Should the government take 10% off any savings over 50,000 pounds?

Original post by LiberOfLondon

Bezos made his fortune legally. He doesn't employ slaves, he isn't corrupt and he follows British law.
How does taking money off these people who work hard and honestly incentivise wealth generation?

Oh my point was more his employment practices are somewhat dubious.

Reply 144

Original post by Napp

Possibly not the best example but good point nevertheless :wink:

Is he not a good example? He created an incredible service with unparalleled choice and low pricing that's so good traditional retailers and other websites are being left in the dust.

Reply 145

username4406682

19

Original post by Napp

Oh my point was more his employment practices are somewhat dubious.

Regardless of that, he does create jobs and does so in accordance with the law.

Reply 146

It’s Jacob

7

This will not be beneficial at all. People have savings for a reason, usually for retirement, to pay for education, or pay for a new house, taking savings from them today will cost you later as people would have been independent become dependent.

Reply 147

mgi

20

Original post by It’s Jacob

This will not be beneficial at all. People have savings for a reason, usually for retirement, to pay for education, or pay for a new house, taking savings from them today will cost you later as people would have been independent become dependent.

The Op already knows this but he probably struggles to earn money to fund the life style he wants so he has brcome a Trotskyist!

Reply 148

Original post by tmr19

Is he not a good example? He created an incredible service with unparalleled choice and low pricing that's so good traditional retailers and other websites are being left in the dust.

Which some would argue is the point. With traditional smalltown shops being culled by a tax dodging American.

Original post by LiberOfLondon

Regardless of that, he does create jobs and does so in accordance with the law.

One never said he didn't.

Reply 149

Original post by Napp

Which some would argue is the point. With traditional smalltown shops being culled by a tax dodging American.

One never said he didn't.

I fail to see how anyone with economic literacy can argue against less efficient producers being put out of business by an objectively better enterprise. Tax dodging is irrelevant here - businesses only get taxed on their profits.

Consumers are much better off and the resources wasted keeping those shops open can be allocated elsewhere in the economy.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 150

Original post by tmr19

I fail to see how anyone with economic literacy can argue against less efficient producers being put out of business by an objectively better enterprise.

Ah you sound like one of those free market extremists. If you can honestly say you see nothing wrong with village high streets becoming ghost towns then you're either a cretin or you've never actually been to a village and know anything on the matter.

Tax dodging is irrelevant here - businesses only get taxed on their profits

How is that irrelevant dear? :lol:

Reply 151

Original post by Napp

How is that irrelevant dear? :lol:

Because him dodging corporate taxes has zero to do with him being more competitive than high street business. Dodging taxes doesn't reduce your operating costs as a business.

Reply 152

Original post by Napp

Ah you sound like one of those free market extremists. If you can honestly say you see nothing wrong with village high streets becoming ghost towns then you're either a cretin or you've never actually been to a village and know anything on the matter.

Village high streets aren't the ones generally being impacted by Amazon, as there is typically a stronger community sense in villages, so consumers there make an effort to patronise them. That is an example of a free market...

Reply 153

Original post by tmr19

Because him dodging corporate taxes has zero to do with him being more competitive than high street business. Dodging taxes doesn't reduce your operating costs as a business.

Seeing as my point was about him not running a particularly ethical enterprise and had nothing what so ever to do with his competitiveness...

Reply 154

Original post by Napp

Seeing as my point was about him not running a particularly ethical enterprise and had nothing what so ever to do with his competitiveness...

I'd counter and say providing superior service and cost to hundreds of millions of people is a great service to humanity.

Reply 155

Original post by tmr19

I'd counter and say providing superior service and cost to hundreds of millions of people is a great service to humanity.

Tell that to the employees who get treated like **** in the warehouses.

Reply 156

Original post by Napp

Tell that to the employees who get treated like **** in the warehouses.

Amazon must be the best employer they could get. Assuming rationality, if there was a better employer willing to pay them then they would be working there. Obviously it isn't ideal but it must be better than the alternatives offered

Reply 157