Billionaires pay "0% - 0.5% tax" report finds - Suggests 2% minimum tax.
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
Who says they aren't ? Musk sold some shares just to pay tax on it that people were calling for.It clearly is, or they would be happy to pay more tax
It's a misnomer to say they don't pay enough tax. As has already been explained it's just they don't have a regular cash income to be taxed.
Elon Musk says he'll be paying $11bn in tax this year
The Tesla founder and world's richest person has been involved in a public spat over his tax bill.
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
How is what they're doing not good?
You're Jeff Bezos you grow your online bookselling company into a multi million pound business, I don't know around mid 2000s, do you carry on? Or cash out? How many more people has he employed since his company was worth thousands vs millions vs hundres of millions vs billions? Is creating jobs a bad thing?
Amazon now employs nearly 1.3 million people worldwide after adding 500,000 workers in 2020
That's a lot of interviews. Amazon brought on a whopping 500,000 workers in 2020 to help the tech giant meet increasing demand for its online shopping and
www.geekwire.com
Also if you did 'cash out', would you just kill the company completely, liquidate it, make all staff redundant? No you'd cash out by selling to someone else who would just carry on growing the business.
Like with everything they can't see the good, they just compare their wealth compared to a billionaire and assume they must be evil/backwards/greedy etc. You don't see he's turned a small business starting with just himself into something which employs 1.6 million worldwide - that is good.
Last edited:
The thing is that wealth is cumulative. It's very easy to have a few million and turn it in to a billion, you just need to surround yourself with the right people and dangle the right carrots in front of them.
My last employer was a billionaire and he was just a soulless husk, he was born in to massive wealth and his entire life revolved around keeping the family company afloat. He bought literally anything he wanted whenever he wanted, all his problems were solved with money. He never, ever looked proud or satisfied or excited, he just seemed to exist to continue the family legacy. Quite a sad way to live tbh, I'd need some sort of fulfillment in my life.
Who says they aren't ? Musk sold some shares just to pay tax on it that people were calling for.
It's a misnomer to say they don't pay enough tax. As has already been explained it's just they don't have a regular cash income to be taxed.
Elon Musk says he'll be paying $11bn in tax this year
The Tesla founder and world's richest person has been involved in a public spat over his tax bill.www.bbc.co.uk
Yes, one person, after being called out, who is well known for being a bit... "strange"... when it comes to "publicity stunts"
How is what they're doing not good?
You're Jeff Bezos you grow your online bookselling company into a multi million pound business, I don't know around mid 2000s, do you carry on? Or cash out? How many more people has he employed since his company was worth thousands vs millions vs hundres of millions vs billions? Is creating jobs a bad thing?
Amazon now employs nearly 1.3 million people worldwide after adding 500,000 workers in 2020
That's a lot of interviews. Amazon brought on a whopping 500,000 workers in 2020 to help the tech giant meet increasing demand for its online shopping and
While yes - creating jobs is a good thing - what about the small (and even some large) businesses which have been destroyed along the way? I'm not passing judgement either way, as arguably any business which has been destroyed clearly didn't keep up with the times (e.g. in terms of online retail), but to try and claim purely positive results is somewhat disingenuous.
They're destroyed because they've been improved upon.Yes, one person, after being called out, who is well known for being a bit... "strange"... when it comes to "publicity stunts"
While yes - creating jobs is a good thing - what about the small (and even some large) businesses which have been destroyed along the way? I'm not passing judgement either way, as arguably any business which has been destroyed clearly didn't keep up with the times (e.g. in terms of online retail), but to try and claim purely positive results is somewhat disingenuous.
Everyone talks about the good old days when they went to the butcher for their meat, the fishmonger for their fish, grocer for their veg, baker for their bread. And yet when supermarkets came about, with everything in one place, the individual shops went out of business. Why? Because people voted with their feet, of course they did, it's far more convenient. It's the same with shops. The economy, and society is evolutionary, nothing lasts forever. I'm sure in 100 years time amazon will either have evolved into something different or have gone bust because it stubbornly refused to move with the times.
I'm sure there's lots of hypocrites on here who will say amazon destroyed loads of local shops but will then order all their stuff online. Ultimately people vote with their feet, they have been and they will continue to.
Last edited:
Yes, one person, after being called out, who is well known for being a bit... "strange"... when it comes to "publicity stunts"
While yes - creating jobs is a good thing - what about the small (and even some large) businesses which have been destroyed along the way? I'm not passing judgement either way, as arguably any business which has been destroyed clearly didn't keep up with the times (e.g. in terms of online retail), but to try and claim purely positive results is somewhat disingenuous.
I'm not sure the local toy shop which closed down would've invested money into R&D to design Alexa or a Kindle; the economic activity created by Amazon is almost incalculable.
How is what they're doing not good?
You're Jeff Bezos you grow your online bookselling company into a multi million pound business, I don't know around mid 2000s, do you carry on? Or cash out? How many more people has he employed since his company was worth thousands vs millions vs hundres of millions vs billions? Is creating jobs a bad thing?
Amazon now employs nearly 1.3 million people worldwide after adding 500,000 workers in 2020
That's a lot of interviews. Amazon brought on a whopping 500,000 workers in 2020 to help the tech giant meet increasing demand for its online shopping and
Also if you did 'cash out', would you just kill the company completely, liquidate it, make all staff redundant? No you'd cash out by selling to someone else who would just carry on growing the business.
Like with everything they can't see the good, they just compare their wealth compared to a billionaire and assume they must be evil/backwards/greedy etc. You don't see he's turned a small business starting with just himself into something which employs 1.6 million worldwide - that is good.
Do you mean employed or exploited? He could have provided all those jobs at a decent wage and not been quite so many billions up himself. He could add profit share to remuneration packages rather than make people pee in bottles in order to keep up with his demands for productivity so he can be a billionaire.
Those people/jobs could quiet easily be robots and drones in 5 years...
More mouths on the dole queues soon, that will make you happy i guess?
yeah i realise this is a crap come back on reflection lol
They WILL be robots and drones in 5 years, guess they better enjoy eating while they still can afford it.
Last edited:
And if he had done so, maybe amazon would have gone bust and play.com would be what amazon is today. More profit a company makes, the more people want to invest in it, the bigger it gets, etc etc.
I'd argue more as they can provide more, and market more. The scale of the business also provides better value.
How many times do you go on amazon to get something and then have a look around at other stuff while you're there? And ok, even if you don't do it, you could see how others could.
Conversely, if you needed a loaf of bread and you went to the bakers to get it, there's only so many things that you can be tempted to buy.
Last edited:
In which case I'd be making the same argument against the owner of Play.
My point of view is that nobody is that good at what they do that they are deserving of being a multi billionaire while employing people on minimum wage.
That especially holds with something like Amazon where there are 1,000s of people delivering the service in often horrible working conditions.
I'd personally make it law that all employees in companies of a certain size are required to benefit from profits before owners and shareholders take billions, but obviously that's a very idealistic hope.
Amazon pays their warehouse staff at least £11.80 an hour according to their job site, which is more than £1.40 over the minimum wage for a 23 year old, £21.5k @ 35 hours per week. Is that a poor wage for a job with no requirements in terms of qualifications?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
At a very basic first principle level, yes