Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax • Hacker News Board

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#101

Post by cascom » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 12:51 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #19

seunosewa wrote: post #5

The article is reluctant to mention the reason why they got those tax rebates, and focuses on the way people feel about it. This seems like bad journalism. According to CNBC, “Amazon's low tax bill mainly stemmed from the Republican tax cuts of 2017, carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable, tax credits for massive investments in R&D and stock-based employee compensation.” https://www.cnbc.c…

> carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable yes, this definitely should be talked about. Why can't people's income be carried forward like this as well? If i made a lot of money one year, why can't i claim away taxes from years that i didn't make income (such that my tax bracket is lower)?

You can carry forward capital losses.

Theoretically, this is appealing - practically, I see a lot of problems

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#102

Post by fjsolwmv » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 12:52 PM UTC

C1sc0cat wrote: post #61

OscarCunningham wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're related. Suppose someone makes $100000 net over two years. Should the amount of tax they pay depend on what happened in the first year?

I thought you could carry forward income tax if you say paid a lot in one year due to share options? you could use this to offset later years tax.

Only if you set up a corporate tax shelter for yourself.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#103

Post by jyounker » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 12:52 PM UTC

gigatexal wrote: post #30

This comes up all the time. The issue is not the companies. The issue is the loopholes that their highly paid tax accountants are taking advantage of. Change the law not attack the company for acting in the best interest of its shareholders.

And how did we end up with those loopholes?

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#104

Post by fjsolwmv » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 12:53 PM UTC

locklock wrote: post #50

lfcc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is not Jeff Bezos. Taxing him would be a whole different topic of conversation. Probably more on the topics of executive compensation, taxes for high incomes, and a bunch of other possible subjects. Interesting discussion to be had, for sure, but not what the article is really about.

It all falls under the same umbrella, which as you accurately described as "rich guys who don't share anything" and as far as I'm concerned any amount of elevated consciousness around that is a good thing, even if strictly speaking taking money from Bezos the man and Amazon the company are two separate types of taxation and two different discussions. Bezos and his company Amazon both make almost unfathomable amounts…

Amazon is not a human person. Which human people pay too little taxes for the wealth they receive or consume? That's what matters.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#105

Post by cascom » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 12:55 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #90

jerf wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I have rent and bills to pay regardless of whether I'm making money, that is the definition of making a loss." That is not a loss. That is an exchange of value; you pay $100 for your heating bill and receive $100 of heating. A loss is when you have some value, and it disappears, and you have no compensating value. Buying a stock at $100 and selling it at $50 is a transaction in which you have less money at the end t…

A company paying a cost of $50 to produce widgets for 1 year (and don't sell any that year), then selling all the widgets on the 2nd year for a profit of $100, can claim that they made a loss of $50 in the previous year, and therefore only have $50 that's taxable. A person who works for 1 year for $100 income, then stops working the 2nd year (and live off their income from the 1st year), must pay their taxes at the $…

Sorry that is not how it works - basic tenets of accounting (matching revenues and costs) those widgets would sit on the balance sheet and no loss would be recognized in year 1 and just profit in year 2

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#106

Post by phkahler » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 12:56 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #85

lugg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not making money is not the same as making losses. I have rent and bills to pay regardless of whether I'm making money, that is the definition of making a loss.

"I have rent and bills to pay regardless of whether I'm making money, that is the definition of making a loss." That is not a loss. That is an exchange of value; you pay $100 for your heating bill and receive $100 of heating. A loss is when you have some value, and it disappears, and you have no compensating value. Buying a stock at $100 and selling it at $50 is a transaction in which you have less money at the end t…

Paying wages and by extension R&D is nothing more than business expenses. It's hard to see why that qualifies as losses that can be used to offset future earnings. I'm sure there is an "explanation", but that is ultimately what people are upset about. It has lead to where they are today and to many people that doesn't sit well.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#107

Post by Waterluvian » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #19

seunosewa wrote: post #5

The article is reluctant to mention the reason why they got those tax rebates, and focuses on the way people feel about it. This seems like bad journalism. According to CNBC, “Amazon's low tax bill mainly stemmed from the Republican tax cuts of 2017, carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable, tax credits for massive investments in R&D and stock-based employee compensation.” https://www.cnbc.c…

> carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable yes, this definitely should be talked about. Why can't people's income be carried forward like this as well? If i made a lot of money one year, why can't i claim away taxes from years that i didn't make income (such that my tax bracket is lower)?

Forms of that happens in Canada. My effective tax rate was 11% last year because I maxed out my tax shelter retirement savings plan from all the years I made no money.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#108

Post by cascom » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #58

sokoloff wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent and bills are (in general) not deductible expenses.

but the rent and bills of a corporation are deductable? Why is it different? A corporation has the same legal rights as a person, but a person has to pay more for these rights. It's unfair imho.

1. There is a practical aspect - every person would have to have a balance sheet/financial statements

2. Those expenses are in the furtherance of generating profits rather than for personal consumption are we really going to give people write offs for their Apple watches and $6 latte’s?

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#109

Post by specialist » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

bedhead wrote: post #23

The intellectual dishonesty of this from allegedly smart people continues to astound me. Amazon has little-to-no taxes mainly because they have such low taxable income in the first place because they spend so much in R&D and other things. They’re actually creating jobs and new businesses rather than showing massive profits and paying a ton in taxes. I have no doubt they take advantage of perfectly legal tax code item…

Why is it better to tax employee personal income than corporate income?

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#110

Post by phkahler » Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 1:02 PM UTC

temp1831 wrote: post #70

chii wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the rent and bills of a corporation are deductable? Why is it different? A corporation has the same legal rights as a person, but a person has to pay more for these rights. It's unfair imho.

Let's say you run a gas station, which is a notoriously low margin business. You have $1,050,000 in revenue this year, and $1,000,000 in expenses, so you make $50,000. Let's say you run a small software company, which is a high margin business. You have $1,050,000 in revenue this year, and $500,000 in expenses, so you make $550,000. You should be taxed on the $50,000 and the $550,000, not on the $1,050,000. Otherwise…

If you tax revenue, the government can be funded with much lower tax rates. Businesses will always pass costs on to customers. To claim your benefit is really for everyone else seems a bit narcissistic.