Bernie is on the Senate floor posting pictures of Jeff Bezos' assets and demanding we stop giving him so much damn money

[Blues Man]

No.

Then piss off.

 

[Grumblenuts]

From a behavior and legal perspective, how is Amazon’s “avoidance” -as described in your source- any different than the “avoidance” John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Bill Clinton engage when it comes to paying taxes and taking advantage of tax breaks?

I'm not a Democrat, so?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Then piss off.

No.

 

[Nostra]

I've made all sorts of comments.

But have have failed to back any of your bullshit comments up.

 

[Nostra]

Exactly HOW is the Taxpayer "giving" him money?

pknopp can't tell you. His handlers told him to think that, and that's as far as it goes.

 

[Nostra]

No one argues it isn't. I am arguing it is unfair as not all businesses will get the same breaks and subsidies. Do you support the government picking winners and losers in business or should there be a level playing field?

Still waiting for a list of those "subsidies".

 

[Nostra]

I already posted one stating how we subsidize their shipping. People spin it and pretend the link isn't even there but whatever........................

It's not like it's a secret that many, many, many love the socialist types of programs for the rich.

I already posted one stating how we subsidize their shipping.

More lies by you. YOUR link said the USPS gets no tax dollars. I posted a link showing the USPS made $1.6 BILLION in profit off Amazon in one year. Explain how that is a "subsidy", liar.

 

[Nostra]

I'm not going back through 8 pages to look for one example.

Don't bother. He never posted one.

 

[initforme]

Once one has hundreds of millions all loopholes should be removed. Pretty simple.

 

[Nostra]

And I'm not going to constantly repeat myself because people are too lazy to catch themselves up.

Nobody is asking you to repeat yourself. We are asking you to list these subsidies for the first time, Dipshit.

 

[Nostra]

I looked it up myself and that isn't a subsidy. it's the post office trying to compete with UPS and FedEx by offering a competitive price.

Besides Amazon is building its own delivery services and pretty soon won't need to use 3rd party shipping.

and then there is this

"The Postal Regulatory Commission has consistently found that Amazon's contracts with the USPS are profitable," the company told Fortune last year.

Besides Amazon is building its own delivery services and pretty soon won't need to use 3rd party shipping.

The link he provided claimed Amazon's delivery service was "stealing" from Fed Ex, UPS, and the USPS. That's how fucking whacko his link was.

 

[Nostra]

Link?

Tax code, regulations, and official guidance | Internal Revenue Service

Different sources provide the authority for tax rules and procedures. Here are some sources that can be searched online for free.

www.irs.gov

 

[Nostra]

They aren't making a profit.

U.S. Postal Service reports $4.9 billion 2021 net loss

Overall maybe, but Bezo gave them $1.6 BILLION in profit in 2019, Dumbass.

Nice try.

 

[Nostra]

It's also because of out dated pricing as the article noted.

But again, it's one example. Others have been provided also.......but you'll make your excuses no matter what.

How is the pricing outdated if the USPS is still making $1.6 billion in profit on that pricing structure?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Once one has hundreds of millions all loopholes should be removed. Pretty simple.

What "loophole"?

 

[LeftofLeft]

I'm not a Democrat, so?

Ok. Regardless of your political identity you clearly are opposed to tax breaks, tax incentives, record revenue and record profits. That’s not a criticism on my part, just an assessment. In the article, it presents a premise or scenario where “if there were no tax breaks, then Amazon would have paid about 3X more in taxes”.

Here is why that statement and line of thinking are flawed. Taxes and tax incentives (breaks) drive behavior. Tax incentives are not handouts but they are rewards. Tax incentives reward capitalists for assuming risks that will reward the community. Any investment that a capitalist makes resulting in long term jobs rewards the community as these are less people on welfare and more people paying their earnings into the economy; including, their own taxes.

 

[Grumblenuts]

More lies by you. YOUR link said the USPS gets no tax dollars.

His link says Amazon "relies on the quasi-governmental agency, which receives no tax money". Amazon is a private, for profit multinational corporation. The USPS must deliver everywhere, profit or no. Apples vs. Oranges. Of course we have to subsidize the Postal Service with dollars. $50 billion most recently. Because Amazon chooses to suck on USPS teat rather than compete in rural areas.

Hottovy of Morningstar estimated that delivering a package to a rural home over an urban home costs Amazon anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times as much. "Amazon was able to reduce their cost quite a bit by going to the USPS," he told Business Insider. "In rural markets, it's exponentially that much more expensive."

As long as USPS is around, Amazon won't deliver to rural areas unless it's profitable.

subsidy:

noun

1. 1.
   a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
   "a farm subsidy"

We end up having to subsidize the post office because Amazon increasingly steals the cream off the top while somehow treating its workers even worse.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here is why that statement and line of thinking are flawed. Taxes and tax incentives (breaks) drive behavior. Tax incentives are not handouts but they are rewards. Tax incentives reward capitalists for assuming risks that will reward the community. Any investment that a capitalist makes resulting in long term jobs rewards the community as these are less people on welfare and more people paying their earnings into the economy; including, their own taxes.

Baloney. See subsidy definition provided above^

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ok. Regardless of your political identity you clearly are opposed to tax breaks, tax incentives, record revenue and record profits. That’s not a criticism on my part, just an assessment.

In incorrect assessment. Makes no sense to presume that. I ran my own business for almost 30 years.

 

[LeftofLeft]

In incorrect assessment. Makes no sense to presume that. I ran my own business for almost 30 years.

So as a business owner taking risk you never took advantage of tax (incentive, break, subsidy)? If you did take advantage, why shouldn’t Amazon?