And the US is probably the worst example in the western world on how taxation should work.
Case in point is this ridiculous idea that what Bezos is doing here should be applauded and not fixed for being broken.
Very curious about these justification arguments. How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy?
The defence is more about remaining competitive in a global market than anything to do with how the owners spend their fortunes.
One topic (tax avoidance) is by one entity (AMZN) who has obligations and responsibilities towards shareholders (including most employees), where the other is by a different entity (Jeff Bezos) using his own wealth (that resulted from AMZN).
Jeff Bezos can't use AMZN assets as he sees fit, otherwise the SEC will investigate him, but he can do so with his own assets.
If you want the behaviour of companies to change, you need to have your politicians use their powers to do the right things ...
Capitalism isn't there to fix broken democracy, democracy is supposed to limit capitalism ...
I completely agree in terms of how to practically go about fixing the problems, but we're not discussing that here.
You're right that broken democracy fails to limit capitalism; this allows people without moral limits to exploit, and make large gains from said exploitation. And you're right that fixing that system is what's needed. But lauding those who have exploited that absence of limits, for their apparent morals, is what's being discussed in this thread.