Apparently those just don't count.
What to do about Jeff?
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
Apparently those just don't count.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
And it’s proposed as a solution to a lot of things it doesn’t solve.
Poverty? Nope.
Income inequality? Nope.
Inadequate health care? Nope.
Racism, sexism, homophobia? Nope.
Frankly I’d rather have the religious guy praying to solve these issues than a Marxist who thinks killing people to take their stuff will help.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
That only applies to full-time employees, not contractors or part-timers.
And it sure as hell doesn't apply to the bulk of their employees who are in the US. Like I said, just because the UK has better worker protections and a better labour market doesn't mean that everyone else around the world gets treated as well.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Waiting for your to provide the evidence that GlassDoor.com is a representative statistical average of all Amazon employess, and not a self-selected group of upper-level employees who have better working conditions than the rank and file. Oh, and BTW, Amazon (and many other employers) "strongly encourage" their employees to rate them on GlassDoor to counteract the negative reviews.
Until that happens, and given what I know about GlassDoor and the way it gets used by employers (from personal experience), I'll take that with a huge grain of salt.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
What to do about Jeff? How about elect him President? He's smarter, more honest, and, BTW, far richer than the current one. Probably won't be trying to steer government business to Amazon to line his pockets by a trivial percentage.
Seriously, majority of the employees of <insert Fortune 1000 company> probably hate their management. I did.
Seriously, majority of the employees of <insert Fortune 1000 company> probably hate their management. I did.
1/ The news articles, particularly the NY Times, are broad descriptions of working conditions at Amazon. They go way beyond the personal opinions of any individual employees. And many lower-level Amazon "employees" are contracted through temp agencies who hire and fire; they don't actually work for Amazon at all, and might not be eligible to comment on Glassdoor (I don't really know how that works).
2/ The fact that working conditions aren't as bad as they could be doesn't mean that they couldn't be better, particularly at the lowest end of the scale. Amazon warehouse workers might think they'd gone to heaven if they could get jobs as Walmart cashiers. Other profitable businesses don't abuse the human beings who are the source of their success.
3/ There are broad questions about how the increasing concentration of wealth affects law and public policy and their impact on all of us. The mega-billionaire Kochs have spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting policies that enhance their wealth, but maybe aren't so good for the rest of us. The issue isn't just that a few people have vast fortunes, but that the money gives them enormous political power that the Constitution never intended.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/08/the-problem-with-bezos-billions/566552/
Last edited:
Who's talking about murdering Jeff Bezos? I just want him to treat his employees better and pay more taxes.
Bezos has a vast personal fortune outside his Amazon stock resulting from selling stock and investing the cash years ago. He owns enormous amounts of land. He paid $250 million for the Washington Post from his pocket change. And he can borrow against his stock as collateral if he wants. He doesn't have sell a single share to benefit from its increased value.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jef...of-the-top-25-largest-landowners-in-america-3
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12385393#post12385393
Me too. I think murdering him should be off the table.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Stock sales are taxed.
Gains from capital investment are taxed.
Real property is taxed.
Revenues from the Post's business are taxed. Capital gains from investment in the Post and by the Post are taxed. Income he receives from the Post is taxed.
Gains from investing borrowed funds are taxed.
On the other hand, whatever benefits he realizes, whether income or capital gains, are taxed. And of course if he does sell shares, the sale is taxed.
What's your problem with Jeff Bezos, again?
This is exactly what I'm wondering. Not only reiteration of all of the above, but the fact that he is a 17% holder in a corporation (approximately) and must answer to the remaining 83% shareholders who have no problem and actually tacitly support his current management tactics. Who is more to blame? The 17% owner that, as CEO, has caused the value of the corporation to skyrocket? Or the other owners who allow this to be the status quo because they are making money hand over fist when they could easily get him out for "unethical" practices if they so chose?
This is leaving out the whole idea of a corporation which is to maximize profits for shareholders. I think Amazon is doing pretty well in that regard. And to forego other arguments, if anyone can point to any malfeasance by Bezos personally, I'd be happy to hear it. But I don't see any bad acting on his part as a CEO or owner Amazon.
I don't have one.
I can see how some people may be concerned about the concentration of wealth that he represents, but that has nothing to do with him personally.
I can see how some people may not like how his company and others outsource lots of their labor to third parties who treat their employees like crap, but again that has little to do with him personally.
I can see how people don't like the way major corporations work very hard to maintain low tax payments any legal way possible, but again that has little to do with him personally.
All of these problems seem seem like problems directly related to politics, not Jeff Bezos. What, is he supposed to spend more even though his lawyers and advisers are saying that he is spending all that he is legally required to? That seems like a setup for shareholder litigation.
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
But capital gains are not taxed until the asset gets sold. Haven't you ever sold a house? OOps, that gets rolled over to the next house, as long as you buy within ummm a year. Two? So Bezo's capital gains taxes may not yet be paid by his great great great great grand children.
You do realize that it is special interests that right the tax laws don't you? Like Wall Street and landowners...
That is why I say lets go to a property tax, payable NOW.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
There is a problem with legal tax avoidance - methods which are perfectly legal but allow large companies to avoid paying tax. I'd be surprised if you aren't already aware that many of the biggest global companies pay zero or near-zero in tax. These tax avoidance loopholes need to be closed, but they won't be while the people who make the laws directly benefit from them.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
So?
Yes.
No "oops" about it. Only your primary residence rolls over like that. As long as it's your home, you're fine. The moment you turn it into an investment, either by selling it and pocketing the cash (instead of rolling it over into a new home for yourself), or by buying it as an investment (e.g., a second property that you plan to rent out, flip, etc.), you are looking at capital gains. I think this is entirely sensible.
So? It doesn't really make sense to tax capital gains until someone actually gains from them. And the exemption for primary residences seems like an obvious good idea.
Wave your hands more. I'm not scared yet.
Property tax is different from capital gains tax. Every property I've ever owned, I've paid a tax bill annually.
Seriously, dude, what is your problem?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The post you're replying to, like the post it's replying to, aren't talking about companies, they're talking about Jeff Bezos personally.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Immaterial. Similar legal loopholes apply to ultra-rich individuals.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
How is referring to corporate tax loopholes supposed to reply to comments about personal taxes?
What "similar" legal loopholes is Jeff Bezos personally exploiting? The one where he pays taxes income from stock sales? The one where he pays taxes on property he owns? The one where he pays taxes on capital gains he realizes?
If you're trying to make a claim about Bezos's personal tax avoidance, vague references to corporate tax loopholes don't suffice. If you're trying to make a point about personal tax avoidance, vague references to corporate tax loopholes also don't suffice.
Are you going to develop these references into something about Bezos's personal tax strategy, or was the plan for me to say "oh, right, corporate tax loopholes, Bezos must not be paying any personal tax either!"?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
I'm not a tax accountant. Don't ask for details from me. But it is pretty common knowledge that the hyper-rich don't pay a fair share of taxes. Take that however you will. Ignore it if you like. I don't care.