Is this billboard claiming Elon Musk is defending billionaires authentic?
In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled
A photograph supposedly showing a help-wanted bulletin featuring a starting wage of $16.50 for a position at a Chick-fil-A restaurant was widely circulated on Facebook in August 2019: Facebook This single photograph of this lone sign led some viewers to believe that a starting wage of $16.50 was available at all Chick-fil-A locations. But that isn't the case.  For starters, the sign notes that this wage is "based on position and availability." In other words, this wage isn't available to all new hires. Furthermore, Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned, meaning wages vary depending on location. While some Chick-fil-A franchises may offer similar wages to those featured on this sign, the wage is not a company-wide policy.  This photograph was taken at a Chick-Fil-A in Pleasanton, California. In July 2019, this Chick-fil-A location posted a similar flyer to their Facebook page: This isn't the only Chick-fil-A restaurant that is offering close to $17 an hour. Another Chick-fil-A restaurant in Sacramento, California, raised its starting wage to $17 hour. raised its starting wage Eric Mason, owner of the Sacramento Chick-fil-A, told a television station in June 2019 that he was hoping to attract "hospitality professionals" with his new wage offer. television station According to a CBS News report: report The owner of a Chick-fil-A location in Sacramento, California, calls it a "living wage." In Eric Mason's view, that would be $17 or $18 an hour, which is what he vows he'll be paying his workers, starting Monday, June 4. The rate represents a sizable increase for employees now making $12 to $13 an hour. "As the owner, I'm looking at it big-picture and long-term," Mason told a local news station. "What that does for the business is provide consistency, someone that has relationships with our guests, and it's going to be building a long-term culture." While at least two Chick-fil-A restaurants are truly offering starting wages close to $17 an hour, this pay is not available at all Chick-fil-A locations. According to Payscale, a company that surveys employees and employers for information about wages, the average hourly rate for a Chick-fil-A employee is about $10 an hour.  Payscale A spokesperson for the company told us that because Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned, franchise owners set their own wages: Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned and operated, so wage decisions are made at the local level. With that said, Chick-fil-A strives to create a compelling employment value proposition including competitive wages, leadership development opportunities and scholarships. In fact, since 1973, Chick-fil-A has helped 53,000 Team Members attend college through a total investment of $75 million in scholarships. While the wage mentioned on the above-displayed sign does not apply to all Chick-fil-A locations or positions, the company truly does offer "scholarship opportunities." The company writes on its website: website We offer college scholarship opportunities and tuition discounts Chick-fil-A, Inc. recognizes and appreciates the tremendous talent and capabilities of Team Members working at their local Chick-fil-A restaurants. To help invest in their futures, Chick-fil-A restaurant Team Members can apply for college scholarships, as well as receive tuition discounts at dozens of universities across the U.S. Wang, Frances.  "Sacramento Chick-Fil-A Hiring 'Hospitality Professionals' for $17 an Hour."
  ABC 10.  26 March 2018. Gibson, Kate.  "Chick-fil-A Store Owner Raises Minimum Wage to $17 an Hour 'Living Wage.'"
  CBS News.  7 June 2019. Updated [18 September 2019]: Added statement from Chick-fil-A and information about the origins of the photograph. As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. Claim:  Photographs show female hunters posing with the bodies of giraffes they've killed. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] Facebook has recently been inundated with pictures of women hunters posed with dead giraffes. Are they fake or real?  Origins:  Earlier this year as we were trekking through Africa, we passed through Tanzania to investigate some animal-related legends and visit a place that has loomed large in our imaginations ever since we were children: the Serengeti. It was everything we imagined it to be, and more: endless herds of zebra and buffalo stretching across the plains  as far as the eye could see, prides of lions snoozing under trees, elephants with their calves parading across our path, rhinoceros slowly lumbering along the landscape, huge pools in which hundreds of hippos lazed to escape the midday sun, as well aswarthogs, mongooses, hyenas, impala, gazelles, dik-diks, hyrax, and baboons. Tour operators in that part of the world typically tout that their clients will have an opportunity to view the "Big Five" of African wildlife: the African lion, the African elephant, the Cape buffalo, the African leopard, and the rhinoceros (black or white).  We were fortunate enough to see all of these creatures (and more), and to be able to shoot them from up close  with cameras only  includingthe one animal that's hardest to miss:  We were somewhat surprised to learn during our trip that the term "Big Five" derives not from the world of tourism (which has co-opted it), but from the world of big-game hunting: it is said to encompass the five African animals most difficult to hunt on foot.  We were more surprised to learn that, despite widespread public perception that the "Big Five" (and most other large African wildlife) are all endangered and/or protected by law, there are very few African animals that cannot be legally hunted somewhere on that continent. We were reminded of our experience in April 2015, when comedian Ricky Gervais posted to his Facebook page a photograph purportedly showing a female hunter posing in recline alongside the carcass of a giraffe she had just killed, along with his rumination about why someone would "want to kill a beautiful animal and then lie next to it smiling":  The comedian didn't provide much background information in his Facebook post, which led many viewers to speculate about the authenticity of the photo. Was the scene staged with a giraffe that died from other causes?  Was the giraffe put down for humane reasons? Was the image Photoshopped?  The photograph that Gervais shared has originally appeared on the website RebeccaFrancis.com in August 2010. Although that site did not provide any specific information about that particular image, the site is full of pictures of animals killed in African big game hunts, including lions, zebras, and giraffes. Francis addressed the controversy of being a "big game hunter" in a blog entitled "The True Circle of Hunting": RebeccaFrancis.com pictures As a hunter, I am constantly under fire and constantly being labeled a "trophy hunter". What is a trophy hunter?  I have put a great deal of thought into the meaning of this.  In the dictionary the literal meaning is simply put: "Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game animals".  In that case, I AM A TROPHY HUNTER.   There is no question that I am extremely selective about the animals I hunt.   I feel it is absolutely necessary to hunt older and more mature animals.  In a lot of cases, that puts that animal past it's breeding prime and the animal can actually be kicked out of the herd and replaced with a younger, stronger male to introduce new genetics into the gene pool. Consequently, that animal can not only be bullied by the new male, but also be left all alone to suffer until its inevitable death. I have no desire to shoot an animal, just to shoot it.  I admire, respect, and love watching these beautiful creatures. Ricky Gervais subsequently posted a second photograph on his Facebook page of a female hunter posing with a dead giraffe :  While the specific origins of this photograph are unknown to us, the earliest incarnation we've found appears to have originated with the now-defunct Facebook page of one "Ivy Swanepol":  A similar photograph of a grinning woman posing astride a dead giraffe while holding a high-powered rifle in her hands generated online controversy in March 2014 when it was posted to the Facebook page of Koeshall's World Hunting Adventures taxidermy shop in Wisconsin along with a caption  "We took Shelley out this morning with the thoughts of maybe getting a giraffe. We found this big bull feeding in the trees, and Shelley put 2 good shots in him before he went down. Big mature bull. We have it all here, and we want to share it with YOU": posted  Regardless of who is pictured in these photographs, there is no good reason to believe that they are not genuine or do not represent what they appear to depict, as giraffes are indeed one of the trophy animals frequently targeted in African big game hunts. Big Game Hunting Adventures of South Africa, for instance, offers safaris on which hunters can bag (among other animals)baboons, hyenas, buffalo, elephants, giraffe, hippos, impala, leopards, lions, warthogs, wildebeest, and zebras.   safaris Although many animal lovers and wildlife protection groups may decry African big game hunts, they are perfectly legal in places such as South Africa.  Moreover, some conservationists have argued that this form of tourism actually helps their cause by providing much-needed revenue for the preservation of more endangered species in the region: South Africa has a tourism industry that permits people to hunt big game animals such as the elephant, rhinoceros and lion.  Many people object to this blood sport.  But some argue that hunting big game animals creates income needed to save the country's population of big animals. It is legal in some African countries to hunt big game.  The business brings in a lot of money.  A ten-day 'elephant package' could cost U.S. $36,000.  Hunting a rhinoceros can cost U.S. $100,000. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has strong words against what it calls the "needless killing of endangered species for trophies."  The organization says big game hunting is not sustainable, meaning it cannot be supported over a long period of time.  The group also says it provides only short-term economic gains, hurts the area's environmental balance and is morally wrong. But not all conservationists agree.  Some argue trophy hunting may be helping Africa's wildlife.  Professor John Hanks is the former head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa.  He says tourism and donations do not provide the billions of dollar needed. "I think trophy hunting in South Africa is really absolutely essential if we are going to look for long-term future for rhinos in the whole of Africa ... there's hardly a single country anywhere that can afford to run its national parks as they should be run ... Here we are in South Africa, one of the richest countries in the continent, Kruger Park has a million visitors a year and they still cannot afford to defend the rhinos." The hunting industry in South Africa brings in more than $744 million each year.  The industry employs about 70,000 people.  And about 9,000 trophy hunters travel to South Africa every year.  Ninety percent of them come from the United States.  In 2012, foreign hunters spent $115 million in South Africa.  Trophy hunting is the most profitable form of commercial land use in the country. Herman Meyeridricks is the president of the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa.  He argues that legal hunting is important to wildlife protection. "The only way there will be incentive for those landowners to protect and keep on investing in rhino is if they have an economic value. They can only have an economic value if there is an end-user that is willing to pay for that, and that is the trophy hunter." One can find plenty of photographs of male big game hunters posing with taken giraffes online, but those images apparently don't stir up as much widespread outrage as similar pictures showing female hunters. photographs Last updated:  14 April 2015    Parker, Gilliam.  "Trophy Hunting Is Big Business in South Africa."   VOA.  16 August 2014. The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law Aug. 16, 2022, by President Joe Biden, has many provisions aiming to lower drug costs, address the climate crisis, reduce the deficit, and ask large corporations to pay a greater share of taxes. But one aspect of the Democratic plan has sparked some of the biggest headlines: $80 billion over 10 years to beef up the Internal Revenue Service. Heres a sample of unfounded and debunked claims: A Delta Force seized a shipment of weapons headed to the IRS, a TikTok video claimed. PolitiFact National rated thisPants on Fire. The government is arming up the IRS because Joe Biden is raising taxes and disarming Americans, U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said. PolitiFact National rated thisFalse. Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you  with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy insisted. PolitiFact National rated thisMostly False. In Wisconsin, meanwhile, Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson weighed in Aug. 7, 2022, the day the Senate approved the measure, with anews releaseciting a litany of grievances with the IRS and this claim: Last year, the IRS audited Americans earning less than $25,000 a year at five times the rate of other groups. According to Democrats and the White House, the Inflation Reduction Act money for the IRS is meant to improve tax compliance enforcement of the wealthiest in the nation. So, Johnsons claim caught our attention. Is he right? Two sides point to the same study to make their points When asked for backup, Johnson spokesperson Alexa Henning pointed to an April 13, 2022, letter from U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and U.S. Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. The letter was sent to Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig. Theletter from two prominent Democrats, no less  accuses the IRS of targeting low-income Americans for tax audits. After noting the lawmakers are working to secure more money to expand audits, the letter says: The most vulnerable taxpayers should not shoulder the burden of insufficient IRS enforcement funding simply because they require fewer resources to audit. Keep those thoughts in mind as we move ahead. At the core of the letter  and therefore of Johnsons claim  is an analysis of tax data from the 2021 fiscal year by Syracuse Universitys Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center. Here is what the analysis found:  Whats behind this? The March 8, 2022,TRAC analysissays the IRS accomplished over 650 thousand audits last year by jacking up its already high reliance on correspondence audits  essentially a letter from the IRS asking for documentation on a specific line item on a return. All but 100,000 of the 659,000 audits were conducted with these letters through the mail. Indeed, in the 2021 fiscal year, that sort of audit accounted for 85% of all audits, up from about 80% in the previous two years. The analysis noted a similar phenomenon occurred more than 20 years ago, amid a cutback in IRS staff. In other words, with less staff, the most simple audits continue, while other more complex audits fall off. A limitation in the IRS ability to audit millionaires is the availability of IRS revenue agents, a particular class of investigators. Only this class of auditors, given sufficient training and experience, are qualified to examine complex tax returns  the types of returns typically filed by high-income individuals and large-scale businesses, the analysis states. When asked about Johnsons claim, IRS media relations chief Karen A. Connelly referred PolitiFact Wisconsin to the March 17, 2022,congressional testimonyfrom Rettig. In it, Rettig called the TRAC findings absolutely 100% false and said he was tired of having to deal with this issue. We audit high-income taxpayers more than any other category in the Internal Revenue Service, Rettig said. Taxpayers reflecting over $10 million of income are audited at a rate exceeding 7%. Taxpayers at the $25,000 level, which is primarily  the earned income taxpayer would be the only people we would look at, are audited at 1.1%. According to TRAC, Rettig was referring to numbers from 2016. They argue that makes their own numbers more up to date. But that misses an important point. The IRS does not have to initiate audits in the same year returns are filed. So, as years pass, and more audits are started, the picture changes. Under the IRSs definition of the audit rate, the 2016 figure was the most current complete data, said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Holtzblatt said audits of 2016 tax returns would have begun, at the earliest, in 2017. So at the time of the preparation of the 2020 Data Book, the audit data for 2016 returns were the most recent year outside the statute of limitations for audits. So, its the total number of audits possible for 2016 returns. Data for a later year would not be complete because the IRS could still be opening up audits for that year. That is, by the IRS definition, the 2019 audit rate would not reflect all the audits that would eventually be done on 2019 tax returns. So, all of that leaves us in an interesting spot. In arguing against a bill that provides more money to do more audits of high-income individuals, Johnson cites the same statistics as those calling for the increased spending. Fair enough. And those numbers do refer to last year. But, under the audit process, they are not complete. The numbers will only rise  and the proportions could change  as more audits are begun and completed. That means its not as simple as Johnson suggests. Johnson said last year, the IRS audited Americans earning less than $25,000 a year at five times the rate of other groups. That, well, tracks with the TRAC data  and lawmakers on the other side of the issue have cited the same information in making their case for the bill. But both sides are missing a key point: Audits are not all begun instantly, so at best the figures cited are preliminary ones. They will change, and the proportion may well shift, as time passes and more audits are started and completed. In other words, the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Thats our definition for Mostly True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In early March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak that would later grow into a pandemic, the massive retail and delivery company Amazon launched the Amazon Relief Fund, which among other things, offers grants to contract and seasonal workers so they can receive sick pay if they contract the coronavirus. The $25 million fund established by Amazon sparked an online backlash after a liberal newsletter pointed out that seasonal and contract workers would have to file an application to receive the funds, and that Amazon, a behemoth corporation whose founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world, solicited public donations for the program. Anger over the idea that a famously profitable corporation was soliciting donations from the public to fund sick leave for some of its workforce during a pandemic was initiated by reporting from Popular Information, described as a "newsletter about politics and power." The letter's founder, Judd Legum, posted this Twitter thread on March 24, 2020:We reached out to Amazon for comment and received the following statement: reporting Twitter thread  We are not and have not asked for donations and the Amazon Relief Fund has been funded by Amazon with an initial donation of $25 million. The structure to operate a fund like this, which hundreds of companies do through the same third-party, requires the program to be open to public contributions but we are not soliciting those contributions in any way. Amazon truly did launch a $25 million fund to provide sick leave for contract workers and seasonal employees through a grant program to which those workers must file applications before receiving benefits. Although the wording on the page has since been updated to indicate that donations are not expected, initially the language did indicate that Amazon was seeking  or at the very least suggesting  donations. An archived version of the page from March 19, 2020, included this statement (shown in the screen capture below): "The Fund relies primarily on individual donations from individuals and support from Amazon.com Services LLC to fund this program."The page has since been updated. The highlighted sentence above was removed and the page now explicitly states that donations from the public are not expected, as follows:We reached out to Legum, who told us via email that he believed Amazon changed the wording on the relief fund page "because the optics were clearly bad and the company is trying to cover up its actions." Legum added that in his view, "Amazon has ample resources to simply pay their contractors while they are out sick during this pandemic." updated archived version  updated  According to Amazon's announcement, the Amazon Relief Fund will provide their delivery partners and drivers "the ability to apply for grants approximately equal to up to two-weeks of pay if diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine by the government or Amazon." announcement Additionally, the statement reads, "this fund will support our employees and contractors around the world who face financial hardships from other qualifying events, such as a natural disaster, federally declared emergency, or unforeseen personal hardship. Applicants can apply and receive a personal grant from the fund ranging from $400 to $5,000 USD per person." The company also announced it is offering unlimited unpaid time off for hourly staff during the month of March. announced Whether or not Amazon actively solicited donations, the original wording on its Amazon Relief Fund page did call for individuals to donate to the fund. Even though the wording has been updated to state explicitly that no donations from the public are expected, a "Donate" button still exists on the page, which could be interpreted as an invitation to do so. We therefore rate this claim  Legum, Judd.  "Amazon Soliciting Public Donations to Pay Workers' Sick Leave."
  Popular Information.24 March 2020. Galetti, Beth.  "COVID-19 Update: More Ways Amazon Is Supporting Employees and Contractors."
  DayOne, the Amazon blog.11 March 2020. Palmer, Annie.  "Amazon Launches $25 Million Relief Fund for Delivery Drivers and Seasonal Employees Amid Coronavirus Outbreak."
  CNBC.  11 March 2020. Greene, Jaye.  "Amazon Workers Test Positive for Covid-19 at 10 U.S. Warehouses."
  Washington Post.25 March 2020. [CORRECTION 03/25/20]: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that Amazon was offering "unlimited paid time off" to hourly staff during the month of March; that has been corrected to "unlimited unpaid time off." In July 2019, Facebook users began seeing posts advertising an $80 coupon offer for the H-E-B supermarket chain:  These posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media. The fraudulent social media posts falsely proclaimed the distribution of H-E-B coupons was in honor of the store's 50th anniversary ("HEB is giving free $80 coupon per family to celebrate its 50th anniversary!"), although the chain was founded in 1905 (and thus is approaching its 114th anniversary). Those postings also linked to sites (such as www.heb.com-jul.com) not actually affiliated with the chain. These fake coupon offers are a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code: Instead, they are asked to fill out a survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users are also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook. If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau listed key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. H-E-B offers their genuine digital coupons to shoppers at https://www.heb.com/static-page/coupons. https://www.heb.com/static-page/coupons Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 Film actor John Travolta is not dead. Readers inquired about the actor's well-being in early January 2023 after a death hoax was shared online. We found no credible reporting that said anything of Travolta being in poor health, hospitalized, or anything of the sort. What we did locate, however, was evidence that there had been a number of past death hoaxes about the actor, including a brand new one created on Dec. 30, 2022. Some readers who looked for answers about Travolta's rumored death may have first noticed an article on mediamass.net. That article showed the headline, "'John Travolta dead 2023' : Actor killed by internet death hoax." One thing that some readers may have missed about mediamass.net was that its "About Us" page said it publishes satire. But that wasn't the only thing we noticed about this website. According to the top of the story on mediamass.net, it claimed to have been "last updated on Jan. 3, 2023." However, that was not when this article was published. Thanks to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, we know that this article was originally publishedall the way back in 2013. In other words, this was not the new death hoax that we were looking for. The headline and date in the article were changed to give the misleading appearance that the story was new. originally published The roots of the more recent death hoax appeared to stem from an article with the headline, "John Travolta Dead at 68." article This story was published on Dec. 30, 2022, onthe "prank" website channel46news.com. The address "channel46news.com" might sound like a local news website, but it's not.The website allows anyone to create a "prank" news article, which can then be shared with friends. The "prank" story read as follows: John Travolta Dead at 68. The famous actor was found unconscious in his home when a family member found him, the family member called 911 and ambulances arrived rushing him to the hospital and for about 2 hours the actor was still unconscious, until 11:43am, He had stopped breathing and from then on had passed away. No further details has been provided has doctors are still trying to find the cause for his death. Our deepest condolences go out to his family and friends who had lost. Some fans have posted on Twitter saying "Rest in peace John Travolta, Heaven has gained another angel and you are with Olivia in heaven". We send our love for family, friends and fans. The death hoax was shared right around the anniversary of the death of Travolta's son, Jett, who died on Jan. 2, 2009. According to CBS News, he died at the age of 16 "after having a seizure and hitting his head in a bathtub." Travolta's wife, actor Kelly Preston, also died in 2020 of breast cancer. CBS News died We found several Facebook posts where users appeared to believe the recent "prank" death hoax or another one about Travolta supposedly passing away. several Facebook posts appeared believe Some of the commenters under these posts pointed to the story from mediamass.net as proof that Travolta was not dead. Again, while it was true that Travolta was alive, the mediamass.net article was nearly a decade old by that point, and had nothing to do with the newer death hoax. Some users also appeared to have seen prior death hoaxes about Travolta, such as YouTube videos with titles like, "30 minutes ago/ RIP John Travolta/ Goodbye John Travolta," "John Travolta has just passed away at his home, He will be buried next to his friend Newton-John," and "10 Minutes Ago / Sad News John Travolta Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye." YouTube videos  All of these videos were misleading and false. For further reading, in the final months of 2022, we covered online death hoaxes for other celebrities including Bruce Willis, Simon Cowell, Dick Van Dyke, Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, Julia Roberts, Alan Jackson, Amy Roloff, andJim Carrey, as well asformer U.S. President Donald Trump. death hoaxes Bruce Willis Simon Cowell Dick Van Dyke Clint Eastwood Sylvester Stallone Julia Roberts Alan Jackson Amy Roloff Jim Carrey former U.S. President Donald Trump "John Travolta Dead 2023: Actor Killed by Celebrity Death Hoax." Mediamass.net. O'Kane, Caitlin. "John Travolta Pays Tribute to Late Son Jett on What Would Have Been His 30th Birthday." CBS News, 15 Apr. 2022, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-travolta-son-jett-travolta-birthday/. Ramzy, Austin. "Kelly Preston, 'Jerry Maguire' Star, Dies at 57." The New York Times, 13 July 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/movies/kelly-preston-dead.html. "Wayback Machine." Internet Archive, https://web.archive.org/. In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down. voted A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line." tweet The screenshot also indicates that Simpson tweeted from his official Twitter account, adding the words, "Union strong. #SAGStrike." Oh no. pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5 pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5  Keaton Patti (@KeatonPatti) July 13, 2023 July 13, 2023  However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have. replies We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, with the same shirt on, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses. Twitter account July 11, 2023, (Screenshot via Twitter/TheRealOJ32)  Sports should be equal and fair. pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k  O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 11, 2023 July 11, 2023  Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years. acquitted 2008 Simpson also produced andactedprofessionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman, after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997. acted USA Today Hollywood Reporter won Simpson's acting and producing credits entitled him to SAG membership and he appears to have a SAG pension as well, but the extent of his active participation in union activities and current status is unknown. Regardless, the above screenshot clearly does not show Simpson supporting the actor's strike, rather it was manufactured by altering a separate video and adding a fictional caption. As such, we rate this claim as False. Barco, Mandalit del. "Hollywood Actors Go on Strike, Say It's Time for Studio Execs to 'Wake Up.'" NPR, 13 July 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187310535/hollywood-actors-strike-sag-aftra.Accessed 14 July 2023. Gardner, Eriq. "O.J. Simpson's Former Attorney F. Lee Bailey Gets Bad News About His SAG-AFTRA Pensions." The Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/oj-simpsons-attorney-f-lee-bailey-gets-bad-news-his-sag-aftra-pensions-1045756/.Accessed 14 July 2023. News, A. B. C. "26 Years Ago, OJ Simpson Was Acquitted: Timeline of His Life and the Sensational Trial." ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/key-moments-oj-simpsons-life/story?id=48724637. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson | Actor, Producer." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001740/. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson Acquitted." HISTORY, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted. Accessed 14 July 2023. Peter, Josh. "O.J. Simpson's Finances Will Be Closely Watched If Paroled." USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/07/19/o-j-simpsons-finances-closely-watched-if-paroled/493639001/. Accessed 14 July 2023. Vercammen, Paul. "O.J. Simpson to Focus on 'friends, Family and Golf,' Live in Gated Community after Release." CNN, 29 Sept. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/us/o-j-simpson-parole-release-road-to-freedom/index.html.Accessed 14 July 2023. During a July 6, 2011, question-and-answer session on Twitter, President Barack Obama was asked -- in a tweet by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio -- After embarking on a record spending binge that left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?Part of Obamas answer is that his administration has worked to aid small businesses in job creation.We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses who have needed a lot of help and have been struggling -- including, for example, saying zero capital gains taxes on startups -- because our attitude is we want to encourage new companies, young entrepreneurs, to get out there, start their business, without feeling like if theyre successful in the first couple of years that somehow they have to pay taxes, as opposed to putting that money back into their business.This response echoed acomment we checkeda few weeks earlier. In a face-off between the heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on NBC'sMeet the Presson June 11, 2011, the discussion turned to what the government should be doing to accelerate job creation.I think we need to cut taxes on small businesses, said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.Well, that's good, retorted DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., because we've done that, 17 times.Heres what we found when we looked at the question of small business tax cuts.When asked for supporting documents, the DNC press office pointed us to a Feb. 25, 2011, posting on the official White House blog titledSeventeen Small Business Tax Cuts and Counting.The post enumerated 17 small business tax cuts and credits created or extended through legislation signed by Obama.Eight of them were included in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (more commonly known as the economic stimulus bill), the Affordable Care Act (also known as the health care law), and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (aka the HIRE Act). Among the cuts were the exclusion of up to 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments; a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees and new tax credits for hiring Americans out of work for at least two months.Another eight cuts came via the Small Business Jobs Act, signed by Obama in September of 2010. These included: adding deductions for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for business start-up expenses; eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments, and raising the small business expense limit to $500,000.Three months later, the president signed a tax bill that raised the expense limit to 100 percent of small business new investments until the end of 2011. It also extended the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments through the end of 2012.Here's the full list:From the Recovery Act, HIRE Acts, and Affordable Care Act:1. A new small business health care tax credit2. A new tax credit for hiring unemployed workers3. Bonus depreciation tax incentives to support new investment4. 75 percent exclusion of small business capital gains5. Expansion of limits on small business expensing6. Five-year carryback of net operating losses7. Reduction of the built-in gains holding period for small businesses from 10 to 7 years to allow small business greater flexibility in their investments8. Temporary small business estimated tax payment relief to allow small businesses to keep needed cash on handFrom the Small Business Jobs Act:9. Zero capital gains taxes on key investments in small businesses10. Raising the small business expensing to $500,00011. An extension of 50 percent bonus depreciation12. A new deduction for health care expenses for the self-employed13. Tax relief and simplification for cell phone deductions14. An increase in the deduction for entrepreneurs start-up expenses15. A five-year carryback of general business credits16. Limitations on penalties for errors in tax reporting that disproportionately affect small businessFrom the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act:17. 100 percent expensingConservative tax specialists don't quibble much with the list, but they did take issue with the context earlier this year when we asked them about the same claim by Wasserman Schultz. I can't argue with any of these, but it ignores all the proposed and enacted tax hikes on small businesses, said Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy at Americans For Tax Reform, an anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist.For example, Ellis said, it ignores President Obama's proposal to allow Bush-era individual income tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000. A clear majority of small business profits are earned in households making at least $250,000 per year. Ellis said. ...That's a tax hike on the small business sector. (PolitiFact Virginia addressed a similar claim inthis fact-check. )There are also a number of tax increases included in the health care law, Ellis said, some of which apply directly to small businesses. For one, he said, businesses with more than 50 employees could face a tax penalty if they don't provide enough health insurance to their employees. Another example, the 10 percent tanning tax, which he said is nearly exclusively applied to small businesses.So the overall story is much more of a problem for small firms than the Obama administration would suggest, Ellis said.Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, allowed that there have been targeted tax cuts for small businesses. But, he said, it's an error to just point to the number of tax cuts. You have to look at the overall impact and that certainly has been steep tax hikes.Dubay also noted that six of the 17 cuts were not just for small businesses but were made widely available to all businesses.Richard Morrison at the Tax Foundation, a pro-business group, said that nothing on (the White House list) stands out as egregiously unjustified from a fact-checking perspective. Some of them are temporary, and some arent targeted exclusively at small businesses, but that doesnt necessarily mean they shouldnt 'count' as far as the claim is concerned.We think there's room for critics to note that in addition to the 17 tax cuts enumerated by the White House, there are there are also some tax increases in the health care law that will fall on some of the same small business owners that got tax cuts. Some health care law tax increases won't go into effect for a couple years. And with some, like the excise taxes on tanning beds, one could argue it is a tax on the customer, not the small business.As for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, that's still just an Obama proposal; it hasn't happened. The only policy actually signed by the president so far was a compromise agreement that extended the tax cuts. On balance, we rated Wasserman Schultz's comment Mostly True. Because Obamas comment is substantially similar, we also rate his comment Mostly True.