Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vermont, introduced a bill early this month that would tax companies with 500 or more employees an amount equal to federal benefits received by their low-wage workers. The bill is designed to discourage large companies from paying their workers so little that they end up relying on federal benefits, such as food stamps , to make ends meet.

Q: If passed, would the Sanders bill be good for taxpayers? (Yes or No)?

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: There seems to be an assumption that some companies choose to pay their employees a lot and some choose to pay them little. The real issue is high-paid employees have developed talents and skills that demand a higher wage, no matter where they work. Low-skilled workers are paid less for their services because of low productivity and the high supply of people with limited skills that they are competing with. Qualcomm needs highly skilled employees and has to pay a lot to attract and keep them. It’s not a choice of management to choose to pay little. The reverse is true at a Walmart. In Sanders’ example, a Qualcomm should get a refund for the benefits it pays its high-earning employees.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

Not participating this week.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: This bill will incentivize companies to avoid hiring workers they suspect qualify for federal assistance and to minimize financial penalties by outsourcing work to small contractors. Few companies will respond to the bill by increasing pay for all low-wage earners since it will be less expensive to pay the penalties for just the employees receiving federal assistance. If Congress wants to shift the expenses of federal assistance to large employers, more efficient approaches exist.

Gina Champion-Cain, American National Investments

NO: Only the convoluted nature of our governance could extend hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits to companies like Amazon while threatening a separate tax penalty for being a major employer. Sanders’ "Bezos" plan would subject employers to a tax directly tied to their ability to employ low-skill workers. Penalizing providers of work for the unskilled is a misguided notion sure to accelerate job loss and harm all taxpayers.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: By increasing taxes on companies that pay their employees low wages, the bill brings in additional tax revenue that can help offset the cost of federal programs that these employees are utilizing. Whether that is good for the economy is another question. It sets a high threshold (500+ employees) for the companies that would be affected, so not enough companies and employees are involved. Something like raising the minimum wage would be a better approach as more workers would be impacted.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: Whether an individual qualifies for benefits depends not just on the wage but also on how many hours the person works, working status of the spouse, and number of children. When the government makes it more costly to hire individuals with certain characteristics, companies will hire fewer of those people. If someone is not working, it costs the taxpayers even more in benefits and we lose the FICA contributions that their employers pay if they are working.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: I have no problem with the Senate putting pressure on companies to take better care of their employees. If the threat of a tax on them encourages better behavior, good. However, rather than a tax, wouldn’t it would be better if our legislators would get their heads out of the sand and work on universal health care and other life essential protections so that businesses would not have to bear the exclusive and excessive burden, and so that workers can flexibly work — and be protected — in a rapidly changing working environment?

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: Sanders makes the same mistakes as many politicians that presume a static world that does not react to new rules. Show me a rule like this imposed on a firm of 1,500 employees and I will show you some new alliance with three or more separate sub-500 worker companies. There are many examples of perverse economics where good intentions create negative impacts and do not solve the problem for which they were intended, i.e., rent controls.

Jamie Moraga, IntelliSolutions

NO: It’s counterproductive. We should focus on maintaining a strong economy, creating more jobs, getting more people employed, and supporting programs like the earned income tax credit. Levying more taxes on businesses could drive them overseas, accelerate their plans to shift to automation which reduces jobs, or lead them to avoid hiring employees that may trigger this tax. Those results wouldn’t be helpful to workers, taxpayers, or our economy.

Austin Neudecker, Rev

YES: Although I appreciate the intention (clearly it would save billions, but would we lower taxes?), the way it is worded has the potential for eliminating many ‘gig’ or part-time opportunities. For those affected, they would go from 'under-employed' to relying fully on our safety nets. I am confident there are better ways to increase wages and reduce the dependence on government support. I am a fan of a more severe change in this direction: Universal Basic Income.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: Any increase in costs to business gets passed on to consumers. This sounds like the typical Sanders wealth transfer attempt from wealthy and middle-class to the poor. His legislation would give employers a choice: Either pay better or pay the government back for what your workers receive in public assistance. At the end, everyone including the poor, will be paying more money for supplies and services. This legislation is bad for all taxpayers.

Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University

NO: If lower income workers are paid more, either other workers will be paid less over time or profits will be reduced. That would mean lower income or profits for taxes. The more likely outcome would be a decrease in the number of low-skill workers as firms seek to automate more of their operations. That could mean an even greater burden on taxpayers as the newly unemployed become more reliant on government assistance.

John Sarkisian, Motion Ventures

NO: Bernie Sanders’ bill, while I would hope is well intended on his part, is misguided at best. There is a minimum wage law in place at both national and state levels. If Senator Sanders believes people are not earning enough he should focus his efforts at again raising the minimum wage. Adding another tax based on employees’ personal circumstances and living decisions which may lead them to seek out additional government assistance looks like a bad idea.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: Taxpayers could benefit if taxes were lowered, but I doubt that will happen. Shifting the cost of programs to employers could help taxpayers by lowering the cost of government. But most will benefit more from this strong economy, with supply and demand driving competitive wages and benefits. And perhaps eliminating some of the costly regulations placed on employers could free up more resources for employees.

Have an idea for an EconoMeter question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com.

Follow me on Twitter: @PhillipMolnar