3 ms·

The vast majority of those other workers won’t be flexible enough to be able to just drop and work for Amazon. This is a problem inherent to neoliberalism, you

The vast majority of those other workers won’t be flexible enough to be able to just drop and work for Amazon. This is a problem inherent to neoliberalism, you’re right, I’m just not sure I’d agree that it requires a nation state level shift in politics to make Amazon pay their fare share in taxes and wages.

jdgoesmarching 5y ago
No, but it will be a constant struggle when companies are incentivized to infinitely reduce costs and their political power far outweighs ours. Significant tax and minimum wage increases are almost a generational event at this point. Those are features, not bugs of our system.
8note 5y ago
Are there no federal corporate taxes? Or would the US be discluded since it's not a nation state?
- bradknowles 5y ago
  With the correct arrangement of holding companies, etc… in various countries around the world, corporations usually get away with paying virtually no taxes themselves. They might have to collect local sales taxes or some such, but going through Ireland, the Netherlands, and various other tax havens, the company itself pays effectively no taxes. And that’s assuming they choose to make a profit. Amazon intentionally makes virtually no “profit”, because they take the revenue that would otherwise have become “profit” and spend it in a way that counts as “re-investing”. So, Amazon shows billions and billions of dollars of revenue, but relatively little profit. And it’s only profit that would get taxed at the federal level.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > would otherwise have become “profit” and spend it in a way that counts as “re-investing”. Yes, so that’s not profit anymore. What’s the problem? Would you prefer that businesses be taxed on revenue and not profit?
    - AngryData 5y ago
      It is a problem in where that money is going and being spent on. If they are truly investing, no problem, but if they are "investing" into, for example, buying there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars, or boosting stock prices they already own, they aren't helping or supporting the economy they are extracting wealth from. And it should be taxed just like if I personally bought an island or 50 pounds of gold jewellery or a supercar. Just because a company buys and owns something doesn't automatically make it an investment that shouldn't be taxed as profit.
      - chii 5y ago
        > buying there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars well you'll be glad to know that these are not what's being spent on - because if they did, it'd be an open and shut case from the IRS. But > boosting stock prices they already own that is not considered investment, and i do not believe a company can avoid paying tax on profits used to perform this action.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        > there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars That’s not even a thing. We’re not living in an Austin Powers movie. > or boosting stock prices they already own Who is “they” in that sentence? Do you know how public traded companies work?

jdgoesmarching 5y ago

No, but it will be a constant struggle when companies are incentivized to infinitely reduce costs and their political power far outweighs ours. Significant tax and minimum wage increases are almost a generational event at this point. Those are features, not bugs of our system.

8note 5y ago

Are there no federal corporate taxes? Or would the US be discluded since it's not a nation state?

bradknowles 5y ago
With the correct arrangement of holding companies, etc… in various countries around the world, corporations usually get away with paying virtually no taxes themselves. They might have to collect local sales taxes or some such, but going through Ireland, the Netherlands, and various other tax havens, the company itself pays effectively no taxes. And that’s assuming they choose to make a profit. Amazon intentionally makes virtually no “profit”, because they take the revenue that would otherwise have become “profit” and spend it in a way that counts as “re-investing”. So, Amazon shows billions and billions of dollars of revenue, but relatively little profit. And it’s only profit that would get taxed at the federal level.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > would otherwise have become “profit” and spend it in a way that counts as “re-investing”. Yes, so that’s not profit anymore. What’s the problem? Would you prefer that businesses be taxed on revenue and not profit?
  - AngryData 5y ago
    It is a problem in where that money is going and being spent on. If they are truly investing, no problem, but if they are "investing" into, for example, buying there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars, or boosting stock prices they already own, they aren't helping or supporting the economy they are extracting wealth from. And it should be taxed just like if I personally bought an island or 50 pounds of gold jewellery or a supercar. Just because a company buys and owns something doesn't automatically make it an investment that shouldn't be taxed as profit.
    - chii 5y ago
      > buying there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars well you'll be glad to know that these are not what's being spent on - because if they did, it'd be an open and shut case from the IRS. But > boosting stock prices they already own that is not considered investment, and i do not believe a company can avoid paying tax on profits used to perform this action.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars That’s not even a thing. We’re not living in an Austin Powers movie. > or boosting stock prices they already own Who is “they” in that sentence? Do you know how public traded companies work?