Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#261

Post by PurpleBoxDragon » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #189

otachack wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Companies lobby to keep, even coerce, laws that benefit them and allow these sorts of things to happen. What is the common person, or collection of persons, supposed to do when they are against that kind of force? I believe one way is to actually be involved in politics and get into the seats that govern and make the laws. But it's easier said than done.

It is that simple (in the sense of the parent's post): you need to know the specifics of why they were paying no taxes. If, as in the comment, they were carrying over losses, then there's nothing really objectionable. You lost $10 million last year. You profited $10 million this year. Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. Did they get a specific exemption against the public interest that no one else got?…

>Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable.

The average worker isn't allowed to do that even when they lose money in a given year. Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Maybe the time is to just remove the loopholes in general from both business and personal income taxes.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#262

Post by Zanni » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #48

driverdan wrote: post #34

Rather than being outraged at the headline, what are the actual details? Why were they able to pay no taxes? Was it due to carried losses or something like that? Anyone mad at a company for not pay taxes is misdirecting their anger. Companies follow the law. If you don't like the law elect different politicians. Don't get mad at companies that follow the law.

If I spend a few million to get some lawyers to work out a legal loophole that means I can murder someone and get away with it that wouldn't make it OK to actually do it. The same applies to tax avoidance. It might be legal but it's still wrong .

Here are some "loopholes" you can use to legally get away with "murder": 1) be an executioner, performing a state-sanctioned execution, 2) be a member of the military and kill an enemy combatant, 3) be a doctor performing an assisted suicide in a jurisdiction where that's legal, 4) defend yourself from a violent crime in progress.

You might argue that none of those are actually "murder," but in fact legal "killing." I'd agree. I'd counter that a "legal loophole," is the same idea. The operative word is "legal," and "loophole" is tossed on to spark outrage.

There's also an argument to be made, that some of the legal killings I've described are morally wrong. That's a subject of much debate. You're welcome to hold yourself to a higher standard than the law requires, or to lobby to change the law, but we have laws so that people are not subject to the individual morality of everyone, but on the consensus we come to as a nation.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#263

Post by theartfuldodger » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

anth_anm wrote: post #240

SilasX wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is that simple (in the sense of the parent's post): you need to know the specifics of why they were paying no taxes. If, as in the comment, they were carrying over losses, then there's nothing really objectionable. You lost $10 million last year. You profited $10 million this year. Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. Did they get a specific exemption against the public interest that no one else got?…

> If, as in the comment, they were carrying over losses, then there's nothing really objectionable I find that objectionable.

Why?

Profits should follow arbitrary calendar years?

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#264

Post by hjanssen » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #232

hjanssen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you trying to say with that?

I'm saying that "airing grievances" "for money" has prior art. I'm a busy person, and the opinion stated says that it should be illegal for me to hire a person to represent my views before, say, a congressperson. Or it should be illegal to hire a person more eloquent than myself to state my case; a professional, as it were. We hire lawyers because navigating the law is difficult. Should we not also be allowed to hire…

I still fail to see your point. A lobbyist still has a fundamentally different job than a lawyer, and they both use fundamentally different tactics to reach fundamentally different goals.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#265

Post by wool_gather » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

norswap wrote: post #181

AlexB138 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more. When you think there are simple answers to big problems it's generally because you don't actually understand the problem. How would you outlaw lobbyists? Setting aside the fact that it would be unconstitutional, do you think it should be illegal for you to air your grievances to elec…

Would it really be unconstitutional? The right of petition cannot abrogated, but surely one can outlaw the exchange of political favors for money or other forms of compensations. Yes, actually showing that political favors were exchanged for money is tricky, but still, it's better than nothing and it changes the whole discussion from "it's the system" to "who's doing something bad and hiding it?".

> outlaw the exchange of political favors for money or other forms of compensations

?

This is already illegal. It's generally termed "corruption".

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#266

Post by natalyarostova » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

druddha wrote: post #64

natalyarostova wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argument by contrived analogy is so awful.

Can you explain why you think that analogy is contrived?

I think the argument is contrived because loop holes for murder don't exist for a reason, which is that the electoral connection -> legislative process essentially leaves zero room for there to be such a loophole. In fact, concepts such as the intended meaning of the law mean that even if you hacked some edge case in the written law, you'd still go to jail.

Conversely, tax law operates under a general regime where the expected and encouraged behavior of firms is to do their best to avoid paying taxes. In fact, maximizing share-holder value is even legally required (if blatantly ignored the firm is open to lawsuit).

More generally, analogy is an attempt to model one unknown phenomena, by claiming it is actually just a subset in the core abstract moral dimensions as another obvious and solved phenomena. While making comparisons isn't always bad, In practice it frequently seems to obfuscate or wash away really critical idiosyncratic differences (e.g. what I alluded to above) and as a result over-simplifies often complex topics.

The original point was really just 'legality is not the same thing as morality,' which is fine, I think most people agree with that. The question is how and does that concept apply in this given case, and I think to address that question properly requires engaging with the specific details.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#267

Post by Xixi » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #247

AlexB138 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more. When you think there are simple answers to big problems it's generally because you don't actually understand the problem. How would you outlaw lobbyists? Setting aside the fact that it would be unconstitutional, do you think it should be illegal for you to air your grievances to elec…

Just outlaw legislation written by lobbyists. If Congressmen have to do the actual work of writing, it would end up being simpler than the specially crafted 500pg bills nobody reads. It isn't too much to ask elected officials to do the work they signed up for.

What you are saying is quite interesting: basically if lawmakers need to have the skill of writing laws, then it means that they must be very educated in law matters. Lawyers, basically, which makes a lot of sense. But on the other hand if you restrict congressmanship (is that a word?) to such a small and biased sample of the population, how are they supposed to understand the actual problems of the population at large?

It is the very problem of representative democracy: elected officials need to form an elite of superior intelligence and ability to comprehend the world, yet at the same time be firmly grounded in the reality of everyday people to understand their problems and represent them...

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#268

Post by jstarfish » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

darkpuma wrote: post #149

citilife wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not siding one way or the other, that will definitely limit the amount of expertise that comes with a Congressman/Congresswoman. Think about it, it takes at least six months for us to learn our jobs, they have to learn about hundreds of things ongoing in the government before they can make informed decisions. You then even rely more on lobbyists (or "experts") who at least generally know what they are talking about.…

If the lobbyists are merely providing a service to politicians, then why are they paying politicians instead of politicians paying them?

It's sales. You spend money wining, dining or bribing a client and hope it pays off later.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#269

Post by ergothus » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #227

undecisive wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the fact that many countries have ways of limiting lobbyist influence through law, a simple but dramatic way would be to say: 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. 1. Anyone who wishes to "lobby" congressional candidates or congresspersons must register their financial interests 2. Make it illegal to directly accept money for lobbying services…

> 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? Lobbying for them means designating a representative. How is that any different from what corporations are doing? They just happen to have deeper pockets. Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important . It means they reflect an important as…

> Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects.

This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't. - In my "if the world were simple" dreams I'd say something like "every voter can spend $200 - any lobbying group or corp can spend that $200 IN THEIR NAME, but then no one else, including that voter, can. Corps/groups can still raise money and represent their members (who don't have to each spend that money) but it doesn't make a small group of wealthy voters look like a big group of voters. The groups/corps would have to make sure they represented the views of their members, or those members would start revoking their permissions."

Of course, the world isn't that simple, but that sums up my views on money in politics.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#270

Post by moorhosj » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #201

moorhosj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==They're certainly not subject matter experts in anything outside that realm.== Except many of them clearly are. Bill Foster worked as a particle physicist at Fermilab for 22 years [1]. Sean Casten started and sold an energy recycling company called Recycled Energy Development [2]. Those are two examples just from suburban Chicago. Try not to let political cynicism cloud reality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi…

> Except many of them clearly are. How many? And I think it's particularly telling that the folks you managed to find are newbies to the political arena and not career politicians, a class of individuals that can only exist thanks to the absence of term limits. Also telling is that in Foster's case, his expertise is completely useless in a political context. Let me know when he gets around to drafting a major particl…

==How many?==

I'm not sure, I provided two examples to prove your assertion wrong. Surely, you can find more if you look.

== And I think it's particularly telling that the folks you managed to find are newbies to the political arena and not career politicians==

Can you name a career field where experience is considered a bad thing? Does your career have term limits, would people be more effective at it if they did? The free market seems to pay specialists more than generalists, due to higher perceived value.

Politics is the only place I have ever heard this argument. Foster was first elected in 2008, so he's hardly a "newbie".

==Also telling is that in Foster's case, his expertise is completely useless in a political context. Let me know when he gets around to drafting a major particle physics bill.==

Huh? The House holds the purse strings and decides funding on things like the Energy Department, which funds Fermilab, or NASA. I think he might have something to add in that arena.