4 ms·

Yes, but they fought the headcount tax in Seattle, and they're actively seeking a low-tax jurisdiction for HQ2.

flyinglizard 8y ago
Shouldn’t Amazon shareholders expect the company to look for low tax jurisdictions to operate from? Is there a morality issue that I’m not seeing?
- ben_w 8y ago
  Yes, there is. Societies — as we know how to make them — break down if everyone figures out how to avoid paying their way. If a hacker gets root, they’re just using the rules of the system, finding a loophole they can exploit… taxes and laws are systems that can be exploited, but even in the cases where I find them bad (and I have plenty of broad examples of things I don’t like), I think it’s worse to let people get away with exploiting weaknesses in the system.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    Deciding it’s best to operate in a low tax jurisdiction is not “exploiting a weakness in the system”. It’s simply acting rationally in an environment when you have multiple options for where you operate.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      It’s the prisoners dilemma, except Amazon etc. are acting as the interrogator. Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them.
      - yazaddaruvala 8y ago
        I'm not participating in the conversation around the moral imperatives for corporations. I am curious about your statement: > Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them. I would like to hope by definition a democratic government is one where the tax base can manipulate the government. Going against that seems like suggesting we move to a model of "Taxation without representation". I'm bringing it up because I'm sure you didn't intend your statement in this way. It might be worth it to re-think/phrase it.
        ben_w 8y ago
        > I would like to hope by definition a democratic government is one where the tax base can manipulate the government. Going against that seems like suggesting we move to a model of "Taxation without representation". The tax base and the voters are not the same thing. Unemployed have a vote, corporations do not. Additionally, in the case of tax system manipulation, it is the richest who wield the greatest power. As a relatively boring private individual, no action I personally take to move my income to regions of low tax has any noticeable impact on a government — 100% of my tax is still less than most rounding errors. Large multinationals, on the other hand… Apple International is tax resident in the Republic of Ireland, and Apple (parent company not International) has an annual revenue of 70% of Ireland’s GDP. I can see how my language choice led to your comment. I’m worried this is one dollar one vote, not one person one vote.
  - flyinglizard 8y ago
    It's not weakness, it's a commercial decision, both for Amazon AND for the jurisdiction. It's another tool the governing body has for drawing (or repelling) businesses. There isn't a moral rate of taxation anymore than there is an absolute moral price to pay for a night at a hotel.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      I’m not arguing about the absolute rate of taxation, I’m arguing about the ability to exploit different rates. Arbitrage of rules, I guess you might call it, in an environment where those setting the rules can be pressured into what would otherwise be suboptimal decisions.
artursapek 8y ago
Of course they did, why wouldn't they? You don't expect them to willingly pay more tax than necessary. They're a business and their job is to make money.
zjaffee 8y ago
As they were almost certainly legally obligated too, the problem is individuals still vote in officials who bend to the whim of businesses instead of individuals.
ingsoc79 8y ago
The head tax was a poorly thought out law that would have inflicted a lot of collateral damage on Seattle-based businesses without trillion dollar market caps. It was broadly unpopular here for that and a number of reasons, in spite of widespread controversy about Amazon's effect on Seattle.

Shouldn’t Amazon shareholders expect the company to look for low tax jurisdictions to operate from? Is there a morality issue that I’m not seeing?

ben_w 8y ago
Yes, there is. Societies — as we know how to make them — break down if everyone figures out how to avoid paying their way. If a hacker gets root, they’re just using the rules of the system, finding a loophole they can exploit… taxes and laws are systems that can be exploited, but even in the cases where I find them bad (and I have plenty of broad examples of things I don’t like), I think it’s worse to let people get away with exploiting weaknesses in the system.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  Deciding it’s best to operate in a low tax jurisdiction is not “exploiting a weakness in the system”. It’s simply acting rationally in an environment when you have multiple options for where you operate.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    It’s the prisoners dilemma, except Amazon etc. are acting as the interrogator. Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them.
    - yazaddaruvala 8y ago
      I'm not participating in the conversation around the moral imperatives for corporations. I am curious about your statement: > Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them. I would like to hope by definition a democratic government is one where the tax base can manipulate the government. Going against that seems like suggesting we move to a model of "Taxation without representation". I'm bringing it up because I'm sure you didn't intend your statement in this way. It might be worth it to re-think/phrase it.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        > I would like to hope by definition a democratic government is one where the tax base can manipulate the government. Going against that seems like suggesting we move to a model of "Taxation without representation". The tax base and the voters are not the same thing. Unemployed have a vote, corporations do not. Additionally, in the case of tax system manipulation, it is the richest who wield the greatest power. As a relatively boring private individual, no action I personally take to move my income to regions of low tax has any noticeable impact on a government — 100% of my tax is still less than most rounding errors. Large multinationals, on the other hand… Apple International is tax resident in the Republic of Ireland, and Apple (parent company not International) has an annual revenue of 70% of Ireland’s GDP. I can see how my language choice led to your comment. I’m worried this is one dollar one vote, not one person one vote.
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  It's not weakness, it's a commercial decision, both for Amazon AND for the jurisdiction. It's another tool the governing body has for drawing (or repelling) businesses. There isn't a moral rate of taxation anymore than there is an absolute moral price to pay for a night at a hotel.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    I’m not arguing about the absolute rate of taxation, I’m arguing about the ability to exploit different rates. Arbitrage of rules, I guess you might call it, in an environment where those setting the rules can be pressured into what would otherwise be suboptimal decisions.

artursapek 8y ago

Of course they did, why wouldn't they? You don't expect them to willingly pay more tax than necessary. They're a business and their job is to make money.

zjaffee 8y ago

As they were almost certainly legally obligated too, the problem is individuals still vote in officials who bend to the whim of businesses instead of individuals.

ingsoc79 8y ago

The head tax was a poorly thought out law that would have inflicted a lot of collateral damage on Seattle-based businesses without trillion dollar market caps. It was broadly unpopular here for that and a number of reasons, in spite of widespread controversy about Amazon's effect on Seattle.