5 ms·

Amazon and other companies actively lobby to write tax laws the way they are. Amazon's voice, money, power far exceeds mine. It isn't a level playing field.

by skh 8y ago

Amazon and other companies actively lobby to write tax laws the way they are. Amazon's voice, money, power far exceeds mine. It isn't a level playing field. In addition to voting and contacting my representatives I comment on articles like this one. My actions aren't limited to just the two you mentioned. It bothers me how rigged the system is and I'm vocal about it. Regulatory capture is a nice phrase from economics. What we have in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is tax law capture.

diminoten 8y ago
Lobbying is not some magical salve you rub on every problem to make the laws say whatever you want. The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction. Firstly, prove Amazon, specifically, lobbied for the tax law they're benefiting from here. Let's start with that.
- skh 8y ago
  Lobbying is not some magical salve you rub on every problem to make the laws say whatever you want. Of course it's not magical. It's money. No magic needed. Amazon spent a lot of money and effort to lobby against allowing states to tax internet sales. Then when it got big enough it lobbied for them because at their scale it became a competitive advantage against small players to have everyone charge sales taxes on internet orders. Amazon lobbies for tax break where they build warehouses and other buildings. The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction. The reality is that I have very little power in comparison to Amazon. This is not disputable. I do have some power. Just nowhere near the amount of power that Amazon has. Firstly, prove Amazon, specifically, lobbied for the tax law they're benefiting from here. Let's start with that. I trust your Google skills. I trust your common sense too on this matter.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    My google skills turned up absolutely nothing, and my common sense tells me that you're incorrectly applying a "corporations is bad" heuristic. What'll be fun is trying to watch you prove Amazon lobbied for a law that's older than it is.
    - skh 8y ago
      I mentioned specific areas in which Amazon has lobbied for tax law changes. These specific areas are different than the area of the article in question but the comment that I responded to wasn't talking specifically about the taxes mentioned in the article. That person wrote: Don't hate the player, hate the game. If shit like this bothers you, write your local representatives and ask them to change it. Then you wrote in response to me: Lobbying is not some magical salve you rub on every problem to make the laws say whatever you want. The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction. Now you seem to want to talk specifically about the taxes mentioned in the article. I think you are not staying on topic. We were never talking about that specific tax law. My Google skills returned this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-is-wrong-amazon-lobbies-to-expand-internet-taxes https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-is-wrong-amazon-lob... In 2012, facing a slew of these court rulings, Amazon dropped its opposition to the federal "marketplace fairness" laws Walmart had long pushed. In fact, Amazon joined the lobbying coalition to pass such legislation, which would force all online retailers to collect sales tax on every sale and remit it to the state of the buyer. This is a huge compliance burden for smaller retailers but no big deal for Amazon. Also smaller retailers, with no network of warehouses, are not required under current law to collect sales taxes, and Amazon didn't like that. Pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, and bam—you impose a big burden on Amazon's smaller competitors.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        I want to talk about the article and I'm the one not staying on topic? Sorry, but you're just upset I made a good point (Amazon didn't lobby for this tax law), and are trying to deflect. Not going to work.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        skh 8y ago
        .... tax law they're benefiting from here. I did not read the "from here" part of the comment you originally wrote that I responded to. I thought you asked for examples of Amazon lobbying for tax law changes in general. My mistake. I did not claim that Amazon lobbied for the specific law mentioned in the article though. Indeed I can't because it hasn't. I did give examples of how Amazon has lobbied for other tax law changes. The comment I originally replied to was in regard to "the game". In this case the game being politics and lobbying. The things I wrote about Amazon doing remain true. The complaint isn't against Amazon though. It's rational for them to take advantage of the system in place. The overall point I've made and believe is that the system is not fair and that Amazon has outsized power in the U.S.
- kmkemp 8y ago
  Corporations write trade deals. Corporations literally write laws (by proxy) in many cases. Corporations control the media. Corporations pay trusted 3rd parties to promote whatever agenda helps their bottom line. Corporations aren't evil - they're just (by definition) self-interested entities who have decided that government has a high ROI. Those are all actually very inconvenient for me since power is a zero sum game and I'm on the other end of the equation.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    Corporations don't write trade deals, corporations don't write laws, and corporations don't control the media, unless your definition of corporations is "any group of people", in which case yes, groups of people do literally everything on this planet.
    - skh 8y ago
      I see you missed the by proxy part of the comment you responded to. A lot of the large estates in the South pre Civil War had owners who didn't beat their slaves. Those owners hired people to do it for them. So it would be incorrect to say that those owners beat their slaves. The above extreme example is merely to show that sometimes the responsible party is not solely those who do the actual deed. There are lots of examples of this concept in criminal law if you want learn more about idea. It's hard to claim corporations don't control the media when only a few media companies control a large majority of the media in the United States.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        That's like saying the quoted definition of a word or concept is being paid by corporations to "write" whatever the definition is being quoted in. Industry experts know more about the space that's getting regulated than the lawmakers, so the lawmakers ask for help. Saying "corporations write the law" (by proxy or otherwise) completely misrepresents how laws are actually written.
        8y ago
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  Lobbyists routinely write the actual laws themselves and then just hand them over to politicians to run.
fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
>Amazon's voice, money, power far exceeds mine. It isn't a level playing field. A great many people work at and invest in Amazon, why would it be more fair for your single voice to exceed the tens or hundreds of thousands on the other side?
- skh 8y ago
  Are you suggesting that those hundreds of thousands of shareholders all have a proportionate amount of input in determining how Amazon lobbies? I own stock in Amazon and have zero say in how it lobbies government or spends its money to influence the writing of laws. The legal person known as Amazon has far more say and sway in U.S. elections than I do. The legal person known as Amazon is controlled by a few people. Transitively speaking those few people by virtue of their control of Amazon have an outsized influence on American elections. Someday the U.S. will amend its Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and just let the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies elect the President. It'd be a lot more honest that way.
  - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
    If you dislike how Amazon does business why are you invested in them? That is one way to have a say, divest, forgo the profit and if possible make some noise on your way out. "I'll keep the profits but wag my finger at the behavior" isn't a reasonable stance to take in my opinion. As it is today you are directly funding the lobbying you claim to oppose.
    - skh 8y ago
      Oh, because I'm a hypocrite. But my hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether or not I'm right in saying that Amazon has an outsized influence on our elections. Fortunately the truth does not depend on whether or not I'm a hypocrite.
      - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
        If people really oppose these tax changes why do they keep voting in the people who voted for them in the first place? The fact is while people oppose them vocally they aren't willing to take any action to do so. People like you stay invested in Amazon while opposing it's business practices, that's just one example of many. Have a prime account, use AWS and so on and so on. You might have a hundred million on your side but the amount of effort they are willing to put forth is maybe a facebook post so nobody cares. It's not really a matter of outsized voices, it's just one voice isn't willing to do more than whisper.

by skh 8y ago

diminoten 8y ago

Lobbying is not some magical salve you rub on every problem to make the laws say whatever you want. The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction. Firstly, prove Amazon, specifically, lobbied for the tax law they're benefiting from here. Let's start with that.

skh 8y ago
Lobbying is not some magical salve you rub on every problem to make the laws say whatever you want. Of course it's not magical. It's money. No magic needed. Amazon spent a lot of money and effort to lobby against allowing states to tax internet sales. Then when it got big enough it lobbied for them because at their scale it became a competitive advantage against small players to have everyone charge sales taxes on internet orders. Amazon lobbies for tax break where they build warehouses and other buildings. The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction. The reality is that I have very little power in comparison to Amazon. This is not disputable. I do have some power. Just nowhere near the amount of power that Amazon has. Firstly, prove Amazon, specifically, lobbied for the tax law they're benefiting from here. Let's start with that. I trust your Google skills. I trust your common sense too on this matter.
- diminoten 8y ago
  My google skills turned up absolutely nothing, and my common sense tells me that you're incorrectly applying a "corporations is bad" heuristic. What'll be fun is trying to watch you prove Amazon lobbied for a law that's older than it is.
  - skh 8y ago
    I mentioned specific areas in which Amazon has lobbied for tax law changes. These specific areas are different than the area of the article in question but the comment that I responded to wasn't talking specifically about the taxes mentioned in the article. That person wrote: Don't hate the player, hate the game. If shit like this bothers you, write your local representatives and ask them to change it. Then you wrote in response to me: Lobbying is not some magical salve you rub on every problem to make the laws say whatever you want. The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction. Now you seem to want to talk specifically about the taxes mentioned in the article. I think you are not staying on topic. We were never talking about that specific tax law. My Google skills returned this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-is-wrong-amazon-lobbies-to-expand-internet-taxes https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-is-wrong-amazon-lob... In 2012, facing a slew of these court rulings, Amazon dropped its opposition to the federal "marketplace fairness" laws Walmart had long pushed. In fact, Amazon joined the lobbying coalition to pass such legislation, which would force all online retailers to collect sales tax on every sale and remit it to the state of the buyer. This is a huge compliance burden for smaller retailers but no big deal for Amazon. Also smaller retailers, with no network of warehouses, are not required under current law to collect sales taxes, and Amazon didn't like that. Pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, and bam—you impose a big burden on Amazon's smaller competitors.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      I want to talk about the article and I'm the one not staying on topic? Sorry, but you're just upset I made a good point (Amazon didn't lobby for this tax law), and are trying to deflect. Not going to work.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - skh 8y ago
        .... tax law they're benefiting from here. I did not read the "from here" part of the comment you originally wrote that I responded to. I thought you asked for examples of Amazon lobbying for tax law changes in general. My mistake. I did not claim that Amazon lobbied for the specific law mentioned in the article though. Indeed I can't because it hasn't. I did give examples of how Amazon has lobbied for other tax law changes. The comment I originally replied to was in regard to "the game". In this case the game being politics and lobbying. The things I wrote about Amazon doing remain true. The complaint isn't against Amazon though. It's rational for them to take advantage of the system in place. The overall point I've made and believe is that the system is not fair and that Amazon has outsized power in the U.S.
kmkemp 8y ago
Corporations write trade deals. Corporations literally write laws (by proxy) in many cases. Corporations control the media. Corporations pay trusted 3rd parties to promote whatever agenda helps their bottom line. Corporations aren't evil - they're just (by definition) self-interested entities who have decided that government has a high ROI. Those are all actually very inconvenient for me since power is a zero sum game and I'm on the other end of the equation.
- diminoten 8y ago
  Corporations don't write trade deals, corporations don't write laws, and corporations don't control the media, unless your definition of corporations is "any group of people", in which case yes, groups of people do literally everything on this planet.
  - skh 8y ago
    I see you missed the by proxy part of the comment you responded to. A lot of the large estates in the South pre Civil War had owners who didn't beat their slaves. Those owners hired people to do it for them. So it would be incorrect to say that those owners beat their slaves. The above extreme example is merely to show that sometimes the responsible party is not solely those who do the actual deed. There are lots of examples of this concept in criminal law if you want learn more about idea. It's hard to claim corporations don't control the media when only a few media companies control a large majority of the media in the United States.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      That's like saying the quoted definition of a word or concept is being paid by corporations to "write" whatever the definition is being quoted in. Industry experts know more about the space that's getting regulated than the lawmakers, so the lawmakers ask for help. Saying "corporations write the law" (by proxy or otherwise) completely misrepresents how laws are actually written.
      - 8y ago
mrguyorama 8y ago
Lobbyists routinely write the actual laws themselves and then just hand them over to politicians to run.

fuzz4lyfe 8y ago

>Amazon's voice, money, power far exceeds mine. It isn't a level playing field. A great many people work at and invest in Amazon, why would it be more fair for your single voice to exceed the tens or hundreds of thousands on the other side?

skh 8y ago
Are you suggesting that those hundreds of thousands of shareholders all have a proportionate amount of input in determining how Amazon lobbies? I own stock in Amazon and have zero say in how it lobbies government or spends its money to influence the writing of laws. The legal person known as Amazon has far more say and sway in U.S. elections than I do. The legal person known as Amazon is controlled by a few people. Transitively speaking those few people by virtue of their control of Amazon have an outsized influence on American elections. Someday the U.S. will amend its Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and just let the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies elect the President. It'd be a lot more honest that way.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
  If you dislike how Amazon does business why are you invested in them? That is one way to have a say, divest, forgo the profit and if possible make some noise on your way out. "I'll keep the profits but wag my finger at the behavior" isn't a reasonable stance to take in my opinion. As it is today you are directly funding the lobbying you claim to oppose.
  - skh 8y ago
    Oh, because I'm a hypocrite. But my hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether or not I'm right in saying that Amazon has an outsized influence on our elections. Fortunately the truth does not depend on whether or not I'm a hypocrite.
    - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
      If people really oppose these tax changes why do they keep voting in the people who voted for them in the first place? The fact is while people oppose them vocally they aren't willing to take any action to do so. People like you stay invested in Amazon while opposing it's business practices, that's just one example of many. Have a prime account, use AWS and so on and so on. You might have a hundred million on your side but the amount of effort they are willing to put forth is maybe a facebook post so nobody cares. It's not really a matter of outsized voices, it's just one voice isn't willing to do more than whisper.