I don’t really see the significance of where he acquired it.
Amazon, maybe more than any company, has/had customers all over the world. That money came from literally everywhere.
When someone says “they shouldn’t be able to do that!” My question is, do what?
Move? Not pay taxes in states they don’t live in?
As I said at the outset, I also think he should pay more taxes but as long as states can decide what taxes they collect, this particular issue isn’t going anywhere.
That or force people not to be able to move or force people to pay taxes in any state they ever lived in.
But I’ve made the mistake of bringing logic to an emotional thread.
Yup, and they successfully argued for years that their non-physical presence in a state meant they should not pay sales taxes in that state, effectively forcing states to subsidize Amazon at the expense of local businesses.
So what you seem to be arguing is that logic dictates that anyone with the economic power to ensure or prevent the passage of laws is necessarily correct, and that the only definition for a term like “theft” is the legal interpretation that you, as a non-lawyer, decide to apply. You’re saying that, despite centuries and millennia of colloquial usages of the term, both predating and concurrently used with the very restricted legal definition, any dictionary or other usage-derived definition is invalid.
One state has high taxes that everyone paid to provide safety and support for businesses to operate profitably. If you move states you are taking the profit that everyone in your community contributed to.
It’s a micro version of the reason the US now taxes millionaires who try to hide their US profits in tax havens. They wanted the security of the US to build their business but don’t want to contribute to maintain that safety for others once they have their money.
So yes you can move to another country or another state. But you shouldn’t be able to take all the profits when you leave without giving back something to the community that gave you that wealth.
You gave a false dichotomy and then went on a rant about why they’re wrong for arguing one of those two things after being told they weren’t arguing either of those things.
How about if we eliminated rent seeking and both states required these wealthy individuals to contribute to the society that allowed them to build said wealth in the first place? That’s just one of countless possibilities.
I don’t really see the significance of where he acquired it.
Amazon, maybe more than any company, has/had customers all over the world. That money came from literally everywhere.
When someone says “they shouldn’t be able to do that!” My question is, do what?
Move? Not pay taxes in states they don’t live in?
As I said at the outset, I also think he should pay more taxes but as long as states can decide what taxes they collect, this particular issue isn’t going anywhere.
That or force people not to be able to move or force people to pay taxes in any state they ever lived in.
But I’ve made the mistake of bringing logic to an emotional thread.
Yup, and they successfully argued for years that their non-physical presence in a state meant they should not pay sales taxes in that state, effectively forcing states to subsidize Amazon at the expense of local businesses.
So what you seem to be arguing is that logic dictates that anyone with the economic power to ensure or prevent the passage of laws is necessarily correct, and that the only definition for a term like “theft” is the legal interpretation that you, as a non-lawyer, decide to apply. You’re saying that, despite centuries and millennia of colloquial usages of the term, both predating and concurrently used with the very restricted legal definition, any dictionary or other usage-derived definition is invalid.
That doesn’t sound like logic to me, Mr. Spork.
Boy, that was a ton of words you just put in my mouth.
You knocked the absolute shit outta that straw man.
One state has high taxes that everyone paid to provide safety and support for businesses to operate profitably. If you move states you are taking the profit that everyone in your community contributed to.
It’s a micro version of the reason the US now taxes millionaires who try to hide their US profits in tax havens. They wanted the security of the US to build their business but don’t want to contribute to maintain that safety for others once they have their money.
So yes you can move to another country or another state. But you shouldn’t be able to take all the profits when you leave without giving back something to the community that gave you that wealth.
Your entire chain of comments here is a strawman, buddy.
Asking clarifying questions of the other party to better understand what their saying isn’t a straw man, Jack.
You gave a false dichotomy and then went on a rant about why they’re wrong for arguing one of those two things after being told they weren’t arguing either of those things.
How else do you force someone to pay taxes in a state they don’t live in?
You said it was a false dichotomy, right? What’s the other option(s)?
How about if we eliminated rent seeking and both states required these wealthy individuals to contribute to the society that allowed them to build said wealth in the first place? That’s just one of countless possibilities.
“Let’s get Florida to institute a state income tax and more on top for capital gains to match.”?
I mean, yeah? I’d like that. Is it ever going to happen save some overarching federal law standardizing everything? No.
Is moving and no longer paying state taxes for a state you don’t live in anymore “theft”? Also no.