4 ms·

If the Italian market is too small to justify 1.3B costs of doing business Amazon has only three options there: 1. Stop doing what it's doing now and become fa

If the Italian market is too small to justify 1.3B costs of doing business Amazon has only three options there: 1. Stop doing what it's doing now and become fair and transparent, at least in Italy 2. Move out of Italian market 3. Keep paying even increasing fines and change nothing In all those cases consumers in Italy would profit, either from fair market or from more tax money. EDIT: formatting the list

kmlx 5y ago
> In all those cases consumers in Italy would profit, either from fair market or from more tax money. > 2. Move out of Italian market this would be a net negative all around. especially for consumers.
maury91 5y ago
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole that is politics, but Italian usually don't benefit from "more tax money', the government is not very good at handling money
- ausudhz 5y ago
  This doesn't mean that companies shouldn't pay taxes. Also this is not a tax but a fine. There's a big difference
  - maury91 5y ago
    I didn't said anywhere that companies shouldn't pay taxes... If was for me companies should pay the same amount of taxes as civilians ( 60% ) if not more
    - ausudhz 5y ago
      So your useless comment about government not being able to handle the money is related to what sorry? If you're happy that they should pay taxes then I don't get the reason of your comment.
      - maury91 5y ago
        To the parent comment stating "Italians will benefit from more tax money" ( the parent comment has been edited and the phrase rewritten to state that the country will benefit )
        ausudhz 5y ago
        People will indirectly benefit form these money too, of course. Since they'd go to pay healthcare and public education
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  > Italian usually don't benefit from "more tax money' Like Amazon would have used that money for the greater good instead. Like the US is much better at this, throwing trillions of public money in weapons while they can't seem to afford free public healthcare.
  - tyoma 5y ago
    The US already spends twice as much on healthcare (around $1.5T) for existing public programs than it does on national defense (around $718B). Source: https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/spending/categories/ https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/spend...
    - pietrovismara 5y ago
      I'm not sure if I'm misreading the chart, but Health sits just above National Defence, with $796.8 B (12%) of expense, not $1.5T. Anyway it only makes it more absurd; that the US as a nation manages to be the first military world power using less money than they spend to have a broken healthcare system that ruins people's lives.
      - xaqfox 5y ago
        It looks like Medicare spending was also included to arrive at $1.5T. A portion of "veteran's benefits" should probably also be included for the VA medical system.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Like the US is much better at this, throwing trillions of public money in weapons while they can't seem to afford free public healthcare. The US can afford free public healthcare. It could probably afford free public healthcare with its current public healthcare spending (per capita it spends far more than most developed countries providing that, and per GDP it spends a similar amount), but instead it's spends hyper inefficiently so as to maintain a private healthcare system that costs even more on top of the public system. Weapons are irrelevant to that, though the US spends too much (and too inefficiently) on those, too.
toyg 5y ago
There is a fourth option, that is them retreating from handling logistics for Italian sales only. TBH the most realistic option is something around 3: pay fines, change nothing (maybe rais prices a bit), make noise to get consumers on its side (Italians disproportionately like Amazon, because of its no-question-asked policy on returns is an absolute rarity there), wait for a friendly government to fix things in its favour.

kmlx 5y ago

> In all those cases consumers in Italy would profit, either from fair market or from more tax money. > 2. Move out of Italian market this would be a net negative all around. especially for consumers.

maury91 5y ago

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole that is politics, but Italian usually don't benefit from "more tax money', the government is not very good at handling money

ausudhz 5y ago
This doesn't mean that companies shouldn't pay taxes. Also this is not a tax but a fine. There's a big difference
- maury91 5y ago
  I didn't said anywhere that companies shouldn't pay taxes... If was for me companies should pay the same amount of taxes as civilians ( 60% ) if not more
  - ausudhz 5y ago
    So your useless comment about government not being able to handle the money is related to what sorry? If you're happy that they should pay taxes then I don't get the reason of your comment.
    - maury91 5y ago
      To the parent comment stating "Italians will benefit from more tax money" ( the parent comment has been edited and the phrase rewritten to state that the country will benefit )
      - ausudhz 5y ago
        People will indirectly benefit form these money too, of course. Since they'd go to pay healthcare and public education
pietrovismara 5y ago
> Italian usually don't benefit from "more tax money' Like Amazon would have used that money for the greater good instead. Like the US is much better at this, throwing trillions of public money in weapons while they can't seem to afford free public healthcare.
- tyoma 5y ago
  The US already spends twice as much on healthcare (around $1.5T) for existing public programs than it does on national defense (around $718B). Source: https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/spending/categories/ https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/spend...
  - pietrovismara 5y ago
    I'm not sure if I'm misreading the chart, but Health sits just above National Defence, with $796.8 B (12%) of expense, not $1.5T. Anyway it only makes it more absurd; that the US as a nation manages to be the first military world power using less money than they spend to have a broken healthcare system that ruins people's lives.
    - xaqfox 5y ago
      It looks like Medicare spending was also included to arrive at $1.5T. A portion of "veteran's benefits" should probably also be included for the VA medical system.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Like the US is much better at this, throwing trillions of public money in weapons while they can't seem to afford free public healthcare. The US can afford free public healthcare. It could probably afford free public healthcare with its current public healthcare spending (per capita it spends far more than most developed countries providing that, and per GDP it spends a similar amount), but instead it's spends hyper inefficiently so as to maintain a private healthcare system that costs even more on top of the public system. Weapons are irrelevant to that, though the US spends too much (and too inefficiently) on those, too.

toyg 5y ago

There is a fourth option, that is them retreating from handling logistics for Italian sales only. TBH the most realistic option is something around 3: pay fines, change nothing (maybe rais prices a bit), make noise to get consumers on its side (Italians disproportionately like Amazon, because of its no-question-asked policy on returns is an absolute rarity there), wait for a friendly government to fix things in its favour.