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

Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#21

Post by thot_experiment »

renewiltord wrote: post #9
SilverElfin wrote: post #2

Sad. What we need is higher taxes on the largest and most powerful corporations and lower taxes for small business and startups so they can compete fairly. This just extends the reign of the corporate oligarchs.

What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest. Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a mon…

I agree with you 100% at least in spirit, I don't think any such simplistic solution would function.

That being said the current system desperately needs balance changes to nerf the stacking buffs from having money. It should be the opposite, the more money you have the harder it should be for you to get any additional money, and this difficulty curve should be asymptotic.

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#22

Post by epistasis »

SilverElfin wrote: post #19
moomoo11 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live in California? I mean sure it might be wasteful (name one entity private or public that doesn’t suffer from assholes and corruption), but the quality of life here is far better than in Texas or any other state. We have labor rights, environmental protection, hell even the ethical farming practices like how eggs are produced. Life here is objectively better for the people. It’s obviously more expensive. Th…

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. But the rise in spending per capita, even if you adjust for inflation or population growth or other factors, doesn’t make sense. I agree the demand drives up certain costs like housing. But those are in the private markets. But I don’t understand is what the state government and local governments are spending all of the money on. And there are certainly some prominent wastef…

It looks like the increase in spending has come from expansion of Medicaid, K-12 education, housing programs and homelessness programs.

I can't speak to the Medicaid expansion or K-12 funding that much, but I do know that the spending on housing programs have been a boondoggle, mostly to fund more first-time purchasers chasing after the same fixed supply of housing, driving up prices even more. And the homelessness problem is created by the refusal to allow housing to be built. Even the supposed successes, like SB 79, have been minor, and not allowed much more building at all. And in more conservative places like Southern LA, state laws attempting to force cities to permit more housing have been met with extreme resistance, even for the small gains that the state laws make.

For K-12 spending, that's been a disaster ever since Prop 13 gutted property tax systems and forced the state to step in to make up the difference. And Prop 13 is at the core of the housing problem as well, incentivizing underuse of land by giving such massive tax breaks to those who stay in a massive house after they have an empty nest (mostly fixed very recently), and inducing severe tax penalties to those who would like to stay in the same location but build a bunch more housing (like Greece's polykatoikias, which solved Athen's severe housing crunch...).

And high housing costs means that all labor is far more expensive than it would be otherwise, which makes building the housing expensive, which makes it difficult to expand the workforce to build housing, etc. etc. etc. Lack of housing is at the core of all rising costs in California, and the bad policies such as Libertarian Prop 13 and NIMBYs are most of it.

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#23

Post by zug_zug »

_alternator_ wrote: post #10
renewiltord wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest. Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a mon…

It doesn't feel like you’ve thought through the nuances and implications of this policy, and the tone makes me think you don’t really want to.

Agree on both counts… but I do.

I’m sure there are systemic changes that are possible, and it’s a topic worthy of brainstorming

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#24

Post by renewiltord »

_alternator_ wrote: post #10
renewiltord wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest. Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a mon…

It doesn't feel like you’ve thought through the nuances and implications of this policy, and the tone makes me think you don’t really want to.

What do you mean? We all agree that billionaires shouldn’t exist. I just think that millionaires also shouldn’t. Though now that I think of it, is it okay that hundred thousand aires should exist? This Aires is definitely not Buenos.

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#25

Post by krapp »

renewiltord wrote: post #9
SilverElfin wrote: post #2

Sad. What we need is higher taxes on the largest and most powerful corporations and lower taxes for small business and startups so they can compete fairly. This just extends the reign of the corporate oligarchs.

What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest. Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a mon…

I agree in principle, but I think the limit should be $1 million. You get to be a millionaire but that's it. Enough money to live well, but not enough to run a pedophile island. Not enough to purchase a government. Not enough to be above the law. Certainly not enough to keep you from working and entirely alienate you from the human condition if you do want to live well.

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#26

Post by mulmen »

croes wrote: post #17
jazz9k wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. This doesn't include the jobs created to support everything (and the taxes paid from these jobs). We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. This promotes forward-thinking and almost always adds new jobs during the investment phase and after. More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is…

> The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. First, not true. Second, even if true it wouldn’t be surprising, if you have most of the wealth you pay most of the tax money. It’s surprising that that’s not even the case. Third, it explains California. Of course the state with the highest GDP has also the highest tax income

We don’t tax wealth though so wouldn’t we expect the highest income to pay the most tax?

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#28

Post by gwbrooks »

moomoo11 wrote: post #18
SilverElfin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. When you hoard far more than just a slim majority, paying a majority isn’t unexpected and it can still be unfair. But I think you are talking about federal personal income tax not corporate tax. > We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. They already do in various ways. > More tax money just gets…

Do you live in California? I mean sure it might be wasteful (name one entity private or public that doesn’t suffer from assholes and corruption), but the quality of life here is far better than in Texas or any other state. We have labor rights, environmental protection, hell even the ethical farming practices like how eggs are produced. Life here is objectively better for the people. It’s obviously more expensive. Th…

Lived in California for 30 years -- it's an amazing place. But it's hubris to assume your definition of quality of life is objective or universal.

California has seen negative net domestic migration for over 20 years. So multiple things can be true:

* It's a desirable place to live and work, for some. * For others, the net quality of life is higher elsewhere.

Triumphalism ("They know they could never make it here...") isn't a good look whether you live in Silicon Valley or Dallas.

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#29

Post by fennecbutt »

renewiltord wrote: post #9
SilverElfin wrote: post #2

Sad. What we need is higher taxes on the largest and most powerful corporations and lower taxes for small business and startups so they can compete fairly. This just extends the reign of the corporate oligarchs.

What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest. Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a mon…

Ehehe look how downvoted you are - which literally proves the point.

Humans are a bunch of greedy selfish tribal bastards, aren't we?

Don't worry, I've had similar down voting whenever I've suggested that owning more than one home in a broken housing market shouldn't be allowed.

People make noises about being all in this together but will work against it actually happening, especially Americans (see: your tragic healthcare system).

Actually laughable that in 2026 we could automate most if not all basic human needs to the point that they're free. But you know, we don't.

Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

#30

Post by gamblor956 »

epistasis wrote: post #20
moomoo11 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live in California? I mean sure it might be wasteful (name one entity private or public that doesn’t suffer from assholes and corruption), but the quality of life here is far better than in Texas or any other state. We have labor rights, environmental protection, hell even the ethical farming practices like how eggs are produced. Life here is objectively better for the people. It’s obviously more expensive. Th…

The major reason California is expensive isn't because of the things that make it nice to live here, it's because a faux-environmentalist love of sprawl and protection of single family zoning from denser, more sensible housing options for those that want them. Instead, Californians with high incomes, but not enough to pay the outrageous price for ownership, pay outrageous rents to landlords that repackage unupdated 1…

Single family zoning was implemented back in the days when California was a red state. California is still a very red state; there are more Republicans in California than most of the U.S. South combined.
Post reply on HN