151–160 of 404 posts
I don't really have an issue with this. 1% tax is more than sufficient to run this country. The first step to a balanced budget is to stop impulse spending on dumb stuff. My only gripe is I'm not allowed to pay a 1% tax, as I should be.
The problem is that 'dumb stuff' is different for everyone when it comes to country level expenditures.
Netflix recorded a worldwide income tax accounting expense of about 13.7% last year ($438M on $3.2B of Net Income). It also paid cash taxes of $292M (cash taxes differ from accounting taxes because of timing issues - just like revenue is not the same as cash-in). A lot of growing companies have US taxes that are quite low because they lose money for a long time while they're investing in growth. When they finally bec…
I wonder what would happen if an entirely new approach to taxation were tested. A jury of 12 random people would inspect a companies accounts, assets etc and decide if the tax paid is "fair". The jury would have no training in tax matters, but would be presented documents produced by the government and the company to argue their cases. If the tax paid is found to be unfair by the jury, the company gets nationalised w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Human beings cannot do the equivalent. Spend the entirety of your 20s making very little money because you are investing in growth That’s not really an equivalent, though. These companies aren’t simply giving up opportunity cost. They’re spending real money on real R&D expenditures. In software, that R&D expenditure is largely wages for developers like us. The tax code gives companies benefits for spending this R&D…
That doctor is spending real money on attending medical school, which pays professors. It is an equivalent.
Deducting every cost associated with a job would be a huge tax benefit that simply doesn’t apply to people. It’s one of the ways that referring to tax burdens based on income as defined by the tax code is misleading.
Netflix recorded a worldwide income tax accounting expense of about 13.7% last year ($438M on $3.2B of Net Income). It also paid cash taxes of $292M (cash taxes differ from accounting taxes because of timing issues - just like revenue is not the same as cash-in). A lot of growing companies have US taxes that are quite low because they lose money for a long time while they're investing in growth. When they finally bec…
Adding one thing: in the past, mega-companies spent money on tangible assets which were depreciated over time as they produced income. Now mega-companies spend money on intangible assets but they can expense immediately, so tax is deferred and they can grow without that tax friction. Dollars spent are the same, but expensing is accelerated, shrinking tax and unleashing growth, and the cycle continues. It’s kind of a…
Netflix recorded a worldwide income tax accounting expense of about 13.7% last year ($438M on $3.2B of Net Income). It also paid cash taxes of $292M (cash taxes differ from accounting taxes because of timing issues - just like revenue is not the same as cash-in). A lot of growing companies have US taxes that are quite low because they lose money for a long time while they're investing in growth. When they finally bec…
I wonder what would happen if an entirely new approach to taxation were tested. A jury of 12 random people would inspect a companies accounts, assets etc and decide if the tax paid is "fair". The jury would have no training in tax matters, but would be presented documents produced by the government and the company to argue their cases. If the tax paid is found to be unfair by the jury, the company gets nationalised w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of growing companies have US taxes that are quite low because they lose money for a long time while they're investing in growth. When they finally become profitable, they're allowed to roll forward those losses (within limits) to offset their profits. Human beings cannot do the equivalent. Spend the entirety of your 20s making very little money because you are investing in growth and then make $800k as an ort…
The purpose is to equalize the amount of tax that companies pay. Consider the following example: Assuming a tax rate of 30%, Company A has net income (profit) of $100 in year 1 and $100 in year two pays $60 in tax on a total profit of $200. Company B has a net loss of $100 in year 1 and net income of $300 ni year 2 has a total profit still of $200. Assuming loss carryforwards are allowed, Company B pays $60 in tax st…
Here’s another example of where it could help. Take two men, one earns $75k/year (let’s say inflation adjusted) for thirty years as a bus driver. The other plays in the NFL for 1 year makes $2MM and thereafter only makes $250k over the next twenty five years. They’ve made the same amount of money over their lifetimes but the second man paid much higher taxes.
This is crazy how economy is tilted in favour of these big corporations. If you are a worker, it is not uncommon to pay over 40% of tax and if you work on your own small business you can pay even more and have very little left to reinvest. Then you have progressive tax that is preventing you from saving much - if you want to save for a deposit to buy a house, spend time on education and getting a better job, you'll g…
Yes, but... Decades and decades ago, corporations paid most of the tax. People paid very little. Then things shifted. Instead of taxing corporations, people were taxed. Said people, with less money in their pocket, required raises. And so, over time, tax shifted from corporate to personal, but with people in the end taking home approximately as much as they had before. For example, you have $60k pretax, $50k take hom…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Human beings cannot do the equivalent. Spend the entirety of your 20s making very little money because you are investing in growth That’s not really an equivalent, though. These companies aren’t simply giving up opportunity cost. They’re spending real money on real R&D expenditures. In software, that R&D expenditure is largely wages for developers like us. The tax code gives companies benefits for spending this R&D…
That doctor is spending real money on attending medical school, which pays professors. It is an equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Progressive tax ensures that person from poor background will stay poor. How so? With progressive tax there is no point at which you make less money than if you had less income.
If you are paying 40%-50% you will never move up classes. It is a tool to prevent the middle class from reaching rich person status. For the poorest many are paying no or little income taxes so the income is the issue not the taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't really equivalent. The current maximum deduction for tuition is 4000$, and that gets phased out at incomes above ~150000$ if you are filing jointly. I have no idea what the limit on a corporation carrying forward losses is, but I'm sure the percentage is significantly greater. Yes, individuals can save on taxes, but can most of us get an effective tax rate of 1%? And, many of the common deductions (mortgag…
Why should there be a cap on carrying forward losses? There’s no cap on individuals carrying forward capital losses.