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

411–420 of 512 posts

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

#411

Post by prostoalex »

anigbrowl wrote: post #350
OrwellianChild wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the average worker has any stock or index fund investments, that worker absolutely can take advantage of this (in the U.S.). It's called tax-loss harvesting - worth reading about here [1]. [1] https://www.madfientist.com/tax-loss-harvesting/

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

During low-inflation years - no.

The lenient rates were introduced during high-inflation years. If somebody was pursuing a long-term project spanning over several years (let's say, building a new apartment complex), high punitive tax rates at liquidity time (let's say, 5 years down the road) combined with decreased buying would obliterate any real profitability.

The 12-month cut-off window, though, seems completely arbitrary.

The argument is kinda moot anyways, as capital gains are completely voluntary - one sells when they want to sell. If they don't want to sell, but need liquidity, they can access a bunch of asset-backed loans (HELOCs, PALs, cashout refinance, etc.) Ken Fisher in his book "Debunkery" (and I'm sure the data exists elsewhere) shows how total revenue figures collected by US government do not change over decades, regardless of the actual capital gains rates.

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

#412

Post by njarboe »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #261
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?…

>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.

A huge amount of tax code complications and unfairness is due to the fact that companies get taxed on profit while people are taxed on income. People then try and have their spending done by their companies instead of personally. Mostly this is only possible for wealthy people.

We should really tax companies on income to eliminate this unfixable situation. Fiddling with the tax code will not work. Personally, I would like this problem solved by a national land tax and the permanent elimination of the income tax by constitutional amendment. People trading with each other is a win/win situation. We should encourage that, not tax it.

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

#413

Post by anonymous5133 »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #261
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?…

>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.

The reason it is like that is because the United States wants to encourage business activity in this country, so they make businesses have preferential tax systems.

but I agree with your overall statements - the rates and tax system for personal individuals is ridiculous and it gets worse the more income you make. For me personally, I intentionally took a demotion (and pay cut) because it isn't worth the sacrifices you have to do to get the higher salary. More stress, more responsibility, more extra unpaid overtime you have to work, more headaches etc. SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. Then what is the reward for all this extra headaches....you get 50% of the pay raise. So I said forget about it. The extra money isn't worth it if you only keep 50%.

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

#414

Post by kelnos »

MetalGuru wrote: post #343
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?…

Do losses actually carry forward in full like you're describing? I was under the impression there was an annual limit in the amount you can deduct. For an individual, that limit is $3k.

No, for individuals the limit on losses that you can deduct is the amount of your gains, plus $3k. If the entirety of your income comes from investments, you could certainly end up paying no tax if your capital losses cancel out your capital gains, regardless of the magnitude of each. The $3k you can deduct past that is a nice bonus.

And even for individuals, losses over that $3k can be carried forward indefinitely to future years.

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

#415

Post by objektif »

chongli wrote: post #334
deeviant wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except a large portion of revenue does not go to workers, but to shareholders, who pay far less taxes then those who strain their backs in creating said revenue.

Lots of people love to throw around the word "shareholders" like it's a pejorative. The word seems to carry connotations of greedy old Uncle Scrooge, Uncle Pennybags, or some spoiled Saudi Prince. That's a highly distorted view. Lots of "shareholders" are people's retirement funds, pensions, and the like. When those funds finally pay out, they get taxed as income just like for everybody else.

Most stocks hold by Americans are owned by the top 10%. Unfortunately this libertarian trickle down fantasy of trickle down economics is not correct.

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

#416

Post by Spivak »

anigbrowl wrote: post #350
OrwellianChild wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the average worker has any stock or index fund investments, that worker absolutely can take advantage of this (in the U.S.). It's called tax-loss harvesting - worth reading about here [1]. [1] https://www.madfientist.com/tax-loss-harvesting/

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

I think if you could separate out your income into business and personal expenses then I think you have a case for that kind of tax policy since you would be 'investing in yourself' but the current tax system covers a lot of that with deductions.

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

#417

Post by anonymous5133 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #350
OrwellianChild wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the average worker has any stock or index fund investments, that worker absolutely can take advantage of this (in the U.S.). It's called tax-loss harvesting - worth reading about here [1]. [1] https://www.madfientist.com/tax-loss-harvesting/

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

lol yes there is. If investment income is taxed at 50% (top federal bracket + top state income tax rate) then who in their right mind is going to risk their capital? lol, I know I absolutely wouldn't.

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

#418

Post by objektif »

SilasX wrote: post #403
awakeasleep wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is a form of 'this is too complicated for you to understand' .. aka bullshit. The average joe doesn't need to grok the whole tax code to know it's wrong when one of the most high profile profitable companies doesn't pay any income tax. That indicates the system is fucked. There isn't a technicality in the universe that will indicate that somehow our perception is wrong.

No, it's the opposite. It's saying, "get the facts first", and I gave a few examples (some positive and some negative), at a high level of abstraction, of what would and wouldn't be objectionable. I completely agree that you shouldn't need to know the whole tax code to say, "deducting arbitrary figures for payments to a foreign subsidiary shouldn't be allowed and is shady". But "profits didn't cancel out recent losse…

It is really contreversial to have a defensive tone when it comes to corporate taxes. Tell me a year you made money and paid 0 taxes. Or anyone? Why cant we have a sceptical approach when the topic in question is large corps?

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

#419

Post by kelnos »

sigzero wrote: post #241
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…

So a Union could not lobby then in your world.

No, but the union could ask their members to lobby on behalf of themselves toward a common goal. As long as that lobbying isn't a requirement for membership or influence in the org, I see no problem with that.

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

#420

Post by notahacker »

brianpgordon wrote: post #249
stale2002 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. A "corporation" isn't a thing that exists in the world. They don't have mouths, and can't speak, so it makes no sense to outlaw their ability to use the mouth that they don't have. There are people in the world. As well as groups of people. A corporation is merely the pural of person. Each person in that corporation…

This argument is facile. There's an obvious and clear difference between a person representing their own interests and a person paid by a corporation specifically to advance its interests.

It's not a difference which is easy to legislate without unintended consequences (people's own interests frequently overlap with those of their employer, and most people with informed opinions on the implications of a policy are in employed in areas not unlinked to that policy).

What is facile is to argue that a law which simply bans corporations from hiring people describing themselves as lobbyists or government relations professionals will have any real world effect, or to pretend that there are no possible downsides from legislation which might prevent organisations like the EFF from existing or ensure that healthcare professionals are unable to make representations about healthcare to politicians.

Post reply on HN