- Joined
- Nov 25, 2012
- Messages
- 8,108
- Reaction score
- 628
amazon in australia is a bit of flop...if your reading bezos, fix that pronto.
crabs in a pot mentalityWhy do poor people care about what rich people spend their money on?
The point about corporate taxes is mostly false. And the burden of VATs is mostly carried by consumers, and in a regressive way. Now VATs can increase revenue, which can be used for inequality-fighting spending, and they often do. But in isolation, VATs increase inequality rather than reduce it.
Jeff Bezo's business is exploding like crazy as well as his personal value now on track to surpassing 160 Billion dollars. He will based on the massive growth of his net worth he will surpass 200 billion dollars in less then a year. This based on others who decided to devote billions to helping others as much as Bill Gate's takes crap he does plow billions into charities such as cancer research, education, job programs and water purification a world wide problem. Jeff rather plow his money into his personal programs such as rocket science and robotics both benefiting him over the long term. Jeff's mindset is not that different to many extremely rich individuals.
http://time.com/money/5334441/amazon-jeff-bezos-net-worth-prime-day-2018/
VAT is not sales tax, its paid at every step of the productive chain, that means corporations also pay for it independently of how good their accountants are.
Its not progressive either, so it doesnt makes inequality go away, thats what progressive income tax and government spending in social programs is for.
Right, but it ends up being paid indirectly by consumers, and it has a regressive impact. The difference in terms of importance of accountants would be essentially nil.
OK. That was my point. It's an inequality-increasing tax.
FYI: Bezos posts in the OT.
You facky Bennies.
It gets paid even if the company doesnt makes a profit and corporations are also consumers.
False dichotomy, VAT is neutral for the most part and overall it has a progressive effect due to increased revenue and a more fair (fairer?) market.
There is a reason why European countries with the lowest inequality also have massive VAT rates.
Facky Bennies is a meme used by Bezos and Musk in the OT. fooDa fuq is a "facky Bennies"?
Bezos probably eats pieces of shit like me for breakfast. And yes, I do mean he eats pieces of shit for breakfast.
He's the Shooter McGavin of billionaires. Hope he chokes on a steroid while trying to get his sexy, muscular arms into his gold jacket.
The incidence of the tax falls almost entirely on consumers because of that. And the impact is regressive.
It's not a false dichotomy. A very real impact of a VAT is increased inequality. That the reason why countries with low inequality also tend to have VATs is that they spend in ways that more than cancel out the impact of the regressive tax.
You talk as if corporations didnt translated other forms of taxation to the consumer, the main difference is that VAT is harder to avoid by creative accountants.
Indeed, so you can have VAT and lower income inequality, ergo a false dichotomy that VAT invariably raises income inequality.
That's not a main difference, and all taxes aren't passed on to consumers. Corporate taxes are mostly ultimately paid by corporations and workers, for example. VATs are mostly paid by consumers. And I don't see how VAT is harder to avoid. I suspect that you're mistaken about how much corporations are able to avoid taxes (though you didn't say how much you think they are, the belief that they have very high ability to avoid taxes seems to be underlying your view here).
Wrong. The VAT increases income inequality. A larger fiscal policy approach that includes regressive taxes like a VAT can reduce inequality. It might sound like a trivial distinction, but remember the discussion. You were proposal a set of policies that you said would address inequality, and you included VAT among them. I noted that none of them would actually address inequality. And a VAT would actually increase it.