> …the next State level paradigm shift….

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this point.

Take a listen to James Burke chatting with Dan Carlin. A better job than I could do -- https://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-312-re-connec...

The vast majority of those other workers won’t be flexible enough to be able to just drop and work for Amazon.

This is a problem inherent to neoliberalism, you’re right, I’m just not sure I’d agree that it requires a nation state level shift in politics to make Amazon pay their fare share in taxes and wages.

No, but it will be a constant struggle when companies are incentivized to infinitely reduce costs and their political power far outweighs ours. Significant tax and minimum wage increases are almost a generational event at this point. Those are features, not bugs of our system.

Are there no federal corporate taxes? Or would the US be discluded since it's not a nation state?

With the correct arrangement of holding companies, etc… in various countries around the world, corporations usually get away with paying virtually no taxes themselves. They might have to collect local sales taxes or some such, but going through Ireland, the Netherlands, and various other tax havens, the company itself pays effectively no taxes. And that’s assuming they choose to make a profit. Amazon intentionally makes virtually no “profit”, because they take the revenue that would otherwise have become “profit” and spend it in a way that counts as “re-investing”.

So, Amazon shows billions and billions of dollars of revenue, but relatively little profit. And it’s only profit that would get taxed at the federal level.

> would otherwise have become “profit” and spend it in a way that counts as “re-investing”.

Yes, so that’s not profit anymore. What’s the problem?

Would you prefer that businesses be taxed on revenue and not profit?

It is a problem in where that money is going and being spent on. If they are truly investing, no problem, but if they are "investing" into, for example, buying there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars, or boosting stock prices they already own, they aren't helping or supporting the economy they are extracting wealth from. And it should be taxed just like if I personally bought an island or 50 pounds of gold jewellery or a supercar.

Just because a company buys and owns something doesn't automatically make it an investment that shouldn't be taxed as profit.

> buying there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars

well you'll be glad to know that these are not what's being spent on - because if they did, it'd be an open and shut case from the IRS.

But

> boosting stock prices they already own

that is not considered investment, and i do not believe a company can avoid paying tax on profits used to perform this action.

> there own private islands to vacation on under the guise of business, lambos for company cars

That’s not even a thing. We’re not living in an Austin Powers movie.

> or boosting stock prices they already own

Who is “they” in that sentence? Do you know how public traded companies work?