Amazon Prime Day 2021: a round up of the best cycling deals

However part of the reason he pays so little is because he has his charitable donations and other things make him exempt from some taxes. He supposedly gave $10billion to climate change funds in 2020 for example. So is direct charitable donations better then it all going into the pot for the Government? Also that 3% on his taxable income is probably still huge compared to the average 24% paid on a 70k income. 

The main thing here is that they are so rich, they can pay accountants money to avoid higher tax using legal methods so close those methods off first if possible. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

However part of the reason he pays so little is because he has his charitable donations and other things make him exempt from some taxes. He supposedly gave $10billion to climate change funds in 2020 for example. So is direct charitable donations better then it all going into the pot for the Government? Also that 3% on his taxable income is probably still huge compared to the average 24% paid on a 70k income. 

The main thing here is that they are so rich, they can pay accountants money to avoid higher tax using legal methods so close those methods off first if possible. 

No it's not. Why does being rich absolve you from supporting what society needs? Eg health care, schools, social security, infrastructure, policing - all the things that cnts like Bezos need to ensure they get rich of the backs of more vulenerable folk.

I'd be a lot less contemptuous about these w4nkers if they paid their share, and donated to good causes. WTF do they want, a pat on the head from the rest of us whilst we subsidise their "good works"?

as for "doing his bit for climate change" (not your quote Also, I know), his entire company, and the politico-economic system that it relies on is essentially a vehicle to enable the rape of the planet to make a few arseholes like him rich. If he made a proper goal of ending that I'd be impressed. That and paying his facking taxes.

Wasn't that 3% figure based on some rather dubious maths?

I think it was a percentage of his wealth rather than his income.

Nobody pays 24% tax on their wealth.

I'm all for fair taxation but when people throw around deliberately misleading figures it really doesn't help.

Rich_cb wrote:

Wasn't that 3% figure based on some rather dubious maths? I think it was a percentage of his wealth rather than his income. Nobody pays 24% tax on their wealth. I'm all for fair taxation but when people throw around deliberately misleading figures it really doesn't help.

2014-2018 Bezos was paid salary of just over $4BN and paid taxes of just under $1BN, so roughly 24% tax was paid. However in the same period his personal wealth rose by $99BN, but as most of his wealth is in stocks in his company he doesn't have to pay tax on it unless he sells them. That's what the  (justified, I'd say) outcry is about, not that the wealthy are actually not paying the taxes they're obliged to, but that governments allow them not to pay tax on their primary source of income.

Stocks rising in price is not income.

It's appreciation of an asset.

If you taxed rising stock prices like income you would destroy most pensions instantly.

The media like to put out these misleading reports to create outcry which creates interest which makes them money. They literally couldn't care if the report itself is nonsense.

Rich_cb wrote:

Stocks rising in price is not income. It's appreciation of an asset. If you taxed rising stock prices like income you would destroy most pensions instantly. The media like to put out these misleading reports to create outcry which creates interest which makes them money. They literally couldn't care if the report itself is nonsense.

You've never heard of scaled taxation, I take it? The concept that there might be a threshold allowance? We can set it at £1BN, don't think many people's pensions will take a hit then.

Pension funds often own far more than 1bn in stocks.

They'd have a huge amount of paper work to do in order to show compliance. More paperwork directly increases their costs which directly reduces the pensions of millions of ordinary people.

How would you address stock market falls? Last year the stock market tanked right at the end of the financial year. Should we have sent out huge tax rebates to all the billionaires?

Rich_cb wrote:

Pension funds often own far more than 1bn in stocks. They'd have a huge amount of paper work to do in order to show compliance. More paperwork directly increases their costs which directly reduces the pensions of millions of ordinary people.

Absolute nonsense, any pension fund could demonstrate at the push of a button how many pensioners they represent, I wasn't suggesting that pension funds would be taxed, just individuals.

Rich_cb wrote:

How would you address stock market falls? Last year the stock market tanked right at the end of the financial year. Should we have sent out huge tax rebates to all the billionaires?

Well I tell you what, here's a radical idea, we tax profits but don't give rebates for losses, what do you think? Crazy but it might just work.

However you spin it there will be increased costs for pension funds so decreased pensions for their savers.

If you tax profits but refuse to rebate losses you accentuate the risk of holding stocks and of floating on the stock market.

If you buy a stock and then sell it a few years later for the exact same price you bought it for you may still be liable for huge amounts of tax if it fluctuated in price at the wrong time.

More companies will stay private as a result and guess who'll miss out once more? Pension funds and ordinary investors.

A great plan if you want to enrich private equity companies and reduce the value of pensions. If that's not your aim then perhaps it's not so great.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

...as for the idea of paying tax on stock holdings, which are after all a major engine of growth for the entire economy, please can the whingers volunteer to pay wealth tax on their own properties and pension holdings which benefit no one except themselves.

Fair taxation should always be scaled so that it has as little substantive impact on the taxpayer as possible. For the average earner, to pay a tax on capital property gains or pension funds would be punitive; only the most swivel-eyed rightwing loon would claim that Mr Bezos would suffer in any way by having to pay, say, $5BN tax on his $100BN profits. He'd still be left with $95BN, you see. The idea that taxation is only acceptable if everyone pays, proportionately, the same is risible.

Nigel Garrage]

</p>

<p>[quote=Nigel Garrage

wrote:

 Where does all this tax go? Why should someone who tries hard have to subsidise a lazy git?

Tories. As P.G.Wodehouse said of aunts, "sooner or later, out pops the cloven hoof." That one sentence reveals all one needs to know about you and removes any point in further discussion. From now on, as with your soulmate and/or previous incarnation Socrapi, I shall be ignoring your sad trolling on this site, I hope everyone else does the same.

Rendel Harris]</p>

<p>

[quote=Rendel Harris

wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 Where does all this tax go? Why should someone who tries hard have to subsidise a lazy git?

Tories. As P.G.Wodehouse said of aunts, "sooner or later, out pops the cloven hoof." That one sentence reveals all one needs to know about you and removes any point in further discussion. From now on, as with your soulmate and/or previous incarnation Socrapi, I shall be ignoring your sad trolling on this site, I hope everyone else does the same.

Are you sure that's a Tory viewpoint? I thought that "trying hard" vs "laziness" was more of a communist dichotomy whereas Capitalism is surely based on "has a lot" vs "has little". Isn't the point of Capitalism that you make profit from the capital that you have?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Isn't the point of Capitalism that you make profit from the capital that you have?

That's the reality of capitalism, but Tories like to pretend that it's really only "hard work" (whether sitting on your arse in a plush office making deals over the telephone is harder work than doing a shift down the pit or in the chicken rendering plant, making the profits that allow others to benefit and claim their luxury, is somewhat moot) that leads to wealth, nothing to do with inherited wealth and/or privilege.

Nigel wrote:

Marginal personal tax rates are already progressive and act as a disincentive to better yourself - if you earn anywhere near the bandings you'll know for example there is already a marginal tax rate of 60% at 100k earnings as personal allowance is tapered - already ridiculously high. There are also several other instances (such as stopping child benefits) that produce similar effects further down the income scale.

How much is "fair" tax? Where does all this tax go? Why should someone who tries hard have to subsidise a lazy git? All good questions.

Yes, this is why all those on £99k say "oh, it's not worth it, don't bother" when offered a pay rise. The point is that you 101st thousand isn't quite so important to the recipient, just as an extra £100 on a £10k bike isn't.

Also, the marginal rates for those trying to come off benefits are not really what you imply. If the state gives you £100 a week in benefits, and you get a tiny amount of part time work which gets you £20, that £20 will not be taxed but you will lose it from your benefits. So the effect is exactly the same as a 100% marginal rate. At various points there are other traps, such as withdrawal of free school meals, the need for childcare etc, that can make the person who wants to better themselves and contribute worse off - a marginal rate of over 100%. Not to mention the loss of time - being poor and living cheaply is hard work and it takes time to do it (eg walk 3 miles to a cheaper shop to save £5).

By the way, the lazy gits who choose to stay on benefits are enormously outnumbered by those struggling and would love a way out. Help to Buy and other economically illiterate bribes to people significantly richer than benefit recipients are miles out of reach and actually serve to pull up the drawbridge, inflate asset prices, enrich building companies whose directors fund the Conservative party and contribute to the sclerosis of the economy. Tying up so much national wealth in housing is quite pointless given that we all need one. Apart from our dear Queen and our worthy celebrities who need many more than one.

Jeff Bezos' tax deductions for charitable donations aren't a great idea (and nor is Gift Aid), because this says that Jeff, or the charities, are better at spending public money than an elected government. At times this may be true, but we can't vote them out.

Of course, talking about the housing market the main driver of higher prices has been unlimited immigration from the EU, so I'm sure you'll join with me in celebrating leaving that corrupt, rotten institution for good

Wow. All the fault of all these *check notes* corrupt rotten foreign people studying or working here. I'm sure kicking them all out will mean no workforce shortages or anything like that.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

And as for the idea of paying tax on stock holdings, which are after all a major engine of growth for the entire economy

Utter bollocks. The secondary market in equities is almost completely disconnected from the real economy. Bezos' ballooning share-based wealth benefits no-one but him and other holders of the same equity.

It is, however, quite a widespread fallacy, equally believed by those on both the left and the right. Trump famously tweeted increases in the Dow Jones as meaning more jobs. Then again, he was particularly stupid.

Firstly, pension funds are pretty major investors in the stock market. Any rise in stock prices therefore benefits huge swathes of society.

Secondly, IPOs and similar activities directly translate stock prices into jobs. Many tech companies have literally never made a penny in profit yet have generated thousands of jobs using the proceeds of their stock market listings.

Rich_cb wrote:

..Nobody pays 24% tax on their wealth. ...

No the financially vulnerable pay a great deal more than that

Edit: Sorry Rich, I misread you. Of course, wealth should not be confused with income, as the poorest in society have none of the former as opposed to little of the latter

Nigel Garrage wrote:

You haven't defined what "financially vulnerable" means, but ironically making a company highly leveraged (and therefore financially vulnerable) is the primary way to avoid tax, by offsetting profits against interest payments. E.g LBO https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout If by financially vulnerable you mean people at the bottom of the income scale, they typically pay zero tax on wealth (as they don't have any) and a net-negative rate of income tax as they receive more in benefits and subsidies than they pay in tax.

Well that's alright then. Solving societal problems tory style.

What's next on your to-do list - racism? misogyny? 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Extreme wealth is a side effect of our highly scalable and global society (most if its beneficiaries are card-carrying Democrats by the way including Bezos).

In a recent (October 2020) survey of US billionaires by Forbes, 43% identified as Republicans, 24% as Democrats and 33% as independents. Or to put it more succinctly, bollocks.

Closed my amazon account a couple of weeks ago. I won't be using them again.

Where do you draw the line? 95% of mainstream bikes and cycling gear are made in factories in the far east where people are paid pittances and safety is a word that adds extra costs if implemented. Probably most of the electronics are similar judging by the suicides at the chip manuafacturing plants of Apple devices. 

Even if you go with a UK bike builder, where did the steel/ alu tubing and other parts come from? What were the factory conditions like?

Let's be honest, here: those factories in the far east where the computers or smartphones we're reading this site on, or where this site itself is hosted, are not exactly fair trade, are they?

road.cc is hosted with the excellent Hetzner in Germany, who I presume pay a living wage to their staff and all the other entitlements of German employment law.

Doctor Fegg wrote:

road.cc is hosted with the excellent Hetzner in Germany, who I presume pay a living wage to their staff and all the other entitlements of German employment law.

OK, then I stand corrected on that point.  But I was talking more about the people who actually manufacture all our tech...

using servers and components built/made in the far east factories .... unfortunatley anything eletronic ends up being drawn back there, otherwise they would cost an absolute fortune - you cannot get your 1TB SD hard drive for 50quid delivered without suffering pain somewhere along the supply chain - if we all want ethical products both in terms of the environment and the people who make them, be prepared to pay a whole lot more....

I think there's an element of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" here. If you can get exactly the same product for a reasonable price from an end supplier that doesn't treat its warehouse staff quite so poorly, surely that's a good thing no matter how much suffering has already gone into manufacturing the item itself?