Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

itep.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 512 posts

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

#381

Post by pathseeker »

hjanssen wrote: post #264
mikestew wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They don't have fundamentally different jobs. They are there to represent their clients' interests and advocate for them.

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

#382

Post by refurb »

saberience wrote: post #287
refurb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regressive? The top 1% of earners paid the highest tax rate of 27.1%. The bottom 50% had an average tax rate of 3.5%.[1] [1] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-20...

It is absolutely regressive when the top earners, presumably earning millions more than I do, end up paying less tax than I do.

What if they are applying a carry loss forward that year? To account for all the money lost in an investment last year? Should we stop doing that?

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

#383

Post by pathseeker »

throwaway190102 wrote: post #356
pathseeker wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think payroll expenses are not a part of profit, so no double taxation here. The point is that any money that exits a corporation gets taxed again somewhere. So if a company does really well one year and makes a profit, it gets taxed on that profit even if it keeps it in the bank. Then they use that remaining profit to pay payroll next year and then employees or owners get taxed again.

I don't think that's quite how that works. But your point on double-taxation is certainly valid in some contexts.

It is exactly how it works. Apple has been taxed on the profits that make up their giant cash balance. Once that is paid out to investors through dividends or to employees through payrolls, it will get taxed again.

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

#384

Post by CharlesColeman »

beat wrote: post #337
CharlesColeman wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on #2, but not on #1. I think the correct reform of the corporate income tax is to abolish the "bazillion highly specific loopholes." If it was abolished entirely, I think you'd very quickly see corporations being set up and used purely to evade individual income tax, especially among the extremely wealthy. That said, I do think it makes sense to not tax money at the corporate level that's remitted a…

No one pays dividends these days anyway. It's all shifted to capital gains, to pumping the stock price rather than delivering profits.

If the tax treatment of dividends and capital gains changed, corporate practices would change to follow suit.

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

#385

Post by chrischen »

OrwellianChild wrote: post #363
anigbrowl wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no good reason investment income should be privileged over income from labor.

At risk of bottoming out on the threaded replies, I'd be interested in talking through how that would work... Let's say you wanted to give income from labor the same benefits as (negative) income from investments that lost money... How would you do that? Say I earn a healthy $250K/year at my W-2 job. If I buy a large house with the proceeds from my job, have I incurred a loss? How about if I eat out at an expensive r…

Regarding a house it would be considered an asset, similar to buying stock.

That being said a corporatiom is not a person, and cannot eat a fancy dinner, so much of their profit can only become reinvested back into paying people who ultimately get taxed for eating fancy dinners.

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

#386

Post by naasking »

ergothus wrote: post #269
naasking wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lobby…

> This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't

I don't see how. I just said their opinion shouldn't be ignored, which is what the OP was suggesting by banning corporations which represent large groups of shareholders and employees.

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

#387

Post by kamarg »

OrwellianChild wrote: post #363
anigbrowl wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no good reason investment income should be privileged over income from labor.

At risk of bottoming out on the threaded replies, I'd be interested in talking through how that would work... Let's say you wanted to give income from labor the same benefits as (negative) income from investments that lost money... How would you do that? Say I earn a healthy $250K/year at my W-2 job. If I buy a large house with the proceeds from my job, have I incurred a loss? How about if I eat out at an expensive r…

Aren't similar expenses be used by businesses? Bought an expensive building or paid for all your sales people to take clients out for dinner and drinks.

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

#388

Post by JDiculous »

chongli wrote: post #283
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Because a business isn't a person. Taxing a business is taking real money away from payrolls, money that would get taxed again anyway once it was paid out. Corporate income tax only makes sense when you look at it as a barrier to entry for competition in the marketplace. Big companies like Netflix know how to avoid taxes. Small companies don't.…

> Taxing a business is taking real money away from payrolls

By that same logic, taxing personal income is akin to taking money away from the goods/services/investments that that person would've spent that foregone income.

There's nothing special about businesses that warrants them special privileges.

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

#389

Post by sosborn »

syn0byte wrote: post #353
sosborn wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've voted in every election I since I turned 18 and nothing seems to have been done about this and many other things. It is also possible that the majority doesn't feel (read: vote) the same way about these issues as you. Would that mean that the system is flawed?

Results clearly indicate that isn't the case. EG the 2000 and 2016 elections. The level of cognitive dissonance the public has about politics is the most disheartening part of the whole burning shit show. Remember America; It's your own fault if he beats you, you made him do it.

How do those two elections show that? Because of the popular vote in the presidential elections? Don't forget that our representatives (the people who actually are responsible for legislation) are voted in directly. No electoral college for them.

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

#390

Post by JDiculous »

pathseeker wrote: post #341
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing a business is taking real money away from payrolls Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think payroll expenses are not a part of profit, so no double taxation here.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think payroll expenses are not a part of profit, so no double taxation here. The point is that any money that exits a corporation gets taxed again somewhere. So if a company does really well one year and makes a profit, it gets taxed on that profit even if it keeps it in the bank. Then they use that remaining profit to pay payroll next year and then employees or owners get taxed again.

Sales tax is a double-tax. So what?
Post reply on HN