I don’t really see the significance of where he acquired it.
Amazon, maybe more than any company, has/had customers all over the world. That money came from literally everywhere.
When someone says “they shouldn’t be able to do that!” My question is, do what?
Move? Not pay taxes in states they don’t live in?
As I said at the outset, I also think he should pay more taxes but as long as states can decide what taxes they collect, this particular issue isn’t going anywhere.
That or force people not to be able to move or force people to pay taxes in any state they ever lived in.
But I’ve made the mistake of bringing logic to an emotional thread.
Yup, and they successfully argued for years that their non-physical presence in a state meant they should not pay sales taxes in that state, effectively forcing states to subsidize Amazon at the expense of local businesses.
So what you seem to be arguing is that logic dictates that anyone with the economic power to ensure or prevent the passage of laws is necessarily correct, and that the only definition for a term like “theft” is the legal interpretation that you, as a non-lawyer, decide to apply. You’re saying that, despite centuries and millennia of colloquial usages of the term, both predating and concurrently used with the very restricted legal definition, any dictionary or other usage-derived definition is invalid.
One state has high taxes that everyone paid to provide safety and support for businesses to operate profitably. If you move states you are taking the profit that everyone in your community contributed to.
It’s a micro version of the reason the US now taxes millionaires who try to hide their US profits in tax havens. They wanted the security of the US to build their business but don’t want to contribute to maintain that safety for others once they have their money.
So yes you can move to another country or another state. But you shouldn’t be able to take all the profits when you leave without giving back something to the community that gave you that wealth.
Does the word theft need a legal definition to exist?
Outside of any legislative bodies jurisprudence, so the open sea, or Antarctica, on the moon or in open space perpendicular to our ecliptic, is theft wrong based off a legality? Or is theft considered wrong based off a morality?
Legal≠right, ≠fair, ≠justice, ≠moral
What is legal is entirely it’s own thing. And even at that, if someone breaks the law, but then no one applies the consequences of breaking that law against them, is that even a law then?
When the law is arbitrarily applied, like how the rich tend to not be charged with first offenses and just get warnings, then that teaches the privileged to not worry about the law, to move fast and break things, to ask forgiveness rather than permission. But when the winning class doesn’t respect the law and every class under them is constantly looking up for cues on how to rise, weeeeeell…
The law applied unequally results in no one respecting the law. And that’s the rational response. Corruption kills communities. Corrupted leaders are effectively undermining our society, regardless of their title, be that Senator, General, Judge, et al, they’re sappers, undertakers, saboteurs
It’s not morally wrong. In the same way that some of us avoid taxes through donating to charity, or putting money into a pension, is that morally wrong?
Painting it as a moral question relies on the morals of one of the most ruthless businessmen of the last two decades. Paint it as a legal question instead, and push for legislation to stop billionaires from avoiding enough tax to feed hundreds of families for years…
I don’t think you (or others in this thread) get the point. I don’t know if it’s an age or a naivety thing, but shit, even Reddit of all places understands this shit…
Telling a billionaire cunt that happily destroys industries and treats his own employees like shit to act “morally” will do nothing. Bezos saving millions is probably news to him too, because he’s not moving tens of zeroes around his online banking account like us plebs. He’s got people managing his money, and they’re just doing what they’re paid to do - manage wealth optimally.
Painting it as a moral problem is exactly what right-wing politicians want. We’ve seen it plenty of times in the UK where people get called out for dodging taxes by politicians, using the loopholes they allow, create, and promote.
If you want to stop this kind of practice, you need to close these opportunities. Joke all you want, but when you put money into a retirement fund, you’re probably avoiding tax too. Is that a moral failing on your part? While it’s in no way equivalent to Bezos, it does point to the fact that tax avoidance schemes exist because the powers that be put them there. They are dedicated systems that should be scrutinised instead.
Governments allow tax deductions or credits for activities they want to encourage, like the ones you listed. Using those is not tax avoidance at all. In this case, he’s changing jurisdictions to avoid taxes, a completely different situation.
This isn’t a new thing. Many countries have tax havens or areas where rich people are told to “base” themselves in order to move wealth.
It is 100% tax avoidance, and it exists because governments/states allow it, and publicise the ability to move funds while not actually “being” in that place.
But the same goes for what we all do with retirement funds/giving money to charity. Saying it isn’t is just pushing semantics to separate what normies do as opposed to the rich.
Those are two very different things, which I think you’re failing to see. At least where I am in Canada, donating to charity doesn’t eliminate the tax on that income but only reduces it. Retirement contributions are deducted now but will be taxed when they’re withdrawn. This encourages people to support themselves in retirement instead of being seniors on welfare.
The big difference is tax havens are generally encouraging people to move their wealth after earning it elsewhere. The only benefit they gain is increasing their tax base by undercutting other jurisdictions.
Charity & Retirement contributions are assumed to be on income earned in the jurisdiction and encourage good behaviour. Some other tax mechanisms (like preferring dividend income over employment income) are harder to defend but are still trying to an encourage behaviour (like investment of wealth to grow the economy instead of simply hording it/spending it frivolously). While there might be cons to these mechanisms, both the pros and the cons stay within the jurisdiction. Tax havens internalize the benefits while externalizing the harms.
In other words, he will steal $600M from the public by this move.
Tax evasion is theft.
I want higher taxes on people like this too but are you trying to argue he shouldn’t be able to move?
Or that he should be subject to taxes in a state which he doesn’t live in anymore?
They’re not arguing either of those things. Clearly they’re just stating the facts of the situation.
So, theft is moving states and no longer being subject to the previous state’s taxes?
Is that a fact?
I’ve got a buddy who moved from MD to TX. Is he stealing from MD because he no longer pays taxes there?
If most of someone’s weath was acquired in another state, why should their new state of residence be entitled to it? A weath tax could help fix this
I don’t really see the significance of where he acquired it.
Amazon, maybe more than any company, has/had customers all over the world. That money came from literally everywhere.
When someone says “they shouldn’t be able to do that!” My question is, do what?
Move? Not pay taxes in states they don’t live in?
As I said at the outset, I also think he should pay more taxes but as long as states can decide what taxes they collect, this particular issue isn’t going anywhere.
That or force people not to be able to move or force people to pay taxes in any state they ever lived in.
But I’ve made the mistake of bringing logic to an emotional thread.
Yup, and they successfully argued for years that their non-physical presence in a state meant they should not pay sales taxes in that state, effectively forcing states to subsidize Amazon at the expense of local businesses.
So what you seem to be arguing is that logic dictates that anyone with the economic power to ensure or prevent the passage of laws is necessarily correct, and that the only definition for a term like “theft” is the legal interpretation that you, as a non-lawyer, decide to apply. You’re saying that, despite centuries and millennia of colloquial usages of the term, both predating and concurrently used with the very restricted legal definition, any dictionary or other usage-derived definition is invalid.
That doesn’t sound like logic to me, Mr. Spork.
Boy, that was a ton of words you just put in my mouth.
You knocked the absolute shit outta that straw man.
Your entire chain of comments here is a strawman, buddy.
One state has high taxes that everyone paid to provide safety and support for businesses to operate profitably. If you move states you are taking the profit that everyone in your community contributed to.
It’s a micro version of the reason the US now taxes millionaires who try to hide their US profits in tax havens. They wanted the security of the US to build their business but don’t want to contribute to maintain that safety for others once they have their money.
So yes you can move to another country or another state. But you shouldn’t be able to take all the profits when you leave without giving back something to the community that gave you that wealth.
deleted by creator
Does the word theft need a legal definition to exist?
Outside of any legislative bodies jurisprudence, so the open sea, or Antarctica, on the moon or in open space perpendicular to our ecliptic, is theft wrong based off a legality? Or is theft considered wrong based off a morality?
Legal≠right, ≠fair, ≠justice, ≠moral
What is legal is entirely it’s own thing. And even at that, if someone breaks the law, but then no one applies the consequences of breaking that law against them, is that even a law then?
When the law is arbitrarily applied, like how the rich tend to not be charged with first offenses and just get warnings, then that teaches the privileged to not worry about the law, to move fast and break things, to ask forgiveness rather than permission. But when the winning class doesn’t respect the law and every class under them is constantly looking up for cues on how to rise, weeeeeell…
The law applied unequally results in no one respecting the law. And that’s the rational response. Corruption kills communities. Corrupted leaders are effectively undermining our society, regardless of their title, be that Senator, General, Judge, et al, they’re sappers, undertakers, saboteurs
Tax Advoidance isn’t theft though.
No I don’t get it either esp considering this
Typically M is thousand, and MM is million. Not that either of us generally get to use them.
Where is m used as thousands? Typically it’s k for thousands
It’s used in banking.
It is, but banking is less typical than everywhere else
Not debating on typical use. The question was where is it used that way. I simply gave an example.
I thought you said m was typical
M is only used for million in the US.
Really anywhere that doesn’t use the “milliard” as their unit for 1000 million.
Not in the US or US based websites.
Explain tax evasion, in legal terms, because you accused him of a crime.
Yup, it’s tax avoidance, not tax evasion. It’s morally wrong especially because he has the power to influence the system, but it’s not legally wrong.
It’s not morally wrong. In the same way that some of us avoid taxes through donating to charity, or putting money into a pension, is that morally wrong?
Painting it as a moral question relies on the morals of one of the most ruthless businessmen of the last two decades. Paint it as a legal question instead, and push for legislation to stop billionaires from avoiding enough tax to feed hundreds of families for years…
Brb, putting $600M in my 401k this year
I don’t think you (or others in this thread) get the point. I don’t know if it’s an age or a naivety thing, but shit, even Reddit of all places understands this shit…
Telling a billionaire cunt that happily destroys industries and treats his own employees like shit to act “morally” will do nothing. Bezos saving millions is probably news to him too, because he’s not moving tens of zeroes around his online banking account like us plebs. He’s got people managing his money, and they’re just doing what they’re paid to do - manage wealth optimally.
Painting it as a moral problem is exactly what right-wing politicians want. We’ve seen it plenty of times in the UK where people get called out for dodging taxes by politicians, using the loopholes they allow, create, and promote.
If you want to stop this kind of practice, you need to close these opportunities. Joke all you want, but when you put money into a retirement fund, you’re probably avoiding tax too. Is that a moral failing on your part? While it’s in no way equivalent to Bezos, it does point to the fact that tax avoidance schemes exist because the powers that be put them there. They are dedicated systems that should be scrutinised instead.
Governments allow tax deductions or credits for activities they want to encourage, like the ones you listed. Using those is not tax avoidance at all. In this case, he’s changing jurisdictions to avoid taxes, a completely different situation.
This isn’t a new thing. Many countries have tax havens or areas where rich people are told to “base” themselves in order to move wealth.
It is 100% tax avoidance, and it exists because governments/states allow it, and publicise the ability to move funds while not actually “being” in that place.
But the same goes for what we all do with retirement funds/giving money to charity. Saying it isn’t is just pushing semantics to separate what normies do as opposed to the rich.
Those are two very different things, which I think you’re failing to see. At least where I am in Canada, donating to charity doesn’t eliminate the tax on that income but only reduces it. Retirement contributions are deducted now but will be taxed when they’re withdrawn. This encourages people to support themselves in retirement instead of being seniors on welfare.
The big difference is tax havens are generally encouraging people to move their wealth after earning it elsewhere. The only benefit they gain is increasing their tax base by undercutting other jurisdictions.
Charity & Retirement contributions are assumed to be on income earned in the jurisdiction and encourage good behaviour. Some other tax mechanisms (like preferring dividend income over employment income) are harder to defend but are still trying to an encourage behaviour (like investment of wealth to grow the economy instead of simply hording it/spending it frivolously). While there might be cons to these mechanisms, both the pros and the cons stay within the jurisdiction. Tax havens internalize the benefits while externalizing the harms.