Amazon and taxes

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by barryem

A businessman represents his investors and stockholders first, by law.

Here's a piece from Jeff Bezos's newspaper on that:

The belief that shareholders come first is not codified by statute.

Businesses have a bunch of stakeholders, including the communities in which they locate, employees, customers, and regulators. And, yes, investors. But investors didn't magically go to the head of the list the day Amazon went public.

If the US Congress ever passes such a despicable law, Jeff Bezos, given his lack of focus on profits, would earn a seat of honor on Con Air.

So don't anybody claim I never have a nice word to say about the guy

[barryem]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The belief that shareholders come first is not codified by statute.

I'm now lawyer but that statement and the article it came from contradicted things I've heard all my life, so I did a bit of googling. It seems that fiduciary responsibility of corporate officers to shareholders is defined in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Sarbanes-Oxley, whatever that is.

Anyway that's my legal research for today.

I can't claim that I read it all or understood it all but it seems that it does contradict what was said in that article.

I suspect it's entirely reasonable for a corporate officer to make a decision based on the good of his community as long as it's not too harmful to his shareholders. I seriously doubt that it would be reasonable if he made all his decisions with that in mind.

I'm sure not going to say that Capitalism is a pretty thing. There's much about it that's ugly. But what are our choices?

Barry

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'm sure not going to say that Capitalism is a pretty thing. There's much about it that's ugly. But what are our choices?

Amazon has taken corporate welfare before, but this time they didn't. Those were choices.

Here's another choice, explained in a book I borrowed, enjoyed, and recommend:

https://luzme.com/author/Beth+Macy/b...+American+Town

The eBook price is higher than I would pay. This isn't a criticism of Hachette pricing, just a statement of fact. My link above allows you to set up an alert for when the price comes down.

[murg]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'm now lawyer

Are you now a lawyer, or not a lawyer?

[kyteflyer]

I'm probably at the front of the line with regard to not liking some of the things that Amazon has done, but really... I didnt see anything cynical about the article ("kudos to Amazon is cynical?) and I don't see anything wrong or nefarious about what they did. Of course, my naivete could be showing.

[ApK]

I just read the article in the OP (it's nice and short) and I agree with kyteflyer. It doesn't seem cynical at all. That kudos seems genuine and neither theorized reason seems nefarious.

Summary of the article:
Amazon is building in a town. Town offered Amazon some modest tax incentive, Amazon said no thanks. Author said whether Amazon said no out the goodness of its corporate heart or because it saw some political advantage in not taking local tax money, it's good they said no.

I don't necessarily agree with the author about tax incentives in all cases, though. A company might 'do it anyway' but they might do it elsewhere and give someone else's community the jobs.

I'm not sure why some around this forum love to hate Amazon. I doubt there is a major company within the USA that is worthy of our love. Some are worse than others. Take Walmart for example. Hardly any company did more to kill off "mom and pop" shops in small towns across the country. But I would never say they did it on purpose. Just good business sense to buy in bulk and sell cheaper than everyone else. I feel sorry for the mom and pop shops, but I'm not so sorry that I will pay them twice what it would cost in Walmart, Amazon, etc. And I suspect returning items to mom and pop shops won't be nearly as easy either.

I'm glad Amazon turned down the tax incentives. Doubt there was anything nefarious involved except on the part of some of the posters here. You guys are broken records and need to mellow out a bit! I would much rather see my tax money go to draw in jobs and revenue than to pay for some billionaire a$$hole's sports stadium like we have done in my city. The Dallas Cowboys stadium doesn't even have our city name on it, nor are they called the Arlington Cowboys, but we GD sure built that stadium for that billionaire a$$hole Jerry Jones. And BTW, that stadium was supposed to bring in a lot of local revenue, but it hasn't. It has only made a billionaire richer! It hasn't even lead to a winning team yet...

[barryem]

Originally Posted by murg

Are you now a lawyer, or not a lawyer?

'

I'm very definitely NOT a lawyer. I finally made my first mistake. Not bad after 74 years.

Barry

Well returning to the argument of whether or not the officers of a corporation are actually mandated by law to maximize profits for shareholders thus restricting them from other considerations such as responsibility to workers, the community, the environment, or even morality, looking at just summaries of the laws (Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sarbanes-Oxley) barryem cited I do not see anything that would restrict corporate officers from considering other factors then shareholder profit even to the detriment of profit. Nothing of the sort in the summary of the intent of lawmakers when these laws were passed. Then I'm definitely not a lawyer.

I can only say that regardless of law makers intent at the time a law is passed, and even regarding changes in how the law is later interpreted, what in practice a law means really depends on what the enforcing authorities (executive and judicial branches of government) choose to say it means, and that definitely can change with the political environment. How historically the 14th Amendment has been interpreted in scope and intent provides an excellent example. I feel that there can be little doubt as the article cited by SteveEisenberg states that over the last 30-40 years interpretation has very much shifted in favor of the owner/investor class to the detriment of all else.

Regarding Walmart the criticism of that company is not just that they have put smaller competitors out of business, it's that they have in part done this through driving down worker wages and other compensation to the point that those workers must rely on public benefits, effectively a government subsidy for Walmart's business practice.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Well returning to the argument of whether or not the officers of a corporation are actually mandated by law to maximize profits for shareholders thus restricting them from other considerations such as responsibility to workers, the community, the environment, or even morality...

In fact, in most (all?) western countries "officers of a corporation", who by definition are employees, have no authority to decide policy regarding the level of profit to be attained, responsibilities to workers e.g. payroll, the community, the environment, morality, pricing policies, capital expenditure, etc. Policy for those things is directed by the equity shareholders (and in some instances the providers of borrowings, etc.) through the governance of the board appointed by them (should there be one, else by the directors). The officers may prepare the likes of draft operational and capital budgets, and recommend pricing policy, for example, which lead to suggesting a profit but they cannot approve those.

Officers will be given authorities to act within the policies set by the board that represents the shareholders, and officers are obliged to stay within those. Should circumstances change meaning that a policy can no longer be complied with (e.g. there are expenditure over or underruns against budgets approved by the board) then the officers must obtain the board's approval for that change.

In the case that officers do not properly implement policy set by the board's governance then they are culpable under, at least, the employment law that they or the company are domiciled in. Should their actions be wilful and incur damage to the company they may be found liable in law for that damage.

There is no legal requirement (anywhere in western nations, as far as I am aware), as has been mentioned, for the shareholders to require that company profits be maximized, but I wasn't aware that anyone here was claiming that. However, it is a natural outcome that shareholders seek to maximize the return on their investment and the directors will set policy accordingly, taking into the account the whole business environment, the needs of the company for its own retained profits use such as expansion, and meeting the requirements of the shareholders they represent as to return on their investment in way of dividends or increased value of their stockholding (as the expansion of the business may result in).

Part of the establishment of profitability policy may allow for costs of benevolence to the community the company resides in for which no return is anticipated (such as confidential donations to a charity), or for such costs (non confidential donations to a charity, which may even be the subject of a press release) which are, in effect, advertising. Again, such policy is for the shareholders through their board to make, not the "corporation's officers".

[frahse]

Originally Posted by John F

"Do The Right Thing: Amazon Turns Down Millions In Tax Incentives"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanaly...rtner=yahootix

My guess is that there were going to be conditions on receiving the money that Amazon was uncomfortable with and didn't want to deal publically with.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by jswinden

I'm not sure why some around this forum love to hate Amazon. I doubt there is a major company within the USA that is worthy of our love. Some are worse than others. Take Walmart for example.

This is clearly an e-book forum. Amazon is clearly the world's biggest vendor of e-books. Thus we discuss amazon. Why would we discuss Walmart? I find your reasoning fundamentally flawed.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Seriously ... short of rolling over and dying, could Amazon ever do anything to suit you?

How about they start treating their staff better?

http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...neral-meeting/

Another said: "They laid off temporary shift workers on mass and sometimes at 4am when it was freezing, and nobody had anywhere to go, we weren’t even allowed to stay in the canteen until the buses started running."

While another said: "We had zero hour contracts. Sometimes we were told to go home without pay after waiting round for a couple of hours with nothing to do. I have never felt such depression from work in my life. I felt unable to do anything about how I was being treated."

And finally: "My performance was continually monitored. Everyone was under so much pressure to achieve targets, the work environment was one of the most unhappy I have ever been in."

You Amazon apologists seem blind in one eye when it comes to seeing the glaring faults of Amazon's labor practices.

And before you start bleating about Why pick on Amazon? and Other companies do it too, please see my previous post. It's utterly obvious point, but one that the apologists seem to be determined to remain unconscious of.

Just because many / most corporations treat their staff like machines, it doesn't make it okay. And this is an e-book forum and it is pertinent to discuss the malpractices of Amazon.

[Rizla]

I imagine Amazon chose to refuse the hand-out in order to avoid bad publicity later. Perhaps they'll shut down quickly, or (shocker) be criticized for treating staff like crap. Such things will be easier to ignore if they have not accepted tax-payers money aimed at improving the community.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Rizla

How about they start treating their staff better?

http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...neral-meeting/



You Amazon apologists seem blind in one eye when it comes to seeing the glaring faults of Amazon's labor practices.

And before you start bleating about Why pick on Amazon? and Other companies do it too, please see my previous post. It's utterly obvious point, but one that the apologists seem to be determined to remain unconscious of.

Just because many / most corporations treat their staff like machines, it doesn't make it okay. And this is an e-book forum and it is pertinent to discuss the malpractices of Amazon.

Amazon ' s labor practices are to outsource as much as possible, and automate anything that can be automated. Which isn't relative to taking or not taking tax incentives.

Poor treatment of workers by outside contractors needs to be laid at the feet of said contractors, and on earlier threads here it was late in the game before the press even reported that there was an outside contractor involved.

So to reiterate, the topic in taking or not taking tax incentives, and I for one will wait in the future to see if employees alleged to have been mistreated by Amazon were actually Amazon employees when I hear of that because of having been previously mislead by poor reporting from the press.