121–130 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much in taxes should you pay on a loss?
But that's the thing, if I take my entire salary and lose it gambling I still owe the government taxes. I the person am taxed on revenue. If instead I have a corporation handle everything then I can come up with (relatively simple) systems so that I don't pay taxes and the corporation doesn't pay taxes either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be the only one, but I was under the impression this whole time that all EV tax credits were for consumers who buy EVs, not companies who sell them.
It amounts to the same thing, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what world is a massively profitable company paying almost nothing in taxes polarizing?
You have to come into the article believing a ton of things: 1. Tax credits are illegitimate 2. Accelerated depreciation is illegitimate 3. Ownership of productive companies is "hoarding wealth" 4. Journalism is in a battle with the current administration 5. Paying taxes is a good thing If you _don't_ buy into these premises, for which there is no argument given for or against, you'll be tilted against the author. If…
1. I should be able to deduct the same sorts of things from my individual income that corporations routinely deduct from their income.
If a corporation can legally shield all of their income from taxes, why can't I shield all of my income from taxes? Corporations can deduct the costs of all the things they have to do to make money and do weird depreciation tricks, but I cannot deduct the costs of all the things I must pay for in order to make my own income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tax credits seem to make sense for an EV company? That's one of the things that I've found odd. A lot of people that very strongly support things like tax credits for EV cars, in order to fight climate change, will then turn around and talk about how terrible they are when they're actually used, such as in the article here. A lot of times people don't seem to have a consistent view of what they actually want, and w…
In reality, what is more damaging for the environment? Replacing a 2019 Toyota Rav4 with a 2025 Tesla in North America, or..... Replacing a 1985 VW Jetta with a 2019 Toyota Rav4 in India? I see YouTube videos all the time where people in third world countries are using turn of the century hit-and-miss engines to power things like water pumps or machine tools. These countries are leaking countless gallons of oil and f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they depreciated some assets faster, that only delays the taxes by a year or two. They'll still pay. $300M in tax credits is basically the same as them paying $300M in tax and then getting a big check from the government for meeting some goal. I don't think it should be treated as any kind of avoidance on behalf of the company. Instead, check if the government paid that money for something useful, and if they didn…
Maybe they assume tax rates will be better for them in 2026. Under that assumption, deprecating things now to shift the tax burden to the future is kind of avoiding tax (or more accurately: the 2024 tax rates). Given the level of corruption in the US government in general and the role of Musk in the current administration in particular that doesn't seem unlikely to me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4. Journalism is in a battle with the current administration Is this controversial?
Yes, as it should be. Criticize the policies, not an administration led by a party you don't align with.
During his rallies he'd literally have the entire crowd riled up against the very concept of journalists, because they might not suck up to him every single second of every single day.
Seriously, where do comments like this keep coming from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Only people can pay taxes. But corporations are people..? Can't have it both ways right :/ Unless I'm missing something here.
Yes. Corporations are made of people, and they produce goods and services for other people. The people that compose that corporation pay the tax, or the people they sell to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every car that is sold retires an old one. And the one it retires will be the least valuable. This happens becauase the person who buys a new car sells their old one to someone else, who sells their old one to someone else, and so on down the chain. The oldest cars from America go to other cheaper markets replacing the cars in use there.
Does this actually happen? With some exceptions, there’s going to be a point where a used car is not worth the trouble to ship it somewhere. And Americans love their huge ass cars. I can’t see many cheaper markets wanting to use an American car, just for the fuel cost alone. I bet the cars get trashed for scrap or parts.
Absolutely it does. If you live near the Mexican border of the US, it’s extremely common to see older cars being towed headed south, presumably to Mexico. It’s not particularly expensive to drive them down to the border.
> I bet the cars get trashed for scrap or parts.
Only the least valuable and oldest ones that other countries don’t work. That means you’re overall moving up the modernness of the fleet. Presumably with better fuel economy, lower emissions, and fewer problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It amounts to the same thing, no?
Definitely not, no. Credits on profits incentivize short term profit taking, while credits in products incentivize number of units shipped. The second is much better for society. Think about it from the perspective of a company deciding between selling low margin cheap EVs in the short term before process efficiencies kick in, or selling expensive EVs now.