4 ms·

Chances are really good that the companies they operate gained their stature in part by monopolistic (aka, anti-capitalistic free market, as is the popular them

by blunte 5y ago

Chances are really good that the companies they operate gained their stature in part by monopolistic (aka, anti-capitalistic free market, as is the popular theme) behaviors. But I will play this game anyway. If you have 1 billion dollars worth of your company's stock, in addition to your other assets (which you surely have, as you do not live on stock alone), then would it pain you greatly to sell off some of that stock every year to pay taxes on your gains? Yes I know the current tax law doesn't require it, but that's the problem. And in the case of Amazon, since that's a great example, are they a well-behaved company? And by that, I mean, do they really serve the customer and provide what millions of people want? Do millions of people want counterfeit goods? Do millions of people knowingly want their purchases to be packaged and transported by modern slave labor? If the richest American exmplifies why corporate value should be protected, then I'd say we have failed as a human civilization. I'm not sure how old you are, but there was a time before Amazon. It worked pretty well. We went to a store and bought a thing. If what we wanted wasn't available, we waited or shopped around or decided it wasn't important (or we went for a second-hand thing or built it ourselves). Amazon did not supply a need that was unmet. They just replaced the existing suppliers with a more clever, profitable system. I daresay the end result is a net loss for most people.

kelnos 5y ago
I think the point that you are missing is that some people -- especially rich people -- just will not spend money they don't have to. Why would they sell off some of that stock every year to pay taxes if they don't have to? Certainly if there are loopholes that allow them to legally avoid paying, but I guess some people also believe (and so far are correct) that they can get away with outright tax evasion. And I expect many of these people are also of the opinion that the government overspends and wastes what they'd give them. I'm not saying it's right, or altruistic, or anything, just that it's unsurprising and not that hard to understand. > I'm not sure how old you are, but there was a time before Amazon. It worked pretty well. Not the person you're replying to, but I'm old also enough to remember having to physically go to stores to buy things, and all those other things you mention. It was annoying. Today I can tap around for 5 minutes on my phone, and then two days later a delivery service drops a box at my door. Why would I want to spend an hour or more driving to a store, wander around, hopefully find what I want, wait in line for a cashier, lug my stuff to the car, and drive home? Sure, the old way worked fine, more or less, but the new way is such a much better experience in nearly every way. The main two ways it isn't is if it's something I really need same-day, or if it's something I really want to be able to see/try before I buy. Which you'd think would be more often than it actually is; in practice it's pretty rare.
leereeves 5y ago
> would it pain you greatly to sell off some of that stock every year to pay taxes on your gains I imagine it would be painful because you'd lose control of the company. If someone founds a great company, why should the taxman take it away? And why should we expect the new owner to be any better? As to whether Amazon provides something millions of people want, the facts speak for themselves. People choose to shop at Amazon, despite all its problems, instead of a brick and mortar store or another website. No one forces them. I'm not a big fan of Amazon myself, but whether you (or I) think Amazon is good is irrelevant. Millions of people love it.
Ginden 5y ago
> Chances are really good that the companies they operate gained their stature in part by monopolistic (aka, anti-capitalistic free market, as is the popular theme) behaviors. I just checked [Fortune 500 list](https://fortune.com/fortune500/2021/search/ https://fortune.com/fortune500/2021/search/) and most of companies didn't gained their status by monopolistic practices. Some of them (but it doesn't even look as majority), though, _maintain_ their status by questionable practices that may, in a broad sense, be called "monopolistic".

by blunte 5y ago

kelnos 5y ago

I think the point that you are missing is that some people -- especially rich people -- just will not spend money they don't have to. Why would they sell off some of that stock every year to pay taxes if they don't have to? Certainly if there are loopholes that allow them to legally avoid paying, but I guess some people also believe (and so far are correct) that they can get away with outright tax evasion. And I expect many of these people are also of the opinion that the government overspends and wastes what they'd give them. I'm not saying it's right, or altruistic, or anything, just that it's unsurprising and not that hard to understand. > I'm not sure how old you are, but there was a time before Amazon. It worked pretty well. Not the person you're replying to, but I'm old also enough to remember having to physically go to stores to buy things, and all those other things you mention. It was annoying. Today I can tap around for 5 minutes on my phone, and then two days later a delivery service drops a box at my door. Why would I want to spend an hour or more driving to a store, wander around, hopefully find what I want, wait in line for a cashier, lug my stuff to the car, and drive home? Sure, the old way worked fine, more or less, but the new way is such a much better experience in nearly every way. The main two ways it isn't is if it's something I really need same-day, or if it's something I really want to be able to see/try before I buy. Which you'd think would be more often than it actually is; in practice it's pretty rare.

leereeves 5y ago

> would it pain you greatly to sell off some of that stock every year to pay taxes on your gains I imagine it would be painful because you'd lose control of the company. If someone founds a great company, why should the taxman take it away? And why should we expect the new owner to be any better? As to whether Amazon provides something millions of people want, the facts speak for themselves. People choose to shop at Amazon, despite all its problems, instead of a brick and mortar store or another website. No one forces them. I'm not a big fan of Amazon myself, but whether you (or I) think Amazon is good is irrelevant. Millions of people love it.

Ginden 5y ago

> Chances are really good that the companies they operate gained their stature in part by monopolistic (aka, anti-capitalistic free market, as is the popular theme) behaviors. I just checked [Fortune 500 list](https://fortune.com/fortune500/2021/search/ https://fortune.com/fortune500/2021/search/) and most of companies didn't gained their status by monopolistic practices. Some of them (but it doesn't even look as majority), though, _maintain_ their status by questionable practices that may, in a broad sense, be called "monopolistic".