5 ms·

Poor, Poor Amazon. Amazon is run by the richest person in the entire world who will come to the oligarch's aid? Amazon paid NO income taxes last year. I am aga

Poor, Poor Amazon. Amazon is run by the richest person in the entire world who will come to the oligarch's aid? Amazon paid NO income taxes last year. I am against Amazon for that reason alone.

1ris 7y ago
I don't think your comment is related to this article.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tracer4201 7y ago
I disagree. Amazon didn’t break any laws when they paid whatever amount they did or didn’t pay. Also I’m not sure which oligarch you’re talking about. And they’re not the only ones who did this. It’s just convenient to flash Amazons name next to this headline since there are enough companies out there who refuse to compete or do anything innovative but want you to blindly give them your money.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cameronbrown 7y ago
Don't be angry at Amazon (and the others) - campaign to change the law. Fixating on massive corporations not paying tax is actually making the problem worse, because it takes attention away from the only thing that can fix the problem which is changing the law. Anything less is just asking companies to hurt themselves for no reason. Just like how most people would pay lower taxes if it was legal, the same goes for companies. That's not saying I don't completely agree they need to pay their fair share - I do!
- evan_ 7y ago
  > Don't be angry at Amazon (and the others) - campaign to change the law. You can do both. In many if not all cases the tax loopholes are a result of an amazon-like company lobbying politicians, they’re not innocently taking advantage of a neutral situation.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Doing both is a waste of time and mental energy, neither of which are infinite. Amazon will not change if the law doesn't. Pick your battles.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Boycotts, strikes, and pressure campaigns against companies have a long track record of working. It's hardly wasted effort.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Brand protection is important for a customer facing company. The right campaign will enact change quicker.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        It’s not as important as people think. Most people know that Facebook is a privacy invasive train wreck but people use it anyway.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Absolutely the campaign should be to change the law, but if you're looking to also assign blame, massive corporations had a hand in writing the tax code.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    Those poor politicians, we can't expect them to read laws before voting on them. They must of gotten confused because they have so many checks to cash and speaking gigs to preform.
    - organsnyder 7y ago
      The way the system is set up, most politicians don't think they have an alternative. Unless you're a standout star in a high-profile race, your election prospects are inexorably linked with your ability to fundraise (as well as your party affiliation, if you survive the primary). If you're not cashing checks, your opponents will. It's the same argument you hear from businesses and affluent individuals: "If I don't [pay my employees as little as possible | take advantage of every tax loophole I can find | spend thousands of dollars lobbying congress | pollute the environment], my competitors will." Of course, those excuses ring hollow when those same individuals aren't in favor of changing a broken system. Any politician that complains about fundraising but is not in favor of campaign finance reform is a hypocrite, IMHO.
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        >The way the system is set up, most politicians don't think they have an alternative Who's in charge of setting up the system again?
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      You're being sarcastic, but most laws are massive and legislators don't read them before voting on them. They depend on aides and lobbyists to figure out what bills mean.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  Being angry with those who exploit weak law is part of the process of campaigning to change the law.
- orhmeh09 7y ago
  We have tried to do this and we nearly succeeded in Seattle before the mayor antidemocratically shut it down. When you’re up against so much money and power , you’re up against the people who write the laws too.
- vkou 7y ago
  You can't change the law unless you convince other people that there's a problem, and you won't convince people that there's tax loopholes, without demonizing the organizations that exploit them. Telling people to stop complaining about abuse of the law is one of the best ways of preventing the law from ever being fixed.
papreclip 7y ago
If you're not getting paid for this comment, you could be.
_edo 7y ago
> Amazon paid NO income taxes last year. This is not true. They paid no federal income tax which is not the same as no income tax. In 2018 they paid $1.2 billion globally[0] and I don't understand how much they paid domestically because deferred income tax is confusing to me.[1] Taxes are extremely complicated and a lot of people (politicians especially) will pick one or two numbers that support their narrative. They know most people won't spend the time researching the context surrounding their "statistics" and they also bank on how people will misunderstand what they're reporting. You just said "NO income taxes last year." The people popularizing the "no federal income taxes" meme know a lot of people will think it means "no income taxes." [0] - https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amzn/financials https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amzn/financials [1] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deferredincometax.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deferredincometax.asp

Poor, Poor Amazon. Amazon is run by the richest person in the entire world who will come to the oligarch's aid? Amazon paid NO income taxes last year. I am against Amazon for that reason alone.

1ris 7y ago

I don't think your comment is related to this article.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tracer4201 7y ago

I disagree. Amazon didn’t break any laws when they paid whatever amount they did or didn’t pay. Also I’m not sure which oligarch you’re talking about. And they’re not the only ones who did this. It’s just convenient to flash Amazons name next to this headline since there are enough companies out there who refuse to compete or do anything innovative but want you to blindly give them your money.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cameronbrown 7y ago

Don't be angry at Amazon (and the others) - campaign to change the law. Fixating on massive corporations not paying tax is actually making the problem worse, because it takes attention away from the only thing that can fix the problem which is changing the law. Anything less is just asking companies to hurt themselves for no reason. Just like how most people would pay lower taxes if it was legal, the same goes for companies. That's not saying I don't completely agree they need to pay their fair share - I do!

evan_ 7y ago
> Don't be angry at Amazon (and the others) - campaign to change the law. You can do both. In many if not all cases the tax loopholes are a result of an amazon-like company lobbying politicians, they’re not innocently taking advantage of a neutral situation.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Doing both is a waste of time and mental energy, neither of which are infinite. Amazon will not change if the law doesn't. Pick your battles.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Boycotts, strikes, and pressure campaigns against companies have a long track record of working. It's hardly wasted effort.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Brand protection is important for a customer facing company. The right campaign will enact change quicker.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It’s not as important as people think. Most people know that Facebook is a privacy invasive train wreck but people use it anyway.
deogeo 7y ago
Absolutely the campaign should be to change the law, but if you're looking to also assign blame, massive corporations had a hand in writing the tax code.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Those poor politicians, we can't expect them to read laws before voting on them. They must of gotten confused because they have so many checks to cash and speaking gigs to preform.
  - organsnyder 7y ago
    The way the system is set up, most politicians don't think they have an alternative. Unless you're a standout star in a high-profile race, your election prospects are inexorably linked with your ability to fundraise (as well as your party affiliation, if you survive the primary). If you're not cashing checks, your opponents will. It's the same argument you hear from businesses and affluent individuals: "If I don't [pay my employees as little as possible | take advantage of every tax loophole I can find | spend thousands of dollars lobbying congress | pollute the environment], my competitors will." Of course, those excuses ring hollow when those same individuals aren't in favor of changing a broken system. Any politician that complains about fundraising but is not in favor of campaign finance reform is a hypocrite, IMHO.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      >The way the system is set up, most politicians don't think they have an alternative Who's in charge of setting up the system again?
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    You're being sarcastic, but most laws are massive and legislators don't read them before voting on them. They depend on aides and lobbyists to figure out what bills mean.
kwhitefoot 7y ago
Being angry with those who exploit weak law is part of the process of campaigning to change the law.
orhmeh09 7y ago
We have tried to do this and we nearly succeeded in Seattle before the mayor antidemocratically shut it down. When you’re up against so much money and power , you’re up against the people who write the laws too.
vkou 7y ago
You can't change the law unless you convince other people that there's a problem, and you won't convince people that there's tax loopholes, without demonizing the organizations that exploit them. Telling people to stop complaining about abuse of the law is one of the best ways of preventing the law from ever being fixed.

papreclip 7y ago

If you're not getting paid for this comment, you could be.

_edo 7y ago

> Amazon paid NO income taxes last year. This is not true. They paid no federal income tax which is not the same as no income tax. In 2018 they paid $1.2 billion globally[0] and I don't understand how much they paid domestically because deferred income tax is confusing to me.[1] Taxes are extremely complicated and a lot of people (politicians especially) will pick one or two numbers that support their narrative. They know most people won't spend the time researching the context surrounding their "statistics" and they also bank on how people will misunderstand what they're reporting. You just said "NO income taxes last year." The people popularizing the "no federal income taxes" meme know a lot of people will think it means "no income taxes." [0] - https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amzn/financials https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amzn/financials [1] - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deferredincometax.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deferredincometax.asp