The thing that comes to mind is Amazon being given bramd new warehouses by governments in exchange for barely-humane working conditions. This means, the working stiff has payed for their ability to get a job. Company expansion should come out of that same company’s profit margin, not the back pocket of the working force.
Apepollo11@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Ah, ok. Sorry, I thought you were referring to well-off ‘ordinary’ people.
Totally agree that the way governments fawn over corporations is beyond the pale.
DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Understandable and it’s there that things get blurry. I don’t think anyone can argue that Amazon’s bottom line is Bezos but on paper Bezos doesn’t have any money because all of his monetary value is tied up in assets. A person with that much money simply ties everything to their company and suddenly they’re corporate assets instead of personal belongings, thus tax deductible (imagine the Spongebob rainbow meme here) along with the plethora of other advantages these people get just for being wealthy. Heck, this doesn’t even apply to only the insanely wealthy. With a smart accountant, it’s applicable to business owners.
Some years ago I worked for a small company where the owner would declare all of his purchases as business assets. Some of those items would become “loss leaders” and simply “disappear” while others would get “rented” to himself at a “generous discount” until he chose to sell it. I got to learn just how perfectly legal it all was the hard way because by the time I was done at the company, I was looking for the biggest bus I could throw him under and it turned out there weren’t any. Made me want to puke.