Beoz

I am glad you mentioned Amazon. Lucky you didn't mention people as a cost saving.

GarryP

You should know by now you need to look at the bigger picture.

https://qz.com/1107112/there-are-170...amazon-robots/

Beoz

That's a funny story. Well manufactured to suit an agenda.

How come they didn't mention the really big picture - all the indirect jobs creates by Amazon if they chose to talk about the indirect job losses?

You know, the many businesses that now have an outlet to sell through, the 100,000 UPS employer increase they attribute to Amazon?

It doesn't even have the decency to include Whole Goods

Nice try, but the article is a fraud when it tries for the big picture but doesn't quite get there. It also uses the word "assumed" a lot which raises a lot of eye brows.

the troubadour

Agenda? Says the man who pushes agenda to the max. Your reply to Australian banks increasing profits and sacking workers has been deafening.

Beoz

Banks???? I thought we were on to Amazon.

Here. Amazon are doing what banks are doing. Clearing small amounts of dead wood, hiring big time elsewhere.

Don't forget to read beyond the first paragraph.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-layoffs/amazon-cutting-hundreds-of-seattle-jobs-in-its-consumer-business-source-idUSKBN1FW1ZA

the troubadour

I know the banks are indefensible . But it needs to be pointed out with some regularity that profit does not equate more jobs. Any chance Amazon now paying their fair share of income tax? You do need to listen up. Banks making great profits sacking workers not employing more in the context of what was referred to. If it was the 'deadwood', as you so charitably put it, the banking industry would have cleared the decks of tens of thousands of corrupt chancers in position, that came close to destroying the entire system through bad practise, lies, corruption and greed.

the troubadour

Beoz, you do realise children of a vulnerable nature may be reading this forum? I mean to gloat over an article about Amazon as being something akin to an inspirational and ethical corporation is because they employ low paid (in all likelihood) workers) is below the pale even by your standards of corporate love. Shouldn't set a bad example.

cresta57

My Sister sent me this from one of the U.K papers:

"Tax the rich more they don't pay enough!!" - says Deborah who doesn't work because she has 3 children and claims benefits 😂

A simple analogy to help those unsure of the way it works.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man."Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

the troubadour

You just have to love analogies. There's one for every purpose. No doubt above from a Brit, foreign owned tabloid, in business to administer punishment on the 'undeserving' vulnerable in the poor and vulnerable, throwing in the single mother with x number of kids malarkey. As I say, there is one for ever occasion, a similar one turns the tables on above and remarks how rich take most of the share. Not to worry the rank and file will remain behind the flag bearer that fits their life view and nothing will change ninety per cent. Which is fine by me, but a smooth ride will not be had, all one can do is call those so opposed to fairness is hold them to account to at least explain themselves (if able) instead of following a flawed doctrine.


Boez mentions Amazon of all companies in an almost hero worship light due to the fact of job creation regardless of the quality, or longevity of so said jobs.


Amazon of course should be escorted out of town, under gun point if necessary, if gentle persuasion proves futile, until they behave as a responsible corporate citizen.


Even got under the skin of The Don, whom threatened retribution .......

Beoz

Are you saying Amazon is corrupt? That's how I read you latest bizarre rant.

Beoz

Nice try Cresta. Unfortunately the resentful in this world still are still clouded, even if beer is on the menu.

GarryP

Only it's not, is it?

The richer you are, the more mechanisms come into play to cut your tax bill, the more you can pay people to fiddle the figures for you. The effective tax rate for the rich can be lower than that for the middle class. In fact you can arrange it so you can be extremely wealthy, and pay no tax at all.

The tenth man would claim that he made a loss on his negatively geared property portfolio, that his bribes to politicians cost him significantly, his international earnings were hidden in an offshore account, and that the cost of paying a tax accountant to find and exploit all these loopholes.

He would regretfully state that he could manage to pay $3.43, but that if they swapped the 'tax' so that it fell more on everyone's consumption equally, it would be fairer. So those four over there should be paying $5, and he would be happy to do the same. Obviously this wouldn't cover the $100, so they would have to borrow the rest.

Meet the 48 millionaires who pay no income tax, not even the Medicare levy

For those that understand, the bias in the argument is obvious.
For those that don't want to understand, no explanation is ever going to go in.

Beoz

Beyond the headline, your article says 48 rich people and only 9 of those 48 negatively gear once again proving negative gearing is a tool for Mr Middle out there.

the troubadour

Are you saying the likes of Amazon are the pointer to the great salvation of the economy? That's how I read it.How really bizarre. As usual don't bother commenting on that company's very creative tax structure.

Beoz

You could not even answer the question. Another rant without any backup.

Well let me help you. Amazon are indeed facing large tax bills where they have pushed money through subsidiary companies mainly through you guessed it .... Luxembourg. The EU currently have a ruling forcing Amazon to pay millions. Amazon are of course appealing.

But this is what happens when governments can't even write a cohesive set of laws around taxation and do a tax grab retrospectively.

As I have told you, people and companies will pay tax in accordance with the rules. If governments can't get the rules right then they only have themselves to blame.

Just like the mums and dads and their love of negative gearing. Why would any government support a bad investment through a tax break? Too hard to turn back the clock now. Mums and dads everywhere will be up in arms.