3 ms·

I don't know how this solves anything. Governments can't do everything so companies have incentives to create jobs and produce goods. To solve the issues, you n

I don't know how this solves anything. Governments can't do everything so companies have incentives to create jobs and produce goods. To solve the issues, you need to incentivize the companies to do what you want. Even if you pass a law like this, companies will offshore their profit making entities which makes this worthless even if it could be passed. Today, we want stock market growth above all else and that is what we have. People complain Amazon pays no taxes (corporate) but they pay lots of payroll and property taxes and employ tons of others and enable other companies to thrive. This isn't strictly good or bad. We want our 401k going up 20% a year but also want companies to not make profits. These things are interconnected.

projektfu 7y ago
I'm not sure if you read the chapter in the (free) book but it explains it better than I can.
specialist 7y ago
Amazon's absolute tax burden ain't the only problem. Every other retailer, employer also pays payroll, property, sales taxes too. Superior tax avoidance as a competitive advantage is a serious problem. Would Amazon be so dominant today if they had had to play by the same rules as everyone else?
- pas 7y ago
  There would be some monstrosity anyway. Just like there's just one Google-like search engine, one Facebook-like social network, one LinkedIn-like job-network, etc. Network effects lead to having a very steep distribution between market participants in each sector. Taxes or no taxes Amazon got big because they relentlessly pursued these effects, and after reaching critical mass, there was not much anyone else could have done. Now, of course these advantages should be taxed.
  - RugnirViking 7y ago
    At least some portion of those network effects are to do with economies of scale as relates to tax avoidance and creative accounting. Levelling the playing field can only increase competition in the marketplace.
    - pas 7y ago
      Just competition is not enough on the long term, some technological change is needed too to push prices down. (If there are a lot of small vendors all just on the verge of bankruptcy that doesn't really help anyone.) The typical case is small shops in all the cities around the world that are in very efficient markets. For example here anyone can start a hairdressing salon and can employ anyone. No qualifications needed at all. Only the venue has to pass some basic cleanness inspection. Consequently there is no big hairdressing chain, there's not much going on in hairdressing for the past decades. There's not an Amazon of hairdressing, and no one is investing billions into hairdressing R&D to become more profitable. It might change if automation reaches that level.
      - RugnirViking 7y ago
        I'm not sure that's true though, If large hairdressing technological advancement was indeed possible then why hasn't somebody done it yet? It's not like there is any shortage of people pivoting to entirely disrupt new industries when technology allows. As for whether competition in that market is effective, I find that hairdressing is a great healthy market. No price gouging, plenty of options for the consumer. The price reflects the amount of time of individual attention spent by a trained professional with little to nothing on top. (Don't like your barber? literally just go for a walk and you can probably find a new one)
        pas 7y ago
        Of course it's possible. You can always do something better, faster, cheaper, with more accuracy, precision, style, etc. There is R&D in the tools used for hairdressing (scissors, chemicals, hairdriers, chairs, hairwasher chair), just as there is R&D in shaving tools (even if it's just adding one more blade, or using a better battery for electric ones). Automation will eventually eat the world, why would hairdressing and shaving be the exceptions? Maybe that doesn't count as technological advancement strictly in those fields, but it'll certainly have an effect on those markets. > If large hairdressing technological advancement was indeed possible then why hasn't somebody done it yet? There's always a first. And likely it will come from some unexpected place, enabled by either some very general change (automation) or from some obscure thing.

projektfu 7y ago

I'm not sure if you read the chapter in the (free) book but it explains it better than I can.

specialist 7y ago

Amazon's absolute tax burden ain't the only problem. Every other retailer, employer also pays payroll, property, sales taxes too. Superior tax avoidance as a competitive advantage is a serious problem. Would Amazon be so dominant today if they had had to play by the same rules as everyone else?

pas 7y ago
There would be some monstrosity anyway. Just like there's just one Google-like search engine, one Facebook-like social network, one LinkedIn-like job-network, etc. Network effects lead to having a very steep distribution between market participants in each sector. Taxes or no taxes Amazon got big because they relentlessly pursued these effects, and after reaching critical mass, there was not much anyone else could have done. Now, of course these advantages should be taxed.
- RugnirViking 7y ago
  At least some portion of those network effects are to do with economies of scale as relates to tax avoidance and creative accounting. Levelling the playing field can only increase competition in the marketplace.
  - pas 7y ago
    Just competition is not enough on the long term, some technological change is needed too to push prices down. (If there are a lot of small vendors all just on the verge of bankruptcy that doesn't really help anyone.) The typical case is small shops in all the cities around the world that are in very efficient markets. For example here anyone can start a hairdressing salon and can employ anyone. No qualifications needed at all. Only the venue has to pass some basic cleanness inspection. Consequently there is no big hairdressing chain, there's not much going on in hairdressing for the past decades. There's not an Amazon of hairdressing, and no one is investing billions into hairdressing R&D to become more profitable. It might change if automation reaches that level.
    - RugnirViking 7y ago
      I'm not sure that's true though, If large hairdressing technological advancement was indeed possible then why hasn't somebody done it yet? It's not like there is any shortage of people pivoting to entirely disrupt new industries when technology allows. As for whether competition in that market is effective, I find that hairdressing is a great healthy market. No price gouging, plenty of options for the consumer. The price reflects the amount of time of individual attention spent by a trained professional with little to nothing on top. (Don't like your barber? literally just go for a walk and you can probably find a new one)
      - pas 7y ago
        Of course it's possible. You can always do something better, faster, cheaper, with more accuracy, precision, style, etc. There is R&D in the tools used for hairdressing (scissors, chemicals, hairdriers, chairs, hairwasher chair), just as there is R&D in shaving tools (even if it's just adding one more blade, or using a better battery for electric ones). Automation will eventually eat the world, why would hairdressing and shaving be the exceptions? Maybe that doesn't count as technological advancement strictly in those fields, but it'll certainly have an effect on those markets. > If large hairdressing technological advancement was indeed possible then why hasn't somebody done it yet? There's always a first. And likely it will come from some unexpected place, enabled by either some very general change (automation) or from some obscure thing.