Any profit made in a local bookstore meanwhile will support the jobs of more people and will be taxed and will recirculate when those employees spend that money. Its because they are part of society and pay their way that Amazon can undercut them.
Any profit made in a local bookstore meanwhile will support the jobs of more people and will be taxed and will recirculate when those employees spend that money. Its because they are part of society and pay their way that Amazon can undercut them.
1) The first part is exactly how the EU was designed: operate from one country, reduce your overhead. Maybe it is not Amazon's fault that they comply with the rules?
2) The second part is exactly how the Congress wanted its tax laws: if you bring money home, pay your taxes, if you don't, we are not involved. Maybe it is not Amazon's fault that they comply with the rules?
Not really. If that money is stored in a bank, most of it will be loaned out. If it is used to buy bonds (including but not limited to government bonds) then it goes to the issuer. And so on.
Even if Amazon actually removed it from the economy by putting it under Bezos' mattress, that would boost the value of all remaining fiat, increasing purchasing power for everyone else. So consumers would gain a temporary burst of value, which they can utilize today; when the state then devalues fiat over time, Amazon's money will lose value, while the consumer will have locked in that higher purchasing power.
There is no scenario under which Amazon actually hurts anybody by 'removing' money from the economy. Money and wealth are not fixed sums anyway.
See for example
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/wells-fargo-earnings-and-...
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/12/eu-banks-dijsselblo...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2014/07/11/str...
What actually happens is that Amazon makes no profit, and thus does not get taxed on profits. But it still pays VAT, Property, B&O, etc.
So the French subsidiary buys very expensive inputs from the Luxembourg subsidiary, meaning the French subsidiary doesn't show a profit, mon dieu how could that have happened, such a shame!
Fortunately, the Luxembourg subsidiary is very profitable, exclusively from "sales" to the French subsidiary.
Obviously all of this typically happens only on paper.
Say Starbucks-France makes 10 billion in profit in a year.
Then that year Starbucks-Luxembourg will send it an invoice saying "You owe us 10 billion for a license to use the name Starbucks".
That way SB-France, on paper, made no profit and pays no income tax.
The first problem seems better addressed by tax reform, since it impacts many industries other than book selling, and this measure won't stop it with Amazon anyhow.
The second problem is one of increased efficiency (to use an economist's definition) causing disruption. The French seem to have been resistant to that since the industrial revolution, so it might be helpful to understand this law in that context. It's hard to see how they're going to win that one in the long run, although prolonged skepticism to the benefits of efficiency might have helped create some of the social benefits in France. From the outside though it looks like this social bias has hurt France more than helped it (other countries have maintained robust social programmes without rejecting technological disruption) so I wouldn't welcome laws promoting it.
The third problem is not just a case of nationalism, but because it makes it harder to soften the blow of disruption by pointing to other local jobs in technology. It's comes down to an argument on globalization. The jury is still out on whether globalization will be a net positive or negative. To me it seems unstoppable, though, and I don't think it's wise to be on the wrong side of the trend.
Then when I snuff it, capital gains time...
So you'll be happy when they're all replaced by robots? This is Amazon, so that's going to happen fairly soon.