Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I have a wish-list buy order in for this stock, but it still has to drop around 18% before it kicks in. That would bring it back to it's Oct. 2017 price range. Keep up the tweets!!!
Trump tweeted that the liberal media, Washington Post owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon had too many not so nice articles about the administration. When it comes to destroying small businesses, Walmart is often to blame while many of these small business sell their products through Amazon.
Also Amazon pays their fair share of tax just like other large companies. The the fact is twisted.
If one gets past the political rhetoric, it's a bit more complicated than that.
"Paying taxes" makes it sound like Amazon, Wayfair, Overstock.com, and Newegg are required to pony up tax money for their business. It is better to say that they they are required to act as tax collection agents for the state - collecting sales appropriate sales tax and remitting what they collect to the states.
Even the Fortune article says that Amazon does not always do this, so it is not "paying" its fair share. Though the amount of underpayment is relatively small, since it is only failing to collect local (not state) taxes in a limited number of locales.
The Fortune article adds its own bit of confusion. One the one hand it says that that if the Supreme Court overrules Quill Corp. v. Heitkamp (which it called Quill v. Wayfair, conflating two different cases), states will have an easier time collecting internet sales tax. In that case, the SC said that states couldn't require companies to collect tax on internet sales unless a company had a physical presence in the state. On the other hand, Fortune says that pointing out that there is no general internet sales tax (which it just did itself by referencing Quill) adds misdirection.
The current law is that individual states have "Amazon Laws" - where they require companies doing a certain level of business in the state to collect sales tax for the state. Rather than requiring a physical "nexus" (connection) to the state, these laws require only a significant economic nexus (level of in-state sales). Amazon substantially complies with these laws.
There's an irony here. The SC case mentioned in the Fortune article that will be heard April 17 is South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (That's the case Fortune conflated with Quill v. Heitkamp.)
SD took advantage of the fact that other states could not impose their own laws (protecting consumers) on these out of state, South Dakotan bank entities. Now it is suing to impose its own sales tax laws on retailers in other states. It wants to extend its own arm into other states (taxing their retailers), but doesn't want other states extending their arms into businesses based in SD (limiting what interest they can charge).
Also, hasn't Trump been saying that the federal government should stay out of state and local issues? Collecting regional sales taxes, protecting unarmed people from getting shot by local police. All politics is local.
The sad fact(s) that affect a company as Amazon and now related tech. sector companies, which of course, affects one's investments in a variety of equity holding types; is that this country has a physical sized adult, with child like behaviors presenting daily distractions in an attempt to misdirect attentions. While I find this behavior fully disgusting, regardless of political party affiliation; I remain optimistic, as to positive outcomes for the majority of tech. related. There may be other forces that come into play for the financial markets in general, and tech. may flat line for a period; but I don't believe the majority of large tech. to be in the same boat as during the dot.com bubble. Today's companies have real business models with real earnings. Were techs. overpriced? Perhaps. Regardless of the recent sell down in tech.; I suspect the major trading houses also have a forward positive view for large tech. I have money in the game, too; as with all here. Aside from whatever else worries the POTUS at this time; envy of the monetary worth of others may likely also cause him to be "plain angry" for no good real reason; aside from pure ENVY.
Lastly, to all of our investments being affected by machinations from DC-land; I have wondered whether a message has been delivered by whatever method, from a Chinese official, as to: "This tariff thing is dangerous, agreed? If necessary, we can always purchase the proper futures contracts for Treasury bonds, and begin to unload our U.S. Treasury holdings. We've already made money from holding these issues over the years and will make more money on the sell side, too." Let us discover what comes from upcoming announcements regarding tariffs upon what products. Maybe we're inside of a virtual game, in an alternate universe, of the "Apprentice" and don't realize, eh?
I am reminded of the movie, "War Games" and the computer, WOPR; asking, "Do you want to play a game?"
We remain living in dangerous times, eh? I've chores to get started and finished. Take care of yourselves, Catch
Comments
"Amazon's pain, a-hem!"
http://theweek.com/articles/764069/why-dismantling-amazon-really-could-rescue-trump-country
Also Amazon pays their fair share of tax just like other large companies. The the fact is twisted.
"Paying taxes" makes it sound like Amazon, Wayfair, Overstock.com, and Newegg are required to pony up tax money for their business. It is better to say that they they are required to act as tax collection agents for the state - collecting sales appropriate sales tax and remitting what they collect to the states.
Even the Fortune article says that Amazon does not always do this, so it is not "paying" its fair share. Though the amount of underpayment is relatively small, since it is only failing to collect local (not state) taxes in a limited number of locales.
The Fortune article adds its own bit of confusion. One the one hand it says that that if the Supreme Court overrules Quill Corp. v. Heitkamp (which it called Quill v. Wayfair, conflating two different cases), states will have an easier time collecting internet sales tax. In that case, the SC said that states couldn't require companies to collect tax on internet sales unless a company had a physical presence in the state. On the other hand, Fortune says that pointing out that there is no general internet sales tax (which it just did itself by referencing Quill) adds misdirection.
The current law is that individual states have "Amazon Laws" - where they require companies doing a certain level of business in the state to collect sales tax for the state. Rather than requiring a physical "nexus" (connection) to the state, these laws require only a significant economic nexus (level of in-state sales). Amazon substantially complies with these laws.
There's an irony here. The SC case mentioned in the Fortune article that will be heard April 17 is South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (That's the case Fortune conflated with Quill v. Heitkamp.)
South Dakota is the state that facilitated Citibank and other banks charging outrageous interest rates on credit cards, by doing away with its usury laws. Banks with credit card divisions in SD were, and are, able to charge whatever SD allows.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/07/how-citibank-made-south-dakota-the-top-state-in-the-us-for-business/425661/
SD took advantage of the fact that other states could not impose their own laws (protecting consumers) on these out of state, South Dakotan bank entities. Now it is suing to impose its own sales tax laws on retailers in other states. It wants to extend its own arm into other states (taxing their retailers), but doesn't want other states extending their arms into businesses based in SD (limiting what interest they can charge).
Also, hasn't Trump been saying that the federal government should stay out of state and local issues? Collecting regional sales taxes, protecting unarmed people from getting shot by local police. All politics is local.
While I find this behavior fully disgusting, regardless of political party affiliation; I remain optimistic, as to positive outcomes for the majority of tech. related. There may be other forces that come into play for the financial markets in general, and tech. may flat line for a period; but I don't believe the majority of large tech. to be in the same boat as during the dot.com bubble. Today's companies have real business models with real earnings. Were techs. overpriced? Perhaps.
Regardless of the recent sell down in tech.; I suspect the major trading houses also have a forward positive view for large tech.
I have money in the game, too; as with all here.
Aside from whatever else worries the POTUS at this time; envy of the monetary worth of others may likely also cause him to be "plain angry" for no good real reason; aside from pure ENVY.
Lastly, to all of our investments being affected by machinations from DC-land; I have wondered whether a message has been delivered by whatever method, from a Chinese official, as to: "This tariff thing is dangerous, agreed? If necessary, we can always purchase the proper futures contracts for Treasury bonds, and begin to unload our U.S. Treasury holdings. We've already made money from holding these issues over the years and will make more money on the sell side, too."
Let us discover what comes from upcoming announcements regarding tariffs upon what products. Maybe we're inside of a virtual game, in an alternate universe, of the "Apprentice" and don't realize, eh?
I am reminded of the movie, "War Games" and the computer, WOPR; asking, "Do you want to play a game?"
We remain living in dangerous times, eh?
I've chores to get started and finished.
Take care of yourselves,
Catch