Slashdot Mirror


President Trump Attacks Amazon, Incorrectly Claiming That It Owns The Washington Post For Tax Purposes (recode.net)

The Washington Post, which has been critical of Donald Trump and his administration in its coverage, has become the latest victim in Trump's Twitter tirade. On Wednesday, he accused Amazon of not "paying internet taxes (which they should)," adding that the company is using The Washington Post "in a scheme to dodge" the taxes. Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does. At any rate, Trump's furious tweets come a day after The Washington Post reported that a fake issue of Time magazine with Trump on the cover was hanging in some of the president's golf clubs. The timing of this is also awkward because just last week the president met with Bezos and other top executives to discuss ways the White House can modernize government and aid the tech industry. But the two have a long history. As Recode reminds: Meanwhile, Amazon is about to embark on what could be a lengthy government antitrust review of its bid to buy Whole Foods. Already looming large over the roughly $14 billion deal are the president's own comments: He has previously attacked Bezos and claimed the Post is a tax-dodging scheme for Amazon. "He thinks I'll go after him for antitrust," Trump said at one point during his campaign. "Because he's got a huge antitrust problem, because he's controlling so much, Amazon is controlling so much of what they are doing." Months later, Trump charged: "Believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems, they are going to have such problems." Meanwhile, Bezos isn't one to shy about his anti-Trump views either. At one point during the election, Bezos tweeted that he'd save a seat for Trump on his Blue Origin spacecraft, with the hashtag "sendDonaldtospace."

20 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. It's not true. by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But it's accurate.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  2. Really? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the hell does anyone still care?

    Don't get me wrong, the president of the US is a pretty important person and whatever he does has some effect on the world. But do we really have to hear every fart he passes? Who gives a shit about this anymore?

    Wake me when he DOES something.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re: Really? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It took 14 months for Watergate to lead to Nixon's resignation. Why is it you think that this particular investigation should have such a shorter timeline?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Really? by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why the hell does anyone still care?

      Don't get me wrong, the president of the US is a pretty important person and whatever he does has some effect on the world. But do we really have to hear every fart he passes? Who gives a shit about this anymore?

      Wake me when he DOES something.

      Why doesn't everybody in the US care that the United States of America has become the laughing stock of the entire rest of the human race? Trump has actually managed to upstage Robert Mugabe in terms of incompetence and corruption and Turkmenbashi Saparmurat Niyazov in terms of being just plain 'loco'. All that's missing is that pee tape and Trump will have upstaged Berlusconi in being a lecherous pervert. If I was a US American abroad I'd start training myself to end every sentence with 'eh' and tell people I'm Canadian but, mercifully, I'm not American, so instead I can have endless fun asking my American friends to explain why their countrymen voted for Trump. It's kind of fun (if admittedly quite mean) to watch them squirm for a while as they try to explain how the electoral college works and why the electoral college is essential to American democracy until they finally give up an admit they don't understand it either.

    3. Re: Really? by doconnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why is it you think that this particular investigation should have such a shorter timeline?"

      Trump's complete lack of self control.

    4. Re:Really? by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The electoral college had its place in the early days of the US republic but it's a completely useless relic by now. It's by no means hard anymore for people to know the presidential candidates and know EXACTLY who they are voting for, there is no need for a trusted middle man who'd go and act on their behalf anymore.

      Give the man a cigar... That is exactly the right answer, but most Americans just struggle trying to explain the college's purpose. I have the most fun with Republicans, they are usually the ones who earnestly believe the USA would sink into the seas in a rain of fire, brimstone and liberalism if the electoral college did not guarantee the conservative populations of sparsely populated states a much higher voting power than they'd have in a system where win without gerrymandering by gaining the majority of the popular vote, so it tends to be Republicans who end up to defending the electoral college and gerrymandering to the death.

  3. Fitting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He really is the president America deserves, he's an incredibly apt reflection of the population-at-large.

  4. Re: So what if it was for tax purposes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only smart if it's Trump avoiding taxes legally. The rules are different for anyone not lobbying him directly.

  5. Distinction without difference by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.

    Distinction without difference... The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:

    • Bezos despises Trump and is likely to steer WaPo to criticize the President above and beyond what would be fair
    • Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role — the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.
    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Distinction without difference by quantaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.

      Distinction without difference...

      Actually there is a real difference. Bezos, Chairman and CEO of Amazon, is a different role than Bezos, owner of Amazon. Ethical people generally recognize the differences in these roles and try to avoid overlap. I don't know if Bezos is a particularly ethical person, but if he is he's made sure that the reporting staff feel perfectly clear to criticize Amazon and/or advocate for issues with which he personally disagrees.

      The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:

      • Bezos despises Trump and is likely to steer WaPo to criticize the President above and beyond what would be fair

      Unlikely, if Bezos is ethical he gives the WaPo staff editorial independence (which is very much the standard in the newspaper industry). Now again I don't really know about Bezos's ethics, but I've never heard evidence he was unethical. And frankly, if the WaPo reporters did feel like he was trying to steer coverage they're the kind of reporters who would start complaining in public.

      Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role

      Though what mechanism? Did the WaPo change stances to be more anti-internet tax after his purchase?

      — the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.

      Does the WaPo align with his personal politics, and did that play a role in his purchase? Definitely.

      Is the WaPo being used to lobby to increase Amazon's profits? I haven't seen a shred of evidence and consider the idea absurd.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  6. When is it good to dodge taxes? by Balial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm really confused about the president's position on dodging taxes. If poor people don't pay taxes, that's bad. But if a rich person gets a tax break, that's good. If one of Trump's businesses, or he himself, avoids taxes, that's just his business expertise. But if Jeff Bezos does it, that's bad again.

    Help me out here. I'm really confused...

    1. Re:When is it good to dodge taxes? by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If poor people don't pay taxes, that's bad.

      It's "bad" because they get all the advantages and benefits provided by being a resident in the country while contributing little or none of the costs.

      But if a rich person gets a tax break, that's good.

      It's "good" because if they get a break, then that means they are contributing. But since they are contributing more than what poor people are, then it's unfair. Rich people could be using the difference to "stimulate the economy" or otherwise let the money "trickle down" to the poor (even though both have been shown to not work nearly as well as proponents claim.

      If one of Trump's businesses, or he himself, avoids taxes, that's just his business expertise.

      See: Rich person

      But if Jeff Bezos does it, that's bad again.

      Bezos leans Libertarian/Democrat, not Republican. So that makes him a evil filthy poor person more so than a rich person. See: Poor person

  7. Re:So what if it was for tax purposes? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The tax information we do have on Trump indicates that he has taken advantage of rolling over losses to reduce taxes, so, in reality, even if Amazon were doing what Trump said, Trump's done the same damned thing.

    Just another bizarre outburst from the Tweeter-in-Chief

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Businesses don't pay as much tax as you think! by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The interesting thing about this is that he's only concerned about tax dodging when it involves a company he doesn't like. I'm sure there are plenty of tax loopholes that is businesses have been able to use over the years.

    I think almost everyone knows that businesses don't pay the official tax rates, and the largest ones are able to pay zero or get tax refunds in some cases because they're able to buy loopholes and exploit them. Even small businesses, who are the most vocal about it, structure their transactions to avoid taxes. Wage-earners are about the only taxpayers who don't get these benefits because documented W-2 and 1099 income is directly tracked and taxed at the income tax rate. But, ask any small business owner what entity owns their car, house and personal debt -- I guarantee you the answer is "John Smith Enterprises, Inc." It's way too easy for individuals to just set up a corporation and filter every personal expense they incur through it. It's not technically legal of course, but that doesn't stop it from happening. And then those same people turn around and complain about being taxed and regulated to death...those arguments ring hollow for me.

  9. Re:Get this crap out of here by SlashDread · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Usually, I moderate, today Ill reply.

    Your wrong. -Everything- Chief Bozo says is news. If Chief Bozo disses the largest tech company in the world, that Big News. For me at least, being a cloud architect, and I regard that profession as quite nerdsy.

  10. Re:So what if it was for tax purposes? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This why we need a businessman as president. Someone in business should be able to comprehend that a person can own many companies and not having each company interact with each other.

    But we don't have a businessman as president we have a Son of a businessman who used the wealth and fame to more or less just maintain what he got, vs. Actually growing the business. Because if he just did normal investments with the money his dad gave him, he could be much richer.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  11. Re:So what if it was for tax purposes? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need people well-versed in economics to run our public policy machine. Not just people who took economics in college, but people who have pushed the boundaries.

    We should be pushing for DIVERSITY in our leadership. And I don't mean the Hijacked description of diversity called ethnic diversity.... I mean Intellectual Diversity and Diversity of Experience is even more important.

    We could start by Step 1. discounting political experience as a qualification to run for elected offices, especially discount lawyers --- instead of having lawyers be legislators - appoint them "Legal assistants" -- In other words, lawyers help to understand the laws but shouldn't have the role in decisionmaking.
    Step 2. Play up practical domain experience in decisionmaking, Get more scientists and engineers in office.
    Step 3. Implement Term limits for all legislator positions. You serve your 6 years house and/or 12 years senate, after leaving office you must take a 6 year break before running again, and that is IT... no more legislating for you.

  12. Re:So what if it was for tax purposes? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The word of caution is if you win that (Chances are you don't need to worry); people have very bad misfortunes, and are rarely happy - it can destroy family and relationships, many a lottery winner wound up bankrupt or committed suicide -- you are first of all best to keep your identity secret, because you're bound to have so many desperate people with all manner of sob stories coming to ask for a handout, that if you handed them $100 a piece, you'd be bankrupt.

    Take your winning ticket, lock it up securely in your safe: Don't tell a soul, and start contacting advisors to help setup the organizational Trust structure that will allow you to claim your winning ticket within the allowed time and remain anonymous and help you optimize your outcomes and happiness.

    By the way 40 Million X 1.09 ^ 65 = 10 Billion

    In other words... 9% Annualized returns over 65 years will do it.

    Interest rates are low these days, because of Fed and government meddling,
    that suppresses interest rates for debt and forces people to the higher-risk equities markets
    if you want to generate returns, but there have been times in the past where you
    could buy 40 Million worth of bonds and lock in a rate such as 12% - 15% interest.
    At 12% it would be 29 years to turn 40 Million into 10 Billion.

  13. The electoral college worked great! by tacokill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here in Oklahoma, we are thankful for the electoral college. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is it supposed to do, you ask? Simple: It's there to prevent tyranny of the majority so large population states, like California and New York, don't have an over weighted say vs smaller states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.

    If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.

    Sorry if you don't like it but it's the law of the land.....and for good reason.

    1. Re:The electoral college worked great! by tacokill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First, the states aren't just "geographic regions" inside a big national government. They are sovereign states and our national government is a republic of sovereign states. The history on that aspect is well covered and well litigated. (hint: It's the states rights vs federal government argument that you always hear about).

      The states are not just "artificial jurisdictional areas we call states". You grossly misrepresent their place in the pecking order.

      Thinking of the states from a sovereign perspective, Oklahoma has as much right to be represented in our national government as New York or California. Not more. But not less either. The electoral college and the senate are the most public examples of how we try to achieve that balance. We don't base it on population because NY and CA would always win.