Quote:WASHINGTON — President Trump escalated his attack on Amazon on Thursday, saying that the online behemoth does not pay enough taxes — and strongly suggesting that he may try to rein in the e-commerce business.
The president’s commentary was made in a Twitter post in which he accused Amazon of putting thousands of local retailers out of business and of using the United States Postal Service as “their Delivery Boy.”
Amazon and the company’s founder, Jeff Bezos, are among Mr. Trump’s regular Twitter targets. In December, Mr. Trump questioned whether the United States Post Office charges Amazon enough for package deliveries. And in August, Mr. Trump said Amazon hurts taxpaying businesses.
Amazon, however, does pay taxes — $412 million in 2016, for instance, according to the company’s report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mr. Trump has attacked Amazon on Twitter more than a dozen times since late 2015, months after he had launched his presidential campaign. Many of those tweets seem to have been prompted by critical coverage in The Washington Post, the news organization that Mr. Bezos acquired personally in 2013 for $250 million.
Now, I have my issues with Amazon, and were it no so damned convenient I would jettison them from my life. I don't think they pay enough in taxes, or enough to the USPS, or think that cities should be bending over backwards to give them tax breaks to allow them to come to set up shop in their borders. What I find interesting in this isn't even that the ire seems to be really rooted in the WaPo connection. My interest lies in his commentary during the debates when, called out for paying little to no taxes, he said that was "smart."
He's not wrong, that is how the system works and I don't begrudge anyone that follows the laws and does that. I think those loopholes should be closed. But he isn't doing that. He pushed a tax bill through that made corporations pay less in taxes. He isn't closing these gaps, he is increasing them. He only seems to be in favor of a market economy for those he agrees with. This is a dangerous path to go down.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Now, I have my issues with Amazon, and were it no so damned convenient I would jettison them from my life. I don't think they pay enough in taxes, or enough to the USPS, or think that cities should be bending over backwards to give them tax breaks to allow them to come to set up shop in their borders. What I find interesting in this isn't even that the ire seems to be really rooted in the WaPo connection. My interest lies in his commentary during the debates when, called out for paying little to no taxes, he said that was "smart."
He's not wrong, that is how the system works and I don't begrudge anyone that follows the laws and does that. I think those loopholes should be closed. But he isn't doing that. He pushed a tax bill through that made corporations pay less in taxes. He isn't closing these gaps, he is increasing them. He only seems to be in favor of a market economy for those he agrees with. This is a dangerous path to go down.
He is simply going after Amazon because their CEO has been outspoken about Trump. There are many large companies that don't pay enough in taxes including Trump and his own companies, however they haven't been as vocal against Trump and therefor they are not on his target to make an example of. The guy is petty, that is about the extent of this. Should Amazon pay more? Of course they should but so should many other companies, but that isn't what Trump's administration has shown they want to do as far as corporate Taxes.
Yes I see Amazon as evil and still use them constantly. It's just too damned easy.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(03-29-2018, 01:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes I see Amazon as evil and still use them constantly. It's just too damned easy.
It really is. It makes me so sad! The only thing I tell myself is that I use them primarily for books and movies, which I don't have a locally owned source for. I know that the reason I don't is because of the behemoths, but I need my books, damnit! I make an effort to order as much as possible from smaller companies or find a local place carrying it.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
If Trump would like to fix the system that allows giant companies to pay reduced taxes just because they bribe the best, then I would imagine lots of us would sing his praises.
But since this is probably just him lashing out at a guy who criticizes him, I don't think much of calling out one specific company.
Quote:On Friday morning, President Donald Trump decided to take on the U.S. Postal Service.
"Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer?" he wrote on Twitter. "Should be charging MUCH MORE!"
The tweet gave Trump the opportunity to slam Amazon (AMZN), which has been a frequent target of his ire. But with the tweet, the president also waded into a long-running, Byzantine debate over how much the Postal Service should charge for its services.
In short: Trump is likely right that the Postal Service charges less than it really costs to deliver packages, and Amazon is one of its biggest customers. But that's not the root of the agency's fiscal problems.
Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE! 9:04 AM - Dec 29, 2017
First of all, the U.S. Postal Service is unlike any other business. It has a government sanctioned monopoly over first-class mail, which it is obligated to send to every corner of the United States for the cost of a stamp.
At the same time, it competes with FedEx and UPS to deliver parcels — but its rates are approved by a board appointed by the president, and almost every aspect of its operations are governed by Congress.
With email replacing snail mail, that first-class mail business has declined dramatically — it's down by 40% since peaking in 2000. Meanwhile, the parcel delivery business has exploded. But the Postal Service hasn't been able to compensate for collapsing mail volumes due to a 2006 law that capped price increases at the rate of inflation and also limited the proportion of its budget that could be devoted to its parcel business.
Still, the Postal Service might be able to eke out a profit if it weren't for another way in which Congress has tied its hands: It requires the agency to pre-fund its retiree health benefits and count them as operating expenses. In fiscal 2016, the Postal Service brought in $69.4 billion in revenue, was liable for $5.8 billion in retiree health benefits and reported a $5.6 billion net loss.
It makes sense to look to package delivery as a way to turn those fortunes around.
An analyst note by Citigroup from April found that prices would have to go up by $1.41 per package in 2018 — or about 40% — to reflect the true cost of delivery. (Those calculations are based on an analysis by UPS (UPS), which along with FedEx (FDX) stands to gain enormously if the Postal Service raises its prices, so they should be taken with a grain of salt.)
That could be a big hit to Amazon, which is one of the largest users of that parcel delivery service. The Citigroup analysts estimate that would add $2.6 billion to its current shipping costs, an increase of about 28%. Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.
Perversely, that could end up benefiting the Seattle retail behemoth. According to Citigroup, Amazon already gets bulk pricing discounts because of its enormous volume, and is rapidly building out its own distribution network, which will give it more delivery options down the line. For that reason, the Citigroup analysts predict that a Postal Service price hike would hurt other retailers more than Amazon.
"Such a scenario should further increase Amazon's cost advantage to consumers," Citi's note reads. "While the higher shipping costs would likely hurt Amazon's margin in the short-term, increased purchase frequency and customer density should benefit margins over time."
In the short term, partially. The Postal Regulatory Commission just completed a year-long reviewof rate-setting policy, and recommended that the Postmaster General be given the authority to raise rates a couple percentage points above inflation, which could bring the agency closer to breakeven.
Meanwhile, the Postmaster General has urged passage of legislation pending in Congress that would give the agency more control over its operations and relieve it of the burden of pre-funding health benefits. Looking forward, a coalition of unions and public interest nonprofits have advocated for allowing the Postal Service to provide other services, such as banking, through its vast network of post offices.
Trump has sway over the Postal Service. He's made three board nominations, who are currently awaiting Senate action. By law, it's supposed to have nine appointed members, and currently it has none.
And more recently it turns out (shockingly) that Trump is wrong/doesn't understand what he is talking about:
Quote:President Trump fired off a tweet at Amazon on Thursday, alleging that, among other things, the company's use of the postal service causes "tremendous loss to the U.S."
Mr. Trump has previously blasted Amazon for making the postal service "dumber and poorer."
I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business! 7:57 AM - Mar 29, 2018
There is little to these claims. While the postal service is struggling, it's not because of Amazon. In fact, package delivery is one of the few lines of business that's growing.
The postal service has lost money for 11 straight years, mostly because of pension and health care costs. In 2017, the service lost $800 million on $69.7 billion operating revenue. Under a 2006 law, it must pre-fund 75 years' worth of retiree health benefits. Neither the government nor private companies are required to do that. (It has defaulted on those payments periodically, with the last one made in 2015).
A widely cited Citigroup analysis from last year holds that the "true" cost of shipping packages for the Postal Service is about 50 percent higher than what it currently charges. "It is as if every Amazon box comes with a dollar or two stapled to the packing slip -- a gift card from Uncle Sam," read the ensuing editorials.
But Citi arrived at that figure by re-allocating the Post Office's benefits costs -- not the costs specific to package delivery.
The 2006 law also mandated that each line of business within the postal service cover its attributable costs. In other words, for the postal service to lose money on package delivery would be against the law.
How much does Amazon pay the postal service? Amazon ships enough with the post office to qualify for bulk rates, giving it a significant volume discount that varies depending on package weight and number. (Here are the postal service's latest rates.)
Amazon uses FedEx and UPS as well as well as its own fleet of carriers, but it often relies on the post office for 'last mile' delivery -- bringing a package to a customer's door.
The post office in 2013 started to make Amazon deliveries on Sunday, but the agreement detailing those arrangements remains heavily redacted.
Amazon has denied benefiting from postal service favoritism. "The Postal Regulatory Commission has consistently found that Amazon's contracts with the USPS are profitable," the company told Fortune last year.
Packages and shipping are one area that's growing for the postal service, bringing in more than $19 billion in revenue last year even as volume of letters and magazines declined. In fact, its projected revenue growth "is driven entirely by increases in shipping and packages," the postal service said in its latest annual report.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
I don't know why the post office is regulated as far as parcels go since they don't have a monopoly there.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(03-30-2018, 12:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Amazon will eventually be doing their own shipping. This whole anti amazon thing by trump is dumb. They in fact make our lives easier.
As far as the Usps..... I wonder how much amazon shipping is propping them up. If amazon did their own shipping how much would the Usps lose.
Trump’s complaint is the Washington post and their nonsense.
I agree with this.
But the question about the USPS is answered in the links above.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
So they are in the red so my stupid brother-in-law can get a pension for walking around the neighborhood?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(03-30-2018, 12:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: My Usps comment was more facetious. They are close to becoming irrelevant
Should everyone have equal access to mail services?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(03-30-2018, 01:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They already do. Anyone can call fed ex, ups, Dhl, etc anytime the need.
That's not equity, though. The affordability of sending a letter allows for much easier access. Ive we rely only on private companies, then there are people for whom it would become cost prohibitive. Also, there are plenty of people without easy access to a location for those companies, and they aren't going to build in places it isn't profitable.
Mail services like this was seen as a public good, and that is why the federal government took it on. If we rid ourselves of a public mail service, we just have to reevaluate the need for equal access to mail services in today's society.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(03-30-2018, 01:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's not equity, though. The affordability of sending a letter allows for much easier access. Ive we rely only on private companies, then there are people for whom it would become cost prohibitive. Also, there are plenty of people without easy access to a location for those companies, and they aren't going to build in places it isn't profitable.
Mail services like this was seen as a public good, and that is why the federal government took it on. If we rid ourselves of a public mail service, we just have to reevaluate the need for equal access to mail services in today's society.
If you have a phone or internet you can mail something with at least one of those non usps options.
You can just say you want the government handling the shipping and mail. Most of us are ready to let the market take over. Maybe more open up.
(03-30-2018, 03:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you have a phone or internet you can mail something with at least one of those non usps options.
You can just say you want the government handling the shipping and mail. Most of us are ready to let the market take over. Maybe more open up.
I'm just explaining why the USPS is around. I've had interesting conversations about whether or not we should consider it a public good any longer. Truthfully, I haven't decided.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
It's just too damned easy.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: kUuht00m_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_normal.jpg)
