Probably because Amazon's "innovative" two day delivery service, which with it used in part to capture a nearly 50% market share in e-commerce was build on brutal working conditions. — Maw
Okay, that’s an answer, which is different from what VagabondSpectre gave which was more about how he spent it. — Brett
The problem seems to be about the amount he took from his company, that the amount was unethical. — Brett
The short answer is wealth inequality within and without the United States. It gives him incredible power that he can either abuse or waste. — VagabondSpectre
Wouldn’t it be more effective to shift the focus and pressure from taxation to better wages. If people had better wages and more disposable income they would spend it on what directly benefits them with no middle man. — Brett
As with Walmart, there can actually be a very high ethical cost to achieve such low prices... — VagabondSpectre
say good riddance to bad rubbish regarding the elite exodus. — VagabondSpectre
For example, whoever can most successfully diversify into the alternatives that climate change and the end of oil demand, will see a market where most of the competition has relatively quickly collapsed, and that they are in the best position to expand and capture a greater overall "market share — VagabondSpectre
I've stated multiple reason just why a wealth tax is stupid populism. The fact that the the tax has numerous structural problems and that many countries have tried it and abolished it (yet NOT abolished progressive taxation, value-added tax, inheritance taxes etc) tells it simply sucks.lol is this slippy slope slop really going to be your argument against a wealth tax? — Maw
Does it really?I think that the crucial value of a wealth tax is that it addresses concentrated ownership of the means of wealth production. — VagabondSpectre
Yet that firms don't pay taxes or can avoid taxes, has nothing to do with a wealth tax. The trend has been especially in the IT companies to grow the share prices than to pay dividends. A good way to stop this would be to put limits to stock buy backs. Not to create a wealth tax.The meme that Amazon payed 0 dollars in corporate tax exemplifies this — VagabondSpectre
I guess I'm not seeing the need for that then. If they're not using their wealth to extract wealth from others (which would thus count as income), then I don't see the harm that needs to be discouraged or remedied with the tax. I also don't see why they would care to amass huge quantities of stuff that's not of any use to them (if it's not generating them any income, and it's clearly far more than they could be personally using themselves). It seems like if it weren't generating income, they would sell it off to fund something they can actually use.As I understand it, the ultra-wealthy (top 0.1% and beyond) don't necessarily have or generate income, earned or not, that can be taxed at high levels to reflect their exorbitant wealth, and that a wealth tax is a more useful tool to in taxing the ultra-wealthy. — Maw
That's why I don't really object to those proposals in practice, even if I may disagree with the principle of a wealth tax. Those policies only put a very small burden on a very small number of people who can easily bear it, so it's not anything worth getting upset about. I still don't agree with the principle behind it though. I 100% agree with taxing property income (rent and interest), as highly as we can, but just taxing property itself seems wrong.It's not about "just having wealth", a wealth tax can be implemented for different groups. Sanders' wealth tax begins at $32M and Warren's at $50M with just a 1% and 2% tax to start. — Maw
Some people do live in rental homes, hence if you raise taxation on rents too high the rental market won't work and you will have an excessive demand on rental housing (as nobody thinks of becoming a landlord.) Taxation has many consequences, and sometimes quite unintended consequences.I 100% agree with taxing property income (rent and interest), as highly as we can — Pfhorrest
So if you own a van Gogh painting worth 100 million USD, you'll have to pay annually half a million dollars to the US government just for fun of owning it — ssu
Some people do live in rental homes, hence if you raise taxation on rents too high the rental market won't work and you will have an excessive demand on rental housing (as nobody thinks of becoming a landlord.) Taxation has many consequences, and sometimes quite unintended consequences. — ssu
But right now most of the government's income comes from the top 10 percent of earners: 70 percent of total taxes.
Wouldn't an exodus of the elite leave us a poorer country? — frank
One of the casualties of peak oil will be plastic. How do you see disposable plastic being replaced?
I see an increase in natural disasters, war, migration, and social unrest: most of the ingredients of the bronze age collapse. That might be why I see collapse, though, Ive been reading and thinking about the bronze age for a while now. — frank
Does it really? — ssu
Yet that firms don't pay taxes or can avoid taxes, has nothing to do with a wealth tax. The trend has been especially in the IT companies to grow the share prices than to pay dividends. A good way to stop this would be to put limits to stock buy backs. Not to create a wealth tax. — ssu
Besides, the US had one of the most highest corporate tax rates in the World. Trump brought it down to 21% from 35%. That's still a bit more higher than here (20%). — ssu
With the Bernie model owning a 100m van Gogh will cost you 1,18 million annually. — ssu
You're not making much sense here, but many people do get it wrong.And what will happen to all that housing that used to be owned by landlords and rented out to people? The landlords can't profit off renting it out anymore, and aren't getting any use out of it themselves, so they'll want to sell it off, but nobody else is going to be buying housing to rent out to anyone else, the only people buying housing will be the people who need housing to live in, who would have otherwise have been renting. But they can only buy if that housing is sold on terms that they can afford, which is entirely up to the sellers. So everyone who owns rental housing will have two choices: either sit on their useless property and get no profit out of it, or continue collecting a monthly check for a long while at the cost of eventually not owning the property anymore. Which do you think they will choose? — Pfhorrest
I was hoping you would comment, so thanks for the information.We've had a wealth tax in the Netherlands for over a decade now. It used to tax a fictive return on the balance of your assets and liabilities, set at 4%, which was then taxed at 25%. During the crisis that was judged to be too high a return for average people. Now the return is estimated each year and that is then taxed. — Benkei
Wealth tax isn't an answer to any of these questions, as you said.In other words, looking at wealth tax misses the point. The problem is a fundamental imbalance in the system where "aggregate demand" is diffuse individuals who rarely pursue anything with singular purpose but the capitalist production is focused, monied and the corporation lives forever. The deck is stacked against regular people who don't have a substantive portfolio of financial instruments or real estate. The only way to solve that is a fundamental retake on the corporation but as if that's going to happen at an international scale. Not likely. — Benkei
This would be an interesting topic.I'm actually a big fan of a more or less 100% inheritance tax due to the consequences of inheritance inequality. But I won't go into that now. — Benkei
I think the real issue isn't revenge or vindictiveness but the realization the exorbitant wages some managers make is out of proportion (talk about the entitlement generation). — Benkei
If wages are persistently lagging behind productivity, workers do not receive their fair share of the produced wealth. This is not only deeply unjust but also economically detrimental, as growth remains behind its potential. Labour income remains the main source of income for households and private consumption makes up the largest part of aggregate demand.
people are usually too busy with (their own personal) problems that are at hand and directly affected by their actions rather than abstract problems that are not noticeably influenced by personal choices. — Benkei
The productivity-pay-gap has increased largely because policy choices were made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth and power. — Benkei
I don't accept that excuse for one minute. People spend on average nearly an hour a day just on Facebook. The idea that they haven't time to check out other suppliers than Amazon is just not feasible. — Isaac
I buy my Internet services from a cooperative, for example. They don't have an increasing gap between wages and productivity because they're worker-owned. It's not hard to switch supplier. It takes about half an hour to set up (half the average Facebook time) and it costs about £2 more a month (less money than the average spend on junk food, for example). What, on your list of concerns of the average person, is preventing them from switching? — Isaac
The same can be said for Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Google... These are not the traditional issues where capitalists own the means of production and can effectively monopolise supply of essential goods. These are luxury items or services where the company does not have any ownership over the means of production. — Isaac
it's how people are motivated or not. They are motivated to clickbait in their timeline and that's a reality that doesn't care about your moral judgment. — Benkei
The companies' financial statements you mention beg to differ about the ownership of the means of production. Apart from Facebook, none of them have a intangibles-to-total asset ratio above 10%. Facebook's 15%. Alphabet has about 2% total intangible assets, .5% is patents. Amazon's is 7%. etc.
Plenty of ownership of production then. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.