Jeff Bezos comes out in support of increased corporate taxes(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Jeff Bezos comes out in support of increased corporate taxes
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/06/economy/amazon-jeff-bezos-corporate-tax-increase/index.html
398 comments
You'd love this story from a law lecture I went to where the CTO of a $Big_pharma_corp came to speak. It was about privacy in biotech.
The CTO said they lobby for high regulation in privacy specifically to stifle startups so they can get them cheaper.
Generally politions work with the biggest industry players to craft regulation and it ends up like you described.
The CTO said they lobby for high regulation in privacy specifically to stifle startups so they can get them cheaper.
Generally politions work with the biggest industry players to craft regulation and it ends up like you described.
Agreed. Makes more sense when you remember who owns the majority of media companies.
Retirement funds and endowments? ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN are all part of publicly owned companies are they not?
Murdoc
What’s really amazing is how WPP and Rupert Murdoch played the “oh look at what Pewdiepie is saying on YouTube. Does {brand} want its ads placed on it? Meanwhile, they’re trying to bully YouTube into giving them all the data about YouTube visitors.
PewDiePie is a Swedish YouTube comedian apparently, in case anyone else found that reference obscure.
He is also the most subscribed youtuber at 109M subscribers IIRC.
There’s also an Indian channel, T-Series, at 178M.
He said most subscribed youtuber (as in an individual creator) rather than most subscribed channel.
Pewdiepies videos aren't made by one man, though he is the face.
And a new york times bestseller, if mainstream appeal metrics are desired.
This behaviour is normalized for a while, the wall street journal wasn't an outlier back then, but now it seems to be also expected when working for big media outlets, just look at the recent Georgia debacle. Activists disguised as journalists pressure companies to act in their favour or they will throw a fit.
European here, not sure if I follow you.
Is this about the Georgia law forbidding giving water to people waiting in line to vote?
Is this about the Georgia law forbidding giving water to people waiting in line to vote?
I'm about half-way through Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model laid out in "Manufacturing Consent". Corporate ownership of media houses is said to be the first censorship filter that determines which angles of a policy debate get highlighted and which ones don't. Along with reading Matt Taibbi's "Hate, Inc.", where Chomsky's model is extended to post-internet US media, I can't begin to describe how much of the US media coverage of these issues has begun to make sense to me.
As Chomsky points out, propaganda is still useful information, since the angles being portrayed in a debate tells us what a societal elite wants us to see (and conversely, not see)
As Chomsky points out, propaganda is still useful information, since the angles being portrayed in a debate tells us what a societal elite wants us to see (and conversely, not see)
What if he really thinks this?
I remember Ron Paul saying we could do away with personal income tax - and providing facts to back up his argument - and people thought he might be crazy.
He also wanted to get rid of the Department of Education (which most people don't understand)
I remember Ron Paul saying we could do away with personal income tax - and providing facts to back up his argument - and people thought he might be crazy.
He also wanted to get rid of the Department of Education (which most people don't understand)
If you tell people that the Department of Education went into existence only in 1980, and that children before that somehow learned to read without it, the idea of getting rid of it doesn't sound quite as crazy.
This is true but not true. From wikipedia:
> The United States Department of Education (ED or DoEd), also referred to as the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. It began operating on May 4, 1980, having been created after the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services by the Department of Education Organization Act, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979.
> The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was created on April 11, 1953, when Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 became effective.
From Eisenhower's speech creating HEW:
> The purpose of this plan is to improve the administration of the vital health, education, and social-security functions now being carried on in the Federal Security Agency by giving them departmental rank.
Back to wikipedia:
> The Federal Security Agency (FSA) was an independent agency of the United States government established in 1939 pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1939. ... The new agency originally consisted of the following major components: (1) Office of the Administrator, (2) Public Health Service (PHS), (3) Office of Education, (4) Civilian Conservation Corps, and (5) Social Security Board.
> Even though the first steps toward public education were taken in 1647 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony and land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785, the idea of universal, free public schools did not become firmly established until the Civil War era. Even then, only half of the States had an efficient public school system.
> In 1867, Congress established the Department of Education to promote the cause of education and collect and disseminate facts and statistics about education. Until it was transferred to the FSA, the Office of Education and its predecessor organization had been part of the Department of the Interior.
So while the DoEd in name wasn't created till 1980, its forebears existed at the Federal level as long as we've had public education in the United States.
Taken from various wikipedia pages, but an overall summary is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Office_of_Education
> The United States Department of Education (ED or DoEd), also referred to as the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. It began operating on May 4, 1980, having been created after the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services by the Department of Education Organization Act, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979.
> The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was created on April 11, 1953, when Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 became effective.
From Eisenhower's speech creating HEW:
> The purpose of this plan is to improve the administration of the vital health, education, and social-security functions now being carried on in the Federal Security Agency by giving them departmental rank.
Back to wikipedia:
> The Federal Security Agency (FSA) was an independent agency of the United States government established in 1939 pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1939. ... The new agency originally consisted of the following major components: (1) Office of the Administrator, (2) Public Health Service (PHS), (3) Office of Education, (4) Civilian Conservation Corps, and (5) Social Security Board.
> Even though the first steps toward public education were taken in 1647 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony and land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785, the idea of universal, free public schools did not become firmly established until the Civil War era. Even then, only half of the States had an efficient public school system.
> In 1867, Congress established the Department of Education to promote the cause of education and collect and disseminate facts and statistics about education. Until it was transferred to the FSA, the Office of Education and its predecessor organization had been part of the Department of the Interior.
So while the DoEd in name wasn't created till 1980, its forebears existed at the Federal level as long as we've had public education in the United States.
Taken from various wikipedia pages, but an overall summary is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Office_of_Education
There are lots of examples of this restructuring in the government. For example, it would be foolish to say we should abolish the Dept. of Veterans Affairs because we were somehow able to take care of veterans prior to it's creation in 1989.
Nice summary. What I'd also want to know is how this Department of Education has grown in its various incarnations. If it used to be a small fraction of its current state not too long ago, then even if getting rid of it entirely is unwarranted, it might still make sense to roll back its growth, so that it can focus on things where it can really add a lot of value.
I'm curious if you even understand what the Dept. of Ed does. Is it the money, because that is mostly due to Pell and other grant distributions. Is it Title IX and other enforcements? Is it enforcement of the ADA within the education system?
Like what specific functions do you think the Dept. shouldn't be doing or could be scaled back? Because, like the Dept. of Energy (which is really the Dept. of Nuclear Material Management), I think a lot of people don't understand the purpose of the Dept.
Like what specific functions do you think the Dept. shouldn't be doing or could be scaled back? Because, like the Dept. of Energy (which is really the Dept. of Nuclear Material Management), I think a lot of people don't understand the purpose of the Dept.
>I remember Ron Paul saying we could do away with personal income tax - and providing facts to back up his argument - and people thought he might be crazy.
Income tax is a word that disguises the more accurate but insidious term: protection money.
If the govt wanted to to collect money 'legitimately' then should charge for their services. (so for example a big truck can pay more tax than say a car for use of the road).
Of course we know that since governments will generally do a worse job than private entities, so they will stick to income tax.
Income tax is a word that disguises the more accurate but insidious term: protection money.
If the govt wanted to to collect money 'legitimately' then should charge for their services. (so for example a big truck can pay more tax than say a car for use of the road).
Of course we know that since governments will generally do a worse job than private entities, so they will stick to income tax.
every word in your comment is wrong, somehow. your views seem rooted very strongly in the idea that "private enterprise can do anything well" and that is an opinion which does not agree with any of the experiences of my entire life.
businesses know how to give profit to shareholders and owners, and they do not know how to do simple things like keeping different departments each from doing work which invalidates the work of the other department.
I mean have you ever worked for a business? they are all giant messes masquerading as organized entities.
it is laughable to think that a business could be better at most things that the government now does.
businesses know how to give profit to shareholders and owners, and they do not know how to do simple things like keeping different departments each from doing work which invalidates the work of the other department.
I mean have you ever worked for a business? they are all giant messes masquerading as organized entities.
it is laughable to think that a business could be better at most things that the government now does.
"It is laughable to think that a business could be better at most things that the government now does."
I can't imagine what experience you've had to believe this. I've been in the work force for 20 years and for the most part, the shittiest businesses I've seen have been magnitudes more competent than what I've seen of government.
I can't imagine what experience you've had to believe this. I've been in the work force for 20 years and for the most part, the shittiest businesses I've seen have been magnitudes more competent than what I've seen of government.
>I mean have you ever worked for a business? they are all giant messes masquerading as organized entities.
Lol, have you ever worked for the government? Nothing will ever clean up their mess. With businesses ( which are not aided by the govt in someway) latest one day they will perish if they are not profitable.
(Yep, I have worked for 3 decades with businesses, and probably know about 10 people who work for the government)
Lol, have you ever worked for the government? Nothing will ever clean up their mess. With businesses ( which are not aided by the govt in someway) latest one day they will perish if they are not profitable.
(Yep, I have worked for 3 decades with businesses, and probably know about 10 people who work for the government)
I've worked for both. stop watching conservative media exclusively, and stop having conservative friends exclusively.
there is a very large swath of reality that you are choosing to ignore.
there is a very large swath of reality that you are choosing to ignore.
Perhaps it's time we think of a tax tier for large companies that generate over $1B in revenues. This tax would apply on gross revenues, not on profit, to close potential loop holes, and it should reflect the social and environmental impact that company ($1B+) has on society.
Large companies ($1B+) that have a negative impact on the environment and society, should pay more taxes to disincentivize the harmful behaviour. On the other hand companies that have a positive impact on the environment and the society should pay less.
Also, any billionaire person who labels themselves as a philanthropist should pay double digit % taxes. After all, through taxes we contribute to public good, infrastructure, social support and public institutions. Privately controlled investment funds labeled as charities don't count. Everyone knows.
Large companies ($1B+) that have a negative impact on the environment and society, should pay more taxes to disincentivize the harmful behaviour. On the other hand companies that have a positive impact on the environment and the society should pay less.
Also, any billionaire person who labels themselves as a philanthropist should pay double digit % taxes. After all, through taxes we contribute to public good, infrastructure, social support and public institutions. Privately controlled investment funds labeled as charities don't count. Everyone knows.
That would heavily penalize high-revenue low-profit-margin industries, such as retail. What's the point? Amazon would split off its profitable parts (AWS/services), which would make the barely profitable parts of Amazon worse for everyone.
As far paying taxes: All these billionaires aren't really making that much money, they're mostly owning stuff that may or may not appreciate. The fact that it does appreciate is now mostly a function of monetary policy. If you want to tax that, you really need a wealth tax, which is essentially confiscatory. Good luck keeping that capital ashore.
Lastly, even if you did somehow manage to keep billionaires around and tax them, it's not really that much revenue. You might as well not bother with it. It sounds unfair, and it is, but "worse is better" in this case.
As far paying taxes: All these billionaires aren't really making that much money, they're mostly owning stuff that may or may not appreciate. The fact that it does appreciate is now mostly a function of monetary policy. If you want to tax that, you really need a wealth tax, which is essentially confiscatory. Good luck keeping that capital ashore.
Lastly, even if you did somehow manage to keep billionaires around and tax them, it's not really that much revenue. You might as well not bother with it. It sounds unfair, and it is, but "worse is better" in this case.
> Amazon would split off its profitable parts (AWS/services), which would make the barely profitable parts of Amazon worse for everyone.
Okay but how is that actually bad?
The barely profitable parts of Amazon, ie the retail operation, are already pretty comprehensively lousy. Making it unprofitable to more or less monopolize retail, the way Amazon does now, seems like it would open competition back up among ecommerce business on a smaller scale. As I've discovered since quitting Amazon myself, with platforms like Stripe and Shopify, human-scale ecommerce no longer needs to be - or is! - the patchwork headache we all remember unfondly from 2005. The experience at point of sale is consistent, reliable, quick, and pleasant. The money goes to support small businesses, rather than being shoveled directly into the flaming mouth of Mammon. And while it does take a little longer for shipments to arrive, that's actually also a net good because almost nothing actually needs the kind of unsustainable next-day Prime treatment that Amazon's retail operation insists on by default. Without Amazon's perverse incentives toward counterfeit garbage, the rate at which I've had what I get match what I order has so far been 100%. And without Amazon Logistics involved, I can be fairly confident besides that whoever did the work of delivering that order probably was not denied the basic human dignity of access to toilet facilities because of rampant Taylorism or for any other reason.
You've really made a remarkably strong case for the thing you're arguing against! I doubt that's what you wanted, but I appreciate it all the same.
Okay but how is that actually bad?
The barely profitable parts of Amazon, ie the retail operation, are already pretty comprehensively lousy. Making it unprofitable to more or less monopolize retail, the way Amazon does now, seems like it would open competition back up among ecommerce business on a smaller scale. As I've discovered since quitting Amazon myself, with platforms like Stripe and Shopify, human-scale ecommerce no longer needs to be - or is! - the patchwork headache we all remember unfondly from 2005. The experience at point of sale is consistent, reliable, quick, and pleasant. The money goes to support small businesses, rather than being shoveled directly into the flaming mouth of Mammon. And while it does take a little longer for shipments to arrive, that's actually also a net good because almost nothing actually needs the kind of unsustainable next-day Prime treatment that Amazon's retail operation insists on by default. Without Amazon's perverse incentives toward counterfeit garbage, the rate at which I've had what I get match what I order has so far been 100%. And without Amazon Logistics involved, I can be fairly confident besides that whoever did the work of delivering that order probably was not denied the basic human dignity of access to toilet facilities because of rampant Taylorism or for any other reason.
You've really made a remarkably strong case for the thing you're arguing against! I doubt that's what you wanted, but I appreciate it all the same.
Fun fact: Amazon is <10% of retail in the US, and lower globally.
I don't really have much to disagree with you about, but maybe you want to check the "monopoly" claim.
I don't really have much to disagree with you about, but maybe you want to check the "monopoly" claim.
But their retail presence is often at the expense of SMEs
Look how the small ecommerce companies have all become FBA companies
Look how the small ecommerce companies have all become FBA companies
>Look how the small ecommerce companies have all become FBA companies
While I suspect you're right in that many have, I don't believe it's anywhere near a majority.
While I suspect you're right in that many have, I don't believe it's anywhere near a majority.
FBA: fulfillment by Amazon.
https://sell.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon.html
Or in the alternative, Fellow of the British Academy.
https://www.acronymfinder.com/FBA.html
https://sell.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon.html
Or in the alternative, Fellow of the British Academy.
https://www.acronymfinder.com/FBA.html
I used "monopolize" loosely, sure. Maybe they don't entirely, but they clearly want to.
(And don't they? How much of b2c ecommerce are they? - how has the pandemic affected their share? You seem to have readier access to that data than I do!)
(And don't they? How much of b2c ecommerce are they? - how has the pandemic affected their share? You seem to have readier access to that data than I do!)
I've just come across the statistic before. Here's a quick search hit, saying e-commerce as of a year and a bit ago that indicates 35% of e-commerce.
https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2019/12/amazons-mark...
Maybe they do want to monopolize, but I'm pretty sure that they couldn't, what with Walmart, Target, eBay, Ali Express, and other major global players in the space. Amazon's want is largely irrelevant to a conversation like this.
https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2019/12/amazons-mark...
Maybe they do want to monopolize, but I'm pretty sure that they couldn't, what with Walmart, Target, eBay, Ali Express, and other major global players in the space. Amazon's want is largely irrelevant to a conversation like this.
On the other hand, it's harder to make a sentence flow around "oligopolistic".
I feel like seeing that Amazon owned a third of US ecommerce, before the pandemic stomped brick-and-mortar flat, goes more to my point than to yours.
I feel like seeing that Amazon owned a third of US ecommerce, before the pandemic stomped brick-and-mortar flat, goes more to my point than to yours.
Your point has changed at least twice in this thread.
My point was simply that "monopoly" is not an accurate term here.
You can't say "oligopoly may be more accurate, so I've been correct."
My point was simply that "monopoly" is not an accurate term here.
You can't say "oligopoly may be more accurate, so I've been correct."
Sure I can! You're quibbling over my choice of a single, admittedly inexact but contextually plain, word, rather than engage at all with the actual point I made. I'm just trying to meet you where you are.
> a single, admittedly inexact but contextually plain, word
Within the context of a policy discussion, a monopoly versus oligopoly is a pretty material difference. Every growing business at some level “wants” to monopolise their niche.
Within the context of a policy discussion, a monopoly versus oligopoly is a pretty material difference. Every growing business at some level “wants” to monopolise their niche.
You are still not addressing the point despite wording clarifications that addressed your original quibbles.
You make some good points, however every company should find a way to be sustainable and pay their fair share of taxes to society. If that's really not possible, then perhaps that business should go bankrupt. Breaking monopolies and monopoly-like structures will create many opportunities for SMEs / SMBs to flourish.
> All these billionaires aren't really making that much money
I'm sorry, I can't tell if what you are saying is sarcastic, naive or perhaps you work as an Amazon Ambassador (throwaway account, 3 mo. old?).
What's the alternative? Don't tax corporations, allow them to form monopolies and starve SMBs? Don't tax billionaires, allow them to hoard power and give them a free pass on everything? Trust that somehow power cannot corrupt them?
> All these billionaires aren't really making that much money
I'm sorry, I can't tell if what you are saying is sarcastic, naive or perhaps you work as an Amazon Ambassador (throwaway account, 3 mo. old?).
What's the alternative? Don't tax corporations, allow them to form monopolies and starve SMBs? Don't tax billionaires, allow them to hoard power and give them a free pass on everything? Trust that somehow power cannot corrupt them?
> You make some good points, however every company should find a way to be sustainable and pay their fair share of taxes to society. If that's really not possible, then perhaps that business should go bankrupt.
This sounds nice in theory, but in practice there is always the option to just not do business. You can get away with high taxes if you have something to offer in return, but at some point you just damage or destroy the economy.
> Breaking monopolies and monopoly-like structures will create many opportunities for SMEs / SMBs to flourish.
Fair enough, but as a consumer, perhaps I would prefer not to shop at the SMB equivalent of Amazon? Perhaps I like the fact that AWS is cross-subsidizing my deliveries?
Amazon isn't really much of a monopoly if you consider that it really competes on price and there isn't much of a barrier of entry to their market. They have little competition because it's not profitable, not because they're so powerful. Of course Amazon knows this, which is why they attempt to build a moat with regulation and taxation.
> I'm sorry, I can't tell if what you are saying is sarcastic, naive or perhaps...
Perhaps you did not quite understand what I am saying: These people are not earning money, they own assets. Owning assets can earn you money, such as dividends or rent. Those are already taxed. However, the reason why people find themselves on top of the "richest people" lists is usually not because they earned income from assets, but because the assets they own appreciated in value.
In general, you don't tax that appreciation because the asset price could drop just as well - if the Fed didn't bail out the market every time. You tax the profits gained from selling those assets. If you never sell your assets because you are already a billionaire and don't need cash, you don't get taxed. This is not really much of a tax revenue loss, because if you taxed, say, unrealized stock gains, you would massively suppress the value of stocks. Such hypothetical tax revenue just doesn't exist, at least not in the amount that you may imagine.
> What's the alternative? Don't tax corporations...
Yes. Corporate tax does nothing but make the country less interesting from a business perspective, for what little revenue it creates.
> ...allow them to form monopolies and starve SMBs?
That is orthogonal, in fact SMBs would profit the most from reductions in corporate tax.
This sounds nice in theory, but in practice there is always the option to just not do business. You can get away with high taxes if you have something to offer in return, but at some point you just damage or destroy the economy.
> Breaking monopolies and monopoly-like structures will create many opportunities for SMEs / SMBs to flourish.
Fair enough, but as a consumer, perhaps I would prefer not to shop at the SMB equivalent of Amazon? Perhaps I like the fact that AWS is cross-subsidizing my deliveries?
Amazon isn't really much of a monopoly if you consider that it really competes on price and there isn't much of a barrier of entry to their market. They have little competition because it's not profitable, not because they're so powerful. Of course Amazon knows this, which is why they attempt to build a moat with regulation and taxation.
> I'm sorry, I can't tell if what you are saying is sarcastic, naive or perhaps...
Perhaps you did not quite understand what I am saying: These people are not earning money, they own assets. Owning assets can earn you money, such as dividends or rent. Those are already taxed. However, the reason why people find themselves on top of the "richest people" lists is usually not because they earned income from assets, but because the assets they own appreciated in value.
In general, you don't tax that appreciation because the asset price could drop just as well - if the Fed didn't bail out the market every time. You tax the profits gained from selling those assets. If you never sell your assets because you are already a billionaire and don't need cash, you don't get taxed. This is not really much of a tax revenue loss, because if you taxed, say, unrealized stock gains, you would massively suppress the value of stocks. Such hypothetical tax revenue just doesn't exist, at least not in the amount that you may imagine.
> What's the alternative? Don't tax corporations...
Yes. Corporate tax does nothing but make the country less interesting from a business perspective, for what little revenue it creates.
> ...allow them to form monopolies and starve SMBs?
That is orthogonal, in fact SMBs would profit the most from reductions in corporate tax.
> > ...allow them to form monopolies and starve SMBs?
> That is orthogonal, in fact SMBs would profit the most from reductions in corporate tax.
Is it possible that this is the root of the issue? Filing corporate taxes is 10x as complicated (and expensive) as even the more complicated end of personal returns. I've got 1099 income, sole-prop and LLC, schedule C, home office deductions, business car lease, backdoor Roth, business and personal itemized deductions, etc. I pay maybe $200/yr to my CPA for all the paperwork and filing, sometimes as much as $300.
In the past I was a partner in an S corp. We paid $5k+ every year for all the paperwork.
Reductions in corporate taxes would be beneficial to smaller shops for sure, but simplification might be the best thing for everyone. Corporate income is going to get taxed twice most of the time anyway (once at the corp, and again when it passes to someone as income) so there seems to be little need to incentivize anything other than reinvestment which already happens by it not getting taxed as income. A simple progressive tax structure based on profit with little that can be deducted outside of actual reinvestment would simplify things greatly.
> That is orthogonal, in fact SMBs would profit the most from reductions in corporate tax.
Is it possible that this is the root of the issue? Filing corporate taxes is 10x as complicated (and expensive) as even the more complicated end of personal returns. I've got 1099 income, sole-prop and LLC, schedule C, home office deductions, business car lease, backdoor Roth, business and personal itemized deductions, etc. I pay maybe $200/yr to my CPA for all the paperwork and filing, sometimes as much as $300.
In the past I was a partner in an S corp. We paid $5k+ every year for all the paperwork.
Reductions in corporate taxes would be beneficial to smaller shops for sure, but simplification might be the best thing for everyone. Corporate income is going to get taxed twice most of the time anyway (once at the corp, and again when it passes to someone as income) so there seems to be little need to incentivize anything other than reinvestment which already happens by it not getting taxed as income. A simple progressive tax structure based on profit with little that can be deducted outside of actual reinvestment would simplify things greatly.
> Reductions in corporate taxes would be beneficial to smaller shops for sure, but simplification might be the best thing for everyone.
Indeed. Watch Amazon lobbying for a tax that you don't have to pay, but you have to pay for proving that you don't have to pay it.
Indeed. Watch Amazon lobbying for a tax that you don't have to pay, but you have to pay for proving that you don't have to pay it.
Unless you have specific information, that "Amazon is doing this for evil" narrative is really forced.
If nothing else, I'd expect the tax increase to take the form of "same tax, but we take bigger numbers", so the cost of paperwork for small businesses would remain exactly the same.
If nothing else, I'd expect the tax increase to take the form of "same tax, but we take bigger numbers", so the cost of paperwork for small businesses would remain exactly the same.
>I'm sorry, I can't tell if what you are saying is sarcastic, naive or perhaps you work as an Amazon Ambassador (throwaway account, 3 mo. old?).
I'm not who you responded to but surely you can discuss without resorting to accusations of shilling or insults.
I'm not who you responded to but surely you can discuss without resorting to accusations of shilling or insults.
Jeff Bezos sold over $10 billion in Amazon stock last year, they absolutely are making that much money. This whole 'net worth isn't liquid' meme is incredibly damaging and overstated.
Yes, in that instance, he made money, but also paid taxes on that. He probably wouldn't have sold if he didn't think it would be wise to diversify a little after such a huge price jump. Or maybe he just wanted to buy something ridiculous, who knows.
In general, the super-rich don't need to sell, which is why they don't need to pay taxes. If you want to change that, you need a wealth tax, with all its problems. That's my point.
In general, the super-rich don't need to sell, which is why they don't need to pay taxes. If you want to change that, you need a wealth tax, with all its problems. That's my point.
He did pay taxes, but probably at a lower rate than an average doctor. The preferential treatment of capital gains over wages is a huge giveaway to Bezos.
> Jeff Bezos sold over $10 billion in Amazon stock last year,
Then he also paid income taxes on that.
Then he also paid income taxes on that.
> which would make the barely profitable parts of Amazon worse for everyone
Would that not benefit the competition? And isn't that a good thing?
Would that not benefit the competition? And isn't that a good thing?
I'm much more sympathetic to arguments about what's good for people (consumers) than I am to what's good for competitors.
I think people would be made worse off if Amazon's retail operations were to be made worse (or shut down in the limit case).
I think people would be made worse off if Amazon's retail operations were to be made worse (or shut down in the limit case).
Isn't that arguing in favor of unfair competition (specifically undercutting), in a roundabout way?
One person's undercutting is another person's competition.
There's nothing wrong or anti-competitive about undercutting another retailer. At some point, you can get into anti-competitive predatory pricing or "dumping", but I don't think anyone is credibly arguing that Amazon is dumping product below their cost.
There's nothing wrong or anti-competitive about undercutting another retailer. At some point, you can get into anti-competitive predatory pricing or "dumping", but I don't think anyone is credibly arguing that Amazon is dumping product below their cost.
For Amazons customers, yes - but competing offerings might be better off - by creating a gap in the market that might be filled by more motivated businesses.
"I think people would be made worse off if Amazon's retail operations were to be made worse (or shut down in the limit case).
"
Maybe short term but the in the long term I think everybody would be better off with more smaller competitors instead of a few dominant ones. Same for Apple. I don't think their size is good for the economy or technology in the long run.
"
Maybe short term but the in the long term I think everybody would be better off with more smaller competitors instead of a few dominant ones. Same for Apple. I don't think their size is good for the economy or technology in the long run.
Oh no we might lose our billionaires? Good riddance.
There are good answers to the tax exile argument, but this ain't one. A tax whose only purpose is to drive the people who would pay the tax away is a bad tax.
the biggest impact of such for such corporations is the removal of the foreign income tax credit as is also makes it somewhat uneconomical to attempt pet to doge taxes vis the high tech gambits of underpricing a virtual IP and selling it to another controlled corporation to hide revenue in at the lower tax rate
In fact is has been recommended by most economists
In fact is has been recommended by most economists
I don't see how taxing foreign income would work. A corporation would just spinoff foreign business to avoid it. If you tax those it'd just reincorporate offshore. The USA simply can't tax the foreign income of a foreign company.
If any nation on Earth can pull this off (or a wealth tax for that matter), it's the USA. The reach of the US financial system is immense: blocking off access or otherwise making life miserable for companies that attempt to offshore operations on paper is certainly something the US could do if it has the political will.
In 2010 Congress passed FATCA [1], which forced financial institutions in foreign countries to give up information on assets held by US nationals in their borders. This was extraordinarily unpopular with other countries: I'm in Canada, and the amount of negative press was astounding. In addition to privacy concerns (the law applied to dual-citizens, including "accidental Americans" who didn't know they held US citizenship), implentation proved to be very expensive for foreign banks.
However, the US played hardball: if a financial institution was non-compliant with the provisions of FATCA, the US government took 30% of any payments made to them as tax. There was tons of grumbling, but foreign financial institutions went ahead and implemented it.
To add insult to injury, the US is itself not compliant with FATCA, as the information sharing is supposed to be reciprocal if a foreign country signs a reciprocal treaty. That has not happened.
Access to the US financial system is an extraordinarly big stick when the US government chooses to wield it. It's often said that preventing offshoring or creating a wealth tax is impossible without global buy in. Really, the US could do it if it wanted to. It would not be popular, but FATCA shows there's precedent.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
In 2010 Congress passed FATCA [1], which forced financial institutions in foreign countries to give up information on assets held by US nationals in their borders. This was extraordinarily unpopular with other countries: I'm in Canada, and the amount of negative press was astounding. In addition to privacy concerns (the law applied to dual-citizens, including "accidental Americans" who didn't know they held US citizenship), implentation proved to be very expensive for foreign banks.
However, the US played hardball: if a financial institution was non-compliant with the provisions of FATCA, the US government took 30% of any payments made to them as tax. There was tons of grumbling, but foreign financial institutions went ahead and implemented it.
To add insult to injury, the US is itself not compliant with FATCA, as the information sharing is supposed to be reciprocal if a foreign country signs a reciprocal treaty. That has not happened.
Access to the US financial system is an extraordinarly big stick when the US government chooses to wield it. It's often said that preventing offshoring or creating a wealth tax is impossible without global buy in. Really, the US could do it if it wanted to. It would not be popular, but FATCA shows there's precedent.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
> In 2010 Congress passed FATCA [1], which forced financial institutions in foreign countries to give up information on assets held by US nationals in their borders.
With the unintended side effect that it can make it incredibly hard, if not impossible, for an American citizen to open a bank account in another country. Even if she's a resident in that country.
With the unintended side effect that it can make it incredibly hard, if not impossible, for an American citizen to open a bank account in another country. Even if she's a resident in that country.
It'll still only work if tax policy is globalized. As long as there are tax havens this cannot operate. And the appeal of being a tax haven for small nations is incredible.
In most places (e.g. Luxembourg, Basel, Lichtenstein, ...) the "pick your favorite tax scheme" game is tolerated (in Basel you can have your pick of 3 tax schemes. Anything agricultural goes for the French scheme, most of the rest, especially medical technology, for the Swiss one, Car companies like their German tax (I'm guessing to avoid import tax)). And while not quite as impactful, it's still tolerated at e.g. the French-German border.
And of course there is the "European exception". EU countries each have their tax policy set so "their" company doesn't get taxed. Even the EU proper has such a company (Airbus). But individual countries do as well: the Netherlands has Shell, France has Total, Belgium has lots of government non-government companies (e.g. Sita, Eurocontrol, BICS, who are "Belgian" but multinationals ...). The incumbent telecom is usually beneficiary of such schemes as well, as well as large medical concerns.
And I would like to point out: one thing FATCA (+the preexisting international income tax the US has) has done is make it much more difficult, much less worth it, for US citizens to work abroad. Do we really want that ?
In most places (e.g. Luxembourg, Basel, Lichtenstein, ...) the "pick your favorite tax scheme" game is tolerated (in Basel you can have your pick of 3 tax schemes. Anything agricultural goes for the French scheme, most of the rest, especially medical technology, for the Swiss one, Car companies like their German tax (I'm guessing to avoid import tax)). And while not quite as impactful, it's still tolerated at e.g. the French-German border.
And of course there is the "European exception". EU countries each have their tax policy set so "their" company doesn't get taxed. Even the EU proper has such a company (Airbus). But individual countries do as well: the Netherlands has Shell, France has Total, Belgium has lots of government non-government companies (e.g. Sita, Eurocontrol, BICS, who are "Belgian" but multinationals ...). The incumbent telecom is usually beneficiary of such schemes as well, as well as large medical concerns.
And I would like to point out: one thing FATCA (+the preexisting international income tax the US has) has done is make it much more difficult, much less worth it, for US citizens to work abroad. Do we really want that ?
It's one thing to talk of equality, in the context of say the US, but what of international equality?
Being a tax haven is arguably how small nations achieve this. The US has a large unfair advantage in terms of economy - has done since at least WW2.
America skews heavily in favour of freedom - for Americans in America, not so much outside that system.
Being a tax haven is arguably how small nations achieve this. The US has a large unfair advantage in terms of economy - has done since at least WW2.
America skews heavily in favour of freedom - for Americans in America, not so much outside that system.
We should make corporate income taxes progressive. Small businesses should pay little to no tax, megacorps should be taxed strongly enough to encourage spinning off other companies rather than the current strategy of "acquire everything to squelch competition and maximize power". This concentration of power diffuses responsibility and allows megacorps to do evil profitably: a dozen independent amazon subsidiaries would have a much harder time lobbying in lockstep and would likely compete against each other - improving prices for consumers and labor conditions. Free market maximalists should welcome this increased competition.
Let's tax the economy of scale and force companies who are not able to utilize economy of scale well to split into multiple smaller companies.
Let's tax the economy of scale and force companies who are not able to utilize economy of scale well to split into multiple smaller companies.
Or just introduce higher regulations, including the degree to which a corp can compete across different industries.
For example, I sometimes thing large corporations can beat out smaller competition purely because they have/can afford a large legal/patent dept, that smaller single-industry players do not.
There should also probably be more rules wrt competition - allowing private interests to control TLD/DNS, protocols, Operating systems/ecosystems, hardware specs/compliance, the EM spectrum and other common utilities/services has allowed an extreme bent towards monolithic companies - force theses large corps to spin off internal services!
> On the other hand companies that have a positive impact on the environment and the society should pay less.
Just have a carbon tax. Setup a general scheme for SMBs, and allow larger corps to setup their own if they can do it more efficiently (regulate that, of course).
For example, I sometimes thing large corporations can beat out smaller competition purely because they have/can afford a large legal/patent dept, that smaller single-industry players do not.
There should also probably be more rules wrt competition - allowing private interests to control TLD/DNS, protocols, Operating systems/ecosystems, hardware specs/compliance, the EM spectrum and other common utilities/services has allowed an extreme bent towards monolithic companies - force theses large corps to spin off internal services!
> On the other hand companies that have a positive impact on the environment and the society should pay less.
Just have a carbon tax. Setup a general scheme for SMBs, and allow larger corps to setup their own if they can do it more efficiently (regulate that, of course).
I agree. Sheer size should be discouraged. These big corporations lead to a business monoculture and hinder innovation by killingn off or buying promising new ideas.
Large corporations and billionaires also have an outsize influence on politics at the expense of small business and regular people. They shape the world to their advantage.
Large corporations and billionaires also have an outsize influence on politics at the expense of small business and regular people. They shape the world to their advantage.
Let’s not forget that many of the politicians are part of the rich as well.
This is often forgotten but to me is the core issue. Sociologists point this out. Many corporate executives and politicians went to the same schools, are part of the same non-profits where they sit next to each other at dinners, and their kids are friends on the playground at whichever private school. They end up on the boards of each other’s companies. If you really boil it down, in the US there are probably less than 500,000 people in this upper echelon, fewer with real power. Same neighborhoods, same restaurants, same vacations, same circles.
Reminds me of the lead paint in toy scandal during the late 2000’s.
https://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/news/companies/cpsc/
Mattel lobbied for and helped write legislation that regulated themselves... and everyone else.
The laws ended up disproportionately hurting small toy makers while rewarding Mattel for their bad behavior.
https://reason.com/2009/08/31/law-passed-after-mattel-toy-sc...
When you realize Bezos also owns a newspaper, and journalists get paid to write articles praising this or that. Honestly, it’s enough to jade anyone at this point.
...
https://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/news/companies/cpsc/
Mattel lobbied for and helped write legislation that regulated themselves... and everyone else.
The laws ended up disproportionately hurting small toy makers while rewarding Mattel for their bad behavior.
https://reason.com/2009/08/31/law-passed-after-mattel-toy-sc...
When you realize Bezos also owns a newspaper, and journalists get paid to write articles praising this or that. Honestly, it’s enough to jade anyone at this point.
...
He has accumulated quite some wealth. So corporate tax doesn't hurt that.
RickJWagner(1)
We have a system in place to address societal concerns. We came to this system after 2000 years of human history. The place is called the parliament + courts in a democracy. Yet, we don't want to follow that structure and continue on media + social media trials. So now, we as a society are "hacked" on social media + media. If we don't have the discipline, we deserve to see this played. Worse - we will only seen incessant complaints and rarely any action towards change.
What he doesn't mention is that an increase in corporate taxes will mostly impact SMBs and not giant "Big Tech" companies that have all kinds of ways of avoiding them and employ hundreds of people in their finance and accounting departments who are tasked with minimizing taxes. It's your ma&pop stores that will take the brunt of it.
In the same way that the new "Stimulus package" now requires that payment processors report any transaction over $600 on a 1099-K Tax Form, it's always the little guy that is mostly affected by the changes in tax law because little guys have no lobbyists and don't have an easy access to lawyers to fight the IRS.
In the same way that the new "Stimulus package" now requires that payment processors report any transaction over $600 on a 1099-K Tax Form, it's always the little guy that is mostly affected by the changes in tax law because little guys have no lobbyists and don't have an easy access to lawyers to fight the IRS.
Yes, yes and yes. People are sometimes surprise why people who has a lot of money seem to be left-leaning and support things like higher taxation. First, it is never a concern for them. If they need, they offshore their money or pay lawyers who know tricks or start some foundation to pass money through it.
Something that people from middle class are not able to afford.
The other reason is that making difficult for members of middle class to accumulate wealth secures their own business, they are effectively killing the growth of potential competitors.
In the longer perspective this is very dangerous, it creates oligarchy, which, in turn, has all the incentives to restrict free market, free speech and democracy.
Middle class is important for the society since those are people who have time to engage themselves into public affairs, they don't have to spend all their time trying to earn money. In addition middle class is much more numerous than 1% of the wealthiest. As a result they give work to a lot of people who are down the social ladder. Both Mark Zuckerberg and some Mr. Jones, who owns a grocery shop employ a single babysitter, need a single plumber to fix their pipes, are able to eat the same amount of food, etc. So thousands of Jones are given job to much more people than single Mark Zuckerberg (obviously I am talking about Zuckerberg as a person, not his company).
That's why from the social perspective it is important to have as many Mr. Jones as possible. They give work to a lot of people, they drag them up. That's why taxing heavily middle class is a terrible idea and all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation".
Something that people from middle class are not able to afford.
The other reason is that making difficult for members of middle class to accumulate wealth secures their own business, they are effectively killing the growth of potential competitors.
In the longer perspective this is very dangerous, it creates oligarchy, which, in turn, has all the incentives to restrict free market, free speech and democracy.
Middle class is important for the society since those are people who have time to engage themselves into public affairs, they don't have to spend all their time trying to earn money. In addition middle class is much more numerous than 1% of the wealthiest. As a result they give work to a lot of people who are down the social ladder. Both Mark Zuckerberg and some Mr. Jones, who owns a grocery shop employ a single babysitter, need a single plumber to fix their pipes, are able to eat the same amount of food, etc. So thousands of Jones are given job to much more people than single Mark Zuckerberg (obviously I am talking about Zuckerberg as a person, not his company).
That's why from the social perspective it is important to have as many Mr. Jones as possible. They give work to a lot of people, they drag them up. That's why taxing heavily middle class is a terrible idea and all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation".
I find comments like this confusing. It seems that you agree with leftists that equality is important value.
But then you say:
> all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation"
Why is avoiding taxes different than any other moral problem? Why cannot you say, "putting conmen in prison" in the end means "smart conmen will avoid prison". It's this moral defeatism that gets me.
Sure, there will be people who do immoral deeds and avoid being caught, but how are we better off by not trying to catch anyone?
It's even in the open, that the large corporations pay little taxes, everybody is a witness to that. You (as a society) can change that system if you want.
But then you say:
> all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation"
Why is avoiding taxes different than any other moral problem? Why cannot you say, "putting conmen in prison" in the end means "smart conmen will avoid prison". It's this moral defeatism that gets me.
Sure, there will be people who do immoral deeds and avoid being caught, but how are we better off by not trying to catch anyone?
It's even in the open, that the large corporations pay little taxes, everybody is a witness to that. You (as a society) can change that system if you want.
I can't speak for the other person, but I think I have a similar perspective. I don't like big corporations, I think many smaller businesses are better. For one, if only a couple companies exist then you don't have many choices. For another, working as, what previous generations might've called a wage slave, feels very soul crushing. I think society would be freer and people would be happier working for smaller companies that they owned and had bigger impacts in. On top of all that, a few big companies means concentrated power and that means a few rich folks can leverage their power to political ends to get more riches and more power etc.
"Tax the rich" sounds kind of like a good idea at first but then you take into account the point about how the rich have lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. Rich people and companies already figure out how to subvert tax laws. Why wouldn't they figure out how to subvert the new laws they are clamoring for too?
Put another way, is Bezos supporting this law because he wants to be worth less?
I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust. Stop businesses from buying one another. Rather than raising taxes let's just simplify the tax code so it's automatic and there is minimal ambiguity or flexibility for creative tax accounting. Let's bring legal cases on all the questionable tax strategies big companies are engaging in. Raising taxes to hope we catch the big guys doesn't seem like a smart plan to me. It seems more likely they'll dodge the increase and smaller companies will get hit with it.
"Tax the rich" sounds kind of like a good idea at first but then you take into account the point about how the rich have lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. Rich people and companies already figure out how to subvert tax laws. Why wouldn't they figure out how to subvert the new laws they are clamoring for too?
Put another way, is Bezos supporting this law because he wants to be worth less?
I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust. Stop businesses from buying one another. Rather than raising taxes let's just simplify the tax code so it's automatic and there is minimal ambiguity or flexibility for creative tax accounting. Let's bring legal cases on all the questionable tax strategies big companies are engaging in. Raising taxes to hope we catch the big guys doesn't seem like a smart plan to me. It seems more likely they'll dodge the increase and smaller companies will get hit with it.
> I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust. Stop businesses from buying one another. Rather than raising taxes let's just simplify the tax code so it's automatic and there is minimal ambiguity or flexibility for creative tax accounting.
Well, I don't see how it's feasible or desirable to do things more directly. You're saying BigCos are a problem, and you want to disincentivize their formation, then picking them on one-by-one basis will actually require more expertise and more effort, compared to having laws (e.g. tax laws) that apply broadly, and then enforce these laws.
We have laws precisely so that we wouldn't have to decide every case individually, and that the rules are clear to everyone, so they can avoid possible (and arbitrary) punishment.
I also think that as long as you want to tax all corporations the same, there will always be an inherent advantage in being big. That's why many people suggest progressive taxation in various forms to disincentivize such empire-building.
> Raising taxes to hope we catch the big guys doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.
This is a straw man - nobody is arguing just for raising taxes and then not enforcing those laws, we would love to enforce these laws of course. But having them is the first step to enforcement, I don't think your approach (enforce something without support from laws) is more viable, even legally. It requires more regulatory expertise, which you argue we are lacking compared to corporations.
Also nobody is really arguing against tax code simplification, but it only can get you so far.
Well, I don't see how it's feasible or desirable to do things more directly. You're saying BigCos are a problem, and you want to disincentivize their formation, then picking them on one-by-one basis will actually require more expertise and more effort, compared to having laws (e.g. tax laws) that apply broadly, and then enforce these laws.
We have laws precisely so that we wouldn't have to decide every case individually, and that the rules are clear to everyone, so they can avoid possible (and arbitrary) punishment.
I also think that as long as you want to tax all corporations the same, there will always be an inherent advantage in being big. That's why many people suggest progressive taxation in various forms to disincentivize such empire-building.
> Raising taxes to hope we catch the big guys doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.
This is a straw man - nobody is arguing just for raising taxes and then not enforcing those laws, we would love to enforce these laws of course. But having them is the first step to enforcement, I don't think your approach (enforce something without support from laws) is more viable, even legally. It requires more regulatory expertise, which you argue we are lacking compared to corporations.
Also nobody is really arguing against tax code simplification, but it only can get you so far.
A couple big companies versus hundreds of small companies in a given industry is a strong feature of leftist driven governance, whether it comes from republicans or democrats. For the little guy they are definitely not.
Big governments love a couple big businesses because it’s much easier to infiltrate, influence, control and ultimately procur wealth with that small group of businesses rather than attempting to influence 100’s or even 1000’s of smaller and independent companies.
So the next time you see 3 domestic car companies, and 3 airplane makers, and 4 toilet paper makers, 3 oil companies, etc. Understand they want it that way because of control and $$$$.
Big governments love a couple big businesses because it’s much easier to infiltrate, influence, control and ultimately procur wealth with that small group of businesses rather than attempting to influence 100’s or even 1000’s of smaller and independent companies.
So the next time you see 3 domestic car companies, and 3 airplane makers, and 4 toilet paper makers, 3 oil companies, etc. Understand they want it that way because of control and $$$$.
Don't equate big state with left. It's really two independent things, and not how most leftists think, in my experience.
>"I'd prefer we solve things more directly. Break up big business via anti-trust."
In theory I am all for it but on the other hand what would be the allowed size? I can hardly imagine mom and pop shop producing Lithium Ion cells, starting foundry etc, etc. This measure could put country to severe disadvantage against any other that does not implement same measures.
To be more practical and keep competitive edge internationally I'd just milk big companies by way of taxes and make sure there are no loopholes and perks like foreign earning exceptions etc. And outlaw political corporate lobbying.
In theory I am all for it but on the other hand what would be the allowed size? I can hardly imagine mom and pop shop producing Lithium Ion cells, starting foundry etc, etc. This measure could put country to severe disadvantage against any other that does not implement same measures.
To be more practical and keep competitive edge internationally I'd just milk big companies by way of taxes and make sure there are no loopholes and perks like foreign earning exceptions etc. And outlaw political corporate lobbying.
when people say stuff like this
> all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation"
I think they are usually talking about avoidance (legal), not evasion (illegal). while some avoidance schemes do toe the line of outright evasion, I (perhaps naively) don't believe ultra-rich people routinely employ illegal tax strategies.
personally, I'm okay with the fact that some people will inevitably break the law and not get caught, as long as it's not pervasive. if nothing else, they will have to live with the anxiety that the music might stop for them at any moment.
what I'm not okay with are the "tax the rich" initiatives that look good when condensed to a set of talking points, but in reality are just a tax hike for the upper-middle that will be easily (and fully legally) avoided by the wealthiest people. convince me you have a solution for that before you come for even more of the wages I actually work for.
> all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation"
I think they are usually talking about avoidance (legal), not evasion (illegal). while some avoidance schemes do toe the line of outright evasion, I (perhaps naively) don't believe ultra-rich people routinely employ illegal tax strategies.
personally, I'm okay with the fact that some people will inevitably break the law and not get caught, as long as it's not pervasive. if nothing else, they will have to live with the anxiety that the music might stop for them at any moment.
what I'm not okay with are the "tax the rich" initiatives that look good when condensed to a set of talking points, but in reality are just a tax hike for the upper-middle that will be easily (and fully legally) avoided by the wealthiest people. convince me you have a solution for that before you come for even more of the wages I actually work for.
> Why is avoiding taxes different than any other moral problem?
Isn't a complex tax code a moral problem for the same reason? The other way to attack the problem would be to simplify tax codes more.
Isn't a complex tax code a moral problem for the same reason? The other way to attack the problem would be to simplify tax codes more.
You've read something into the post that isn't there. It isn't taking a position on equality. Poster might or might not support it as a value.
Notice that there isn't an argument that Zuckerberg should have less money. There is an argument that Mr Jones should have more. As far as anyone on the left is concerned that would decrease equality (the obvious way to achieve it is less transfer payments from the middle class to the poor).
Notice that there isn't an argument that Zuckerberg should have less money. There is an argument that Mr Jones should have more. As far as anyone on the left is concerned that would decrease equality (the obvious way to achieve it is less transfer payments from the middle class to the poor).
> the obvious way to achieve it is less transfer payments from the middle class to the poor
This is an oft-touted talking point, but not actually correct. If you add up all the numbers, most social welfare in the West proportionally goes to pensions and healthcare. Poverty relief is usually a smaller budget than corporate welfare. This article (0) shows the distribution for the US.
Additionally, part of US social welfare specifically enables companies like Walmart to get away with not paying their employees a living wage, so is de facto corporate - not social - welfare. In short: thinking of it in terms of "the poor are the problem" only helps hide the wealth transfer from the middle class to the upper class.
There is no way for the middle class to have more money while keeping the wealth for the upper class constant, because the system already trickles up middle class wealth. At some point, we should be expecting companies to pay their dues and change rules to make them: corporation tax, liveable wages, overtime compensation, emissions, pollution, workplace safety and perhaps even off time caused by burnout.
0: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40....
This is an oft-touted talking point, but not actually correct. If you add up all the numbers, most social welfare in the West proportionally goes to pensions and healthcare. Poverty relief is usually a smaller budget than corporate welfare. This article (0) shows the distribution for the US.
Additionally, part of US social welfare specifically enables companies like Walmart to get away with not paying their employees a living wage, so is de facto corporate - not social - welfare. In short: thinking of it in terms of "the poor are the problem" only helps hide the wealth transfer from the middle class to the upper class.
There is no way for the middle class to have more money while keeping the wealth for the upper class constant, because the system already trickles up middle class wealth. At some point, we should be expecting companies to pay their dues and change rules to make them: corporation tax, liveable wages, overtime compensation, emissions, pollution, workplace safety and perhaps even off time caused by burnout.
0: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40....
If welfare didn't exist, corporations would be forced to pay those wages directly.
UBI solves all these issues nicely. People get to spend the money in the way that works best for them. Because they aren't 100% tied to the corporations, the worst, lowest paying jobs gain leverage when negotiating.
While not the best solution, it is far better than current welfare. Even Milton Friedman supported UBI in this context.
UBI solves all these issues nicely. People get to spend the money in the way that works best for them. Because they aren't 100% tied to the corporations, the worst, lowest paying jobs gain leverage when negotiating.
While not the best solution, it is far better than current welfare. Even Milton Friedman supported UBI in this context.
> Because they aren't 100% tied to the corporations, the worst, lowest paying jobs gain leverage when negotiating.
They're just shackled to a government handout making them totally dependent on the government of the day's generosity or lack thereof.
They're just shackled to a government handout making them totally dependent on the government of the day's generosity or lack thereof.
Do we not consider the people who are getting pensions and relying on the government to pay for their healthcare as the poor? They've got no money.
> That's why taxing heavily middle class is a terrible idea
This seems to relate to marginal income tax rates, not corporate taxes.
>and all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation".
They don’t have to. Simply eliminate deductions and credits and exemptions.
This seems to relate to marginal income tax rates, not corporate taxes.
>and all the "tax the rich" regulations in the end mean "tax those who cannot escape taxation".
They don’t have to. Simply eliminate deductions and credits and exemptions.
If you eliminate deductions, you end up with a gross receipts tax rather than an income/profit tax system.
There’s nothing at all simple about switching from one to the other. (Grocery stores in particular would be extremely hard-hit and a lot of us rely on them to survive. The wheels would come off quickly if not carefully thought though.)
There’s nothing at all simple about switching from one to the other. (Grocery stores in particular would be extremely hard-hit and a lot of us rely on them to survive. The wheels would come off quickly if not carefully thought though.)
Grocery stores would raise prices. What is the issue?
If the issue is it affecting poorer people adversely, then that should be addressed by making them less poor, e.g. the government giving them money.
If the issue is it affecting poorer people adversely, then that should be addressed by making them less poor, e.g. the government giving them money.
Grocery chains that were more vertically integrated would handily outcompete independent grocers who had more intermediate steps in their supply chain, each of which was taxed on their B2B revenue.
Whole Foods could conceivably become the equivalent of a discount grocery by virtue of such integration, after Amazon bought up farms and distribution channels.
Whole Foods could conceivably become the equivalent of a discount grocery by virtue of such integration, after Amazon bought up farms and distribution channels.
That’s a good point I had not considered.
This is also why a VAT is theoretically better than a sales tax, in my opinion: it removes the incentive to vertically integrate to avoid the transaction tax....
> Simply eliminate deductions and credits and exemptions.
Simply? In a global world economy? There is nothing simple about it.
Simply? In a global world economy? There is nothing simple about it.
"... this is very dangerous, it creates oligarchy, which, in turn, has all the incentives to restrict free market, free speech and democracy."
One could argue that the US is already an Oligarchy or more accurately an 'Oligarchic Plutocracy' which has accomplished all of the above.
One could argue that the US is already an Oligarchy or more accurately an 'Oligarchic Plutocracy' which has accomplished all of the above.
Who is disagreeing? It’s far more difficult to argue the i verse.
Anybody who refers to USA as "democracy"? There is a lot of politicians and even ordinary people who say that.
Even I would refer to USA as democratic, but there is lot of evidence that the democratic component is pretty weak.
Even I would refer to USA as democratic, but there is lot of evidence that the democratic component is pretty weak.
> In addition middle class is much more numerous than 1% of the wealthiest. Both Mark Zuckerberg and some Mr. Jones, who owns a grocery shop employ a single babysitter, need a single plumber to fix their pipes, are able to eat the same amount of food, etc. That's why from the social perspective it is important to have as many Mr. Jones as possible.
This seems like a false narrative to me.
For example, the policies Biden is putting forward tax household income at those above $400,000 annually and above, which is firmly in the 1%. This isn't your plumber or single babysitter.
In addition, they are discussing a minimum corporate tax rate and closing loopholes so that corporations and individuals can't pay 0% in income taxes, which is what many are paying now.
This seems like a false narrative to me.
For example, the policies Biden is putting forward tax household income at those above $400,000 annually and above, which is firmly in the 1%. This isn't your plumber or single babysitter.
In addition, they are discussing a minimum corporate tax rate and closing loopholes so that corporations and individuals can't pay 0% in income taxes, which is what many are paying now.
> which is firmly in the 1%
If the numbers at https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percen... are correct, the "top 1%" household income threshold in the US in 2020 is $53lk. $400k is closer to the "top 2%" level.
More importantly, these numbers like "400k" tend to not be inflation adjusted (e.g. the cutoffs for the net investment tax and the additional medicare tax are not, cutoffs for phaseouts of the child tax credit are not, etc). And income percentiles grow faster than inflation. Looking at that same data table, it looks like the percentile boundaries grew 6%+ year over year from 2019 to 2020. If that's not a fluke caused by the pandemic in some way, then in 10 years you expect something like 1.79x growth in the cutoff numbers, which would put $400k at about the "top 8%" level at that point.
Is it possible that your idea of what level is "firmly in the 1%" is just a few years out of date?
If the numbers at https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percen... are correct, the "top 1%" household income threshold in the US in 2020 is $53lk. $400k is closer to the "top 2%" level.
More importantly, these numbers like "400k" tend to not be inflation adjusted (e.g. the cutoffs for the net investment tax and the additional medicare tax are not, cutoffs for phaseouts of the child tax credit are not, etc). And income percentiles grow faster than inflation. Looking at that same data table, it looks like the percentile boundaries grew 6%+ year over year from 2019 to 2020. If that's not a fluke caused by the pandemic in some way, then in 10 years you expect something like 1.79x growth in the cutoff numbers, which would put $400k at about the "top 8%" level at that point.
Is it possible that your idea of what level is "firmly in the 1%" is just a few years out of date?
I shouldn't have even included the "top 1%". That's an unfortunate flash point for veering any policy discussions off the rails.
Take the raw numbers. Yearly household income of $400,000 is not gong to affect the baby sitter or local contract plumber. I stand by my assertion that the OPs comment was attempting to distort the narrative.
Yes this may need to be adjusted for inflation down the road, like anything else.
Take the raw numbers. Yearly household income of $400,000 is not gong to affect the baby sitter or local contract plumber. I stand by my assertion that the OPs comment was attempting to distort the narrative.
Yes this may need to be adjusted for inflation down the road, like anything else.
Fwiw, I think you were misunderstanding part of the comment you replied to. It was not saying that the babysitter or contract plumber make $400k but that the local grocery shop owner might, and that both that shop owner and someone truly rich add comparable amounts to the economy in terms of service consumption.
I suspect that both of those claims are dubious, by the way. Someone with more wealth is in fact likely to employ more plumbers (due to having more toilets) and babysitters-per-child (full-time nannies, tutors, etc). And given how low-margin grocery stores are, I don't know that I'd expect a grocery shop owner to end up with $400k+ taxable income....
> Yes this may need to be adjusted for inflation down the road, like anything else.
My main point about the inflation bit is that it's disingenuous to introduce a new tax with a claim that it "does not affect the middle class" when you know with near-certainty that in 10 years or less it absolutely will. In fact you are banking on that to make the numbers you depend on actually work out.
Almost all proposals to "tax the rich" that do not come with automatic inflation adjustments built in are just proposals to tax the middle class in disguise.
I suspect that both of those claims are dubious, by the way. Someone with more wealth is in fact likely to employ more plumbers (due to having more toilets) and babysitters-per-child (full-time nannies, tutors, etc). And given how low-margin grocery stores are, I don't know that I'd expect a grocery shop owner to end up with $400k+ taxable income....
> Yes this may need to be adjusted for inflation down the road, like anything else.
My main point about the inflation bit is that it's disingenuous to introduce a new tax with a claim that it "does not affect the middle class" when you know with near-certainty that in 10 years or less it absolutely will. In fact you are banking on that to make the numbers you depend on actually work out.
Almost all proposals to "tax the rich" that do not come with automatic inflation adjustments built in are just proposals to tax the middle class in disguise.
Your post really resonates well with me. I wondered many times in my life, how do you effectively tax actual rich people without squashing the middle class?
Many EU states seem to get this very wrong.
Many EU states seem to get this very wrong.
I think the aim should be less about making the rich poor and more about making the poor rich. Programs that encourage entrepreneurship, safety nets, lower taxes, etc. I think we should also consider reducing immigration and free trade to benefit labor in country.
> I think the aim should be less about making the rich poor and more about making the poor rich
I agree in principle, but reducing immigration and restricting free trade aren't policies that make the poor rich; they're policies that benefit those in possession of scarce resources at a cost to the rest of society.
Take steel tariffs for instance. They benefit the steelworkers, at the cost of every domestic industry that consumes steel. The entire economy pays to support an otherwise unprofitable industry.
Reducing immigration won't magically increase the supply of skilled workers. There aren't masses of unskilled poor who aren't going to college due to immigration putting downwards pressure on skilled wages. They aren't going to college because they lack the resources and opportunity.
I agree in principle, but reducing immigration and restricting free trade aren't policies that make the poor rich; they're policies that benefit those in possession of scarce resources at a cost to the rest of society.
Take steel tariffs for instance. They benefit the steelworkers, at the cost of every domestic industry that consumes steel. The entire economy pays to support an otherwise unprofitable industry.
Reducing immigration won't magically increase the supply of skilled workers. There aren't masses of unskilled poor who aren't going to college due to immigration putting downwards pressure on skilled wages. They aren't going to college because they lack the resources and opportunity.
I think it's a trade-off. Tariffs and the like will make us less efficient as a whole, but will shift money back towards labor. Right now I think we're tilted too far towards efficiency which is leading to wealth accreting in the hands of a wealthy fortunate few owning massively successful companies.
I’m pro trade and pro immigration, but the argument on the other side is if you open up both, labor in the US now has to compete on a global arena rather than being somewhat protected via isolationist policies.
> How do you effectively tax actual rich people without squashing the middle class?
Here's some ideas:
1. Tax stock buybacks similar to dividends. Or eliminate them entirely. This leads to...
2. Let unearned income tax brackets go up to the same % levels as earned income, only for different income levels. For example, if $400k in earned income is 38%, then maybe $2m in unearned income should also be 38%. Right now long term cap gains tops out at 15%, which is bullshit.
3. Since wealthy people borrow against their assets to spend, instead of selling assets and incurring taxes, place limits on interest deductions when doing this. There are already similar limits in place for mortgage interest deductions.
Here's some ideas:
1. Tax stock buybacks similar to dividends. Or eliminate them entirely. This leads to...
2. Let unearned income tax brackets go up to the same % levels as earned income, only for different income levels. For example, if $400k in earned income is 38%, then maybe $2m in unearned income should also be 38%. Right now long term cap gains tops out at 15%, which is bullshit.
3. Since wealthy people borrow against their assets to spend, instead of selling assets and incurring taxes, place limits on interest deductions when doing this. There are already similar limits in place for mortgage interest deductions.
> how do you effectively tax actual rich people without squashing the middle class?
By using a tax ladder [1] (tax rate increases in steps).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_ladder
By using a tax ladder [1] (tax rate increases in steps).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_ladder
Can you name any that do?
This isn't corporate taxes.
I'm pretty sure Bezos doesn't like this idea all that much, but it's the price of getting on board with Biden's infrastructure plan.
He probably views it as an investment. Amazon has a keener interest than most in ensuring road maintenance is done properly and if that means a small increase to his tax bill he's probably ok with it.
He also desperately needs to score some progressive points. His reputation is getting trashed rn. I'm sure that factored in to his decision.
I'm skeptical of the notion that he wants this to keep competitors down.
He probably views it as an investment. Amazon has a keener interest than most in ensuring road maintenance is done properly and if that means a small increase to his tax bill he's probably ok with it.
He also desperately needs to score some progressive points. His reputation is getting trashed rn. I'm sure that factored in to his decision.
I'm skeptical of the notion that he wants this to keep competitors down.
The guy who says “your margin is my opportunity” doesn’t want to influence taxes on the margins of others to keep competitors down? Instead he cares about road maintenance funded specifically through corporate tax hikes?
Why wouldn’t he just advocate for road maintenance?
Edit: whoops, I didn’t read his actual statement. Tricked by CNN! Still, I’m a little skeptical of ascribing motivations to people like Bezos that aren’t in line with his past actions, but instead are in line with my personal politics, which is why I’m skeptical.
Why wouldn’t he just advocate for road maintenance?
Edit: whoops, I didn’t read his actual statement. Tricked by CNN! Still, I’m a little skeptical of ascribing motivations to people like Bezos that aren’t in line with his past actions, but instead are in line with my personal politics, which is why I’m skeptical.
Did you think lobbying is just asking for goodies and offering nothing in return?
Couldn’t one make the argument “there is no use because Big Tech have so many lawyers” no matter what the new policy is?
If taxing the big companies is the aim, how does one gauge the policy suggestion?
(I am not Americans just watching this curiously from outside)
Edit: spelling
If taxing the big companies is the aim, how does one gauge the policy suggestion?
(I am not Americans just watching this curiously from outside)
Edit: spelling
Well one policy could be "tax companies with more than x lawyers".
Such rules only act as an incentive to find new loopholes and waist money using them.
A large company can spend 99% of what they save in taxes to find out how to save it and its a net gain.
The solution would be to have absolute minimalist tax rules which are so simple that there wont be loopholes. Then also make judges apply common sense and smash every attempted loophole until everyone stops wasting money to find one.
Never going to happen obviously but we can dream.
The solution would be to have absolute minimalist tax rules which are so simple that there wont be loopholes. Then also make judges apply common sense and smash every attempted loophole until everyone stops wasting money to find one.
Never going to happen obviously but we can dream.
The issue with this is that tax code is often used as a proxy to fix all sorts of social problems that lead to inequality. We give tax breaks to subsets of populations who really need them. We also push policy through tax incentives, for example solar related deductions.
I think we'd be better off fixing the deduction of such problems, but just pointing out that part of the reason taxes are so complicated are to enable this. Another reason is to create corporate tax loopholes...
I think we'd be better off fixing the deduction of such problems, but just pointing out that part of the reason taxes are so complicated are to enable this. Another reason is to create corporate tax loopholes...
Subsidizing anything should never be done trough tax breaks anyway. It just hides tax spending. Also this was about corporate taxes not private taxes. If a corporation "really needs a tax cut" its probably just unsustainable and if not it should find investors to bring the money voluntary not force spend the peoples money.
Yes the loopholes are intentional but it only helps very few individuals and a whole industry of layer, while corporations aren't actually in the business of finding tax loopholes they are indirectly forced to participate anyway because their competitor does. People blame the companies for evading taxes but they are not the problem they have to play along because everything else would be hard to explain to the shareholders.
Imagine if you are a business owner and your company slowly grows to amazon size. At what point would a sane person like to pay people to evade taxes? You would never want to do that instead of building a team of tax specialist or outsource that you could expand in real business. Your local small business owner and Jeff Bezos both have no interest in that.
Yes the loopholes are intentional but it only helps very few individuals and a whole industry of layer, while corporations aren't actually in the business of finding tax loopholes they are indirectly forced to participate anyway because their competitor does. People blame the companies for evading taxes but they are not the problem they have to play along because everything else would be hard to explain to the shareholders.
Imagine if you are a business owner and your company slowly grows to amazon size. At what point would a sane person like to pay people to evade taxes? You would never want to do that instead of building a team of tax specialist or outsource that you could expand in real business. Your local small business owner and Jeff Bezos both have no interest in that.
Voilà! Amazon Legal Services LLC (no connection to Amazon.com Inc. ;), now provides all legal services to Amazon.com Inc.
[deleted]
This doesn’t work at all, many companies don’t have lawyers of their own but keep big law firms on retainer. And companies could just offload more onto JD-advantage employees/ law student interns anyways since they’re not “lawyers”
They have both in-house counsels and work with external law firms. A reason for doing this is to avoid liability.
Some big companies retain multiple law firms and ask the same advice a couple of times. If an overworked attorney who barely gets any sleep ever misses a point or drafts his/her advice vaguely in a way that would enable their evil plans, they rely on that single opinion. If there are any problems they don't assume any liability, because hey they got a legal opinion from a respectable law firm. Nobody needs to know/can prove they obtained multiple opinions on the same matter because of legal privilege.
In return, big law gets paid a lot of $$$, because of the risk of providing such opinions under considerable pressure and trickstery.
Some big companies retain multiple law firms and ask the same advice a couple of times. If an overworked attorney who barely gets any sleep ever misses a point or drafts his/her advice vaguely in a way that would enable their evil plans, they rely on that single opinion. If there are any problems they don't assume any liability, because hey they got a legal opinion from a respectable law firm. Nobody needs to know/can prove they obtained multiple opinions on the same matter because of legal privilege.
In return, big law gets paid a lot of $$$, because of the risk of providing such opinions under considerable pressure and trickstery.
Having a legal opinion supporting an aggressive tax position that is eventually overturned doesn’t get you out of liability for that position. The appearance of food faith efforts to comply with the complex tax code may reduce penalties assessed.
Sure, my comment wasn't tax code specific. There is always risk involved, but it's much less. If you need to do it anyway, better pressure a lawyer into giving you a legal opinion. The company will pay pay the fine but who can blame you for acting on it.
In a big corp, I think most employees are concerned with saving the day. If the management pressures them to cut corners most will. What better way is there to pass the blame?
In a big corp, I think most employees are concerned with saving the day. If the management pressures them to cut corners most will. What better way is there to pass the blame?
They'd just outsource them to a legal firm
One proposed reform was to give corporations an obligation to explain the difference between their profits declared to the IRS (as low as they can get away with) and their profits declared to their shareholders (accurate, because they want people to buy their shares).
Both declarations are available to the IRS; if you force corporations to declare how they "bridge the gap", while it would let them practice tax evasion, it would make it easier to assess what form that evasion takes; and it would make fraud much harder.
I don't remember if it went through.
Both declarations are available to the IRS; if you force corporations to declare how they "bridge the gap", while it would let them practice tax evasion, it would make it easier to assess what form that evasion takes; and it would make fraud much harder.
I don't remember if it went through.
Rate reconciliations are required disclosure. See page 64 of the 2019 financial statements [1].
[1] https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/...
[1] https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/...
Yes. Throw enough smart tax lawyers at a problem and limit your tax regardless of what law is passed.
The traditional solution is to lower taxes and simplify the tax code.
Large corporations have an effective tax rate below the nominal one due to antics with exceptions — while smaller businesses get hit harder. What’s called “progressive” often ends up regressive due to the imbalance in ability to do finance trickery. Rich people will always find or create exploits in the law, so those “high taxes on mega corps and billionaires!” hit the middle class and medium sized businesses: they’re who bear the brunt of taxes, in the US.
You get out of doing that unnecessary damage by removing the game: no whatever exceptions, just a flat rate everyone pays.
What’s called “regressive” is actually progressive in that it lightens the tax burden on the middle class and medium businesses, while making the richest pay a fair share. (Also, simpler codes are harder to cheat.)
Discussing the tax burden of the poorest is a misdirection used by politicians: the poorest in the US receive more benefits than they pay, so it’s a question of how that burden is split between the middle class and the upper class.
Large corporations have an effective tax rate below the nominal one due to antics with exceptions — while smaller businesses get hit harder. What’s called “progressive” often ends up regressive due to the imbalance in ability to do finance trickery. Rich people will always find or create exploits in the law, so those “high taxes on mega corps and billionaires!” hit the middle class and medium sized businesses: they’re who bear the brunt of taxes, in the US.
You get out of doing that unnecessary damage by removing the game: no whatever exceptions, just a flat rate everyone pays.
What’s called “regressive” is actually progressive in that it lightens the tax burden on the middle class and medium businesses, while making the richest pay a fair share. (Also, simpler codes are harder to cheat.)
Discussing the tax burden of the poorest is a misdirection used by politicians: the poorest in the US receive more benefits than they pay, so it’s a question of how that burden is split between the middle class and the upper class.
It's not that simple. As far as I know, corporate taxes are already flat. (If they weren't, corporations could easily split into several smaller ones to keep their profits below some threshold.)
The big issue is with "just a flat rate that everyone pays". What do you pay that rate over? Big corporations manage to pay that rate over nothing. Generally those corporate taxes are paid over profits, so corporations avoid taking profits in countries that tax them. They sit on their money, pay it out as bonuses to executives, and take their profits in tax havens.
The issue isn't the tax rate, it's the loop holes. It's that the amount that's taxed is easily manipulated. Instead of easily manipulatable profits, the tax should be levied on something less easily manipulatable. Like revenue. Of course that already happens: VAT taxes, only because you pay them on all products, they are effectively paid by consumers, not corporations.
But how about allowing corporations to deduct their local external costs from their revenue? Not easily manipulatable foreign external costs, but simply the costs made in the same market as where the revenues come from? Then you're effectively still taxing profit, but tied to the local market, cutting tax havens and internal trickery out of the picture. A company on the other side of the world selling in your country but not making any costs there; no labour, manufacturing, rent, etc; would pay tax over their entire revenue, whereas a local shop that has does have all those costs, and therefore cannot help but invest in the local economy, gets to deduct those costs and pay less taxes.
I think that could do a lot to even out the imbalance and make the playing field a lot fairer.
The big issue is with "just a flat rate that everyone pays". What do you pay that rate over? Big corporations manage to pay that rate over nothing. Generally those corporate taxes are paid over profits, so corporations avoid taking profits in countries that tax them. They sit on their money, pay it out as bonuses to executives, and take their profits in tax havens.
The issue isn't the tax rate, it's the loop holes. It's that the amount that's taxed is easily manipulated. Instead of easily manipulatable profits, the tax should be levied on something less easily manipulatable. Like revenue. Of course that already happens: VAT taxes, only because you pay them on all products, they are effectively paid by consumers, not corporations.
But how about allowing corporations to deduct their local external costs from their revenue? Not easily manipulatable foreign external costs, but simply the costs made in the same market as where the revenues come from? Then you're effectively still taxing profit, but tied to the local market, cutting tax havens and internal trickery out of the picture. A company on the other side of the world selling in your country but not making any costs there; no labour, manufacturing, rent, etc; would pay tax over their entire revenue, whereas a local shop that has does have all those costs, and therefore cannot help but invest in the local economy, gets to deduct those costs and pay less taxes.
I think that could do a lot to even out the imbalance and make the playing field a lot fairer.
How does international trade work under such a system? Does my iPhone get taxed as 100% profit with no allowance for cost-of-goods-sold?
If a country doesn’t make automobiles or refrigerators, are those taxed as if they were pure profit for the retailer? It’s not like a local retailer is going to manufacture even refrigerators, let alone cars or phones.
If a country doesn’t make automobiles or refrigerators, are those taxed as if they were pure profit for the retailer? It’s not like a local retailer is going to manufacture even refrigerators, let alone cars or phones.
Countries could decide they have enough in common in terms of taxes and trade that they calculate this over all those countries combined, as long as they exclude tax havens and other countries that seem to take a parasitic advantage of the markets of other countries.
> If they weren't, corporations could easily split into several smaller ones to keep their profits below some threshold
I think we need to address this somehow. Perhaps by counting size by which actual people control and/or own the companies rather than the current arbitrary legal structure.
I think we need to address this somehow. Perhaps by counting size by which actual people control and/or own the companies rather than the current arbitrary legal structure.
Part of the problem with corporations is definitely that they're a massive concentration of money and power, with no person being responsible for it. If every company was just a small business of one or a handful of people working together, instead of this artificial legal construct that concentrates power and assets with no liability, these things would be a lot easier. But then you also can't do the massive investments that corporations do.
> It's that the amount that's taxed is easily manipulated
Did you even read my post?
It’s entirely about this fact: you wrote a long rant concurring, but phrased as violent agreement.
You just pulled a single phrase out of a multiparagraph post, then strawmanned my argument.
That’s not up to the standards expected of HN posts.
Did you even read my post?
It’s entirely about this fact: you wrote a long rant concurring, but phrased as violent agreement.
You just pulled a single phrase out of a multiparagraph post, then strawmanned my argument.
That’s not up to the standards expected of HN posts.
I did read your comment. Did you read mine? There's nothing violent about my agreement. I agree with some points, disagree with others, which I explain further. There's nothing strawman about that.
The first three paragraphs straw man my argument and misrepresent my position as saying flat taxes were the solution and it’s more complicated — when that’s exactly what I said. Literally, my entire comment is about loopholes and unintended consequences to tax policy... except the very first line, which seems to be all you read.
You had one more paragraph with some random technical considerations agreeing with me.
Then you concluded.
You literally just repeated my point, but started with “it’s more complicated than that” — which is phrased as a disagreement with my point.
That’s a straw man (misrepresenting my suggestion as being a flat rate, even though my entire comment was about loopholes — like yours) and violent agreement (phrased as disagreement when repeating the same thing).
Your reply here is just wrong. (:
You had one more paragraph with some random technical considerations agreeing with me.
Then you concluded.
You literally just repeated my point, but started with “it’s more complicated than that” — which is phrased as a disagreement with my point.
That’s a straw man (misrepresenting my suggestion as being a flat rate, even though my entire comment was about loopholes — like yours) and violent agreement (phrased as disagreement when repeating the same thing).
Your reply here is just wrong. (:
> ... not giant "Big Tech" companies that have all kinds of ways of avoiding them and employ hundreds of people in their accounting department...
You could make that argument against absolutely any policy. So what is your solution then? Don't do anything?
You could make that argument against absolutely any policy. So what is your solution then? Don't do anything?
Tax individual wealth and remove income taxes for corporations. Not capital gains, but wealth as in Switzerland or The Netherlands. Income taxes for corporations all disappear when the corporation reaches a given size after which the state only captures capital gains taxes from shareholders and employment and other taxes. The only companies that end up paying income tax are the small ones. So just tax wealth of individuals and remove all the shenanigans in between.
> Income taxes for corporations all disappear when the corporation reaches a given size
Could you explain why this is the case?
> So just tax wealth of individuals
Individuals can play the same games. Jeff Bezos could move most of his wealth into funds, foundations or companies and be poor on paper while still keeping the de-facto control of all assets. Or they could shift their wealth overseas, into tax havens or into less transparent areas like crypto.
Could you explain why this is the case?
> So just tax wealth of individuals
Individuals can play the same games. Jeff Bezos could move most of his wealth into funds, foundations or companies and be poor on paper while still keeping the de-facto control of all assets. Or they could shift their wealth overseas, into tax havens or into less transparent areas like crypto.
>> Income taxes for corporations all disappear when the corporation reaches a given size
> Could you explain why this is the case?
Just to comment on this real quick, this has multiple reasons. Basically, the larger your company is, the more funds you have to spend on lawyers and experts, as well as offshoring. Also, depending on the country you're in and the specific tax laws, it might be easier to fulfill incentives for nullifying the corporate tax (IIRC reinvesting and creating jobs is how Amazon nullifies a good chunk of their taxes, right?). That is not to say, we should completely axe corporate tax imo, because some of those incentives are really good. You want corporations in your country to reinvest and create jobs, because that's overall a really good thing for the job market.
The thing about Bezos' wealth is that a huge chunk (maybe even the majority) of it is already in the form of assets. That's not as easily moved overseas (though to my limited understanding it isn't impossible) without hurting his own company, and at that point it might be profitable to just pay a wealth or asset tax or something like that. Obviously that would need to be designed REALLY well, but there's a good chance that that's how we can tax exactly what we want to tax, without hurting small businesses and without hurting the lower class.
> Could you explain why this is the case?
Just to comment on this real quick, this has multiple reasons. Basically, the larger your company is, the more funds you have to spend on lawyers and experts, as well as offshoring. Also, depending on the country you're in and the specific tax laws, it might be easier to fulfill incentives for nullifying the corporate tax (IIRC reinvesting and creating jobs is how Amazon nullifies a good chunk of their taxes, right?). That is not to say, we should completely axe corporate tax imo, because some of those incentives are really good. You want corporations in your country to reinvest and create jobs, because that's overall a really good thing for the job market.
The thing about Bezos' wealth is that a huge chunk (maybe even the majority) of it is already in the form of assets. That's not as easily moved overseas (though to my limited understanding it isn't impossible) without hurting his own company, and at that point it might be profitable to just pay a wealth or asset tax or something like that. Obviously that would need to be designed REALLY well, but there's a good chance that that's how we can tax exactly what we want to tax, without hurting small businesses and without hurting the lower class.
If we could close most loopholes taxing the wealth of the individuals might work.
I’m talking all loopholes, even giving money to a 501c3. Billy’s nonprofit gives back less than 1% to the country that coddled him. Plus—I feel a lot of nonprofits are just tax dodges.
Want to manufacture overseas? Fine, but move to that country, and don’t come back.
I got carried away again. I would like to basically see tax loopholes closed, or only allowed the first few years of a business life.
I’m talking all loopholes, even giving money to a 501c3. Billy’s nonprofit gives back less than 1% to the country that coddled him. Plus—I feel a lot of nonprofits are just tax dodges.
Want to manufacture overseas? Fine, but move to that country, and don’t come back.
I got carried away again. I would like to basically see tax loopholes closed, or only allowed the first few years of a business life.
I guess one of the major realization to be made that this is mostly a real-estate problem and taxing wealth is not going to help. Most of the wealth held by wealthy individuals is just on paper. If you put a high tax on wealth, most of this value is going to be erased overnight.
The problem is real-estate as this is what people need. If people could buy property they would not be interested in stocks or crypto and they would not care for rich people getting richer. They would be busy in their pools or backyards.
And fixing real-estate is not done by having more taxes, penalizing vacant homes, or grabbing your inheritance. It's simple: Build more housing.
The problem is real-estate as this is what people need. If people could buy property they would not be interested in stocks or crypto and they would not care for rich people getting richer. They would be busy in their pools or backyards.
And fixing real-estate is not done by having more taxes, penalizing vacant homes, or grabbing your inheritance. It's simple: Build more housing.
Yes. Believe it or not, not doing something is better than doing something that will definitely have a detrimental effect.
I am almost in my 40s now and one thing I've recently learned is that sometimes it is better not to do anything at all.
I am almost in my 40s now and one thing I've recently learned is that sometimes it is better not to do anything at all.
Increasing the tax rate isn't what matters; the structure needs reform. For example getting rid of income tax and replacing it with revenue taxes, which are more difficult to circumvent.
I'm not sure if revenue taxes are the better idea: they will impact low-margin businesses (e.g. restaurants) hard.
This is actually doable, though you need specific classifications for each business
You can set a fee of 3% for restaurants let's say, and 10% for some other business (example)
This makes sense for small business
You can set a fee of 3% for restaurants let's say, and 10% for some other business (example)
This makes sense for small business
Amazon restaurant chain starting up, it's amazing how much of Amazon's money needs to be moved into that subsidiary.
Get a free iPhone with purchase of our $999 steak dinner.
I would assume they would raise prices so margins stay similar, though I don't know if that's been experimented with.
Even if it does mean less restaurants and less eating out, there is nothing inherently more unfair about it.
Even if it does mean less restaurants and less eating out, there is nothing inherently more unfair about it.
That just benefits vertical integration. Amazon would pay less taxes in Amazon basics than third party goods. What you really want is a VAT. You're only taxed on the value add of your product. It's widely regarded as the most efficient tax and the US is one of the only countries that doesn't use it.
I agree there are some issues with a revenue tax, but VAT isn't good enough because you really want to capture B2B transactions.
You can also see for example the digital services tax introduced by France because VAT was not proving effective.
You can also see for example the digital services tax introduced by France because VAT was not proving effective.
Sales tax is essentially a tax on corporate revenue.
Is it? In the US, at least, sales tax is taken on top of listed prices (it's uncommon for an establishment to list "tax included" prices), so essentially a customer is paying for the product and then paying the government on top of it.
Unless your thought is that businesses would charge more if there was no sales tax. I don't really buy that, though; businesses list pre-tax prices specifically to avoid sticker shock.
Unless your thought is that businesses would charge more if there was no sales tax. I don't really buy that, though; businesses list pre-tax prices specifically to avoid sticker shock.
It does not capture any B2B revenue?
Intentionally so, because taxing B2B revenue is effectively a financial penalty for not being a huge vertically-integrated megacorp. It means that any goods which have more than one company involved in their production are taxed at a higher rate than ones where every step is done in-house. This is not generally a desirable tax incentive.
[deleted]
Always the conflict is: how can such a huge company make so much money and pay so little in taxes? Always the answer is: they didn't make profit because they reinvested or otherwise spent the money. (Correct me of I'm wrong)
How about a policy of mandatory 10% profit for companies over 1B in revenue? That would produce some nice antimonopoly effects too.
How about a policy of mandatory 10% profit for companies over 1B in revenue? That would produce some nice antimonopoly effects too.
> Always the answer is: they didn't make profit because they reinvested or otherwise spent the money. (Correct me of I'm wrong)
Generally the answer is: they "spent" the money on "intellectual property" licensed to them by a subsidiary in Ireland (patents, brand name, software license) where that subsidiary pays zero takes through some accounting trickery[0] and moves that money offshore to Bermuda or Caymans. So the main company makes zero profit in markets outside Ireland because coincidentally licensing expenses exactly equal the gross profits of the company - and thus pays zero taxes anywhere ever.
[0] formerly the "double Irish" international tax loophole, nowadays there's a different "Irish patent box"
Generally the answer is: they "spent" the money on "intellectual property" licensed to them by a subsidiary in Ireland (patents, brand name, software license) where that subsidiary pays zero takes through some accounting trickery[0] and moves that money offshore to Bermuda or Caymans. So the main company makes zero profit in markets outside Ireland because coincidentally licensing expenses exactly equal the gross profits of the company - and thus pays zero taxes anywhere ever.
[0] formerly the "double Irish" international tax loophole, nowadays there's a different "Irish patent box"
Ok so what about us legit companies that actually reinvested our profits in new hires and other expenses? We'll just pay more because some companies are avoiding taxes? If you want to close a loophole, then close a loophole... if you raise taxes... well, they can still use the loophole.
That's not generally how GAAP works.
This is essentially being proposed as part of upcoming legislation in the US. I'd say it's likely to happen, and it probably won't have a big impact
> How about a policy of mandatory 10% profit for companies over 1B in revenue?
Funny. China had a profitability requirement for any IPO until the beginning of 2020.
Funny. China had a profitability requirement for any IPO until the beginning of 2020.
> Always the answer is: they didn't make profit because they reinvested or otherwise spent the money.
This is the desired outcome and we should not touch this.
This is the desired outcome and we should not touch this.
-Not the OP, but my impression is s/he implied that the big corporations performed tax shenanigans to ensure their taxable profit ended up very near zero - say, buying expensive services from subsidiaries in tax havens &c.
Say I run a company out of the US called 'Paraná' (Seeing as the other big river is already taken), turning $1B/year profit.
I promptly spend the profit buying consulting services from 'Paraná Consulting and Tax Shenanigans LLC' based out of a Panama mailbox for $1.05B, for instance - then I even run my US business at a loss.
(I don't know anything about US or international tax codes, but the above basically sums up the methods described in X stories I've read about tax planning over the years.)
Say I run a company out of the US called 'Paraná' (Seeing as the other big river is already taken), turning $1B/year profit.
I promptly spend the profit buying consulting services from 'Paraná Consulting and Tax Shenanigans LLC' based out of a Panama mailbox for $1.05B, for instance - then I even run my US business at a loss.
(I don't know anything about US or international tax codes, but the above basically sums up the methods described in X stories I've read about tax planning over the years.)
I feel like this be addressed by simply banning all trade with tax haven countries.
Define tax haven countries. The UK is a tax haven for a lot of Russians, Switzerland is a tax haven for anyone not American, the UAE is a tax haven that the US does 18B in trade with, and that invests roughly 25B annually in the US directly, Singapore is a tax haven that the US actually has a surplus with. So yeah, it's not simple.
Would you also ban trade with tax haven states? There are states that have no income tax, low worker protections that offer lower costs, or did not choose to pay government employees 40 years ago with unfunded retirement benefits.
> all trade with tax haven countries.
UK, Netherlands and others countries have their own tax havens like Cayman Island, Curacao Island. Are you really going to ban trade with such big financial powerhouses?
UK, Netherlands and others countries have their own tax havens like Cayman Island, Curacao Island. Are you really going to ban trade with such big financial powerhouses?
You need a big enough bloc to make the decision together. Ideally the US + the EU + UK/EEA countries. But then yes, if countries outside the bloc decide not to comply then that's on them.
I'm growing increasingly weary about the cult of "reinvestment", which is also visible in some new corporate tax complications in my country. As sibling comments point out, this "reinvestment" can be phony IP purchases in tax havens. On the other hand, even if reinvestment is genuine, there's a question whether further concentration of capital and power in that one corporation is good for society. People say: wow, Amazon got people stuff delivered during lockdown. Truth is, even in a region where e-commerce and delivery markets are far more fragmented, it somehow happened.
Pay the damn wages and dividends, I'd say. The former will go into consumption, the latter will go probably into other companies, especially if we discourage less productive uses of capital (like real estate). And also getting taxes from these is more straightforward. Maybe they don't even have to be that high percentage-wise, if there is less possibility of avoidance.
Pay the damn wages and dividends, I'd say. The former will go into consumption, the latter will go probably into other companies, especially if we discourage less productive uses of capital (like real estate). And also getting taxes from these is more straightforward. Maybe they don't even have to be that high percentage-wise, if there is less possibility of avoidance.
> Pay the damn wages and dividends, I'd say.
If the goal is to increase wages, then government should lower the supply of labor and increase the demand for labor. Provide minimum x weeks of vacation, parental leave, maximum 8 hours per day until overtime rates kick in, free higher education, etc.
As for forcing companies to pay dividends, I’d rather the government not be able to tell me what to do with my company’s funds. If the government wants control of the funds, they should raise the tax rates.
If the goal is to increase wages, then government should lower the supply of labor and increase the demand for labor. Provide minimum x weeks of vacation, parental leave, maximum 8 hours per day until overtime rates kick in, free higher education, etc.
As for forcing companies to pay dividends, I’d rather the government not be able to tell me what to do with my company’s funds. If the government wants control of the funds, they should raise the tax rates.
My comment was more about popular mindset than specific policy solutions. I was trying to say that maybe reinvestment is not always an unquestionably good/best thing.
> As for forcing companies to pay dividends, I’d rather the government not be able to tell me what to do with my company’s funds
I don't want to digress too much, but limited liability corporation and more complex structures with shareholders are creations of the government. You used to have to obtain a specific charter from the sovereign for each one of them. So unless you're an individual doing business with unlimited liability, it's debatable whether government (or the lawgiver, to be more specific) shouldn't get to make the rules for you.
> As for forcing companies to pay dividends, I’d rather the government not be able to tell me what to do with my company’s funds
I don't want to digress too much, but limited liability corporation and more complex structures with shareholders are creations of the government. You used to have to obtain a specific charter from the sovereign for each one of them. So unless you're an individual doing business with unlimited liability, it's debatable whether government (or the lawgiver, to be more specific) shouldn't get to make the rules for you.
The government can make rules, but I don’t see why it has to do with how a company chooses to spend money. If the government wants more funds, then increase the taxes. Government can remove deductions for business expenses, raise tax rates, etc. But there’s no reason for government to tell a company what to do with its excess cash.
The corporation is a creation of the state. The state has obligations to humans, not to corporations. If the lives of humans to whom the state is obligated would be improved by any number of onerous requirements imposed on corporations, the state certainly should impose those onerous requirements.
Of course, the idea that states are created for the benefit of humans is bullshit, but it's nice to dream of something better...
Of course, the idea that states are created for the benefit of humans is bullshit, but it's nice to dream of something better...
> If the lives of humans to whom the state is obligated would be improved by any number of onerous requirements imposed on corporations, the state certainly should impose those onerous requirements.
I agree with this. Which is why I wrote the state can choose to increase taxes. I have yet to be shown how requiring a company to pay dividends accomplishes the goal of improving the lives of humans.
I agree with this. Which is why I wrote the state can choose to increase taxes. I have yet to be shown how requiring a company to pay dividends accomplishes the goal of improving the lives of humans.
Dividends are taxable, and they're often paid to entities that are unable to structure "profits" as carefully as the largest corporations can. So, in this discussion in which everyone (even Jeff B!) seems to agree that more taxes should be collected, dividend requirements would be a way to do that.
Of course, that's too tame. We'd be better off eliminating the most common forms of incorporation, or severely curtailing them e.g. maximum revenue limits. All the things that corporations can do, individuals, partnerships, mutual-benefit firms, etc. can also do, except often more carefully.
Of course, that's too tame. We'd be better off eliminating the most common forms of incorporation, or severely curtailing them e.g. maximum revenue limits. All the things that corporations can do, individuals, partnerships, mutual-benefit firms, etc. can also do, except often more carefully.
Hmm. Let's see how they do it in practise: funnel all money to another entity for 'licensing' their own brand. Net effect: no profit == no tax. Benefits for society: zero. Sure you don't want to change that?
How does the other entity get out of taxes? If the answer is offshore tax havens, I agree that they're a problem, but domestic tax policy isn't the greatest lever for fixing this. But in general, just moving your money around doesn't let you entirely evade taxes.
Moving your revenue to a place with low taxes, lets you escape taxes
> doesn't let you entirely evade taxes
"Entirely"?
It's not about evading taxes to 100%, but maybe 90% (not sure about the numbers).
Also, the taxes get paid in a different country, doesn't benefit the people in, say, the US.
> doesn't let you entirely evade taxes
"Entirely"?
It's not about evading taxes to 100%, but maybe 90% (not sure about the numbers).
Also, the taxes get paid in a different country, doesn't benefit the people in, say, the US.
Simply using licensing fees to shift revenue is a simple trick but countries can legislate against it if they want. Example:
https://www.kwm.com/en/au/knowledge/insights/australian-soft...
In that example they found that the 'licensing fee' was a royalty meaning there is a 30% withholding depending on double tax treaties and rates between the two locations. Which for a zero tax foreign licensor would mean a 30% local tax on however much you send overseas.
https://www.kwm.com/en/au/knowledge/insights/australian-soft...
In that example they found that the 'licensing fee' was a royalty meaning there is a 30% withholding depending on double tax treaties and rates between the two locations. Which for a zero tax foreign licensor would mean a 30% local tax on however much you send overseas.
Thanks, interesting example.
I wonder how much the company saved on avoiding taxes in that way, until it didn't work any more. (Didn't see any numbers, having had a look at the linked page)
I wonder if there's any table of all different methods companies use, to avoid taxes, and how much they typically save, and what could be ways to stop it
Maybe could be helpful for lawmakers
> required to pay 30% withholding tax
That's quite a lot is it? Compared to company taxes. Seems like a strong incentive to stop cheating
I wonder how much the company saved on avoiding taxes in that way, until it didn't work any more. (Didn't see any numbers, having had a look at the linked page)
I wonder if there's any table of all different methods companies use, to avoid taxes, and how much they typically save, and what could be ways to stop it
Maybe could be helpful for lawmakers
> required to pay 30% withholding tax
That's quite a lot is it? Compared to company taxes. Seems like a strong incentive to stop cheating
Company taxes are also 30% over here typically, flat rate. It is quite a lot I think, for small businesses at least. They don't have economies of scale or fancy setups and owners will pay a tax on profits then income taxes for themselves (I think dividends can work around this with franking credits), it can hurt margins, not to mention compliance overheads for GST etc.
Why? I'd rather the Gov the spend money on programs than corporations on RND.
Uh, in that case we'll have to disagree. I think corporations in general do a better job of spending money than the government, but I don't have hard evidence for that view.
> I think corporations in general do a better job of spending money than the government
Agreed. To add perspective, I don't believe corporations will give a crap about the people (extreme example, Amazon) like we believe our respective governments should. I'd rather have bad spending on keeping people alive than no spending at all.
Agreed. To add perspective, I don't believe corporations will give a crap about the people (extreme example, Amazon) like we believe our respective governments should. I'd rather have bad spending on keeping people alive than no spending at all.
In my experience, corporations are great at finding ways to get "innovation grants" and "R&D tax incentives" for things that involve no real research or innovation.
Instead of actually promoting innovation, they tend to become a subsidy for the tech industry.
Instead of actually promoting innovation, they tend to become a subsidy for the tech industry.
historically, the Government is by far the worst spender of money. they have the greatest power, and the worst track record.
What's the data here? Didn't "the government" create the internet, tons of medical research, the interstate highway system, etc?
Meanwhile Joe Schmoe bought yet another iPad (which wouldn't exist without the government inventing much of computer tech) to go in a landfill in two years. But at least he funded Apple's ability to make a brand new, basically identical model, next year.
How do we measure who has a "good" track record on spending money?
Meanwhile Joe Schmoe bought yet another iPad (which wouldn't exist without the government inventing much of computer tech) to go in a landfill in two years. But at least he funded Apple's ability to make a brand new, basically identical model, next year.
How do we measure who has a "good" track record on spending money?
Just ask anyone who has worked for the US Government, Military, or contractors.
To avoid pure anecdotes, the Government Accountability Office actually studies this every year: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-440sp ...
That's not to say I don't believe in government spending. I don't know that there is a much better solution, and any conglomeration of humans is going to have roughly equal capacity for doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, hopefully weighted more towards the "right" thing with solid leadership...
To avoid pure anecdotes, the Government Accountability Office actually studies this every year: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-440sp ...
That's not to say I don't believe in government spending. I don't know that there is a much better solution, and any conglomeration of humans is going to have roughly equal capacity for doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, hopefully weighted more towards the "right" thing with solid leadership...
I don't think that supports your premise. That's like a company report showing where it wasn't spending its money optimally. All institutions, public and private, waste money in some way.
"Why? I'd rather corporations spend money on RND than the Gov on programs."
R&D would get us fastest nice things like space colonization, longevity, megastructures, the next step on the Kardashev scale.
R&D would get us fastest nice things like space colonization, longevity, megastructures, the next step on the Kardashev scale.
As far as I know, it was Nasa that put a man on the moon, not some coorporation. Also: the internet was invented by the government. What nice things have corporations given you?
NASA was the program manager for the Apollo program. You don’t think NASA actually built the rockets or the various modules, do you?
NASA doled out public money to prime contractors for various pieces of the program (North American, Grumman, Rocketdyne, Douglas, IBM...) and the primes subcontracted various pieces as they always do.
This is not to understate the tremendous engineering effort of organizing such a huge program, but it’s not like this achievement was done by a bunch of government workers alone.
NASA doled out public money to prime contractors for various pieces of the program (North American, Grumman, Rocketdyne, Douglas, IBM...) and the primes subcontracted various pieces as they always do.
This is not to understate the tremendous engineering effort of organizing such a huge program, but it’s not like this achievement was done by a bunch of government workers alone.
I'm not agreeing with either you or the OP but in answer to your question: Being able to watch reusable space rockets.
Yeah, and now they "reinvest" in stock buybacks to pump up the share prices. And the people at the top get... tons of shares.
Thank you, loopholes!
Thank you, loopholes!
Let me add more nuance to this.
What you mention is less true if corporate tax is progressive on profits.
On the other hand, Amazon wouldn't care about corporate taxes on profits because it reinvests all its revenue.
What you mention is less true if corporate tax is progressive on profits.
On the other hand, Amazon wouldn't care about corporate taxes on profits because it reinvests all its revenue.
Avoiding taxes for corporations most often involves pouring money into projects, which in turn creates jobs, which in turn puts money into peoples hands. Of course this is not an issue for big companies that have the capital to do this.
This is arguably a more efficient transfer capital rather than raising taxes and then dealing with bipartisan political entities in the most efficient use.
Id also point out that the new tax policy also raises wealth tax by a significant amount. Also, its probably better to deal with wealth tax on a state by state basis, since this in turn forces the development of generally low tax areas since its favorable for people to move there (like all the companies setting up shop in Austin right now, which in turn raised the wealth of anyone there who owns a house by close to 100k at this point)
This is arguably a more efficient transfer capital rather than raising taxes and then dealing with bipartisan political entities in the most efficient use.
Id also point out that the new tax policy also raises wealth tax by a significant amount. Also, its probably better to deal with wealth tax on a state by state basis, since this in turn forces the development of generally low tax areas since its favorable for people to move there (like all the companies setting up shop in Austin right now, which in turn raised the wealth of anyone there who owns a house by close to 100k at this point)
I'm sorry but putting a floor on corporate taxes is a good idea as long as all parties abide by the same rules. You don't seem to understand that the USA has some of the highest in the world so it would actually help SMBs here. There should be an out for when countries don't keep up their part of the bargain. They should pay a heavy price such as punitive tariffs for X number of years.
The 1099k thing for payment processors has been required for years. It means that companies like MasterCard and PayPal and square need to report transactions, not small businesses. The payment processors fought hard against it and lost.
At the weekend I calculated that Amazon's UK division pays 77x more corporation tax than my company. Which sounds fine, until I realize my company is probably worth 1000000x less than Amazon's UK division ;-)
> What he doesn't mention is that an increase in corporate taxes will mostly impact SMBs
So, in practice, that's just lobbying to kill his competition off?
So, in practice, that's just lobbying to kill his competition off?
Of course he wants to increase corp taxes, this will make life incredibly difficult for his competition or new upstarts to challenge Amazon. He has already planned for this and how it will kill his competition.
Amazon can afford to find the loopholes but hes right that most of his competitors can't.
Amazon can afford to find the loopholes but hes right that most of his competitors can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUkXMZ0vtBE
regulatory capture as Werner Herzog put it.
The same fellow who pitted cities and states against one another in a bidding war to obtain billions in tax credits for HQ2...and ultimately because the deals were so good he already reneged on the number of jobs promised by creating 2 new HQs resulting in 1/2 the jobs and investment while double dipping on the tax credits.
Bernie said it best a single Amazon Prime membership is more than Amazon paid in taxes in 2017 and 2018 combined.
Bernie said it best a single Amazon Prime membership is more than Amazon paid in taxes in 2017 and 2018 combined.
> and ultimately because the deals were so good he already reneged on the number of jobs promised by creating 2 new HQs resulting in 1/2 the jobs and investment while double dipping on the tax credits.
They lost the NY tax credits because they were so cartoonishly aggressive that AOC got the whole thing canceled by tweeting about it. Then they built it anyway without any credits.
They lost the NY tax credits because they were so cartoonishly aggressive that AOC got the whole thing canceled by tweeting about it. Then they built it anyway without any credits.
[deleted]
They didn’t build it anyways. AOC takes anti-business position and was surprised when business go elsewhere.
Imagine if you ran a business. Meaning you purchased or leased a property, signed contracts and you are competing in the free market.
Then along comes a competitor and your local government gives them $1B+ in grants (consisting of the taxes you pay) they use to buy a property and they get $1B+ in tax credits.
You may think highly of yourself and your business but you can’t outcompete that and they will drive you out of business using in part your taxes to do it. If you don’t call that anti-business it’s at least anti-competitive.
Then along comes a competitor and your local government gives them $1B+ in grants (consisting of the taxes you pay) they use to buy a property and they get $1B+ in tax credits.
You may think highly of yourself and your business but you can’t outcompete that and they will drive you out of business using in part your taxes to do it. If you don’t call that anti-business it’s at least anti-competitive.
My understanding what Amazon was offered what any other country would be eligible for if they undertook that size of a relocation.
And anti-competitive? Having more jobs in NYC? That’s actually good for workers, not bad. More competition.
And anti-competitive? Having more jobs in NYC? That’s actually good for workers, not bad. More competition.
We're talking about competing businesses not workers.
And funny enough, more jobs at Amazon also means less worker supply for competing businesses. So even that is anti-competitive in a roundabout way. (Even though, yes, high worker demand is good for the economy in general).
And funny enough, more jobs at Amazon also means less worker supply for competing businesses. So even that is anti-competitive in a roundabout way. (Even though, yes, high worker demand is good for the economy in general).
Yes, but competition between business can be good for consumers and employees. So not sure if your comment about "so bad for business" is all that clear cut.
And whether or not Amazon creates HQ2 to NYC, does that impact their competitiveness with local NYC businesses? I doubt it.
And whether or not Amazon creates HQ2 to NYC, does that impact their competitiveness with local NYC businesses? I doubt it.
Competition is good, Amazon's practices are bad for competition.
Inviting Amazon to NYC with tax incentives is similar to planting a great white shark in a small lake, injecting the local fish with sedatives and the shark with a mix of steroids and stimulants.
Inviting Amazon to NYC with tax incentives is similar to planting a great white shark in a small lake, injecting the local fish with sedatives and the shark with a mix of steroids and stimulants.
They're building a large office in Hudson Yards, just not as large of one.
Not an HQ by any means. Just an office.
HQ is really just a name. You can call your smallest office the HQ if your CEO sits there, it has nothing to do with the number of employees. What's interesting to the government is where taxes are paid. But for large companies that got little to do with where workers are located.
It was never going to be the HQ, if it was they would have to start paying taxes to NYS on that alone.
That is a false statement. Amazon pays absolutely gigantic amounts of federal payroll taxes, being one of the largest employers in the world.
So Jeff Bezos is trying to earn back some good will. Bezos/Amazon is horrible to employees, and now we have a distraction that makes him look good. Such nonsense should never be news.
In short: this is a stark example of a distracting puff piece that exists only to fool the public.
In short: this is a stark example of a distracting puff piece that exists only to fool the public.
Glad that someone can still read between the lines.
Alternatively some see lobbying for increased taxes as a sign of bad will.
I wonder if he can have the same "redemption arc" that Gates have had. But I doubt it.
I already wrote it somewhere else but can you really compare Bezos and Gates? Microsoft wasn't really popular back then (many people here will have hated it) but Gates was never really unpopular as a person. His treatment of workers was also not a reason for his public image.
Didn’t he just step down. So worrying about Amazon is not his problem any more.
$20 says he’s suddenly in favour of corporate taxes because he fears the alternative: wealth taxes.
$20 says he’s suddenly in favour of corporate taxes because he fears the alternative: wealth taxes.
Wouldn't corporate tax also be another moat to prevent other businesses from reaching Amazon's scale?
And isn't Bezos trying to rub shoulders with politicians?
And isn't Bezos trying to rub shoulders with politicians?
Possibly. But that also depends on how corporate taxes are implemented.
I have no clue what his aspirations are, I don't follow this type of news very much at all, I just remembered that he stepped down and now suddenly he thinks companies should pay more (or in Amazon's case, some) tax.
I have no clue what his aspirations are, I don't follow this type of news very much at all, I just remembered that he stepped down and now suddenly he thinks companies should pay more (or in Amazon's case, some) tax.
[deleted]
I expect a huge amount of his net worth is tied up in Amazon, so Amazon is still very much his problem.
I think he fears more that Amazon (or other big tech companies) are smashed into smaller entities.
The WSJ says that about 6% of Federal income tax comes from corporations, the rest from individuals. About 38% comes from the top 1% of individuals.
Chasing corporations out of the country in order to raise that to 7% doesn't seem like a good idea.
Chasing corporations out of the country in order to raise that to 7% doesn't seem like a good idea.
I keep hearing this, but how would that work? The US has what, a 250 million strong middle class with the highest purchasing power of any country over 20 million?
Would companies actually back out if this tax increase would somehow be coupled with a threat of blocking their business in the US? For sure they wouldn't.
Would companies actually back out if this tax increase would somehow be coupled with a threat of blocking their business in the US? For sure they wouldn't.
> For sure they wouldn't.
Companies outsource and offshore all the time when it is cheaper to do so.
The US is a magnet for business. Trump lowered corporate tax rates and business boomed.
The biggest companies in the world are all US. Why imperil that?
> coupled with a threat of blocking their business in the US
That's not practical, too many ways around it.
Companies outsource and offshore all the time when it is cheaper to do so.
The US is a magnet for business. Trump lowered corporate tax rates and business boomed.
The biggest companies in the world are all US. Why imperil that?
> coupled with a threat of blocking their business in the US
That's not practical, too many ways around it.
Its all very well and good to state "we pay every penny we owe,", when you use creative accounting to get around "owing" in the first place.
These loopholes, exemptions, "grants", etc need to be closed - THAT is fixing the problem - not increasing taxation for those that act honestly.
That said, why are corporations taxed less than individuals when they are otherwise considered a legal person (but with increased indemnity!)? Thats should be addressed too, IMHO.
These loopholes, exemptions, "grants", etc need to be closed - THAT is fixing the problem - not increasing taxation for those that act honestly.
That said, why are corporations taxed less than individuals when they are otherwise considered a legal person (but with increased indemnity!)? Thats should be addressed too, IMHO.
Corporate taxes are weird. All that money just goes into investing into the business. You should just tax the money as it goes out to investors and employees
In fact that’s the idea of the tax system: tax the people according to their capacity. Corporate taxes were introduced as a means to pay some money in advance in their joirney to tax the people.
That’s why in many countries the cascading of corporate tax plus dividends/savings tax is close to the marginal income tax rate of high income people.
In other words, the initial goal was to essentially tax people’s income but corporate tax was introduced as a measure to prevent some of the wealthier people from not paying any income tax at all.
That’s why in many countries the cascading of corporate tax plus dividends/savings tax is close to the marginal income tax rate of high income people.
In other words, the initial goal was to essentially tax people’s income but corporate tax was introduced as a measure to prevent some of the wealthier people from not paying any income tax at all.
It’s harmful to the economy. They should just plug those tax loopholes
This seems to not be the consensus amongst all corporate America[0]. It does seem that Jeff Bezos and Amazon have ulterior motives whenever an announcement like this comes out. See $15 minimum wage. I get the feeling that this will hurt their competitors more then them.
I was in support of raising the corporate tax rate, but an announcement like this makes me rethink that.
The infrastructure bill is obviously needed, where should the money come from? It seems to me the 1% should be paying for it somehow. A wealth tax? Increase the capitol gains tax? A carbon tax? It might not seem fair to say as long as Bezos hates it I'm on board, but we shouldn't be letting the richest person in the world decide our tax policy.
[0]https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/06/corporate-america-b...
The infrastructure bill is obviously needed, where should the money come from? It seems to me the 1% should be paying for it somehow. A wealth tax? Increase the capitol gains tax? A carbon tax? It might not seem fair to say as long as Bezos hates it I'm on board, but we shouldn't be letting the richest person in the world decide our tax policy.
[0]https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/06/corporate-america-b...
translation: the lawyers have found manifold ways of avoiding even new taxes currently in the works!
The lawyers finding loopholes is yesterday's game. In the 21st century, the lawyers write the loopholes and take them to congress to get passed.
That or their smaller competition will have a harder time dodging it than they will.
Don’t forget also using the tax code and lobbying to gain competitive advantage!
taxes are what poor people/companies pay.
ok failing bad with this post. I'll refer to these comments instead, which express the same idea:
> That or their smaller competition will have a harder time dodging it than they will.
also, we should raise the corporate tax rate. and income tax rates on high earners. and try to fix the hideously broken state of affairs that result in these individuals having far less tax burden than they ought in far too many cases.
ok failing bad with this post. I'll refer to these comments instead, which express the same idea:
> That or their smaller competition will have a harder time dodging it than they will.
also, we should raise the corporate tax rate. and income tax rates on high earners. and try to fix the hideously broken state of affairs that result in these individuals having far less tax burden than they ought in far too many cases.
I don’t begrudge Amazon or any other company for paying as few taxes as is legally possible. I also am not in favor of unions as they are currently implemented in US law, where workers are forced to join unions and labor competition is reduced. I also think much of the media coverage of Amazon is unfairly biased against them. However, even to me, this moment where Bezos is supporting increased taxes seems highly suspicious. I simply don’t trust Bezos’s motives to suddenly support such policy.
One possibility is that he sees it as an inevitability so he might as well support it and reap some goodwill with politicians. Another possibility is that infrastructure spending (which increased taxes would fund) benefits his business disproportionately. Another possibility is that this wouldn’t hurt Amazon much but would be the final blow for struggling small and medium size businesses that can’t compete with the juggernaut tech giants. Most likely it’ll take the form of Amazon avoiding taxes by (legally) claiming credits and deferrals where possible, while smaller businesses without the same massive capital, tax avoidance opportunities, and armies of accountants/lawyers will pay the new increased tax rates here and now.
What we really need is updated anti trust laws and stringent enforcement. Where companies can’t be split up easily due to products dependent on network effects, we should regulate them like a public utility. We need to ensure healthy competitive markets.
One possibility is that he sees it as an inevitability so he might as well support it and reap some goodwill with politicians. Another possibility is that infrastructure spending (which increased taxes would fund) benefits his business disproportionately. Another possibility is that this wouldn’t hurt Amazon much but would be the final blow for struggling small and medium size businesses that can’t compete with the juggernaut tech giants. Most likely it’ll take the form of Amazon avoiding taxes by (legally) claiming credits and deferrals where possible, while smaller businesses without the same massive capital, tax avoidance opportunities, and armies of accountants/lawyers will pay the new increased tax rates here and now.
What we really need is updated anti trust laws and stringent enforcement. Where companies can’t be split up easily due to products dependent on network effects, we should regulate them like a public utility. We need to ensure healthy competitive markets.
Amazon is in the category of companies that do business primarily in the US, and do not depend on global supply chains to bring its product to market (though they retail some). They are not competing with foreign companies to the extent that many manufacturers are. If you tax a US company that manufactures something easily manufactured in a lower-taxing country, you better not tax them at a higher rate than their competition, or you will eliminate them, and their jobs, and their stockholders equity.
The irony is that increased corporate taxes tend to mean big companies actually pay less tax.
Corporate taxes are on profit, not revenue, so if a company spends all of the money it makes on investments, they owe the government nothing. Of course a profit seeking entity will want to take profits eventually, or else there is no point to investing, but if you are confident that corporate taxes will go down at some point in the future, it makes sense to invest now and take profits later. Small businesses might not be able to wait for very long for that eventual tax break, and corporate taxes can be a real burden for them, but a big company can always access capital if it needs to and can go decades without reporting a profit.
If you were a billionaire leader of a massive corporation that was looking to spend billions in the next few years on capital expenses that reduce your reliance on labor, a corporate tax hike would be ideal. It's easier to get your board to go along with the big investment and it hurts any would-be competitors who needed the money. Bonus points if you convince the public that you're a man of the people.
Corporate taxes are on profit, not revenue, so if a company spends all of the money it makes on investments, they owe the government nothing. Of course a profit seeking entity will want to take profits eventually, or else there is no point to investing, but if you are confident that corporate taxes will go down at some point in the future, it makes sense to invest now and take profits later. Small businesses might not be able to wait for very long for that eventual tax break, and corporate taxes can be a real burden for them, but a big company can always access capital if it needs to and can go decades without reporting a profit.
If you were a billionaire leader of a massive corporation that was looking to spend billions in the next few years on capital expenses that reduce your reliance on labor, a corporate tax hike would be ideal. It's easier to get your board to go along with the big investment and it hurts any would-be competitors who needed the money. Bonus points if you convince the public that you're a man of the people.
Sure, tax his competition out of business. Great idea. He’ll keep paying nothing. Mom and pop shops don’t have foreign data centers to push profits into.
Ah, the Casey Kelso of the Internet: "I have this thing where I say stuff don't really mean."
There are many good arguments in this thread, but ultimately he’s part of the new game of centralisation of power globally, which involves international political institutions and giant corporations. “You rub my back, I rub yours and we both win.”
The best way to eliminate the competition is to regulate the industry & increase taxes.
I don’t need higher tax rates, I want these taxes to be paid as they are, I’ll take that.
That is a good point. There are so many loopholes left open that the typical large corporation pays far less than the existing rates. Small companies that can't play fancy games with offshore tax rates are the ones that get hurt.
"increase the taxes I avoid paying"
bezos, probably
bezos, probably
[deleted]
In the post-Covid era this will most likely be the last nail in the coffins for a huge portion of Amazon's competitors. Bezos knows this well.
Not related to the post directly, but for years I’ve read kooks talk about all these ways that rich people avoid paying taxes.
And yet none of them talk about the specifics of how they do it. The only exception I can think of is a CEO being paid $1 but compensated almost entirely in stock. Which makes no sense to me, because it sounds like it would violate minimum wage laws.
And yet none of them talk about the specifics of how they do it. The only exception I can think of is a CEO being paid $1 but compensated almost entirely in stock. Which makes no sense to me, because it sounds like it would violate minimum wage laws.
When the CEO sells their stock to convert to cash they can actually use to buy things, they pay taxes. Stock isn't some magical way to avoid paying taxes.
Except Amazon is known to be pretty good at avoiding to pay taxes.
The simplest explanation of this is
1) He doesn't think this is going to go anywhere or if it does, his message is going to influence anything. If the taxes are going to get increased, he could show he was for it.
2) Increased taxes will make it more difficult for competition to survive.
The simplest explanation of this is
1) He doesn't think this is going to go anywhere or if it does, his message is going to influence anything. If the taxes are going to get increased, he could show he was for it.
2) Increased taxes will make it more difficult for competition to survive.
Should tax pollution rather than creating value. There's certainly no shortage of polluting activities to tax.
Isn't it easy enough to protect small businesses by putting a revenue threshold in these changes?
While they are at it, how about also regulating "cash at hand" (like make it such that a corp can't hold more cash than a certain percentage of its revenue)
While they are at it, how about also regulating "cash at hand" (like make it such that a corp can't hold more cash than a certain percentage of its revenue)
Let's tax capital gain same as revenue and change the tax regulation for foundations (my wife is in this business and her blood is boiling with what she sees) and let's see how Bezos, Buffet, Gates, etc. will react...
> change the tax regulation for foundations (my wife is in this business and her blood is boiling with what she sees)
What are some of the issues your wife has seen here?
What are some of the issues your wife has seen here?
Let's simply say that for most foundations its only real purpose is to lower someone's tax bill and the most efficient way to transmit assets to one's kids.
The name of this financial structure is so misleading. Honestly I find it fascinating from the PR/Marketing side.
>Let's tax capital gain same as revenue
So if a startup grows from a $1M valuation to $100M valuation they should be taxed on the $99M? That sounds like a great way to kill entrepreneurship and venture capital.
So if a startup grows from a $1M valuation to $100M valuation they should be taxed on the $99M? That sounds like a great way to kill entrepreneurship and venture capital.
Many countries have exceptions to encourage entrepreneurship like the one you are mentioning.
Issues are borderline capital gain strategies to avoid revenue gain.
Issues are borderline capital gain strategies to avoid revenue gain.
I guess that's why people won't work harder to earn higher wages to avoid additional tax, wait, they do!
The point is that when investors are faced with the choice between investing in a incumbent (ie. "safe" company with limited growth potential) and challenger (high risk companies with high growth potential), such a tax would heavily favor incumbents because incumbents wouldn't be subject to the tax but the challenger would.
Taxes are ineffective and unjust because of loopholes which the most rich people can exploit. Government should just print more money instead.
The reason why this wouldn't work is really interesting, actually.
Money has meaning in large part because of taxes; you need a certain amount of money because you owe the government. Since you need money to pay taxes (and therefore buy things, earn income, or own property) money has value.
In Ancient Rome, armies would enter conquered areas, carrying coins. Everyone in the conquered area was expected to pay a tax of (say) 20 coins to the army each year or face punishment.
The newly conquered citizens, then, had no choice but to find ways to get coins from these soldiers so that they could pay their taxes.
Farmers would trade food for these coins. Merchants would trade goods.
These coins suddenly had value.
If the soldiers suddenly stopped the taxation, do you think the coins would retain their value?
Money has meaning in large part because of taxes; you need a certain amount of money because you owe the government. Since you need money to pay taxes (and therefore buy things, earn income, or own property) money has value.
In Ancient Rome, armies would enter conquered areas, carrying coins. Everyone in the conquered area was expected to pay a tax of (say) 20 coins to the army each year or face punishment.
The newly conquered citizens, then, had no choice but to find ways to get coins from these soldiers so that they could pay their taxes.
Farmers would trade food for these coins. Merchants would trade goods.
These coins suddenly had value.
If the soldiers suddenly stopped the taxation, do you think the coins would retain their value?
This is just one point of view of money and taxes, a mechanism to extract value from conquered population.
This probably still happens in 21 century, but I hope we can see beyond that, at least in 1st and 2nd world.
Money infrastructure for most people there is primarily a convenient bookkeeping mechanism for trade. In most cases, government should not directly involve itself with such trades.
Towards your question, if soldiers stopped taxation, their supervisors would rectify that eventually. If Rome stopped taxation of conquered populations, the coins would still retain value in Rome.
This probably still happens in 21 century, but I hope we can see beyond that, at least in 1st and 2nd world.
Money infrastructure for most people there is primarily a convenient bookkeeping mechanism for trade. In most cases, government should not directly involve itself with such trades.
Towards your question, if soldiers stopped taxation, their supervisors would rectify that eventually. If Rome stopped taxation of conquered populations, the coins would still retain value in Rome.
If you print money, you will typically create inflation. Which pushes prices up. Yes you can mitigate the effects for quite a while by exporting inflation and other tricks but all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.
If you want a "fair" tax. You would have a sales tax. Richer people and larger companies will typically spend more money than smaller businesses or poorer people and therefore will will pay a large proportion of tax and it will be taken at the point of purchase.
If you want a "fair" tax. You would have a sales tax. Richer people and larger companies will typically spend more money than smaller businesses or poorer people and therefore will will pay a large proportion of tax and it will be taken at the point of purchase.
Sales tax is a joke to the very rich and powerful. A guy with million dollars does not have to spend 1000x more on products and services than a regular guy with 1000 dollars. He uses that big money in different ways that do not get taxed by the sales tax.
On the other hand, inflation taxes every positive-valued bank account roughly the same.
On the other hand, inflation taxes every positive-valued bank account roughly the same.
> Sales tax is a joke to the very rich and powerful. A guy with million dollars does not have to spend 1000x more on products and services than a regular guy with 1000 dollars. He uses that big money in different ways that do not get taxed by the sales tax.
They literally do spend a lot more of products and services than a regular Joe on the street, a sales tax would be taken at the point of purchase. Flash cars, fancy furnishings etc don't just come out of thin air.
> On the other hand, inflation taxes every positive-valued bank account roughly the same.
Inflation wrecks (the typically meagre) savings of regular people. It does not affect the wealthy who will have diversified investments and that will include things that are a hedge against inflation such as (but not limited to) precious metals, overseas investments etc. etc.
I don't wish to be rude but you haven't thought this through.
They literally do spend a lot more of products and services than a regular Joe on the street, a sales tax would be taken at the point of purchase. Flash cars, fancy furnishings etc don't just come out of thin air.
> On the other hand, inflation taxes every positive-valued bank account roughly the same.
Inflation wrecks (the typically meagre) savings of regular people. It does not affect the wealthy who will have diversified investments and that will include things that are a hedge against inflation such as (but not limited to) precious metals, overseas investments etc. etc.
I don't wish to be rude but you haven't thought this through.
> They literally do spend a lot more of products and services
Yes, but not that much more. The smart rich people do not waste money like that.
> Inflation wrecks (the typically meagre) savings of regular people.
Yes, but that is the case even now. I am not proposing any big change from status quo regarding devaluation.
> It does not affect the wealthy who will have diversified investments and that will include things that are a hedge against inflation such as (but not limited to) precious metals, overseas investments etc. etc.
That is true. It also does not affect the regular Joe who buys physical goods that appreciates in time. And devaluation helps the poor guy who is indebted and has to pay back with interest.
Yes, but not that much more. The smart rich people do not waste money like that.
> Inflation wrecks (the typically meagre) savings of regular people.
Yes, but that is the case even now. I am not proposing any big change from status quo regarding devaluation.
> It does not affect the wealthy who will have diversified investments and that will include things that are a hedge against inflation such as (but not limited to) precious metals, overseas investments etc. etc.
That is true. It also does not affect the regular Joe who buys physical goods that appreciates in time. And devaluation helps the poor guy who is indebted and has to pay back with interest.
I am not a tax lawyer— is there anything stopping Mr. Bezos from simply voluntarily paying more in taxes than he owes? Or even just Amazon turning down the tax breaks for e.g. locating a distribution center or office center in a new jurisdiction? Support of a policy would seem to go a lot further if he was already voluntarily attempting to achieve its goals (presumably funding more public services). Without that effort, it seems more like a desire to subject everyone else to a policy that he feels he can weather.
>is there anything stopping Mr. Bezos from simply voluntarily paying more in taxes than he owes?
This is about taxes Amazon owes, not Bezos. Bezos already is giving vast fortunes away through his charities.
And yes there are two things that stop Amazon from giving away free money. 1. A fiduciary duty to their shareholders, 2. competition.
Bezos is completely right to state that, if people want to see more contribution from large firms, have it done through proper legislation and taxation.
This is about taxes Amazon owes, not Bezos. Bezos already is giving vast fortunes away through his charities.
And yes there are two things that stop Amazon from giving away free money. 1. A fiduciary duty to their shareholders, 2. competition.
Bezos is completely right to state that, if people want to see more contribution from large firms, have it done through proper legislation and taxation.
Bezos is also giving away around $2 billion a year away for Blue Origin.
As a space fan, the top two richest men funding space companies makes me so happy!
He can start with making sure everyone subcontracted to Amazon to do deliveries receive decent conditions and benefits.
Fun facts about corporate taxation (Source: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/history-of-corporate-ta...):
First introduced: 1894 Reintroduced: 1913 with a rate of 1%
Personally this makes me assume that corporate tax should not exist. If it worked for hundreds of years without it, it's most likely just supporting the authority and growth of the state.
First introduced: 1894 Reintroduced: 1913 with a rate of 1%
Personally this makes me assume that corporate tax should not exist. If it worked for hundreds of years without it, it's most likely just supporting the authority and growth of the state.
For the longest time companies didn't exist. Any business tended to be associated with a single person who paid taxes. Companies as a separate legal entity are comparably young. So the tax didn't exist because there wasn't much to tax before, not because it's wrong to have one.
Not true. The first real corporations in the modern sense (private legal entities that existed separately from their owners) were the English and Dutch East India companies, which were founded in 1600 and 1602 respectively. 1894 is closer to the present day than it is to the first corporations.
And the general legal concept of a "company" was hardly new in 1600 - in the Western world it dates back at least as far as Roman times. The Company of Merchants of the Staple of England was founded in 1319; the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London in 1407. Merchants and explorers in the 16th century and onwards used corporation-like entities to raise and organise the funding for their voyages.
> there wasn't much to tax before
Those European merchants made a hell of a lot of profit.
And the general legal concept of a "company" was hardly new in 1600 - in the Western world it dates back at least as far as Roman times. The Company of Merchants of the Staple of England was founded in 1319; the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London in 1407. Merchants and explorers in the 16th century and onwards used corporation-like entities to raise and organise the funding for their voyages.
> there wasn't much to tax before
Those European merchants made a hell of a lot of profit.
Yeah, but at the time (1600, 1700) there were something like 1-2-10 corporations per country, if that. 95% of the countries of the world didn't have any corporations.
England had some, the Netherlands had some, probably France and maybe a handful of countries.
They weren't really relevant to the day-to-day lives of 99% of the people living back then.
You need to also present some perspective when making a claim.
England had some, the Netherlands had some, probably France and maybe a handful of countries.
They weren't really relevant to the day-to-day lives of 99% of the people living back then.
You need to also present some perspective when making a claim.
But most merchants didn't operate in separate legal entitities. There were very few companies, for the longest time just major trade, railroad and banking. Dutch East India is so famous because they're an exception, not the norm.
That is a misinterpretation. I say this because corporate tax is an addition to individual taxes. Taxes of individuals are paid anyway via P&L overhead!!! Owners of businesses pay personal income tax (which was lower 100 years ago as well) in addition to corporate income tax (plus tax on dividends).
And the income tax was introduced in 1861 at a measly 3 percent.
And was only supposed to target “the rich”. I think we can all agree that is not how it worked out.
What was the amount of public roads, schools, healthcare facilities, etc., etc., available at the time? Public expenses have skyrocketed because... we want them to.
You're talking about scalability. The point is that it would have been possible to scale investments based on the the growth of GDP. What was done however, is financing the things you mentioned with debt (debt == future taxes). Debt should not be necessary in my opinion.
Furthermore, I'm irritated by how little impact digitalization of bureaucracy had during the past 30 years. Normally this should have meant decrease in taxes or decrease in debt but instead debt increased. My assumption is that this is because of an decrease in state overhead and state investment efficiency.
Furthermore, I'm irritated by how little impact digitalization of bureaucracy had during the past 30 years. Normally this should have meant decrease in taxes or decrease in debt but instead debt increased. My assumption is that this is because of an decrease in state overhead and state investment efficiency.
Health expenses have risen faster than GDP across the entire developed world.
I'm sure that is correct.
What do you think is the right way to cover health care costs? Here some options:
1. Using corporate tax paid by organizations.
2. Using income tax paid by individuals.
3. Independently from taxes - via private insurance.
4. Using whatever tax a state get through with.
I'm interested in your opinion (also other ideas you might have).
I think taxes should have a specific purpose. Surely CO2 and noise tax are not enough to cover a minimum state infrastructure. VAT should be the only general purpose tax though.
I'm interested in your opinion (also other ideas you might have).
I think taxes should have a specific purpose. Surely CO2 and noise tax are not enough to cover a minimum state infrastructure. VAT should be the only general purpose tax though.
I'm not sure and I don't think it's a simple problem.
What I do know for sure is that if we hold a referendum in almost any country in the world, asking:
"Would you like your total taxes reduced by 10%? Yes / No"
"Yes" will win. People always want to reduce taxes, but they don't want to give up anything in return.
What I do know for sure is that if we hold a referendum in almost any country in the world, asking:
"Would you like your total taxes reduced by 10%? Yes / No"
"Yes" will win. People always want to reduce taxes, but they don't want to give up anything in return.
Good way to get rid of some competition.
There's no defence for billionaires existing. 100% income tax for anything over a billion, say I.
Most billionaires don't own their wealth in money. It's stock and real estate.
Therefore are you advocating that no one person should be allowed to control a large company or own large houses?
Therefore are you advocating that no one person should be allowed to control a large company or own large houses?
How would you prevent billionaires from moving to a tax haven, though? That is the big loophole that both billionaires and large corporations benefit from, that others don't have access to.
A country as large as the US has plentiful ways to ensure tax compliance by citizens. It's small countries that are forced to remain competitive. People won't flee the US by the millions just because you raise taxes.
For example you can calculate how many percent of their revenue a company made in a given country and then how much tax they paid there and demand them to pay the difference.
[deleted]
Yes.The only billionaires that should exist are the party members of the communist party /s
Am I the only one who finds it weird that, because Bezos said "I support X", a large proportion of HN finds itself mechanically saying "X is the worst thing in the world and Bezos only supports it because he's greedy and evil".
I mean, I don't have any strong opinion on corporate taxes (I think they're not the most efficient way to tax large businesses, but whatever), but people here aren't exactly demonstrating great consistency.
Like, the tax hike Bezos is referring to is essentially a partial reversal of the tax cuts Trump put into effect two years ago. I would be shocked if the majority of people who are saying the hikes Bezos supports are bad for small businesses would have said that the cuts Trump passed were good for small businesses back then.
(Yes, there are ways "new tax hike bad, previous tax cut bad" can both be true; if you have any evidence this is the case, I'm really interested; but I'm absolutely certain the vast majority of posters here have no such evidence)
I mean, I don't have any strong opinion on corporate taxes (I think they're not the most efficient way to tax large businesses, but whatever), but people here aren't exactly demonstrating great consistency.
Like, the tax hike Bezos is referring to is essentially a partial reversal of the tax cuts Trump put into effect two years ago. I would be shocked if the majority of people who are saying the hikes Bezos supports are bad for small businesses would have said that the cuts Trump passed were good for small businesses back then.
(Yes, there are ways "new tax hike bad, previous tax cut bad" can both be true; if you have any evidence this is the case, I'm really interested; but I'm absolutely certain the vast majority of posters here have no such evidence)
As we demand corporations pay their fair share, the government needs to also show us that they can make effective use of the money. Will the Biden admin address the obscenely bloated discretionary military spending? https://imgur.com/a/Z0uiOcu
This means higher taxes for small companies, like local stores, who don't have the lawyers to avoid them; and still no taxes for Amazon, which simply doesn't pay them.
Looks like AMZN HQ is going to move.
Be the change you want to see
Exactly. He could donate 99% of his wealth, and still be billionaire.
Yet he won't do that, he asks others to fix the public finances. While doing virtue signalling in public about equality.
His company, along with google and Facebook are the biggest tax dodgers on earth.
Yet he won't do that, he asks others to fix the public finances. While doing virtue signalling in public about equality.
His company, along with google and Facebook are the biggest tax dodgers on earth.
He's welcome to pay all the taxes he wants. What a turd.
What he wants is small businesses destroyed by taxes.
What he wants is small businesses destroyed by taxes.
then why are his amazon european operations based in Ireland?
Such a humanitarian!
We need a flat tax on corporates. No hiding from it.
SMB's should have the lowest tax rate across the board.
Tax rates should be near 15%. It would make the US a great option for building your firm. Now I think Singapore. Used to think HK. But honestly, we just want to pay reasonable taxes. But when Biden spends 6T in his first year... come on. America is no longer viable.
On one hand: Good for him. I hear he also does a lot of charity work.
On the other hand: Wait wasn't it Amazon who cheated on taxes like no other company (compared in size)?
After the union shenanigans, his biasedness in the elections or well deserved PR desasters such as the contest for a new headquarter (what a surprise it went where it can influence policy most), I'm a bit allergic to being nudged to see his moves as all too altruistic.
Increasing corporate taxes raises the burden across the board, for competitors and possible future ones. Meanwhile Amazon can afford to have its accounting adjusted to mitigate the impact more efficiently than any competitor could.
It cements his position.
On the other hand: Wait wasn't it Amazon who cheated on taxes like no other company (compared in size)?
After the union shenanigans, his biasedness in the elections or well deserved PR desasters such as the contest for a new headquarter (what a surprise it went where it can influence policy most), I'm a bit allergic to being nudged to see his moves as all too altruistic.
Increasing corporate taxes raises the burden across the board, for competitors and possible future ones. Meanwhile Amazon can afford to have its accounting adjusted to mitigate the impact more efficiently than any competitor could.
It cements his position.
I really wish people would stop seeing large companies paying low taxes as cheating and "loop holes". It is neither and it makes us blind to the cause of the problem.
The politicians we vote in deliberately create laws that allow large companies to pay little to no tax. It is not an accident or a sneaky corporation that outwitted a dumb politician, it is by design.
The politicians we vote in deliberately create laws that allow large companies to pay little to no tax. It is not an accident or a sneaky corporation that outwitted a dumb politician, it is by design.
The politicians are bought off by the large corporations.
Its not like the corporations haven't been using their financial influence, particularly after Citizen's United, to influence the rules.
Its not like the corporations haven't been using their financial influence, particularly after Citizen's United, to influence the rules.
I think its as much a case of technology, both product and ease of manipulating companies structures has moved past the traditional taxation rules per country.
We need to start approaching more taxation rules at a trading/travel block level. E.g. G12 say minimum 25% corporate tax or any product/service that involves non-complainant countries has a X% duty type thing.... or something down that concept route.
I think the real rich person law they politicians have supported and can influence is capital gains tax. Capital gains at a certain point is income. There's a reason CEO's take a $1 salary, they are clearly not living on that.
We need to start approaching more taxation rules at a trading/travel block level. E.g. G12 say minimum 25% corporate tax or any product/service that involves non-complainant countries has a X% duty type thing.... or something down that concept route.
I think the real rich person law they politicians have supported and can influence is capital gains tax. Capital gains at a certain point is income. There's a reason CEO's take a $1 salary, they are clearly not living on that.
From what I've seen, tax loopholes exist mainly because of incompetence.
The Section 482-7 regs were written by the IRS to control how intellectual property is shifted offshore. The valuation methods outlined in the article were questionable. I read the regs multiple times to understand them and made an Excel valuation model to follow their rules.
Don't think the IRS realized they created terrible, ridiculous theoretical models. Don't think it was intentional either. Just a few people that didn't understand the implications and congress that signed the code into law without being able to understand it. Tax code for valuing IP is highly complex.
The US government writes terrible tax code in my opinion, mainly because they're just not very good. They're not as good as top private sector tax lawyers.
I empathize with the "You make the tax laws @SenWarren; we just follow them. If you don't like the laws you've created, by all means, change them" sentiment. Multinational corporations have to comply with tax laws from multiple countries that are arbitrary and complex.
The Section 482-7 regs were written by the IRS to control how intellectual property is shifted offshore. The valuation methods outlined in the article were questionable. I read the regs multiple times to understand them and made an Excel valuation model to follow their rules.
Don't think the IRS realized they created terrible, ridiculous theoretical models. Don't think it was intentional either. Just a few people that didn't understand the implications and congress that signed the code into law without being able to understand it. Tax code for valuing IP is highly complex.
The US government writes terrible tax code in my opinion, mainly because they're just not very good. They're not as good as top private sector tax lawyers.
I empathize with the "You make the tax laws @SenWarren; we just follow them. If you don't like the laws you've created, by all means, change them" sentiment. Multinational corporations have to comply with tax laws from multiple countries that are arbitrary and complex.
I think a lot of it is not by design. Writing laws is hard, especially tax laws. Companies have incredible resources to find loopholes they can use. If they get patched they'll just find another one. The problem is that you'd prefer easy laws that anyone can follow, but those will always have loopholes. The more provisions you add to close loopholes, the harder it'll be for small companies and individuals to remain compliant.
I don't think any of us here could come up with a tax code that cannot be exploited. And of course large companies will exploit any loophole, all of us do when filing our taxes.
Maybe the problem is the existence of such powerful companies. Once you have them, it's very hard for politicians to stay on top of them.
To be clear, I'm not saying that there's no corruption or politicians favoring large companies. But most loopholes used by companies tend to stem from good intentions. It's like in IT security, there are backdoors but most bugs still have a benign origin.
I don't think any of us here could come up with a tax code that cannot be exploited. And of course large companies will exploit any loophole, all of us do when filing our taxes.
Maybe the problem is the existence of such powerful companies. Once you have them, it's very hard for politicians to stay on top of them.
To be clear, I'm not saying that there's no corruption or politicians favoring large companies. But most loopholes used by companies tend to stem from good intentions. It's like in IT security, there are backdoors but most bugs still have a benign origin.
Deliberate allowances are created but big companies can hire legions of lawyers to reduce their tax burden, to find all sorts of minutia & excuses & readings of words to take advantage of every subclause they can. The aggregate effect feels enormously poisonous, totally toxic. Mega corporations can adapt far faster than anyone or anything else, including those charged with governing & regulating.
Good governance is hard. And megacorps are an advanced persistent threat that goes to great lengths to claim exceptions for itself.
Good governance is hard. And megacorps are an advanced persistent threat that goes to great lengths to claim exceptions for itself.
It only takes one clever accountant to find a loophole. The right fix is to simplify the tax code.
Guess why most billionaires favor political parties that agitate against simplifying the tax code...
"find all sorts of minutia & excuses"
Usually those are in there to be found and used. Your energy would be better spent being upset with the politicians for putting it in there than the lawyers for finding it.
Usually those are in there to be found and used. Your energy would be better spent being upset with the politicians for putting it in there than the lawyers for finding it.
there's a lot of sense to this, but I still continue to believe a lot of very good incentives & governance exist, that help small & medium folk, that intend well. I'm not in favor of giving up & u regulating; when systems benefits are dominated by the big, it's time to re-regulate, try to alter the ellegible beneficiaries.
Absolutely, the solution is better laws and regulations.
> Mega corporations can adapt far faster than anyone or anything else
i really don't think this is true, many big companies are hopelessly bureaucratic
i really don't think this is true, many big companies are hopelessly bureaucratic
I hugely agree with your sentiment. But I think this case still stands. As opposed to the human "resources" that do the work, which management feels it must direct & organize & lead & regulate, the financial department often speaks the same business school language, is already aligned to the board-level/business-school goals of raking in barrels & barrels of money.
It's also largely a question of what change is required? I've seen a parent company move itself to become a subsidiary of a holding company which is now landed in another nation. It had almost no effect on the day to day. It was paper work.
Megacorps are filled with paperwork. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are bad at it, slow at it.
It's also largely a question of what change is required? I've seen a parent company move itself to become a subsidiary of a holding company which is now landed in another nation. It had almost no effect on the day to day. It was paper work.
Megacorps are filled with paperwork. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are bad at it, slow at it.
Compared the government? How long did it take to fix the tax law for the Dutch Sandwich or whatever it’s called. A decade?
You may be misunderstanding cause and effect.
> it is by design
It certainly wasn't "designed" for geographically flexible entities such as Amazon that didn't even exist 30 years ago.
When ever a new kind of entity fits in loop holes that weren't open one technological advance earlier it has any interest to lobby politicians to keep that niche/grey-area open. That can and should be called cheating.
> it is by design
It certainly wasn't "designed" for geographically flexible entities such as Amazon that didn't even exist 30 years ago.
When ever a new kind of entity fits in loop holes that weren't open one technological advance earlier it has any interest to lobby politicians to keep that niche/grey-area open. That can and should be called cheating.
Cheating by what standard? Surely all forms of lobbying for self-interest should not be called cheating?
They should be. Just replace every word "lobbying" with "bribing" and you will see it yourself.
Many of us like it when the EFF, ACLU, Nature Conservancy, or <insert your favorite cause> group lobbies.
We do not consider that bribery, yet when a group we dislike does the same thing, we’re supposed to see all lobbying as bribery or just that of opposing groups?
<Edited to add brevity.>
We do not consider that bribery, yet when a group we dislike does the same thing, we’re supposed to see all lobbying as bribery or just that of opposing groups?
<Edited to add brevity.>
There are certainly forms of lobbying that are not bribery. Conflating the two is a false equivalency. Lobbying, in general, is the process of informing politicians about certain topics important to an interest group or set of individuals / constituents. When lobbyists bribe (which is illegal) or more realistically: when lobbyists conditionally contribute campaign donations, those actions are the moral hazard.
The problem with lobbying in general is that it's a one-sided information stream: politicians are generally uninformed about a topic and only get the information from the wealthy side (ie. the one able to pay a lobbyist). No need to bribe in general, just overwhelm the poor politicians with "facts" and they have no choice but to walk in line.
To play the devil's advocate: without lobbying, politicians instead get that information from whoever happens to have the resources control the narrative through astroturfing and media manipulation.
Lobbying is at least transparent in its intentions.
Lobbying is at least transparent in its intentions.
Great, now it's "informing". So please tell me, why does this "informing" with some real action afterwards happens only when "informing" side is wealthy? The answer is - because politicians expect tangible, personal real life benefits after such action. Maybe not now, maybe years later, but every one of them does. That's basically bribery with extra steps, it always was and always will be so.
...because you changed the words, you will see it for yourself?
Just because it's hard to put into words doesn't make it not cheating. The fact is society evolves and it takes time to discover the negatives of a lot of business models. People who exploits such models already have the benefit of our non-retroactive judicial system.
Writing a letter to your representative arguing for lower taxes: cool. Making large contributions to their campaign fund, paying them tens of thousands of dollars for a 30 minute speech at your conference etc: not cool.
Lobbying is a red herring. If it were really so powerful, companies would spend more money like it when lobbying for competing interests. Amazon spends in the order of millions on lobbying and in the order of billions on marketing.
Isn't 'marketing' just 'lobbying' to the general public? It's all a bunch or propoganda and unscrupulous behavior made possible by abusing amassed wealth. I suppose being lobbied has more perks like nice dinners and free drinks...
> On the other hand: Wait wasn't it Amazon who cheated on taxes like no other company (compared in size)?
It's because Amazon has low profit margins compared to other companies its size - AWS is profitable but the retail business isn't very much, and investors don't want them to make more money because they like free shipping too much. The remainder is lost to R&D credits.
If people want Amazon to pay more taxes, then Washington state should have an income tax. Pretty straightforward.
It's because Amazon has low profit margins compared to other companies its size - AWS is profitable but the retail business isn't very much, and investors don't want them to make more money because they like free shipping too much. The remainder is lost to R&D credits.
If people want Amazon to pay more taxes, then Washington state should have an income tax. Pretty straightforward.
This is just the first PR article in what will become a decades long attempt to restore his image, just like Bill G.
He was ruthless and inhuman to his workers and we should never forget that.
He was ruthless and inhuman to his workers and we should never forget that.
I don't see the parallel to Gates. Bill Gates wasn't always popular because many people hated Microsoft at the time. I don't think there was ever concern that he treated workers wrongly or abused the tax system to get rich. I don't buy that Gates set up the foundation just to improve his image. He is really invested in these topics.
For Bezos that could very well be true. Interestingly enough Amazon used to have a really positive public image until about 1-2 years ago. If he had quit any earlier, maybe his image would be much better now.
For Bezos that could very well be true. Interestingly enough Amazon used to have a really positive public image until about 1-2 years ago. If he had quit any earlier, maybe his image would be much better now.
Clearly Beso's should hire Gate's publicist.
> ruthless and inhuman to his workers
Unfortunately not only that, but ruthlessness is a main characteristic of most of his business practice. This peace is obviously yet another attempt at further increasing the size of his moat around his corporations. On top of that never forget he also has a substantial stake in mass news media itself.
Unfortunately not only that, but ruthlessness is a main characteristic of most of his business practice. This peace is obviously yet another attempt at further increasing the size of his moat around his corporations. On top of that never forget he also has a substantial stake in mass news media itself.
> Wait wasn't it Amazon who cheated on taxes like no other company
The problem is they aren't cheating. They are hiring a lot of lawyers to find every single LEGAL mechanism in the book to allow them to pay no taxes.
I'm not saying I agree with it. But the problem here isn't with Amazon it's with the US tax code, which has been molded over decades of politicians and lobbyists to allow for this.
To fix the system you need to fix the tax code.
The problem is they aren't cheating. They are hiring a lot of lawyers to find every single LEGAL mechanism in the book to allow them to pay no taxes.
I'm not saying I agree with it. But the problem here isn't with Amazon it's with the US tax code, which has been molded over decades of politicians and lobbyists to allow for this.
To fix the system you need to fix the tax code.
After which Amazon moves to Panama, Luxembourg, Dublin or Amsterdam. Or a combination thereof.
Even if you fix taxes on national level, you aren't going to catch multinationals. They keep moving just behind that inevitable race to the bottom.
Even if you fix taxes on national level, you aren't going to catch multinationals. They keep moving just behind that inevitable race to the bottom.
I was going to ask this question: why aren't big corporations paying more taxes NOW?
Because in my country basically the governments hire law firms to write out legislation, and then those same law firms sell these types of services to circumvent the laws they draft.
So the feeling I get it's not much a taxes problem, but the public institutions are managed by lawyers, and are optimized by lawyers that leave enough margin so they can thrive.
Because in my country basically the governments hire law firms to write out legislation, and then those same law firms sell these types of services to circumvent the laws they draft.
So the feeling I get it's not much a taxes problem, but the public institutions are managed by lawyers, and are optimized by lawyers that leave enough margin so they can thrive.
> why aren't big corporations paying more taxes NOW?
And why should they ?? To quote Steve Eisman "incentives trump ethics every single time".
Here's a tax strategy that will greatly simplify all government efforts: any corporation with a market cap of 100bn+ is obliged to sign a privately negotiated deal with the gov to agree on a annual tax rate for the next X years. The minimum is set at 20% with no exceptions and can go up to 50% depending on the estimated negative social impact of the corporation. There are no write offs, no loopholes. Every year the tax bottomline is checked and enforced.
There is also a tax distribution enforced so that only a few can get the 20% one at any time. The goal of this to force a "bidding war" between them to get the lowest tax and the only way to do that is to reduce their negative impact to a bear minimum or stop existing altogether. Incentives.
Once that is set in place work on reducing the tax code complexity for everyone and everything below 100bn. Currently most if not all tax regimes try to shoehorn all entities under the sun under similar rules and then provide various kinds of tax write offs that create incentives to dodge tax and provides the biggest players with a massive advantage as they can hire specialists to focus on every single possible loophole to avoid paying anything.
And why should they ?? To quote Steve Eisman "incentives trump ethics every single time".
Here's a tax strategy that will greatly simplify all government efforts: any corporation with a market cap of 100bn+ is obliged to sign a privately negotiated deal with the gov to agree on a annual tax rate for the next X years. The minimum is set at 20% with no exceptions and can go up to 50% depending on the estimated negative social impact of the corporation. There are no write offs, no loopholes. Every year the tax bottomline is checked and enforced.
There is also a tax distribution enforced so that only a few can get the 20% one at any time. The goal of this to force a "bidding war" between them to get the lowest tax and the only way to do that is to reduce their negative impact to a bear minimum or stop existing altogether. Incentives.
Once that is set in place work on reducing the tax code complexity for everyone and everything below 100bn. Currently most if not all tax regimes try to shoehorn all entities under the sun under similar rules and then provide various kinds of tax write offs that create incentives to dodge tax and provides the biggest players with a massive advantage as they can hire specialists to focus on every single possible loophole to avoid paying anything.
> I hear he also does a lot of charity work.
I know I shouldn’t mix the individual with the public company he founded and I don’t want to be that person that says he only does it because the tax incentives. He is a person after all and I’m sure he deals with more social pressure as a result of his status and like all people has issues that strike a cord internally. Still there is something deeply troubling about people acquiring so much wealth that put them in that situation in the first place when he wouldn’t be there without his workers and yet significant numbers of them are on food stamps paid for by taxpayers...when his company paid $0 taxes.
I know I shouldn’t mix the individual with the public company he founded and I don’t want to be that person that says he only does it because the tax incentives. He is a person after all and I’m sure he deals with more social pressure as a result of his status and like all people has issues that strike a cord internally. Still there is something deeply troubling about people acquiring so much wealth that put them in that situation in the first place when he wouldn’t be there without his workers and yet significant numbers of them are on food stamps paid for by taxpayers...when his company paid $0 taxes.
I’ve heard the Charity excuse a few times, and hope people look deeper.
Be it Billy Gates, Bezos, or one of the many Midwestern Financial Gurus—-their use of 901c3‘s are basically tax dodges.
Gates foundation gives back less than 1% of the wife’s fund to the nation that birthed him, and provided a comfy launching pad for that privileged life. (I get you need to help developing nations, but America is dying. I have never seen so many homeless.)
I don’t know Bezos charities, but if it’s related to his companies commercials in media, those are carefully selected to brainwash the masses. How much money did they spend so we knew their employees had soap to wash their hands this past year? And I guess Amazon warehouse workers chuckle fund was receiving hand sanitizer that looked like vodka bottles.
I see how Amazon is now worried about climate change now with his promise of electric vehicles, so he must be worried about something? Maybe he’s running short of tax write offs, and heavily federally subsided electric vehicles make sense fiscally? Not even taking into account the millions he will save on a depreciating asset? In a way, we are buying his gift to carbon neutrality? (I would bet in five years—he will take the Uber approach to deliveries more than he does now, even requiring workers to furnish their own electric vans). I could see the boys laughing over this at the catered hootenanny. It feels good to be a gangster bllly—huh?
I only know of a few charities that truly give back. Most of the big ones we all know through media are overfunded. I once heard there is a very popular children’s hospital who could operate for the next twenty years without another cent, even when taking into account inflation/tech costs.
I used to look up nonprofits on WayStar. They have now made looking at the free 1040’s complicated.
(Does anyone know of a truly selfless charity? I’ve always given Salvation Army a long rope. They have been feeding America’s hungry forever, and I know people who eat there.)
Be it Billy Gates, Bezos, or one of the many Midwestern Financial Gurus—-their use of 901c3‘s are basically tax dodges.
Gates foundation gives back less than 1% of the wife’s fund to the nation that birthed him, and provided a comfy launching pad for that privileged life. (I get you need to help developing nations, but America is dying. I have never seen so many homeless.)
I don’t know Bezos charities, but if it’s related to his companies commercials in media, those are carefully selected to brainwash the masses. How much money did they spend so we knew their employees had soap to wash their hands this past year? And I guess Amazon warehouse workers chuckle fund was receiving hand sanitizer that looked like vodka bottles.
I see how Amazon is now worried about climate change now with his promise of electric vehicles, so he must be worried about something? Maybe he’s running short of tax write offs, and heavily federally subsided electric vehicles make sense fiscally? Not even taking into account the millions he will save on a depreciating asset? In a way, we are buying his gift to carbon neutrality? (I would bet in five years—he will take the Uber approach to deliveries more than he does now, even requiring workers to furnish their own electric vans). I could see the boys laughing over this at the catered hootenanny. It feels good to be a gangster bllly—huh?
I only know of a few charities that truly give back. Most of the big ones we all know through media are overfunded. I once heard there is a very popular children’s hospital who could operate for the next twenty years without another cent, even when taking into account inflation/tech costs.
I used to look up nonprofits on WayStar. They have now made looking at the free 1040’s complicated.
(Does anyone know of a truly selfless charity? I’ve always given Salvation Army a long rope. They have been feeding America’s hungry forever, and I know people who eat there.)
> Be it Billy Gates, Bezos, or one of the many Midwestern Financial Gurus—-their use of 901c3‘s are basically tax dodges.
Do you mean 501c3? How are these a tax dodge? How does someone end up financially better off than just keeping and investing their wealth if they choose to donate it or deploy it in a donor advised fund?
> Gates foundation gives back less than 1% of the wife’s fund to the nation that birthed him, and provided a comfy launching pad for that privileged life. (I get you need to help developing nations, but America is dying. I have never seen so many homeless.)
If you think America is dying, boy do I have news for you about the state of most of the world. I also deploy most of my personal donations outside America, through GiveWell and Watsi (and more targeted donations independently).
America has a lot of problems. I live in NYC and can empathize with the dissonance of seeing the homeless sleeping in the cold on Madison Ave. I don't want to diminutize that, and this is something I also care about.
But the blunt fact of the matter is that America is far better off than the countries Gates focuses on. It's not even a fair comparison in terms of poverty and healthcare. Gates deploys his wealth primarily in regions that have never or only rarely "birthed" billionaires like Gates, in your words.
It is uniquely selfish to criticize billionaires for hoarding their wealth while also insisting they focus their charity on one of the richest countries in the world by median.
Do you mean 501c3? How are these a tax dodge? How does someone end up financially better off than just keeping and investing their wealth if they choose to donate it or deploy it in a donor advised fund?
> Gates foundation gives back less than 1% of the wife’s fund to the nation that birthed him, and provided a comfy launching pad for that privileged life. (I get you need to help developing nations, but America is dying. I have never seen so many homeless.)
If you think America is dying, boy do I have news for you about the state of most of the world. I also deploy most of my personal donations outside America, through GiveWell and Watsi (and more targeted donations independently).
America has a lot of problems. I live in NYC and can empathize with the dissonance of seeing the homeless sleeping in the cold on Madison Ave. I don't want to diminutize that, and this is something I also care about.
But the blunt fact of the matter is that America is far better off than the countries Gates focuses on. It's not even a fair comparison in terms of poverty and healthcare. Gates deploys his wealth primarily in regions that have never or only rarely "birthed" billionaires like Gates, in your words.
It is uniquely selfish to criticize billionaires for hoarding their wealth while also insisting they focus their charity on one of the richest countries in the world by median.
I do agree that charity is often overplayed and many billionaires give away so little that they barely notice. But Bill Gates definitely is an exception. Of course they don't spend all their money in a few years, that wouldn't allow them to continue their work afterwards.
But the whole life of Bill and Melinda is about their work in the foundation. It's not a side gig for good press, they don't do anything else. I can understand criticism where billionaires have a charity next to their business. But there's no other business left for Bill.
But to be fair, Bill Gates is probably the only prominent example of a billionaire who quit the industry completely and dedicated his whole life towards charity.
But the whole life of Bill and Melinda is about their work in the foundation. It's not a side gig for good press, they don't do anything else. I can understand criticism where billionaires have a charity next to their business. But there's no other business left for Bill.
But to be fair, Bill Gates is probably the only prominent example of a billionaire who quit the industry completely and dedicated his whole life towards charity.
> But to be fair, Bill Gates is probably the only prominent example of a billionaire who quit the industry completely and dedicated his whole life towards charity.
James Simons has more or less done this for the past 15 years.
James Simons has more or less done this for the past 15 years.
> Gates foundation gives back less than 1% of the wife’s fund to the nation that birthed him, and provided a comfy launching pad for that privileged life. (I get you need to help developing nations, but America is dying. I have never seen so many homeless.)
Alternatively, why should Gates spend charity money on America if that money would go have a greater impact on helping people and improving lives elsewhere?
Alternatively, why should Gates spend charity money on America if that money would go have a greater impact on helping people and improving lives elsewhere?
> but America is dying. I have never seen so many homeless
My mom grew up in a village where some had to resort to cannibalism to survive. My grandfather was eaten after being beheaded by communists. I am blessed to be an American.
My mom grew up in a village where some had to resort to cannibalism to survive. My grandfather was eaten after being beheaded by communists. I am blessed to be an American.
He’s actually more known for how little charity he does, relative to his wealth and his peers. As soon as he got divorced his ex-wife gave away billions which hints that he was blocking a lot of that.
Bezos has taken a page straight out of Big Tobacco's regulatory capture handbook.
In 1997, as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the 4 major tobacco companies agreed to sweeping restrictions on cigarette advertising. This ensured that it was almost impossible for a new player to enter the market, because they had no way to create brand awareness.
In 1997, as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the 4 major tobacco companies agreed to sweeping restrictions on cigarette advertising. This ensured that it was almost impossible for a new player to enter the market, because they had no way to create brand awareness.
Ah yes, Altria masterminded their share price growing from 40 to 50 over only 24 years...
That same Altria Group has a >6% dividend yield.
Corporations and executives don't have strong opinions on anything. Its all easier when a) you understand that and b) you don't have strong opinions on anything either.
Because as an executive it's not your place to have a strong opinion. You're hired by the owners (i.e. shareholders in case of public companies) to make money, not to voice your opinions. There's a strong case that ethical behavior is not only the right thing but leads to long term success so of course you should act ethically. But the success of the company outweighs personal opinions. Even if you as a CEO think high taxes are fair, if low taxes benefit the company this is what you'll have to advocate. That's just the reality of working for others.
I was informing to make them as relatable as they are to me. I also don’t have strong opinions on anything and am content with this reality. As in, I don’t find this controversial and I know why corporations act how they do and didn’t need it explained ( others may have needed that though). The data changes and so too does the reaction, more people should be less worried about irony or perceived hypocrisy.
they pay little tax because they re-invest into their growth.
This is a desired behavior which we want - it fosters innovation and job creation.
This is a desired behavior which we want - it fosters innovation and job creation.
Couldn't the same also be said at the human scale? Workers have to eat, sleep, often put back some money and gain some assets to grow and be more productive for their families and loved ones. Workers may use some of their money for rest and recreation but so do all companies have some degree of frivolity. This meme that gets passed around of corporations "fostering innovation and job creation" is a corporate apologist cop-out.
I think in theory corporate taxes don't add any burden, because they only apply to profits and not to overall income like personal taxes do. You could theoretically have a 99% corporate tax and corporations that don't make a profit like Uber would continue completely unaffected. (Although the only reason they have the money they need to operate is because their investors expect to be paid by future profits, and if you taxed all profit away investors would not be willing to buy equity, so really they would be affected.)
It seems to me that money can be used for two things: productive uses and unproductive uses. Unproductive uses can be taxed as much as we want - as a society we don't really care that much if people can't do unproductive things with their money like pay for foot massages and things like that. (Well, people who want to pay for unproductive things like foot massages and videogames care, but I think it's okay to take away some potential foot massages via taxation to pay for important public goods.) But we should take care when taxing productive things, because we're taking away opportunities from our future. If a masseuse wants to invest in some kind of robo-massager that will let them give twice as good foot massages for half the price, that's just a better use of everyone's time and money than continuing to do it the old way and not something we probably want to discourage.
Seen through that lens, a wealth tax (or better, a consumption tax like a VAT) makes more sense than a corporate tax to me. Imagine a chash-rich opportunity-poor corporation that has only one thing to do with its excess cash: invest it building new widget factories for 3% return on investment. And let's say there's a cash-strapped opportunity-rich second company that can build new factories for a 10% return on investment. What we would want to happen is for the owners of the first company to withdraw the excess cash, so they can invest it in the second company which has much better things to do with it.
With a corporate tax, that process is interrupted, because the first company can invest in itself tax-free but must pay taxes to return money to investors so they can put it to better use.
My thinking is that a wealth tax taxes nearly the same thing as a corporate tax, without this flaw. You can't really tax a "corporation", fundamentally everything is owned by someone so if you tax a corporation you really tax the owners of the corporation. Here's how that plays out: The price of a share of a company is usually modelled as the expected future earnings from posession of that share, discounted for time. So if you expect a company to pay dividends of $0.1/share/year forever and have a discount rate of 5%, you should be willing to pay $2.00/share. If a corporate tax of 50% reduces that to $0.05/share/year (since half the profits have been taxed so the dividends are half as large), the price will drop to $1/share. A wealth tax taxes the value of the shares directly, instead of messily taxing the profits and affecting the share price indirectly. But a wealth tax doesn't have the weird switching-over issue I mentioned earlier, so money would no longer be trapped in unproductive areas (or worse, trapped overseas waiting for a change in US corporate tax policy).
A VAT would be even better because it would incentivize people to keep their money in productive uses by taxing only unproductive uses (VAT doesn't apply to stocks or business expeneses or things of that nature). But that's kind of tangential.
Maybe a professional economist can correct me on this but that's my thinking.
It seems to me that money can be used for two things: productive uses and unproductive uses. Unproductive uses can be taxed as much as we want - as a society we don't really care that much if people can't do unproductive things with their money like pay for foot massages and things like that. (Well, people who want to pay for unproductive things like foot massages and videogames care, but I think it's okay to take away some potential foot massages via taxation to pay for important public goods.) But we should take care when taxing productive things, because we're taking away opportunities from our future. If a masseuse wants to invest in some kind of robo-massager that will let them give twice as good foot massages for half the price, that's just a better use of everyone's time and money than continuing to do it the old way and not something we probably want to discourage.
Seen through that lens, a wealth tax (or better, a consumption tax like a VAT) makes more sense than a corporate tax to me. Imagine a chash-rich opportunity-poor corporation that has only one thing to do with its excess cash: invest it building new widget factories for 3% return on investment. And let's say there's a cash-strapped opportunity-rich second company that can build new factories for a 10% return on investment. What we would want to happen is for the owners of the first company to withdraw the excess cash, so they can invest it in the second company which has much better things to do with it.
With a corporate tax, that process is interrupted, because the first company can invest in itself tax-free but must pay taxes to return money to investors so they can put it to better use.
My thinking is that a wealth tax taxes nearly the same thing as a corporate tax, without this flaw. You can't really tax a "corporation", fundamentally everything is owned by someone so if you tax a corporation you really tax the owners of the corporation. Here's how that plays out: The price of a share of a company is usually modelled as the expected future earnings from posession of that share, discounted for time. So if you expect a company to pay dividends of $0.1/share/year forever and have a discount rate of 5%, you should be willing to pay $2.00/share. If a corporate tax of 50% reduces that to $0.05/share/year (since half the profits have been taxed so the dividends are half as large), the price will drop to $1/share. A wealth tax taxes the value of the shares directly, instead of messily taxing the profits and affecting the share price indirectly. But a wealth tax doesn't have the weird switching-over issue I mentioned earlier, so money would no longer be trapped in unproductive areas (or worse, trapped overseas waiting for a change in US corporate tax policy).
A VAT would be even better because it would incentivize people to keep their money in productive uses by taxing only unproductive uses (VAT doesn't apply to stocks or business expeneses or things of that nature). But that's kind of tangential.
Maybe a professional economist can correct me on this but that's my thinking.
> "With a corporate tax, that process is interrupted..."
there is no process interruption here. a tax on profit doesn't prevent corporations from investing in the highest npv projects available to it because capital expenditures and r&d investments occur before that taxation, and moreover the interest expense is deducted as well.
despite all the hand-wringing over corporate taxation, this maxim holds true in most cases. taxation has little effect on the investments a company chooses (or alternatively, the variance of choices gets lost in the error bars). they will still tend to choose the highest npv projects, even if that's negative.
there is no process interruption here. a tax on profit doesn't prevent corporations from investing in the highest npv projects available to it because capital expenditures and r&d investments occur before that taxation, and moreover the interest expense is deducted as well.
despite all the hand-wringing over corporate taxation, this maxim holds true in most cases. taxation has little effect on the investments a company chooses (or alternatively, the variance of choices gets lost in the error bars). they will still tend to choose the highest npv projects, even if that's negative.
I think you misunderstood the parent. They're discussing the case where a corporation has no high NPV projects available to it, and the best thing to do would be for it to return money to investors. They can then spend it on other companies which do have those opportunities.
In that case, it has to take that money as profits instead of reinvesting, and so is taxed.
In that case, it has to take that money as profits instead of reinvesting, and so is taxed.
that's more theoretical than practical. in many cases companies can work around that limitation to make such investments without (all of) those tax implications. money is typically returned to investors because the board and the executives want it to diversify themselves away, not because there are no npv positive projects to invest in. and there are plenty of ways to spend on protecting existing income streams, which is what we see companies doing regularly. there are lots of principle-agent problems and moral hazards in this realm that cloud the practical from the theoretical.
nice blog thanks for sharing
https://infinitotek.com/course-category/devops/
https://infinitotek.com/course-category/devops/
taxation is a system of rules, and the very wealthy pay people to navigate those rules.
leftists make the mistake of thinking that intent == outcome. "If we tax the rich more, then the government will have more money to spend on social services and the rich will have less money and therefore less power". In reality it doesn't work that way. Adding a new rule changes the game but often not in the way you intend.
Or in other words, leftists tend to make the mistake of relying on reductionist thinking rather than systems thinking.
leftists make the mistake of thinking that intent == outcome. "If we tax the rich more, then the government will have more money to spend on social services and the rich will have less money and therefore less power". In reality it doesn't work that way. Adding a new rule changes the game but often not in the way you intend.
Or in other words, leftists tend to make the mistake of relying on reductionist thinking rather than systems thinking.
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. It's tedious and repetitive, inevitably turns nasty, and is not what this site is for.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26722319.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26722319.
I really wasn't trying to, I'm not interested in flaming - I just don't like being attacked.
[deleted]
> leftists make the mistake of thinking that intent == outcome.
That’s a common mistake for people of all ideological stripes.
> "If we tax the rich more, then the government will have more money to spend on social services and the rich will have less money and therefore less power".
The fiscal myth is increasingly unpopular on the left (and even starting to fall out of favor in the center-left, hence the rise of MMT). So, no, largely and increasingly leftists don’t think this way even if they mistake intent for effect.
> Adding a new rule changes the game but often not in the way you intend.
The “Law of Unintended Consequences”, while it relates to a real phenomenon, is both dramatically overstated and not meaningful as a rebuttal of any particular idea. If you want to rebut the argument that a specific proposal to increase high end taxes (not the generic concept which you then massage into a form most suitable for rebuttal) will not actually increase net revenues, you need a specific argument from the elements of the proposal, not a generic handwave in the direction of “sometimes changing the rules does something you didn’t expect”. Since, I mean, that can just as easily mean that it succeeds beyond expectations than that it fails, when the effect manifests at all.
That’s a common mistake for people of all ideological stripes.
> "If we tax the rich more, then the government will have more money to spend on social services and the rich will have less money and therefore less power".
The fiscal myth is increasingly unpopular on the left (and even starting to fall out of favor in the center-left, hence the rise of MMT). So, no, largely and increasingly leftists don’t think this way even if they mistake intent for effect.
> Adding a new rule changes the game but often not in the way you intend.
The “Law of Unintended Consequences”, while it relates to a real phenomenon, is both dramatically overstated and not meaningful as a rebuttal of any particular idea. If you want to rebut the argument that a specific proposal to increase high end taxes (not the generic concept which you then massage into a form most suitable for rebuttal) will not actually increase net revenues, you need a specific argument from the elements of the proposal, not a generic handwave in the direction of “sometimes changing the rules does something you didn’t expect”. Since, I mean, that can just as easily mean that it succeeds beyond expectations than that it fails, when the effect manifests at all.
> The fiscal myth is increasingly unpopular on the left (and even starting to fall out of favor in the center-left, hence the rise of MMT). So, no, largely and increasingly leftists don’t think this way even if they mistake intent for effect.
That can only be a good thing. I don't move in leftist circles much (or really any political circles) so sadly I'm not up-to-date on the current thinking.
> The “Law of Unintended Consequences”, while it relates to a real phenomenon, is both dramatically overstated and not meaningful as a rebuttal of any particular idea. If you want to rebut the argument that a specific proposal to increase high end taxes (not the generic concept which you then massage into a form most suitable for rebuttal) will not actually increase net revenues, you need a specific argument from the elements of the proposal, not a generic handwave in the direction of “sometimes changing the rules does something you didn’t expect”. Since, I mean, that can just as easily mean that it succeeds beyond expectations than that it fails, when the effect manifests at all.
It wasn't intended as a rebuttal, but as a call to action to engage in systems thinking. Basically, under a reductive model of causality it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that well-intentioned policies are all that's necessary. Instead, if you're looking to enact a specific effect you need to consider both the effect you're trying to counteract (a too-high power differential) and the response to the policy you enact (in my loose example, the policy just being included in the equation already in use by lawyers, accountants, wealth managers etc that the very-wealthy already employ).
I highlight this because I'm both interested in systems theory and in building a better society (as, I suspect, most people are) and one of the main applications of systems theory is how to get the outcome you desire when trying to change a complex system. The way to do this is usually not obvious - because if the obvious solution worked, the problem would be easily solved.
I'm not trying to dismiss the intent behind the suggested reform.
That can only be a good thing. I don't move in leftist circles much (or really any political circles) so sadly I'm not up-to-date on the current thinking.
> The “Law of Unintended Consequences”, while it relates to a real phenomenon, is both dramatically overstated and not meaningful as a rebuttal of any particular idea. If you want to rebut the argument that a specific proposal to increase high end taxes (not the generic concept which you then massage into a form most suitable for rebuttal) will not actually increase net revenues, you need a specific argument from the elements of the proposal, not a generic handwave in the direction of “sometimes changing the rules does something you didn’t expect”. Since, I mean, that can just as easily mean that it succeeds beyond expectations than that it fails, when the effect manifests at all.
It wasn't intended as a rebuttal, but as a call to action to engage in systems thinking. Basically, under a reductive model of causality it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that well-intentioned policies are all that's necessary. Instead, if you're looking to enact a specific effect you need to consider both the effect you're trying to counteract (a too-high power differential) and the response to the policy you enact (in my loose example, the policy just being included in the equation already in use by lawyers, accountants, wealth managers etc that the very-wealthy already employ).
I highlight this because I'm both interested in systems theory and in building a better society (as, I suspect, most people are) and one of the main applications of systems theory is how to get the outcome you desire when trying to change a complex system. The way to do this is usually not obvious - because if the obvious solution worked, the problem would be easily solved.
I'm not trying to dismiss the intent behind the suggested reform.
It’s really sad that you are blind to your own severe discrimination. If you think in sweeping generalizations like, “leftists make the mistake...” you really need to step back and spend time not commenting at all and work harder to gain more self-awareness about your own prejudices.
I know you will not like this comment and you will want to knee-jerk reply to “refute” it, but you need to resist that urge and admit you have really significant and really troubling prejudices that come through like a megaphone to others observing you, and spend time just dealing with that.
I know you will not like this comment and you will want to knee-jerk reply to “refute” it, but you need to resist that urge and admit you have really significant and really troubling prejudices that come through like a megaphone to others observing you, and spend time just dealing with that.
Where in the world is the “severe discrimination” and prejudice in that comment? You’re knee-jerk character charging without addressing the main points.
This user stalked me from a previous comment chain. Essentially they are bought into critical theory and I'm bought into systems theory so we're talking past each other.
It's kind of amusing given we're presumably after the same thing (reducing power differentials) but by different means.
It's kind of amusing given we're presumably after the same thing (reducing power differentials) but by different means.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines, including personal attacks and ideological flamewar, and ignoring our many requests to stop. Not cool.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
then consider me called out. For what it's worth, I don't think you are being particularly pleasant either. That's just disliking each other, and I'm OK with that.
> For example, you made a recent comment talking about how almost all software developers are horrible at their jobs and that a small set of gatekeeper senior engineers should guard all code review.
For what it's worth it was something of an ironic joke related to the idea that "half of all people are below average at X", but also pointing at the idea that the industry gets better as the individuals who make it up get better at what they do.
I support the idea that people who are better at a job should help to educate others. I try to humble myself to better engineers than myself.
> For example, you made a recent comment talking about how almost all software developers are horrible at their jobs and that a small set of gatekeeper senior engineers should guard all code review.
For what it's worth it was something of an ironic joke related to the idea that "half of all people are below average at X", but also pointing at the idea that the industry gets better as the individuals who make it up get better at what they do.
I support the idea that people who are better at a job should help to educate others. I try to humble myself to better engineers than myself.
[deleted]
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I agree with the goals of leftists - and with many left criticisms of late capitalism. My criticism comes from wanting those goals to be achieved more effectively. In other words, I think the left has successfully identified many problems in our society but lacks the tools to fix them, and I think I have an idea of what those tools might be (systems thinking primarily).
I don't particularly care about your recommendation to self-crit. I spend enough time trying to criticise my own mental models as it is.
I could cite some individual leftists that I think are doing great work in the space if you would like. I know the phrases I use are over generalising here, so feel free to imply the word "some" in front of the nouns.
I don't particularly care about your recommendation to self-crit. I spend enough time trying to criticise my own mental models as it is.
I could cite some individual leftists that I think are doing great work in the space if you would like. I know the phrases I use are over generalising here, so feel free to imply the word "some" in front of the nouns.
Here's a pattern I see play out every few years:
> Media rightly call out super rich for continuing to grow richer while people are struggling and SMBs fail
> Politicians rightly call out super rich and say they're going to do something about it
> Super rich come out in support of raising taxes, additional regulation, etc because who cares about laws and taxes if you're rich. Proceeds to lobby politicians for policies that help them.
> Media praise super rich for supporting policies and politicians that will help the super rich while either not understanding motivation or out right lying about who the beneficiary of these policies will be.
> Politicians implement policies that benefit the super rich while selling it to the public as something that's good for small business / those less fortunate.
> Media praises politicians implementing policies that were push for by the super rich while claiming it will help small business / middle class.