Richest man on Earth: Jeff Bezos' Fortune Crosses $130 Billion!

[JohnBrown1917]

Ask how well it worked for France when they decided taxing the "super rich".

Ye, the rich should just be allowed to do whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they being forced to work there or something? Same for waiters, taxi drivers, retails workers..

You need money to survive.

[Voidwielder]

I'm not one of those socialists or ''eat the rich-redistribute wealth!'' morons but at some point this just becomes obscene.

[Unholyground]

Given how many people rent, live in another persons house, their car, or even a box etc. lets say there are 5 billion people in need of their own home. Let's also drop the house price down to $10k(extremely cheap) you are still talking $50 trillion(and still way outside his price range. Even if you drop the number of people in need of a house down to 1 billion people it would still be $10 trillion at $10k a house. You could divide his fortune across those 1 billion people and each of them would get $130. That is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Yeah Jeff Bezos has a lot of money, but taking his money isn't going to do much of anything you seem to think it will.

I don't want to take his money, fuck that he earned it. I was just throwing out ideas. Creating a worldwide network of green energy production everyone has free access to is where it is at. Not that he could afford that alone, he could do it for North America though. Free us from our energy bonds and we can work to make the world a better place.

[JohnBrown1917]

Iam sure alot of tech companies said the same thing

Dont you learn anything about history? How can Microsoft grow from where its at? What is its future markets?

Hell in 40 years time are we even gonna need a OS?

If you told me half the stuff to me back in the 90s i wouldve thought you was crazy!

Do you even know what an OS is?

[Doctor Amadeus]

He is also innovative, and doing something with the his wealth. While I disagree with any one individual having anywhere near that amount or in a family.

[Knolan]

Ye, the rich should just be allowed to do whatever.

- - - Updated - - -



You need money to survive.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, you are aware that he does pay taxes right?

[Vathoren]

Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, you are aware that he does pay taxes right?

Hahahaha, no he fucking doesn't:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...es-soar-to-7bn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40884753

And that's just the tiniest nub of the iceberg.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, you are aware that he does pay taxes right?

Not arguing about that, arguing that the super rich should pay more taxes.

[Daelak]

Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, you are aware that he does pay taxes right?

Yeah, guess what his tax burden is as a percentage of his income, let alone his net worth. I'll wait.

[Knolan]

Hahahaha, no he fucking doesn't:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...es-soar-to-7bn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40884753

And that's just the tiniest nub of the iceberg.

Wasn't this considered illegal and they got a huge fine last year?

Edit:
I am looking if they actually paid, but this is the news I remembered seeing: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...vernment-apple

- - - Updated - - -

Not arguing about that, arguing that the super rich should pay more taxes.

I disagree it is fair, but that doesn't really matter, because as long as there are countries willing to charge less taxes, there will always be loopholes and tax heavens that companies will run to if you try to tax them more.
It is better to have 40% of something than 70% of nothing.

[JohnBrown1917]

I disagree it is fair, but that doesn't really matter, because as long as there are countries willing to charge less taxes, there will always be loopholes and tax heavens that companies will run to if you try to tax them more.
It is better to have 40% of something than 70% of nothing.

Then tax the money they try to move out of the country, I don't care if they move to another country because of it.

[Darknessvamp]

5% of his wealth would end world hunter lol.

Yes World Hunter is indeed a seriously under reported organisation that has been ruthlessly destroying worlds for millennia without care for their peoples or environment. People should really start talking about the threat of World Hunter more.

[Voidwielder]

I wonder how much money he donates each year. With all that money, i'd assume he does donate to some causes.

He does.

Just like Bill Gates, he is giving away money as fast as he can - but still the earn/loss rotatio leads to this.

[Kathandira]

He does.

Just like Bill Gates, he is giving away money as fast as he can - but still the earn/loss rotatio leads to this.

I'm just happy to hear that he does something with the money, rather than hording it for the next 10 generations of offspring.

[Voidwielder]

Then tax the money they try to move out of the country, I don't care if they move to another country because of it.

Most of that money is in assets, bank accounts, papers and things like gold that are stashed away somewhere else already.

But it's interesting that you'd rather go in to the territory of deep repression than actually think about this seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just happy to hear that he does something with the money, rather than hording it for the next 10 generations of offspring.

I'll try to find the article but some Forbes (I think) economist demonstrated that in case of Bill Gates, he is giving as much money as possible but there are legal things, transactions etc that make it seem like he is always gaining (well, he is but you got the point).

[Deleted]

Well makes sense, doesn't spend his money, does nothing for charity, if Bill Gates did that, he would've passed $130 billion more than a decade ago.

Not to mention let's not forget how Amazon makes money, by treating their employees at the depots as modern slaves.

[Rasulis]

Hahahaha, no he fucking doesn't:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...es-soar-to-7bn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40884753

And that's just the tiniest nub of the iceberg.

This is why though.

Part of the reason is the way it pays its staff.

Amazon UK Services is the division which runs the fulfilment centres which process, package and post deliveries to UK customers. It employs about 16,000 of the 24,000 people Amazon have in the UK.

Each full-time employee gets given at least £1,000 worth of shares every year. They can't cash them in immediately - they have to hold them for a period of between one and three years.

If Amazon's share price goes up in that time, those shares are worth more. Amazon's share price has indeed gone up over the past couple of years - a lot. In fact, in the past two years the share price has nearly doubled, so £1,000 in shares granted in August 2015 are now worth nearly £2,000.
Staff compensation goes up, compensation is an expense, expenses can be deducted from revenue - so profits are lower and so are the taxes on those profits.

But surely this extra income for the staff is taxed? Probably not.

HMRC rules allow employees to receive £3,600 worth of shares from their employer tax free every year. Most of these awards are below that threshold.
The employee wins through a tax-free windfall, Amazon wins because it hasn't got to pay any cash out, which leaves HMRC as the big loser.
This is not just allowed by UK tax law - it is required by it.

So, weirdly, the more valuable Amazon becomes, the less tax this particular bit of its business pays.

There is heightened sensitivity around the tax affairs of technology giants such as Amazon, Google and Apple. The challenge of adapting a tax code written for a bygone era to work effectively on technology multinationals who have socked billions away in low tax jurisdictions remains.

But the practice of giving staff shares is widespread, generally seen as a good way to promote loyalty and engagement - and is 100% legal.

It is standard operating procedures for pretty much all tech companies. Especially startups. It is bad for the England, but good for both Amazon and its employees.

[cubby]

Let's see - $1.4 Trillion? I'll buy 20 years of Congress and President elections - and then have them legislate my ideas into law.

I can throw $400 Billion at the Presidential race, and $2.8 billion at EACH Congressional race (535 total). That should get me full control for at least 10 years.

Fix everything.

No one is even going to give me a little shout-out to my brilliant plan? I mean, this was a true flash of brilliance.

No love at all @ranzino?

[Deleted]

Most of that money is in assets, bank accounts, papers and things like gold that are stashed away somewhere else already.

But it's interesting that you'd rather go in to the territory of deep repression than actually think about this seriously.

- - - Updated - - -



I'll try to find the article but some Forbes (I think) economist demonstrated that in case of Bill Gates, he is giving as much money as possible but there are legal things, transactions etc that make it seem like he is always gaining (well, he is but you got the point).

He gains billions per year based on dividends alone. This doesn't even include any short term investments he does, or the bank interests.

[Daelak]

I'm just happy to hear that he does something with the money, rather than hording it for the next 10 generations of offspring.

He will do exactly that when he purchases real estate and avoids taxation on gains through accelerated depreciation schedules. Once the depreciation is over, he takes out all the equity, tax free, and restarts the accelerated depreciation schedule ad infinitum, and when he passes, his children will be able to do the same.