Life is Pareto, theft amplifies pareto-ness (see Russian oligarchs during and after USSR)
Do you think Amazon "won" this market just by having more cash in the beginning?
Jeff started it, and did efficiently, so that he didn't had to sell out to too much VC. He manages one of the most efficient companies in the world. and plenty of employees have equity, I wish companies here did the same.
Though to be fair, a good counterargument to what I just said is that likely something else would've existed, so it's not true that trillions wouldn't exist, just the difference between Amazon and the next best thing. And there are still plenty of good reason to tax Jeff Bezos heavily enough to make sure there is less disparity, or organize society differently to not allow such a large difference in wealth. I mostly don't agree with those arguments, but obviously there are some good ones.
Also “someone that is basically a typist“ is so... dismissive. If I were paid for my typing I’d be broke, my most productive days are often days I type the least. I am paid for my reasoning and deduction, not my ability to type.
You’re confusing the work for the medium.
Does Stephen King deserve more per word than a courtroom stenographer?
No doubt you factored in that 40% of the CAR is under 14. (And fully 60% is under 25).
The denominator also counts. And that's ENTIRELY controlled by the good folk of the CAR.
For example, He's built his business to be bigger while reducing the number of small businesses. Is that better for society? Why?
Productivity in many fields certainly seems deeply exponential, so why shouldn’t compensation be?
I am not sure where this was from but it went something like this like that:
If there was a staircase and you could take a step for each 100k networth you own. Somewhere around 50% would not be able to take a first step, rest would barely get to 10-20.
Bezos would be half way to International Space Station.
Just think about it and say its all normal and ok.
Lets go back 200 years - just because slavery is considered normal and lawful it doesn't mean its not immoral.
Imagine having a job that makes you 1 million dollars a year. Even if you didn't have to pay any taxes, someone else paid for all your living expenses and there was no inflation you would have to work for 171,600 years (yes, the same years we count from 1 A.D.) to get to the point Bezos is right now.
That said, your assertion is not true. 15% is higher than the effective tax rate of 10.5% paid by the average single teacher in the US:
Average salary: $60477 [0]
Standard Deduction for single filers: $12400.
10% bracket for $0 through $9,875 == $988 tax. 12% bracket for $9876 through $40125 == $3630 tax. 22% bracket for $40126 through ($60477 - $12400 - $40125) == $1749 tax.
This totals $6367, which is 10.5% of $60477. Less than 15%.
The numbers are different if the teacher is married, has children, interest, etc.
We can discuss whether it's fair. I said above, I think it's not; there's a "minimum overhead" to living in the US that takes up a much larger fraction of $60477 than $1B, regardless of lifestyle. But people act like Bezos et al are just not paying as much as regular people, and it's just not true. $150M is more in absolute terms, and in many cases relative terms as well.
I'd like to see some (comprehensible to a layperson) discussion about what would happen if all income - wages, tips, gifts, inheritance, interest, dividends, capital gains, etc. etc. - was treated dollar for dollar equally from a tax perspective. I don't understand why it couldn't be, or why it shouldn't be.
There are also nasty effects with start-ups stocks or options that may be worth quite a lot of money but you may not be permitted or be heavily restricted in selling the stock even if you execute the options. There may still be a possibility of the stock going to zero leaving you with a large tax bill and no value in assets.
It is hard and not perfect, but we can't have everything based on income for high net worth people, they won't pay their fair share and keep getting richer and richer.
I think it's perfectly fine to only pay the tax once you sell, why should you keep paying a tax just for owning? With his portfolio, his salary wouldn't be able to cover a a simple 1% annual tax.
Now the issue is USA capital gain tax being lower than dividend tax, that's completely bonkers and encourages ridiculous uses of buybacks (which amazon has never done).
The capital gain tax should be the same as dividend tax
Remember Yahoo, Nokia, Motorola, Kodak. Invincible leaders at some point.
Look at today's Intel or Boeing decline. Apple is also not as nearly as strong as it seems. There is Android competition in software and many bigger brands in hardware.
Things can change anytime even without a regulation.
I personally think the US is much closer to collapse and fragmentation than anyone would suspect. If a time traveler told me I'd be living the Pacific States of America (PSA) in 2035 and that this new nation would maintain a NATO-like alliance with Canada and Mexico, I would not be terribly shocked.
Things can be more fragile than they appear and definitely more fragile than their designers and operators think.
One more non-political case that comes to mind is the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, a building that was not hit by a plane and is a frequent topic of controlled demolition conspiracy theories. A large fire broke out in the building apparently fueled by diesel fuel that was being stored on site. That should not have caused the building to collapse, but it did. Maybe the building wasn't as strong as people thought either because of a design flaw or corners cut during construction. I once read an analysis that ended "moral of the story? If there's a large fire in a modern multi-story office building, you might want to stand back."
Amazon certainly has its problems, and I'm a critic of it a lot...but they still offer services that are generally good for consumers, and that is something that drives its growth.