It does.
> write your local representatives and ask them to change it.
Done and done.
Here's the problem: my voice, plus the voices of all of those who agree, have far less of an impact on the beahviour of the politicians than Amazon does.
"...than Amazon's money does."
I think the problem is that our politicians, by and large, don't really represent us. That is, the "template" if you will, of a politician, tends to not fit what the general average person is.
For instance - how many politicians are middle class? I'd wager that none of them are, for even if they were prior to being elected, after they are elected they would get a salary that is much larger than a standard middle-class salary.
Instead - our representatives (mainly federal - state level is a different story, but there are analogies) all are of the "wealthy class" - not the middle class, which is kinda who you would expect to represent everyone (that is, the "average").
Note that I am speaking from a US-centric perspective, but I bet it's the same elsewhere.
So why do we keep electing the same template of people to the same positions, and expect a real change?
I don't know. Part of it may be the whole "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing. Part of it may be corruption once they get into power (that is, why would a middle-class person, upon obtaining a much larger salary that bumps them out of middle class and into wealthy - change that?).
This is really the heart of the matter; it isn't that our representatives only represent companies, but rather that they don't represent us (that is, the average American) period - as people we can really relate to, that they can relate to - because of the wealth discrepancy.
And it's not likely to ever change; I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't involve violence - and even if it did happen, how do you keep it from changing back (what incentivizes people to continue to stay representative of the people they represent)?
Not a native english speaker here, so I might miss a nuance. "Represent" as in "depict us" or as in "works for us"? It sounds like you would prefer to take random citizens and turn them into politicians. Wouldn't you rather have the best people working for you? Sure, understanding your client is necessary to represent (as in work for) someone and having the same background can be one way to do so. But just one way to tick one of many requirements.
I'd guess the better question is how to elect better politicians. Money in politics and campaigning (tricky to solve) and FPTP voting leaving just two parties certainly doesn't help.
To me "wealthy class" means people who have saved enough to never have to work again, which is by no means certain on a 174k salary.
In most of the world, it very much is.
For example, Hillary outspent Trump 2:1, yet still lost.
Seems a little bit more relevant here.
The power of corporations over people is far more subtle and far reaching than all that, and I'm not really referencing any 'conspiracy' junk.
Briefly, I think it fundamentally comes down to a fundamentally pro-company atmosphere that exists in the United States. This has been created after many decades of typically subtle and legal manipulations.
They weren't trying to be evil; they were just trying to maximize shareholder value.
Amazon elects politicians in a more substantial way than voters do.
It means that money is not buying elections. The voters still have to be pleased with their choice, and the money isn't flowing their way.
Regulatory capture is a nice phrase from economics. What we have in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is tax law capture.
A great many people work at and invest in Amazon, why would it be more fair for your single voice to exceed the tens or hundreds of thousands on the other side?
The legal person known as Amazon has far more say and sway in U.S. elections than I do. The legal person known as Amazon is controlled by a few people. Transitively speaking those few people by virtue of their control of Amazon have an outsized influence on American elections.
Someday the U.S. will amend its Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and just let the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies elect the President. It'd be a lot more honest that way.
The fact is while people oppose them vocally they aren't willing to take any action to do so. People like you stay invested in Amazon while opposing it's business practices, that's just one example of many. Have a prime account, use AWS and so on and so on.
You might have a hundred million on your side but the amount of effort they are willing to put forth is maybe a facebook post so nobody cares.
It's not really a matter of outsized voices, it's just one voice isn't willing to do more than whisper.
Your perception that the power an average person holds versus Amazon is roughly equal is not rooted in reality.
The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction.
Firstly, prove Amazon, specifically, lobbied for the tax law they're benefiting from here. Let's start with that.
The above extreme example is merely to show that sometimes the responsible party is not solely those who do the actual deed. There are lots of examples of this concept in criminal law if you want learn more about idea.
It's hard to claim corporations don't control the media when only a few media companies control a large majority of the media in the United States.
Industry experts know more about the space that's getting regulated than the lawmakers, so the lawmakers ask for help. Saying "corporations write the law" (by proxy or otherwise) completely misrepresents how laws are actually written.
Does corruption happen? Definitely. Is it rampant? No. It's not "some members who stand strong" it's "almost all members stand strong with some small exceptions, many of whom are no longer in office as a result."
Politics is mostly pretty boring, routine stuff. It's nothing like what's portrayed in the media, stop assuming the most interesting parts are more common than they are...
Of course it's not magical. It's money. No magic needed. Amazon spent a lot of money and effort to lobby against allowing states to tax internet sales. Then when it got big enough it lobbied for them because at their scale it became a competitive advantage against small players to have everyone charge sales taxes on internet orders. Amazon lobbies for tax break where they build warehouses and other buildings.
The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction.
The reality is that I have very little power in comparison to Amazon. This is not disputable. I do have some power. Just nowhere near the amount of power that Amazon has.
Firstly, prove Amazon, specifically, lobbied for the tax law they're benefiting from here. Let's start with that.
I trust your Google skills. I trust your common sense too on this matter.
What'll be fun is trying to watch you prove Amazon lobbied for a law that's older than it is.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. If shit like this bothers you, write your local representatives and ask them to change it.
Then you wrote in response to me:
Lobbying is not some magical salve you rub on every problem to make the laws say whatever you want. The reality is it's more convenient to pretend you have no power because then it excuses your inaction.
Now you seem to want to talk specifically about the taxes mentioned in the article. I think you are not staying on topic. We were never talking about that specific tax law.
My Google skills returned this:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-is-wrong-amazon-lob...
In 2012, facing a slew of these court rulings, Amazon dropped its opposition to the federal "marketplace fairness" laws Walmart had long pushed. In fact, Amazon joined the lobbying coalition to pass such legislation, which would force all online retailers to collect sales tax on every sale and remit it to the state of the buyer.
This is a huge compliance burden for smaller retailers but no big deal for Amazon. Also smaller retailers, with no network of warehouses, are not required under current law to collect sales taxes, and Amazon didn't like that. Pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, and bam—you impose a big burden on Amazon's smaller competitors.
Sorry, but you're just upset I made a good point (Amazon didn't lobby for this tax law), and are trying to deflect. Not going to work.
I did not read the "from here" part of the comment you originally wrote that I responded to. I thought you asked for examples of Amazon lobbying for tax law changes in general. My mistake.
I did not claim that Amazon lobbied for the specific law mentioned in the article though. Indeed I can't because it hasn't. I did give examples of how Amazon has lobbied for other tax law changes. The comment I originally replied to was in regard to "the game". In this case the game being politics and lobbying.
The things I wrote about Amazon doing remain true. The complaint isn't against Amazon though. It's rational for them to take advantage of the system in place. The overall point I've made and believe is that the system is not fair and that Amazon has outsized power in the U.S.
My point is actually quite well illustrated by your examples. Amazon lobbied its heart out to avoid state taxes on goods sold, and failed. Now in the article you linked, it was spun as some big win for Amazon, but if that's the case, why were they lobbying (unsuccessfully) against it for so long?
Lobbying doesn't work, not nearly as well as people think it does. It's easy to assume money makes laws happen, but if you look at the actual quantities involved, it's a relative pittance compared to individual contributions to campaigns, and as much as we pretend like voters are complete sheep, the reality is more complicated.
Is corporate lobbying a problem? Definitely. Is is this singular driving force in politics? No.
When they were growing they lobbied against. When it became a competitive advantage they lobbied for them.
Lobbying doesn't work, not nearly as well as people think it does.
It works quite well. Both in terms of building walls to discourage competition and to write favorable changes to existing laws. It is in essence a singular force in politics. By lobbying I mean the whole campaign finance machine where rich people personally donate to a campaing and then have their companies do so too. Lobbying is just a proxy for "money in politics" and not just the official lobbyists that are registered. The soft money in politics dwarfs direct campaign contributions.
https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/1...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/29/yes-y...
https://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276448190/a-closer-look-at-ho...
And what you call soft money is actually called freedom of expression, and you're going to be a lot harder pressed than you think to prove that soft money works as directly as you're claiming.
Finally, no lobbying is not a substitute for "money in politics". That's factually wrong.
Yes, those with more capital have more ways to express themselves. This is in conflict the spirit of democracy, were everyone has equal weight. And while democracy seems more resistant to such power imbalances than other forms of governance, it might still be beneficial for society to keep such imbalances in check.
Are articles (assuming they meet your aesthetic criteria otherwise) allowed to mention anyone who does things in line with prevailing legal policy, yet might be problematic?
I, personally, am really sick of reflexive whining when the media dare be critical of certain firms.
Jeff Bezos is the worlds richest person of course people will be writing about Amazon.
EVERY argument about what is "morally right" w.r.t. paying taxes is a matter of perspective. To you, what Amazon is doing is immoral. To someone worse off than you, what you do routinely on your taxes (deducting mortgage interest, student loan interest, etc.) is immoral.
The problem is both. It is a problem that people lobby for selfish policies that ignore the needs of others, and it is a problem that the system sometimes listens to them.
Sure, but if that opportunity was given to everyone, it would only take a few years to make the case for taxes crystal clear to even the most selfish person. In the meantime, much damage would be done.
For example, cycling's doping scandals are well illustrated by Lance Armstrong.
Articles like this are the reason why people write their representatives.
Your comment is a subtle exhortation to do absolutely nothing about the tax policies that lead to results like this.
Your post makes me want to smash everything around me.
The problem is that if you don't state it clearly and specifically, that message will be lost on most people, and they'll still redirect their anger at the company as opposed to the actual source of the problem.
Do you have references to any articles that evaluate the efficacy of this? It seems like an effort in futility to me.