Trump: Amazon not paying enough taxes

[Playball40]

Trump's real problem with Amazon is that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.

Agreed. I'd also add that Trump is on the side of the developers and property owners. Amazon is killing retail across the country.

Trump doesn't give a shit about the RE market. All he sells now is a name.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump's real problem with Amazon is that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.

Agreed. I'd also add that Trump is on the side of the developers and property owners. Amazon is killing retail across the country.

Is it?

I think everyone focuses on online retailers as the sole cause of the woes of brick 'n mortar retailers, but is it really the only problem?

All Republican and most Democratic politicians promote a wide range of economic policies designed to suppress wages. During the "fight for 15," an ambulance driver argued against it saying that if we paid burger flippers enough to live, then they would make as much or more than he makes. This means that there are EMTs out there who went through the expense of getting a special education and certification who don't make enough to live or barely make enough to live. Obviously, it's not just "burger flippers" who are being affected by these policies.

So the wages of a large portion of the population are either barely keeping up with the cost of living or actually shrinking relative to the cost of living.

This means that year after year, the total disposable income of the population goes down because every year, more and more of people's paychecks are going to necessities.

So if the total disposable income of the population goes down every year, even if just by a little bit, what happens to retail and restaurants?

I don't think we would see brick and mortar retail outlets closing at this rate if wages had kept up with the cost of living between Reagan and now. I think competition with online retailers is accelerating something that us caused by wage suppression. As families have to tighten their belts, they are more inclined to pinch every possible penny by doing things such as going to online retailers instead of visiting a mall where they might be tempted to make an unnecessary purchase.

Agree. I don't believe Amazon is to blame for all of retails woes. They're an easy target.

 

[Underseer]

The irony is that retailers and restaurants have fought to keep minimum wage low, so they have contributed to their own bankruptcy.

 

[ElectEngr]

When will FFvC use the IRS to attack its enemies like Nixon did with his "Enemies List "?

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Keith&Co.]

When will FFvC use the IRS to attack its enemies like Nixon did with his "Enemies List "?

I really suspect that FFvC would want to avoid weaponizing the IRS. It might draw too much attention to HIS taxes...

 

[crazyfingers]

Trump is complaining about the collection of sales tax which is not actually paid by the company but paid by the consumer. Republicans seem to love to shift taxes to sales tax because it's the most regressive and disproportionately paid for by people who spend more of their income on buying stuff - such as poor people.

And of course having checked my most recent purchases on Amazon, they are adding the Massachusetts sales tax.

 

[KeepTalking]

Amazon currently collects sales tax (as others have pointed out, it is technically the consumer paying the sales tax) everywhere it should. It has been years since they were not collecting sales tax everywhere. As usual, Twitler is operating on outdated and/or incorrect information. The other punch he recently threw at Amazon is that they are costing the USPS money (losing $1.50 on every shipment). While this may be close to the truth, the fact of the matter is that everyone who is shipping parcels via USPS is doing the same thing. This is because the rate formula that the USPS uses to set parcel rates was established in 2006, when parcels accounted for about 5% of USPS deliveries. Parcels now account for 25% of USPS deliveries, but the rate formula has not changed.

You can either be dishonest, and blame this all on Amazon, or you can admit the truth: the USPS just needs to revisit their rate formula a bit more often. Obviously Twitler does not have any respect whatsoever for the truth, and would rather just lie his ass off in an attempt to damage a perceived enemy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump has yet to fill the board of Governors for the USPS. They cannot do anything about their rates until this happens.

http://www.postal-reporter.com/blog/trump-nominates-three-to-usps-board-of-governors/

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump's real problem with Amazon is that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.

Agreed. I'd also add that Trump is on the side of the developers and property owners. Amazon is killing retail across the country.

Is it?

I think everyone focuses on online retailers as the sole cause of the woes of brick 'n mortar retailers, but is it really the only problem?

All Republican and most Democratic politicians promote a wide range of economic policies designed to suppress wages. During the "fight for 15," an ambulance driver argued against it saying that if we paid burger flippers enough to live, then they would make as much or more than he makes. This means that there are EMTs out there who went through the expense of getting a special education and certification who don't make enough to live or barely make enough to live. Obviously, it's not just "burger flippers" who are being affected by these policies.

So the wages of a large portion of the population are either barely keeping up with the cost of living or actually shrinking relative to the cost of living.

This means that year after year, the total disposable income of the population goes down because every year, more and more of people's paychecks are going to necessities.

So if the total disposable income of the population goes down every year, even if just by a little bit, what happens to retail and restaurants?

I don't think we would see brick and mortar retail outlets closing at this rate if wages had kept up with the cost of living between Reagan and now. I think competition with online retailers is accelerating something that us caused by wage suppression. As families have to tighten their belts, they are more inclined to pinch every possible penny by doing things such as going to online retailers instead of visiting a mall where they might be tempted to make an unnecessary purchase.

The internet has had an incredible influence on companies. I own a manufacturing company. 10 years ago, we would have had zero online sales. 4 years ago (we were at 2% online). Today we are closer to 25%. On line sales allow us much better margins. Selling direct cuts out the middle person. In the retail world, the middle person are the retail stores. Retail is in big decline. Banks are tightening their underwriting criteria for retail malls.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump doesn't give a shit about the RE market. All he sells now is a name.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump's real problem with Amazon is that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.

Agreed. I'd also add that Trump is on the side of the developers and property owners. Amazon is killing retail across the country.

Is it?

I think everyone focuses on online retailers as the sole cause of the woes of brick 'n mortar retailers, but is it really the only problem?

All Republican and most Democratic politicians promote a wide range of economic policies designed to suppress wages. During the "fight for 15," an ambulance driver argued against it saying that if we paid burger flippers enough to live, then they would make as much or more than he makes. This means that there are EMTs out there who went through the expense of getting a special education and certification who don't make enough to live or barely make enough to live. Obviously, it's not just "burger flippers" who are being affected by these policies.

So the wages of a large portion of the population are either barely keeping up with the cost of living or actually shrinking relative to the cost of living.

This means that year after year, the total disposable income of the population goes down because every year, more and more of people's paychecks are going to necessities.

So if the total disposable income of the population goes down every year, even if just by a little bit, what happens to retail and restaurants?

I don't think we would see brick and mortar retail outlets closing at this rate if wages had kept up with the cost of living between Reagan and now. I think competition with online retailers is accelerating something that us caused by wage suppression. As families have to tighten their belts, they are more inclined to pinch every possible penny by doing things such as going to online retailers instead of visiting a mall where they might be tempted to make an unnecessary purchase.

Agree. I don't believe Amazon is to blame for all of retails woes. They're an easy target.

No they aren't the only woe confronting retail. But again, why sell through a middle person if you can sell online direct to the customer?

 

[Underseer]

Trump is complaining about the collection of sales tax which is not actually paid by the company but paid by the consumer. Republicans seem to love to shift taxes to sales tax because it's the most regressive and disproportionately paid for by people who spend more of their income on buying stuff - such as poor people.

And of course having checked my most recent purchases on Amazon, they are adding the Massachusetts sales tax.

Surely you don't expect the elites to pay taxes. Only dirty commoners should pay taxes.

 

[Underseer]

Trump's spat with Amazon brings up another thing.

Remember when Republicans kept complaining about Obama "picking winners and losers" among businesses? Funny how that is no longer a problem now that a white man is president.


Above video covers the hypocrisy of Republicans on "picking winners and losers."

 

[Elixir]

Trump is complaining about the collection of sales tax which is not actually paid by the company but paid by the consumer. Republicans seem to love to shift taxes to sales tax because it's the most regressive and disproportionately paid for by people who spend more of their income on buying stuff - such as poor people.

And of course having checked my most recent purchases on Amazon, they are adding the Massachusetts sales tax.

Surely you don't expect the elites to pay taxes. Only dirty commoners should pay taxes.

I'm all for a sales tax on stock purchases, and a property tax on stock ownership... anything to reduce The Divide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trump is complaining about the collection of sales tax which is not actually paid by the company but paid by the consumer. Republicans seem to love to shift taxes to sales tax because it's the most regressive and disproportionately paid for by people who spend more of their income on buying stuff - such as poor people.

And of course having checked my most recent purchases on Amazon, they are adding the Massachusetts sales tax.

Surely you don't expect the elites to pay taxes. Only dirty commoners should pay taxes.

I'm all for a sales tax on stock purchases, and a property tax on stock ownership... anything to reduce The Divide.

Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich not-rich. Why are so many of you denying that some want this???

 

[Elixir]

Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich not-rich. Why are so many of you denying that some want this???

Actually, the idea is to make the not-so-rich richer. I haven't done all the math, but even a shirtcuff calculation shows that the entirety of the income tax burden would be met and exceeded by even nominal tax rates on stock purchases and ownership. A YUUUUGE tax of say 1% on both would yield far more than all the income tax collected. Feel free to show me I'm wrong about that - like I said, I haven't done the full math - or compensated for a predicatable decrease in stock trading and ownership that would result. But I don't see how such taxes would create real hardship for ANYONE (except daytraders, who are parasitic by definition). Do you?
Are you "Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich richer."? Do you favor keeping a foot on the necks of the poor?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich not-rich. Why are so many of you denying that some want this???

Actually, the idea is to make the not-so-rich richer. I haven't done all the math, but even a shirtcuff calculation shows that the entirety of the income tax burden would be met and exceeded by even nominal tax rates on stock purchases and ownership. A YUUUUGE tax of say 1% on both would yield far more than all the income tax collected. Feel free to show me I'm wrong about that - like I said, I haven't done the full math - or compensated for a predicatable decrease in stock trading and ownership that would result. But I don't see how such taxes would create real hardship for ANYONE (except daytraders, who are parasitic by definition). Do you?
Are you "Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich richer."? Do you favor keeping a foot on the necks of the poor?

It's bad math. The problem is that 1% is based on the current trading rate. Make trading more expensive and you'll see less trading.

 

[Axulus]

Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich not-rich. Why are so many of you denying that some want this???

Actually, the idea is to make the not-so-rich richer. I haven't done all the math, but even a shirtcuff calculation shows that the entirety of the income tax burden would be met and exceeded by even nominal tax rates on stock purchases and ownership. A YUUUUGE tax of say 1% on both would yield far more than all the income tax collected. Feel free to show me I'm wrong about that - like I said, I haven't done the full math - or compensated for a predicatable decrease in stock trading and ownership that would result. But I don't see how such taxes would create real hardship for ANYONE (except daytraders, who are parasitic by definition). Do you?
Are you "Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich richer."? Do you favor keeping a foot on the necks of the poor?

It's bad math. The problem is that 1% is based on the current trading rate. Make trading more expensive and you'll see less trading.

Less trading means less liquidity, which means more volatility and deeper market crashes. It also means lower company value and therefore less money raised on a stock offering, which leads to lower investment and a worse economy. It would also favor debt over equity financing, which means greater leverage, greater systemic risk, and therefore more frequent financial crises.

 

[Elixir]

Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich not-rich. Why are so many of you denying that some want this???

Actually, the idea is to make the not-so-rich richer. I haven't done all the math, but even a shirtcuff calculation shows that the entirety of the income tax burden would be met and exceeded by even nominal tax rates on stock purchases and ownership. A YUUUUGE tax of say 1% on both would yield far more than all the income tax collected. Feel free to show me I'm wrong about that - like I said, I haven't done the full math - or compensated for a predicatable decrease in stock trading and ownership that would result. But I don't see how such taxes would create real hardship for ANYONE (except daytraders, who are parasitic by definition). Do you?
Are you "Another person admitting to a desire to use the tax code to make the rich richer."? Do you favor keeping a foot on the necks of the poor?

It's bad math. The problem is that 1% is based on the current trading rate. Make trading more expensive and you'll see less trading.

That's okay. DO THE MATH. If trading fell off by 60% a 1% tax would STILL more than cover all the income tax revenues. As far as "less trading = worse economy", that's BS. Mor money in the pockets of the middle class = more spending (vs parasitic investment) = stronger economy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's bad math. The problem is that 1% is based on the current trading rate. Make trading more expensive and you'll see less trading.

That's okay. DO THE MATH. If trading fell off by 60% a 1% tax would STILL more than cover all the income tax revenues. As far as "less trading = worse economy", that's BS. Mor money in the pockets of the middle class = more spending (vs parasitic investment) = stronger economy.

Generally, people invest excess current income into the stock market in order to invest for future expenses (college expenses, retirement, and etc.). We should be encouraging investment, not penalizing it. We have a long history of taxing investments when they are liquidated and added to taxable income.

 

[Elixir]

It's bad math. The problem is that 1% is based on the current trading rate. Make trading more expensive and you'll see less trading.

That's okay. DO THE MATH. If trading fell off by 60% a 1% tax would STILL more than cover all the income tax revenues. As far as "less trading = worse economy", that's BS. Mor money in the pockets of the middle class = more spending (vs parasitic investment) = stronger economy.

Generally, people invest excess current income into the stock market in order to invest for future expenses (college expenses, retirement, and etc.). We should be encouraging investment, not penalizing it. We have a long history of taxing investments when they are liquidated and added to taxable income.

We don't need to "encourage" investment - we need to discourage parasitic game play that allows individuals who are already flush, to siphon off vast sums. Put more money in the pockets of consumers, and incremental gains from actual (long term) investments will more than offset any nominal tax on such property or trades.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Generally, people invest excess current income into the stock market in order to invest for future expenses (college expenses, retirement, and etc.). We should be encouraging investment, not penalizing it. We have a long history of taxing investments when they are liquidated and added to taxable income.

We don't need to "encourage" investment - we need to discourage parasitic game play that allows individuals who are already flush, to siphon off vast sums. Put more money in the pockets of consumers, and incremental gains from actual (long term) investments will more than offset any nominal tax on such property or trades.

But my point is that many people like myself are "temporarily" flush with cash flow because my current income is greater than my current expenses. However, I only have about 10 more years to work. In the future, my expenses will dramatically outstrip my current income. I need to fund my retirement and still support 10 family members (upcoming college expenses keeps me up at night!).

Secondly, I do think that we need to encourage investment. Too many people are counting on SSN to fund their retirement. They go cruises and buy fancy cars rather than save for the future.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's bad math. The problem is that 1% is based on the current trading rate. Make trading more expensive and you'll see less trading.

That's okay. DO THE MATH. If trading fell off by 60% a 1% tax would STILL more than cover all the income tax revenues. As far as "less trading = worse economy", that's BS. Mor money in the pockets of the middle class = more spending (vs parasitic investment) = stronger economy.

It would fall off far more than 60%. The problem is arbitrage trading, high frequency trading and the like--cases where they expect a small profit fast. That's most of the trade volume--and it utterly vanishes if you put a 1% tax on trades.