies for getting it wrong.

Even if minimum wage workers do not pay income tax, that is understandable, because they cannot afford it.

But Amazon can clearly afford income tax. As said many times previously, they have earned $11 billion profit.

And what I was trying to say with the $10 million figure, is not that they pay that much, but IF they paid that much then what would be the harm in it? They would still be a multi-billion dollar company at the end of it, so can they not sacrifice a few million dollars, for the people?

[0112358]

That money doesn’t come out of thin air. Companies can pay tax. If they pay tax, the owners get less money. Who are the owners? Well amazons founders still own a chunk but s huge amount is owned by regular people. Pension funds, 401k, all these things have piled billions of dollars into amazon shares. So it’s their money that would be paying the tax.

So you need to separate out a bunch of things here:
1) Amazon’s financial statements for 2018 show $1.2 billion in owed tax. They didn’t pay any because they already had tax credits to cover it. Those are the rules. Are those rules sensible? The biggest ones- yes. If a company loses money and then makes money, it can offset the gain with the loss. If you lose a billion one year and make $800 million the next it’s reasonable to say you don’t owe tax yet since you’re still down. Another major one has to do with stock options. If you want to get into that one I can but it’s complicated and part of it (like a lot of corporate tax deductions) is to avoid double taxation. Basically someone should pay tax on a stock option that goes way up in value- but should it be the company or the employee with the option?
2) the corporate tax rate is not 100% so presumably coporations could pay more tax (not just amazon). The fact that amazon is big doesn’t mean it should really pay a tax rate from small companies: the many owners of amazon are each as eager to keep their small piece as the typically fewer owners of smaller companies are to keep theirs.
- should the American tax system include greater income redistribution to the lower working poor? My personal view is yes- but higher corporate taxes are a bad solution. Amazon shares are owned by everyone from the richest (ex-) couple in the world to retired pensioners struggling to get by. Taxing amazon you really don’t know who’s paying indirectly. I’d rather see taxes based on income or land value where we better know who is paying.

[Pineapple_Boy]

^this 👏👏👏

[Sevenpointfive]

i don't think they deserve $3 billon, but you can't blame someone for a miscarriage unless they kick you in the stomach. i know that statement was a bit of a generalization, but you catch my drift.

there are women at the gym that are pregnant. if you cannot perform your duties anymore then you need to speak up. pregnancy is not a disability and you cannot be given special treatment for it. it is (most often) a choice to get pregnant and you should think of you and your babies future. you likely didn't get pregnant right when you got the job, so you know exactly what is required of you.

i just don't get the whole pregnancy issues. you either keep it or you don't.

[SpiderManFan2002]

But the women aren't in the gym for 10 hours, are they? They get a rest one point.

Pregnancy is a way of bringing new life into the world. By expecting women to stop getting pregnant you are stopping the progression of life.

It's indirectly telling the working classes that they can not have children.

[Sevenpointfive]

yes, in a way it is. and no, women aren't in the gym 10 hrs a day. but as an employer, why should i be paying you the same rate to do a job when you aren't doing the job anymore. people get fired for this and there aren't any exceptions. there are jobs that allow chairs to sit on, but you'll piss off the other employees. i just don't think having a baby is an excuse to drag ass. i've seen plenty of working women go almost full term at their job. so the real reason is, is that their job sucks in the first place.

[Pineapple_Boy]

The reason amazon pay so little federal tax is because of tax credits they accumulate. Remember amazon only recently started making a profit. For years they made no money. In the US and other countries there are tax credits for Research and Development (new technologies etc) which amazon invest in heavily. Also, they receive tax breaks for the wind and solar farms they build in the US, Sweden and Ireland. These are billion dollar investments which benefits the environment and these areas/cities. So to say amazon doesn't give back to society or invading taxes is completely wrong. They are actually following the law. Tax invasion would be hiding money offshore like a certain phone and coffee company.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Please, can you provide evidence supporting your claims?

[Pineapple_Boy]

Which claims specifically?

[SpiderManFan2002]

All of them.

[Pineapple_Boy]

amp.timeinc.net/.../amazon-federal-corporate-income-tax

[Pineapple_Boy]

cleantechnica.com/.../

[Pineapple_Boy]

www.google.com/.../2886639002

"CNN notes that the company has recently paid hundreds of millions of dollars in state taxes and more than a billion dollars in international taxes." ^^^

[SpiderManFan2002]

Just because Amazon not paying income tax isn't legal, that does not make it ethical.

Think about it closely for a second. I'm assuming you're not a multi-billionaire, and your income is very little compared to $11 billion, right?

If you avoided paying income tax, because you gave to charity and you felt by paying your tax money to a charity you were giving back to society and therefore you were not evading tax. The court wouldn't see that as a valid argument. You'd be taxed the money regardless and on top, you'd gain a criminal record for 'tax evasion'

But Amazon, a multi-billion dollar company, made over $11 billion this year, let's forget previous years and talk about this year. This year they made over $11 billion. Sure, they may have been contributing to other things such as research and development by investing in that industry, and building solar farms, that is their form of charity. But they should still pay income tax because they can afford it. If they pay a few million dollars in income tax, they will still be a multi-billion dollar company.

So why not pay it? It's only another way to give back to all those industries listed in the MyTake.

[Pineapple_Boy]

1) "If you avoided paying income tax, because you gave to charity and you felt by paying your tax money to a charity you were giving back to society and therefore you were not evading tax. The court wouldn't see that as a valid argument. You'd be taxed the money regardless and on top, you'd gain a criminal record for 'tax evasion' " ummm That is 100% INCORRECT. Anyone can get a tax credit or write off if they gave money to charity. So no I wouldn't get charge if I claim it in my annual taxes. Have you ever filled out a tax form? There is an area to claim tax credits. In some places you can get a tax break for being married.

2) Amazon does pay taxes. The USAToday report said that they paid billions in taxes internationally. So they are paying taxes and receiving tax breaks (THE TAX LAW) when they invest in Development and Research (which amazon does) .

FYI all companies do this. When Coca-Cola sponsors and event. They claim it as a tax credit which means they play less overall taxes.

[Pineapple_Boy]

Pay**

[SpiderManFan2002]

You can get a tax deduction, but you can't just say: "No, I am not going pay any income tax, because I give to charity" Sure, you may be able to get some money knocked off of your taxes but it is highly unlikely you can just pay $0 tax because you give to charity. If it was that way do you not think everybody would be doing that?

www.nerdwallet.com/.../

Amazon only pay corparate taxes, which by law they have to pay because they are a business.

Lawfully, they do not have to pay income tax, but that doesn't make it ethical.

If all companies do that, that doesn't make it any less unethical. If all companies decided to make to not give their pregnant workers maternity leave it may not be against the law but would it be ethical?

Oh wait, I already know a company doing that, they're called Amazon! :o

[Pineapple_Boy]

There are tax laws in every country/state that set rules and guidelines as pertaining to taxes. Amazon is following the laws set by the Government. It's not unethical. You keep saying that Amazon isn't paying taxes but that's wrong. They paid billions internationally and billions locally ( US 2.5B in the last 3 years or something like that ) Currently amazon has 1.4 billion dollars in tax credit which they can bring forward and claim in the future. So you are missing the point. Nothing they are doing is unlawful or unethical. They are following the laws of the land.

I don't think you understand how tax system works. The tax credit they receive, is the taxes they would normally pay , however it was invested elsewhere.

Also Planned Parenthood is being sued for ill treatment of pregnant employees. Most of the items we use, are made in sweatshops in China and other third world countries. So we are all unethical 😊

[SpiderManFan2002]

I know Amazon is paying corporate tax. If you read my replies properly, I am saying they are set to pay $0 income tax.

Following the laws of the land, do not make something ethical. Because there is a possibility the laws may be one-sided and only work for one particular group of people, therefore while it may be okay in the eyes of the law, it may not be ethical.

"The tax credit they receive is the taxes they would normally pay, however, that is invested elsewhere"

- So, if you received tax credit would you get away with paying $0 in taxes?

Yes, we are unethical. I learned as I grew older, but that does not justify Amazon doing the same. Amazon is an American company. America is a world leader. Companies in America are most likely to have an influence on companies across the world. So do you not think Amazon should lead by example, and treat their workers with a lot more respect? Wouldn't that be the human thing to do?

[Pineapple_Boy]

Do you know what tax credits and tax breaks are? Look it up and you'll understand why amazon didn't pay taxes ( In the US) in 2018. It's very simple.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Would you get away with pay $0 income tax, even if you had tax breaks?

[Stingray444]

Yea, that's really unmoral... Plus reading that they mistreat their employees as well sorta draws the line...
Sorry if I'm off subject, but I saw a news story the other day about an employee, and the women sent an "SOS" note on a package, but 'of course' the family called Amazon to 'verify' the note if it's legit (prob getting the employee more in trouble) ... And nobody knew what happened after that... Unfinished news story 😬 😮

[Britantic]

Pretty sure pregnant women shouldn't be doing manual labour and those jobs should freed up for those that are fit to do them.
"We are not robots. We are human beings." Didn't McDonald's employees say something similar demanding higher wages, then McDonald's brought in Automatic checkouts in every chain worldwide.
AOC cost the people she represented jobs.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Why does Amazon deserve $3 billion if they're set to pay $0 federal income tax and are treating their workers in such a way?

[Britantic]

It doesn't deserve it but naturally Amazon goes where it will get a better deal so now Amazon still pays no tax, there's more getting unemployment welfare, and there's less taxpayers adding to the tax base. So it's masscetuttes than wins.
But thousands in her district deserved jobs and they deserve an elected representative that represents their intrests don't you think.

[SpiderManFan2002]

So are you suggesting that Amazon should have just been given the $3 billion?

[Britantic]

Depends on how many they employ and how long they will stay. I mean masscetuttes was more than happy to have them. Must be a reason.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Massachusetts is happy to have them because they bring in a lot of profit.

Is the employment any good if the workers' lives are being made a misery?

[Britantic]

Employment is always better to poverty. She screwed over the people she was supposed to represent

[SpiderManFan2002]

But do you not think Amazon as an employer is creating poverty for their workers, to an extent?

[Britantic]

.. creating poverty by providing employment? That's a first

[SpiderManFan2002]

So, what do you call the treatment of those pregnant women? Are they not working in poverty to an extent?

A pregnant woman. Made to stand and work for ten hours without even a chair? And as a result of that she is becoming depressed. Miscarriages happening at work. Pregnant women claiming they are forced to stand for ten hours a day, pulling heavy carts, made to walk miles.

And what does the safety manager say to them: "it's not what you want, it's what we decide."

so their decisions are more important than the wellbeing of a human being? Their decisions are more important than an unborn baby?

This reminds me of when black women were enslaved, and despite being heavily pregnant, they were forced to work in the fields by their masters.

Amazon aren't employing.

They're contributing to modern day slavery.

[Britantic]

I'm sorry but we have rules at least in this country for that.
Also why are pregnant women working manual labour jobs? Why are they risking their health and their babies health? Why did they choose to get pregnant?

[SpiderManFan2002]

I know we have rules in the country regarding modern day slavery, but companies like Amazon seem to play by their own rules.

"Why are pregnant women working in manual labour jobs"
Perhaps they got the job before they were pregnant, but continue having to work during their pregnancy because the company values profit over pregnancy and therefore does not give them paid maternity leave. If they don't get paid, there may be a chance that they may not be able to pay their bills. Consequently, the baby could be born into another type of poverty.

"Why are they risking their health and their baby's health?"
Maybe it's not their choice. Do you have any idea how hard it is finding a job nowadays? Maybe, this is the first job they got in a long time and therefore snatched it with both hands, because it would be something to pay the bills.

And maybe they're working because they know they can't get another job, and Amazon is refusing to give them paid maternity leave.

"Why did they choose to get pregnant?"
Maybe because they want children? That should be a right to everyone, not just the rich.

And companies such as Amazon should do their best to support their working-class women during pregnancy.

[Britantic]

None of that is Amazon's fault. Getting pregnant is a personal choice.

[SpiderManFan2002]

So, according to you the women getting pregnant gives Amazon the right to treat them in such an inhumane way?

[Britantic]

You mean like every other employee?

[SpiderManFan2002]

So, Amazon are treating every employee in an inhumane way, therefore, do you believe it is justified?

[Britantic]

What's inhumane about expecting an employee to do the job they were employed to do?

[SpiderManFan2002]

Not giving the employee a right to a paid maternity leave.

[Britantic]

Choosing to have a child is your own responsibility not your employers.

[J3nny]

Fact check yourself. Amazon has payed over 4 billion in taxes over the last 3 years. They payed $412 million last year. Most your sources are biased. Also you shouldn't care. You don't live here. I'm sick of Europeans getting into US politics. They have unreliable sources. I live here. I know what the fuck is going on. And Amazon is a company. A competitive company. When you work at a company like that expect to work hard. AOC is an idiot. She deserves the hate she receives.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Show me your sources:
Here are mine: fortune.com/.../

And actually what happens in your country could affect me as a British citizen because of Brexit. So I have every right to be interested.

All that evidence of workers I have given you and the best you can do is: "AOC is an idiot. She deserves the hate she receives."

"When you work at a company like that expect to work hard."
There is working hard and then there is being ridiculous. Pregnant women are expected to stand for 10 hours and work? What kind of a joke is that?

[SpiderManFan2002]

More evidence on suggesting Amazon is going to pay $0 federal income taxes: itep.org/.../

[J3nny]

amp.france24.com/.../20190216-fact-check-does-amazon-pay-no-us-federal-income-tax

usa.inquirer.net/.../amp

www.nytimes.com/.../trump-amazon-taxes.html

www.nationalreview.com/.../

The only way my country affects yours is because we literally protect your ass. We're allies and your country knows without us you'd be fucked. You have no say. It's not like your opinion matters anyway. You can't do shit.

Huge companies like that don't need to care about pregnant women. Most the time they are fired and replaced. Then the lawsuits come in. Do you understand how business even works? You can't work ok. You're gone. You wanna stay? You work.

[J3nny]

They payed corporate taxes but not income tax. Wanna know why? Because they've lost money. So the libtards are using that against everything. Hence all the false articles and sources.

[J3nny]

Seriously. They pay taxes. Just not income taxes. They pay how much they have to. Notice in all your articles it says "income tax" not taxes as a whole. Cause they sure as hell pay taxes

[SpiderManFan2002]

I am aware they have paid corporate taxes but not income taxes. Losing money does not justify not paying their taxes. Did they go bankrupt? Evidently not as they have earned over $11 billion in profit!

Poor Amazon, a multi-billion dollar company, lost money but I don't see you sympathising with the pregnant woman had a miscarriage whilst working for Amazon, and she believes her miscarriage was partly because of the pressure to meet performance targets at Amazon.

If she felt that way, and Amazon really cared about how she felt as a worker at their company, wouldn't they have done something to assure it does not have to be that way?

But by these miscarriages happening, it suggests Amazon believe, performance targets are worth more than another life. Are they?

What is more important, new generations, babies being brought into the world, or how fast Amazon get their products delivered to customers?

[J3nny]

So saying they have paid no taxes is incorrect. 😂 The pay all the legal taxes they are required to. Don't you think they'd be in actual trouble if they werent?

I come from a business family. I know how business works. It's for the good of all the people. Not just one woman. A famous company like that doesn't have time to baby pregnant women. Go take a business class or work in a corporate industry before you start criticizing people. They can do as they please.

[J3nny]

She can always quit too. Don't wanna work? Don't expect to get payed or keep your job. When she started working there she probably knew what was gonna happen. Get a different job if you're gonna have kids

[J3nny]

Ever wander why there aren't many women CEOs? They think like you.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Did I say they pay no taxes at all? Nope. I said they're "Not giving a single penny back to the public" because what do income taxes pay? For investment in technology, and education and they provide goods and services for the people. So how are they giving a single penny of their profits back to the public?

Cooperate taxes benefit businesses, not the public. Therefore, they are only paying the tax benefitting them.

"A famous company like that doesn't have time to baby pregnant women" - So they make them work 10 hours, which could potentially lead to the loss of their baby as they are not getting the amount of rest they need, therefore it causes strain on the way the baby is developed?

A famous company can afford to lose some profit, for new life being brought into the world.

"Go take a business class" - Have done for the past two years. I've been studying business studies GCSE and have obtained a grade 9 (A++) in previous business studies exams. One of the topics we studied in that class was laws and ethics. Amazon does not seem to be following safety laws correctly, as they are putting their workers' health at risk. Nor are they ethical in my opinion.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Actually, my uncle's wife owns her own company in schooling stylist students. She treats her workers fairly because human rights' means more to her than an extra bit of profit.

A Life > Profit
Human Rights > Profit

[J3nny]

That's what AOC implied. Because the other taxes went to the things she listed. Again. She could quit if she was pregnant. Hell she should. So technically she's implying profit>a life

A company in schooling stylist students is nothing compared to billion dollar industries.

I've taken 2 business programs at 2 different colleges. Ethics are important but we have to remember this is an enormous business. She should know what to expect working there.

Being pregnant means not working. Not working = gets fired.

Being pregnant and working means you'd have to deal with the consequences of your own decisions. They should talk to the company about policies and such before having a child.

You have to be realistic and logical in dealing with this. Put all your emotions to the side.

[J3nny]

Do understand I'm just talking to you trying to see the other side.

[SpiderManFan2002]

But if the woman quits when she is pregnant then she cannot afford rent, which means she will end up homeless, hence women should have paid maternity leave because they when pregnant they need the rest.

Are you suggesting women should stop having children?

You come from a business family, I assume that means you are financially better off than most people.

Amazon would have still been a multi-billion dollar company had they given their workers maternity leave and do you know something else?

Having children is not only better for humanity but is also better for the economy because when the children grow up they will become workers.

[J3nny]

Yeah but working for that company she should know if she has payed leave or not. She can choose to not get pregnant if she's not financially stable.

Amazon can do as they please as a company. They don't have to provide anything unless they want to.

[SpiderManFan2002]

"Amazon can do as they please as a company. "

So are you suggesting because they are a multi-billion dollar company, ethics do not apply to them?

Is it the woman's fault for wanting the right to a child or Amazon's fault for being immoral?

[J3nny]

Lol no. I'm just saying they can choose if they wanna help out or not. It's a free country (for me at least) Capitalism exists.

She should just plan ahead better before taking on a job like that. Amazon doesn't have to do anything for them. Businesses are made for money.

[SpiderManFan2002]

What if it was the only job she could obtain in order to earn a living?

I'm not a rich girl. My parents don't have a business which they can just hand down to me. I've looked for work. Do you have any idea how hard it is to obtain a job nowadays?

So sometimes workers cannot 'choose' to work in a company as the majority of the time, it is the only work they have been offered in a long time. Therefore they grab that job with both hands as it is what will pay their bills.

And is it a free country? Maybe for the business but is it for the woman if she is being forced to work 10 hours standing whilst she is pregnant?

Could it be free for only businesses but the workers have to work to live, and therefore the businesses are acting as dictators towards them?

[J3nny]

If you're not financially stable enough don't have a kid. Simple. You know there's this thing called planning your future.

I've had a few jobs. I know what getting work is like. But then again we live in 2 different areas.

I've seen and heard about teens working at Amazon warehouses. It's not hard to get in. A lot more jobs have opened up over the past few years.

Believe it or not it is a free country. She's not a slave. She can leave.

You work under a boss. That boss is your leader. You do what they say. If you can't do it you'll be replaced. If you can do it then you'll do it.

She's not some saint. She chose to work anyway.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Another rich trying to tell poor people how to live their lives.

She can leave but if she leaves there it means she won't be able to pay her bills. If she cannot pay her bills she will end up homeless.

The boss was the worker at one point. Had the boss' mother been treated the way these women are being treated there is a chance the boss may not even be here to tell the workers what to do today.

You're right there is a thing called planning your future, but there's also a thing called costs increasing such as taxes, bills, and products people need to live. At the time she got pregnant things may have been different for her. Things which we don't account for, unexpected turns in life can change somebody's whole 'plan' within the blink of an eye.

You're she may be no saint, and Amazon aren't gods, therefore, they should not just 'do what they want' because behind that huge business are human beings.

[J3nny]

She chose her way of living. Not Amazon. You can't blame Amazon. And you can't personally attack me. In the end your opinions are still irrelevant. You can't vote and you have no say. Stay out of our politics ok? Most of us couldn't give a shit about yours.

[SpiderManFan2002]

*attacks me throughout this whole conversation*
Also you: "You can't attack me"

She did not choose the way she lives. Did you choose to be born into a rich family?

And why should I stay out of your politics when what goes on in your country could effect mine?

Amazon didn't choose her situation. But they could have chosen to help her situation.

[J3nny]

Oof you got me there.
She chose to work there. She chose to do whatever she did to get into that position of her life. So what? Now people aren't responsible for their choices and other people need to take care of them? What I'm saying is they don't have to. And that's understandable.

Stay out because you can't do anything

[SpiderManFan2002]

Look, not everybody's mummy and daddy can give them a business to work at.

Some people are born into unfortunate situations much like you were born into a privileged one.

Can you choose your where you're born? No.

You don't know that woman's backstory. Anything could have happened to her, for her to be in a situation as such.

They don't have to, because they're clearly not helping anybody. But what I'm saying is they should because it's the human thing to do.

Helping the pregnant women wouldn't have made them bankrupt, but it would've impacted all those women's lives greatly.

Because without the workers, what would Amazon be?

[rpgeek]

They get involved because they are stunned at how barbaric our system is and ignorant people like you make them hate us even more.

Amazon workers die in their distribution centers from being over worked.
www.chicagotribune.com/.../...-20190125-story.html

The top tax rate back in the 60s and 70s were near 90% that's what Amazon would of paid back then in income tax now they dont pay income tax at all when they take in billions in profit while they do pay a small amount of other taxes they dont at all pay what they should.

fortune.com/.../

Last thing of many to say about Amazon is they use to and somewhat still do live off corporate welfare. What that is is when they pay their employees so little that the employees have to live on food stamps, Medicaid, etc. They cost the tax payer money from paying employees so little. Also the other side of corporate welfare is when corporations like Amazon exist off of tax breaks and cuts like the one they would of been given in New York that would of cost the New York taxpayers 3 billion dollars.

www.wsj.com/.../amazon-new-york-and-the-end-of-corporate-welfare-11550519377

If you really are economically conservative you should hate Amazon because they cost the taxpayers money they increase the use of welfare and they limit competition with their monopolistic growth

[J3nny]

Oh shut up. I'm going to school to pursue an entirely different path.
Yeah I don't know her backstory. That's irrelevant. She wasn't forced into anything. She could always do something else.
Businesses aren't subject to morals they can do whatever the hell they please.
Honestly without workers Amazon might still be fine. They'll pay other companies to do stuff for them. I don't know I don't necessarily agree with anything again. I'm just explaining what it's like for big companies

[J3nny]

Oh trust me I hate Amazon. They're fucking annoying and greedy as shit. I'm just explaining another thought process on the pregnant thing.

[SpiderManFan2002]

@J3nny Did I say you weren't going to school? But the point is you sound as if always had a stable home. Mummy and daddy have always been there to bring you in money, so you've had no worries about losing your home or earning money for college or anything like that, by the sounds of things.

It's not irrelevant and yes to an extent to she is forced to work because the alternative for her is being homeless. I bet that worry has never once crossed your mind, has it?

"Without workers Amazon would be fine. They'll pay other companies to do stuff for them" - So you're telling me other companies are going to come to their warehouses and help sort out their stock for them, rather than growing their own company?

You're from a business family, aren't you? You've studied business, no? Companies see each other as competition. So why would they help each other, that could potentially decrease their market share?

[SpiderManFan2002]

@rpgeek Thank you and just know I don't hate on any of you.

While a lot of you are ignorant, I know a lot of you are not ignorant, like yourself. I don't hate on anybody, hate is poison.

Good on you for speaking up, you are a good representation of your people. :)

[J3nny]

No. Amazon can pay companies to do their bidding for them. As you said they aren't poor. They wouldn't be asking for charity. Please God stop bringing up my life into this.

I'm. just saying that don't have to do anything pertaining to moral standards. It's a company. A big company.

You were saying they were gonna hand shit down to me. Just because my parents worked hard doesn't mean I'm ignorant.

[J3nny]

Anyway have a nice day. I have a headache. Amazon is a shirty company I'll admit. But I don't understand your love for that bitch

[SpiderManFan2002]

You brought my life into it enough times, telling me to go study in a business class, telling me what I can and cannot have an opinion on.

And I'm saying they should pertain moral standards because of humanity. Even if they don't have to. They should have to, in order to protect the rights of workers.

I didn't say your parents were going to hand a company down to you. I was saying they could. If all else fails for you, you have that option most people do not.

Ignorance has nothing to do with whether one's parents have worked hard or not. It shows in what one says and their actions.

[kespethdude]

I woner what she thinks about Applebee's? Now THAT'S a corporation that treats its employees like shit and gives in to religious whackjobs. NOt saying Amazon oesn't do those things too, which it does, but IMHO Applebee's is far worse. Been boycotting the chain, and even discouraging my social groups from going there, since the legendary incident in 2013.

[Liam_Hayden]

And without Amazon there they are still paying $0 to NY. The only difference is the tens of thousands of good paying jobs lost that would have paid taxes, and the lost revenue for all of the incidental business activity that results from having 25,000 new employees in an area. Her district lost out big time because of her ignorance.

[bangyourhead]

Bahaha.. AOC is a dolt.

First of all. Tax incentives work like this... If I offer to give you $10 and you tell me "hey thanks but I only need $5"... you're still $5 ahead. If you tell me "fuckoff!" you end up with $0.

Secondly, guess who pays corporate taxes... Consumers. So you're winging about corporations not paying taxes and when they do, prices go up. Hurting the very poor people you claim to want to help

[John_Doesnt]

Amazon wanted to screw New York like the Olympics usually does to every city. AOC saw it coming, but her haters didn't understand.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Haters only see hate

[Kit_Kat88]

I love shopping on Amazon and I do agree that they should pay taxes because they’re a very large company with large profits too.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Many people shop on Amazon, because of customer convenience.

I agree with you on that too, and I believe they should treat their workers a whole lot better than they are now. It makes me sick to my stomach.

[Kit_Kat88]

People aren’t going to stop shopping on Amazon evenn if they’ll never pay their taxes and are unfair to their employees

[PrincessGrail]

That's terrible! I never knew any of that stuff.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Well, now you do. And I agree it sickens me to my stomach. What sickens me equally as much is people believing Amazon are completely justified in doing this.

[PrincessGrail]

I agree with you.

[up_64]

AOC is a mentally retarded child playing at being a politician

[SpiderManFan2002]

"AOC is a mentally retarded child playing at being a politician"
-Doesn't make a comment about the MyTake I have just written.
-Isn't disgusted at Amazon for the way they treat their workers
-Ignores how Amazon don't pay income tax back to society

But yeah, just attack the woman who is trying to point all of this out to people, with no credible evidence to back up your statement.

[up_64]

Yeah the woman who thinks the world will end in 12 years.

Who thinks tax breaks are money

[Pamina]

Yep, I agree. Well written!

[SpiderManFan2002]

Thank you :)

[ec12321]

There is an nbc video regarding what happens with their profits, its not that they dont pay it, but that they dont have to through tax write offs and other stuff

[ec12321]

https:// youtu. be/qNg55JDMDHM here is the video

[SpiderManFan2002]

@ec12321 Whether it's legal or not, I believe it is unethical that they are refusing to pay income tax which will help their customers. And if it isn't law for them to pay income tax, it should be.

Giving a percentage of their profit back to the public is not going to stop them from being a multi-billion dollar company is it?

In my eyes, they should stop being greedy.

[ec12321]

Jeff bezos wife just said she is going to donate half her $37bn enterprise to charity, and soon enough they won't get the tax write offs, and why do you uave a problem with them being a multi billion dollar company

[SpiderManFan2002]

I don't have a problem with them being a multi-billion dollar company.

I have a problem with their greed. I believe they should pay income tax. People who cannot afford income tax, are made to pay it. A multi-billion dollar company can surely afford to give some money back to the public and still be a multi-billion dollar company.

And she's his ex-wife.

[ec12321]

Amazon's low tax bill mainly stemmed from the Republican tax cuts of 2017, carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable, tax credits for massive investments in R&D and stock-based employee compensation. -CNBC
So the greed thing doesn't hold up, they literally do give back to the public, they will eventually become the largest employers in the country, something they are second in, they invest in medical, technological and other research that not just helps them but in the long run will help the country. And regardless of if she is his wife or ex wife, 18.5bn in proceeds of amazon will go to charity

[SpiderManFan2002]

The company made over $11 billion profit. Had they paid $1 million in income taxes, they would still have $11 billion profit.

To which charity? Benefiting who?

They may be the largest employers, but if they are treating their workers in such a way, is that really any good?

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take

[SpiderManFan2002]

Thank you :)