31–40 of 75 posts
Deprecation, loss, etc. Standard for every company. Is this supposed to be an own or something?
That Apple, Google, Amazon, etc do not pay their taxes either makes it worse not better.
The rich have accumulated a lot of money, that is killing the economic system. Redistribution of that wealth is needed for the system to continue working, and taxation is part of the solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are taxable events for the people who sell the shares Tesla is buying back. > Then you can also take loans based off of that to make sure you never have to pay taxes again. You can borrow against the after tax amount yes, you'll pay interest on it and when you die, you will pay the capital gains. On your final tax return, you are required to pay taxes on all of the capital gains you up to your departure. This r…
"Those are taxable events for the people who sell the shares Tesla is buying back." But in which jurisdictions is that tax payable, and at what rates?
So I pay more taxes than one of the highest-valued companies in the world? sure the system works well
Corporate tax is quite misunderstood in my opinion. Tesla makes revenue, and they have costs. Their revenues are offset by their costs. Any profit Tesla makes is eventually taxed -- either when Tesla shareholders sell appreciated stock, when the company makes distributions or when they liquidate. Corporate tax only applies to un-distributed profits carried forward from year to year instead of invested into the busine…
So I pay more taxes than one of the highest-valued companies in the world? sure the system works well
Corporate tax is quite misunderstood in my opinion. Tesla makes revenue, and they have costs. Their revenues are offset by their costs. Any profit Tesla makes is eventually taxed -- either when Tesla shareholders sell appreciated stock, when the company makes distributions or when they liquidate. Corporate tax only applies to un-distributed profits carried forward from year to year instead of invested into the busine…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Socialism for the big, capitalism for the rest.
I think capitalism or socialism are neither problem nor solution; they're just tools, frameworks. The problem is greed and our willingness to accept it.
And socialism based on the idea that everyone is greedy and we should prevent that for betterment of everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporate tax is quite misunderstood in my opinion. Tesla makes revenue, and they have costs. Their revenues are offset by their costs. Any profit Tesla makes is eventually taxed -- either when Tesla shareholders sell appreciated stock, when the company makes distributions or when they liquidate. Corporate tax only applies to un-distributed profits carried forward from year to year instead of invested into the busine…
My sense about Tesla: They have nearly all of their R&D in the United States, but they have large global footprint with very large factories in Germany and China. I think a lot of the US-based R&D costs can by used to offset US-based income. Also, does "income" mean "profits" in this context? It is unclear to me. They did not clearly define the term.
Net income. The article's $2.3bn 2024 "U.S. income" lines up with Tesla's (global) $2.32bn net income (on $1.6bn operating income) [1].
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/29/tesla-tsla-2024-q4-earnings....
So I pay more taxes than one of the highest-valued companies in the world? sure the system works well
Corporate tax is quite misunderstood in my opinion. Tesla makes revenue, and they have costs. Their revenues are offset by their costs. Any profit Tesla makes is eventually taxed -- either when Tesla shareholders sell appreciated stock, when the company makes distributions or when they liquidate. Corporate tax only applies to un-distributed profits carried forward from year to year instead of invested into the busine…
Yeah, it's mechanically different from individual income taxes, but in general Americans don't know how taxes work.
I've had coworkers in the past who believed that if you made juuust enough money to enter a new income tax bracket, you'd actually have less take-home than before. They thought that the entire income was taxed at a new rate, instead of just the marginal dollars that spilled into the new bracket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least today the corporate tax rate is 21%. Individual tax rates in California are as high as like 52%. In almost every scenario you'll see a higher rate on the distributions and buybacks than you would carrying it forward to the following year. I guess you could make a case for double-taxation but... why?
> Individual tax rates in California are as high as like 52%. Is that a marginal tax rate (not very useful for comparison) or an effective tax rate? Also, can you explain why income level is required to achieve 52% "individual tax rate"?
Can it also be an effective rate, yes, pretty close anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations get to pay their costs before paying taxes on what's left. Only the population pays taxes before their costs.
> Only the population pays taxes before their costs Not that simple. Plenty of individuals pay a negative income tax. Plenty of individuals deduct various expenses. And if you're a sole proprietor, you get to deduct expenses like a corporation. Labour v capital != corporations v people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Only the population pays taxes before their costs Not that simple. Plenty of individuals pay a negative income tax. Plenty of individuals deduct various expenses. And if you're a sole proprietor, you get to deduct expenses like a corporation. Labour v capital != corporations v people.
It may not be that simple, and there are definitely exemptions to what the OP posted. But the principle of it is what most of corporate taxation is built upon, and it's fundamentally different to how taxation works for individuals. Is it logically consistent and/or fair? Doubtful, but it is the way it is, and until we get a law change to happen (in any country - doubtful the world over), it'll stay that way.
They're built on a similar principle: you tax earnings. That's why we have a standard deduction. The point was to cover living expenses.
It's clearly not doing that, but the logic is similar. (I'd raise it to $50k+. Cover the cost, about $500 to 600bn, with new tax brackets at $10mm, $100mm and $1bn; a modest increase in the capital-gains rate; and by closing the carried-interest loophole.)