• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What to do about Jeff?

What's the difference between Nazism and Communism?

You can talk about Nazism without anyone arguing it's never been given a fair shot and needs to be tried again.

This.
If you don't like the current system, fine, but come up with something new to replace it,not an idea that has been tried time and time again, and failed time and time again.
It really comes down to that a lot of people on the left really do feel,deep down, that making a profit is, in and of itself, evil.
 
Jeff Bezos is personally worth $150 Billion bucks. This writer contends that that illustrates failures of tax and social policy. Discuss.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/08/the-problem-with-bezos-billions/566552/

I think the tax rate should be higher for those with high incomes,but I am skeptical about those who adovocate what amount to mass redistribution of wealth.
Should Bezos pay his workers more? Yes. But I also feel is not like anbody pointed a gun at people and made them buy stuff from Amazon, or made them buy Kindles.
 
SO what is the answer?
"Workers COntrol the Means of Production" has been tried, and did not work out very well....

Maybe we could "Make America Great Again" by returning to the income tax structure of the 1950s. IIRC the top rate, for incomes over something like $200k, was around 90%. And we were great. The greatest, even. If you hate high tax rates you hate the greatest generation!
 
Maybe we could "Make America Great Again" by returning to the income tax structure of the 1950s. IIRC the top rate, for incomes over something like $200k, was around 90%. And we were great. The greatest, even. If you hate high tax rates you hate the greatest generation!

And that 90% high tax rate was not sustainable. It was the liberal Kennedy administration that lowered it.
A higher tax rate, yes, but 90% amount to confiscation.
 
And that 90% high tax rate was not sustainable. It was the liberal Kennedy administration that lowered it.
A higher tax rate, yes, but 90% amount to confiscation.

I think it was sustained for quite some time. Over 70% up until 1981, IIRC. We had some pretty good years while very high marginal tax rates were in place.

Either way, it is a solution without actually seizing control of the means of production. And that was the question.
 
Last edited:
I'm confused and maybe someone can help me out. If he is making all this money claimed because of the increase in value of Amazon and should be taxed on the increase of the value of the stock and/or investments before actually realizing the profit, then what happens in the case of the stock tanking?

Am I missing something from this theoretical standpoint that there should be taxation prior to actual realization of the profits? I'm not saying he isn't benefiting from the value increase in the stock, I'm just confused in the implementation of a tax program that would be enforced on increased value prior to the sale of the stock.
 
I'm confused and maybe someone can help me out. If he is making all this money claimed because of the increase in value of Amazon and should be taxed on the increase of the value of the stock and/or investments before actually realizing the profit, then what happens in the case of the stock tanking?

Am I missing something from this theoretical standpoint that there should be taxation prior to actual realization of the profits? I'm not saying he isn't benefiting from the value increase in the stock, I'm just confused in the implementation of a tax program that would be enforced on increased value prior to the sale of the stock.

I do not know his particular situation, but most people of such means require more than $80k per year to live on. Since Amazon does not pay a dividend I am assuming that he is selling Amazon stock to provide his income stream, then I would suggest that such sales would be taxable.

I am not suggesting a tax on asset appreciation alone. Sorry if you got that impression.
 
Fair enough. The numbers that are being thrown around here are specifically related to asset appreciation, though. I know he sold $1B or so in stock last year, but is there any indication that he didn't pay the appropriate federal taxes on that amount of income? I mean, I know he paid no state income tax (pretty sure that Washington state has none).
 
Fair enough. The numbers that are being thrown around here are specifically related to asset appreciation, though. I know he sold $1B or so in stock last year, but is there any indication that he didn't pay the appropriate federal taxes on that amount of income? I mean, I know he paid no state income tax (pretty sure that Washington state has none).

I assume he paid all necessary taxes. He's an actual billionaire.
 
But this is why I'd rather we did away with the income tax and replace with a property tax. Not when you sell, but on what you hold on Dec. 31.

I think it would take about 2% of the value of America to "make the country great again". And eliminate SS tax, unemployment insurance, health insurance cost, all covered by 2%. How much would Jeff pay?

eta: about $3B, or 7% of his "income". Pretty low rate eh?
 
Last edited:
1. Let's be honest in a world of Enrons and Worldcoms and companies that have huge profit margins, massive income disparages, shady business practices, and have caused full on economic crises.. at least Amazon does something. At least it produces something. At least it's had an effect on the technology world and personal lives. At least there's innovation and drive and passion in there somewhere. At least we've got Kindles out of it. Now I get this is light Whataboutism so I'm not leaning on this too hard but all thing's being equal I'm always supporter of the Lewis Black suggested rule of "If you have a company and you can't describe, in one sentence, what... it... does... then it's illegal."


So it's okay if they screw people over so long as they produce something in the process, got it.

Yeah, that's a bit of hyperbole, but really, that's not really a good justification for being a robber baron. The old southern plantation owners produced a lot of things, cotton, food, etc., but that does not in any way justify or soften slavery or indentured servitude.

2. Bezos, Jobs, Gates, Musk, Zuckerburg and etc... I do wonder since they guys to be public faces of their companies and stay in the news (as in you're not going recognize Greg Penner or Darren Woods if you saw them in the street or know who they are without Googling them) it just makes it easier to... demonize them.


They're the founders/CEOs, they set the tone for how the business will be run, and hold ultimate responsibility for their businesses. Who else should we point to, the assistant vice president of marketing?

And unlike Bezos, Bill Gates at least is spending a real substantial chunk of his net worth on charitable causes, $4.6 billion to the Gates Foundation last year. He's still worth over $80 billion, but that's a fair bit more paid out to charity than Bezos' paltry $107 million. Either one of them is worth more than most nations.

3. On the same page... there is a little of the distrust of the techie, new money, GenX and onward types in some of this. If Bezos had made his fortune in oil or energy conglomeration and wore a suit and set in a boardroom and wasn't on TV all the time but all the numbers were the same...


Don't know if that is directed at me, but it's utter nonsense, and I did clearly address the fact that Bezos and Amazon are simply one of many who are part of the problem. Tech companies like Amazon and Google are merely the latest in a long line, and have grown up in a time and place where worker protections are currently at their weakest in decades. These companies have managed to take advantage of a favourable political climate to become worse in many ways than their predecessors. Plus, the tech industry in general is one of the largest employers in the US at this time. Not to mention that I am GenX and working in the tech industry, so your accusations sound more than a little disingenuous.

Thanks to the megacorps, and tech megacorps in particular, wages in the US have remained flat or declined compared to inflation, despite the GDP growing considerably faster, and megacorp profits reaching record levels. There is even a labour shortage in some industries and places, but businesses are not increasing salaries to attract new workers. NPR had a story on this recently.
 
I think it was sustained for quite some time. Over 70% up until 1981, IIRC. We had some pretty good years while very high marginal tax rates were in place.

Either way, it is a solution without actually seizing control of the means of production. And that was the question.


Yes. It was specifically "Reaganomics", aka "trickle-down economics" that lowered the tax rates, removed a whole lot of taxes on businesses and billionaires, and signaled the start of the downward slide that we're currently seeing the results of. The GOP favouring the rich and powerful, making them more rich and powerful, at the expense of the working class and poor at first, now the middle class. And Trump's latest massive tax cut for billionaires is already worsening the problem.

But this is why I'd rather we did away with the income tax and replace with a property tax. Not when you sell, but on what you hold on Dec. 31.

I think it would take about 2% of the value of America to "make the country great again". And eliminate SS tax, unemployment insurance, health insurance cost, all covered by 2%. How much would Jeff pay?

eta: about $3B, or 7% of his "income". Pretty low rate eh?


Clearly property taxes are not the answer. Particularly since they're regressive, and affect property owners in lower income brackets greater than they do upper income brackets. AAMOF, they make it far more difficult for lower incomes brackets to actually own property, as we're currently seeing happening in Seattle, as rising property taxes increases are forcing long-time residents to sell and move out of the city.

A far better solution is a universal progressive tax on income and capital gains. It doesn't need to be anywhere near 90% at the top, but it does need to be graduated by income bracket, and it needs to close loopholes and tax shelters that are only available to the super rich.
 
Last edited:
This just popped up in my feed:

Amazon halved corporation tax bill despite UK profits tripling

Amazon has revealed that its UK corporation tax bill almost halved to £4.5m last year, days after the US company posted a record profit of $2.5bn (£1.9bn) in its most recent quarter.

The company, which has been locked in a race with Apple and Alphabet to be the world’s first trillion-dollar business, revealed that pre-tax profits at its UK business tripled from £24m in 2016 to £72m last year.

The figures were reported by Amazon UK Services, the company’s warehouse and logistics operation that employs more than two-thirds of its 27,000-plus UK workforce, in its annual financial filing to Companies House.

The company almost halved its declared UK corporation tax bill from £7.4m in 2016 to £4.5m last year. It received a tax credit of £1.3m from the UK authorities in 2016, and last year paid £1.7m tax on its profits.
 
And here we see again clearly the pathetic pseudo-humanitarian concern displayed by liberals and other defenders of capitalism. Kill workers by the hundreds of thousands? Not a peep from the libs. Suggest applying some good old guillotine justice to the individuals responsible[*] for it? Watch the libs fall all over themselves in suddenly-found humanitarian concerns.

Not a peep from the libs? What kind of liberals are we talking here. I am well left of center (the American center) and I'm making noise.
 


Two workers dying accidently is nothing like Jeff Bezos killing them. More importantly, Marxist revolution has a history of making working conditions worse, not better.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, keeping his workers in poverty leads to many more deaths outside the workplace itself.

And Amazon employees are not among those dying of poverty. More importantly, Marxist revolution has a history of leading to people dying by the millions from poverty.

And here we see again clearly the pathetic pseudo-humanitarian concern displayed by liberals and other defenders of capitalism. Kill workers by the hundreds of thousands? Not a peep from the libs. Suggest applying some good old guillotine justice to the individuals responsible[*] for it? Watch the libs fall all over themselves in suddenly-found humanitarian concerns.

Is that what you think? Who's behind those Indiana Department of Labor safety regulations that's leveling fines against Amazon? That's doing a lot more to guarantee the safety of warehouse employees than murdering Jeff Bezos would.

And that gets us into the core of liberal-capitalist ethics, the worth of a human life is proportional to how wealthy a person is. Which makes one wonder why liberals think that they'd get anything other than laughter in response to their fake "humanitarian" concerns about human life.

Which, for all its faults, is much better than Marxism, which places the value of human life below adherence to a dogma which has historically failed to improve the lives of anyone.

* Jeff Bezos has stolen more than $150 billion from his workers, leaving them impoverished en masse. I'm not going to bother doing the math, but I'm sure calculating this with poverty-related death rates it comes down to hundreds, if not more, deaths of workers directly caused by Jeff Bezos. The man is literally a mass murderer.

Of course you're not going to "bother" doing the math. You have a pretty good idea that if you did it wouldn't support your claims.
 
Last edited:
Marxism....and this is not a new observatation...works a lot like a religion.
Infallible source of all wisdom, blind obedience to dogma a virtue,violent persecution of non beleivers and heretics,and a willingness to indulge in mass slaughter because God..or in this case The Party..tells you it is necessary.
 

I saw this in the article.
Amazon UK’s warehouse and logistics staff and management enjoyed a bumper $164m (£125m) payout from the company share scheme – a rise of almost a third on 2016’s £95m bonanza – thanks to the company’s surging share price.

On average the thousands of staff who handle orders received about £3,000 per person last year. Senior staff will have taken home considerably more.
 
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Which employees? For many of its miserable warehouse jobs, Amazon contracts with independent labor suppliers. Its workers aren't actually Amazon employees. And even higher up the food chain, it takes a peculiar personality to survive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/t...lace.html?_r=0
http://fortune.com/2015/08/17/amazon...times-workers/
http://gawker.com/amazon-is-a-time-t...yee-1569841307
http://gawker.com/inside-amazons-biz...ure-1570412337
http://gawker.com/amazon-insiders-te...gly-1570866439
http://gawker.com/working-at-amazon-...nce-1573522379
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ehouses-labor/

They are known as "Amholes" for a reason.

As pointed out before it seems a lot of employees do not feel that way.

Over 20,000 reviews. I am sure this includes a broad spectrum of employees.

3.8 overall review
74% recommend to a friend
86% approve of the CEO

ETA: The main thing I don't like about Amazon is that I did not have the foresight to buy it in its infancy. Also that as it has grown I have always thought the stock was overpriced. Luckily I never shorted the stock.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom