Bezos didn't build Amazon or AWS, his workers did. He contributed as CEO, but the work was done by thousands of smart, hard-working and talented people around the world, but they don't own the company. Bezos's salary is just $80,000 a year -- his wealth doesn't come from the work he does for Amazon but the fact that he is the one who owns the capital and reaps the profit.

such salaries are exhibit #1 for why we need to equalize taxes between capital and labor (e.g., recognize capital gains as ordinary income)

> Bezos's salary is just $80,000 a year

So he's not subject to max SSN and Medicare taxes?

There is no cap for Medicare taxation.

His workers would not have built it if he had not directed them to do it and provided them the resources to do it.

That's correct, but why does he have the resources to do it? Because he came from a rich family with capital to invest. Why isn't capital distributed evenly across all workers, not just of Amazon, but in an entire society, so that everyone shares in the profits instead of one man? What is exceptional about the fact that he had the capital to make an initial investment, why does that mean he should be a billionaire? We invested collectively in the technology that created the internet in the first place through publicly funded research, and yet we do not see the material benefits, only a small few do.

What would it mean for capital to be distributed evenly? Under such a system, what would be the advantage for someone to save and invest rather than consume? (After all, on "turn 2", the capital is going to all be redistributed so it's even again. Then again on turn 3...)

Could you sketch out your idea a bit more? At the moment, I'm not getting it.

>Unless the people are being forced to work/buy/sell with amazon, they are by definition not being exploited.

There are tons of ways to force people that don't involve putting a gun on their head...

>Unless the people are being forced to work/buy/sell with amazon, they are by definition not being exploited.

"forced" can happen in more ways than one. Workers in third world sweatshops aren't forced by law to work there, but they are forced by capitalism to work there to feed their families.

Also: Exploit (v)

2. To use selfishly for one's own ends.

Employees who freely take the best option available to them are not made better off if that option is removed.

I don't believe that Bezos or other employers are acting selfishly when them employ people, even when they make a margin on that labor. (In fact, if they don't make a margin on that labor, they would be better off to stop employing that person, meaning the situation where the employee and employer both make money on the deal is the most stable state.)

They are made better off if their wages are improved, ie if they organize and struggle for a minimum wage or a union. Employers will work their employees as much as possible for as little pay as possible, only the law and organized struggle prevents them from paying less. Capitalism encourages businesses to reduce their costs as much as possible, including labor costs, so obviously they will do anything they can to pay people less unless they fight back