Yes obviously this would be the case. They're taxes on income, not revenue. If they decide to invest in the future, it eats into their income.
Presumably you mean profit and not income, since income is revenue
Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
31–40 of 48 posts
Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Billionaires are gross, millionaires are fine. You're committing the "slippery slope" fallacy in defense of excessive wealth inequality. (And if you genuinely believe what you're saying, recognize that your words are being taken as either disingenuous or foolish, and are having the opposite effect of promoting your cause).
Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#33Earlier 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…
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.
The limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. $1m is nowhere near enough for that. So let's not try to figure that, say, $3.6m is the appropriate wealth cap for 2026. Let's speak in terms of orders of magnitudes. $1m is not enough. $10m is. Let's let the minimum wealth maximum be $10m.
Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#34Earlier 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…
>We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. The US tax code does allow business to write off R & D.
Not anymore for software.
Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#35Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Billionaires are gross, millionaires are fine. You're committing the "slippery slope" fallacy in defense of excessive wealth inequality. (And if you genuinely believe what you're saying, recognize that your words are being taken as either disingenuous or foolish, and are having the opposite effect of promoting your cause).
Another thing I’ve thought about is having everyone wealthier than me have a 100% wealth tax. And it’s a pity that people consider caring about inequality disingenuous and foolish while people argue that some people should be millionaires while others are starving. Millionaires should not exist.
Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. $1m is nowhere near enough for that. So let's not try to figure that, say, $3.6m is the appropriate wealth cap for 2026. Let's speak in terms of orders of magnitudes. $…
Oh yeah, of course you want early retirement so others can slave away to create the world you live in without doing anything. No. This is why equality is important. $200k is enough.
Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#38Earlier 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.
Personally I think we should allow billionaires to exist but there's plenty of nuances and implications to the political choice of allowing individuals to accumulate more money than countries to the point they get to put their thumb on the scales of politics and make markets less free but we aren't trained to reflexively dismiss discussion of that as absurd.
Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. $1m is nowhere near enough for that. So let's not try to figure that, say, $3.6m is the appropriate wealth cap for 2026. Let's speak in terms of orders of magnitudes. $…
Oh yeah, of course you want early retirement so others can slave away to create the world you live in without doing anything. No. This is why equality is important. $200k is enough.
Yes, it is reasonable for some people not to have to work for survival. A person can earn non-work through age (retirement), vulnerability (disabled, children), lottery, or contribution. We want neither pure communism nor pure capitalism.
(I've seen other comments from you on here, you know you're being an unreasonable edgelord.)
Re: Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. $1m is nowhere near enough for that. So let's not try to figure that, say, $3.6m is the appropriate wealth cap for 2026. Let's speak in terms of orders of magnitudes. $…
> We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc.
Do we want that only ever be available to a privileged few? The goal should be to eliminate privilege such that the inequities of capitalism apply fairly (or unfairly) to everyone. $1m, A level of income which the vast majority of people will never see in their lifetimes, is clearly sustainable.
If you consider that an unreasonable burden then perhaps we should restructure society to be less capitalist such that everyone has an opportunity for healthcare and education regardless of income, and can retire at a more reasonable age.