9 ms·
Like I said in the other thread, it's sad this is even legal. Here in Africa when Authorities allow obscenely rich people/companies to get away without paying
by grecy 9y ago
Like I said in the other thread, it's sad this is even legal.
Here in Africa when Authorities allow obscenely rich people/companies to get away without paying their legally-mandated share of taxes it's called "bribery".
Apparently in America it's just "business".
Citizens should be protesting in the streets about this. Their educated, healthcare and infrastructure sucks because of it.
- throwaway1254 9y agoAre you sure you know what you are talking about?
- grecy 9y agoThe average citizens of America have to foot the bill for everything funded by taxpayers, while the uber-rich (Amazon in this case) get special exemptions and don't have to pay for that stuff. As a result, things that are tax-payer funded in the USA are lacking compared to other OECD countries. It's madness that a multi-billion dollar company doesn't have to help pay for things they get direct benefit from, and frankly it is supposed to be illegal. I'm not allowed to not pay my taxes, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Amazon should be paying.
- ams6110 9y agoAll the Amazon employees pay taxes, as you note. Taxing Amazon itself on top of that just leaves it with less resources to pay employees. And why should a city reap an extra tax windfall when an Amazon decides to locate there? Amazon isn't really going to add much burden to city services.
- s73ver_ 9y agoSo it’s ok that Amazon just passes their tax burden onto their employees?
- jack6e 9y ago> I'm not allowed to not pay my taxes But you ARE allowed and entirely free to move to cities with lower tax rates, or states with no income tax at all, or any other location that provides you a better balance of income to tax costs. Amazon is an entity with the same rights to make decisions about re-locating to the locality with the most advantageous income/cost ratio.
- grecy 9y ago> But you ARE allowed and entirely free to move to cities with lower tax rates Absolutely. But I can't negotiate with those places to get a special tax rate just for me. There is no "Dan's tax rate" that is different from everyone elses. Oh, but if I just get rich enough.... they I won't have to pay taxes the same as the common-folk.
- maxxxxx 9y agoThat's what's bothering me too. Give the same conditions to all businesses not just a favored one.
- pzh 9y ago> But I can't negotiate with those places to get a special tax rate just for me. There is no "Dan's tax rate" that is different from everyone elses. That’s only because your tax contribution is very small and you don’t have leverage. If 60% of the residents of a city leave, you can bet the city will quickly lower or remove taxes to try to attract more people.
- jasode 9y ago>If 60% of the residents of a city leave, you can bet the city will quickly lower or remove taxes to try to attract more people. That's exactly right. E.g. Michigan has designated NEZ zones[1] offering tax breaks (e.g. sometimes half the tax rate) to attract potential homeowners to distressed neighborhoods like inner city Detroit. Sure, residents in another wealthy city (like Bloomfield Hills) in Michigan might complain they don't get the same tax subsidies as downtown Detroit but it still doesn't change the fact that governments will offer tax incentives for certain people (not just companies) to justify a desired economic outcome. Detroit has to make those tax concessions because residents are fleeing and the city suffers from a lower tax base. The more desirable cities like San Francisco don't have to make the same tax concessions. (I make no comment on whether NEZ actually works as intended or whether it is a net positive economically.) http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/06/22/detroit-tax-breaking-point/86268916/ http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/06/22/detroit-...
- lolsal 9y ago> It's madness that a multi-billion dollar company doesn't have to help pay for things they get direct benefit from, and frankly it is supposed to be illegal. Amazon will absolutely be helping pay for things that they get a benefit from. I think you're misunderstanding the exchange that is happening. To oversimplify, it's basically this: City: We'll give you tax breaks, decent infrastructure, low property prices and a good pool of local technical talent Amazon: We'll give you tech jobs, lots of tax revenue from the business, lots of tax revenue from our employees and raised property values. > I'm not allowed to not pay my taxes, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Amazon should be paying. Not paying your taxes and receiving tax breaks are completely different. Do you take deductions on your taxes? Even the standard deduction? Those are tax breaks.
- mbell 9y ago> The average citizens of America have to foot the bill for everything funded by taxpayers, while the uber-rich (Amazon in this case) get special exemptions and don't have to pay for that stuff. Not that there aren't issues with our tax system but this is completely inaccurate[1]. It can certainly be argued that the top end of earners should pay more, but they already do carry the overwhelming majority of the income tax burden. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- codingdave 9y agoI agree, but protesting in the streets is not the right response. If we do that, businesses can just smile at us as they go about their business anyway. A better answer is to get involved in public government - instead of protesting, the residents of those cities should be packing their city council meetings and planning meetings, making their voices heard directly with the people who are putting these packages together for Amazon.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoIt's not like those politicians are going to listen to the people in their city council meetings either. Local politicians careers are going to get made off of whether they get the deal not to count the money at stake. I've been slowly coming to the conclusion that all our methods of peaceful protest are basically no longer working, the people in power have effectively cut us off from influencing them without (1) a big chunk of money or (2) committing a crime (ie you must register protests in advance, you can't march anywhere unexpected, say, a politicians house, etc.)
- codingdave 9y agoMaybe it depends on your town. Last time I saw my council taking a step I didn't like, I started knocking on doors around town, letting everyone to know to come to the meeting. Hundreds of people showed up, and the council changed the plans to match the will of the people.
- grecy 9y agoIt seems to work pretty well in places like for example France. Have you seen what happens when a politician tries to take away a single sick day or reduce their already-world-leading maternity leave? .. millions march in the streets for days and you can bet your bottom dollar come election time the responsible politician is swiftly voted out. Those people care about what is happening in their country and how it impacts them. They know it's more important than football and cheap beer. Americans have forgotten how to participate in Democracy.
- 9y ago
- muninn_ 9y agoOne one hand I agree. On the other hand, how is a state like Indiana supposed to attract a company like Amazon?
- djrogers 9y agoThat’s a really simplistic and overly cynical view of what’s happening here. It’s also completely incorrect - bribes are paid to people, there are no mayors or city councils getting payoffs here... Imagine you run a city where you tax businesses 1% of foo. For every dollar of foo tax you collect form a business, you actually collect another $0.50 in related taxes from company employees - buying lunch, staying in your hotels, etc. Let’s call that your bar tax. A new company wants to move in that earns 3x as much foo as any other business in your town, but they are also looking at other towns that tax foo at 0.5% or even don’t tax foo at all. You can choose to tell them to go elsewhere, or you can give them an incentive - you’ll cut your foo tax to 0% for 10 years, knowing that you’ll be collecting more bar tax with the company there than you would with them not there. At this point the calculation is simple - will having New Company in your city cost you more than you’ll be getting in bar tax? And if so, might it still be worth it in the long run to take those losses for 10 years until the foo tax kicks back in? If not, don’t do it. The point is, this is not clear cut either way.
- uiti8484 9y agoYeah it really is simple: Richest man in the world Richest company in the world Plain history of boon doggles coming to town screwing locals All this does is continue to validate corporateocracy Fuck these clowns Where is everyone else’s handout? Here you go, Jeff, let’s boost YOUR wealth very plainly on the backs of others There’s some free market competition huh? Are you rich? You win tax breaks! Hey, why not give fat breaks to new players. Let them fill warehouses of crap to sell online. But no, kiss the rings It’s simple and obvious and this mystifying with prognostications you can’t possibly validate because you’re no visionary with the ability to see the future (and are plainly ignoring the past [sports stadiums, etc]) is nonsense
- Cthulhu_ 9y agoIt's a business getting a payoff - worse, it's getting government assistance and Amazon is getting unfair treatment (if they give Amazon a x% tax break, they should give that same tax break to all other businesses currently in that jurisdiction + anyone wanting to start a business there - else they're unfairly giving Amazon an advantage, which is bad for competition)
- Cuuugi 9y agoYou contradicted yourself there. It is legal, and therefore they are not getting out of their legal mandates. The American tax code is far from perfect, with the scales favoring whoever can afford the best tax attorney. With that said, i think you are grossly oversimplifying the issue. The corporate tax rates (before the recent reforms) were the highest in the developed world. Amazon has every right to negotiate where they move their offices.
- rayiner 9y agoFun fact: the U.S. spends more on education per student than any country but Switzerland, Norway, and Luxembourg. We probably don’t spend more on transit, because most cities here aren’t designed for it, but New York for example spends more per subway rider than London. We also spend more public dollars on healthcare per person than Canada, Sweden, France, etc. Our total government spending per person (excluding defense spending) is higher than Canada’s, despite the fact we provide less services. Additional facts: countries like Canada, France, Germany, etc., tax their corporations less than we do. Our taxes are a lot lower, but mainly because we have much lower taxes for the middle class.
- afjl 9y agoIs the education spending comparing the actual dollar amount or is it adjusted for PPP? Or is it by percent of federal/state/municipal spending?
- thesmallestcat 9y agoI get the sense that proportionally more US education spending is lost to graft than in those European countries (from the top down to teachers who come in and don't teach).
- gamblor956 9y agoAdditional facts: countries like Canada, France, Germany, etc., tax their corporations less than we do. Our taxes are a lot lower, but mainly because we have much lower taxes for the middle class. Blatantly false. Our statutory tax rate may have been one of the highest in the Western World, but the effective tax rates before the Trump tax plan were some of the lowest after deductions and credits are taken into account.