131–140 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine it's more you're being skeptical of something that is unpopular to be skeptical about. It's like someone saying climate change is impacting our planet, and then asking "source?" in response.
Except he was skeptical about Meta's effective tax rate being 3%. Why are you making up scenarios that aren't real to justify hurting him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Business tax is assessed on income. Income (in a business) is another word for revenue. I think you meant: business tax is assessed on profit.
In the U.S. income is defined as revenue minus expenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_(United_States_legal_de...
The one exception is HMRC (UK equivalent of IRS) which, for the purposes of corporation tax only, defines income like profit [2] (with some technical differences, but the same spirit). But for other purposes (e.g. personal income tax) even they use it to just literally mean cash received without subtracting off outgoings.
Using it in this net sense seems very odd to me, but maybe that's because I'm British. "Income" and "outgoings" look to me like symmetrical terms, and no one would consider outgoings to be after subtracting off money coming in (would they?!)
[1] https://www.cheapaccounting.co.uk/blog/index.php/income-prof...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/company-taxation-ma...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Business tax is assessed on income. Income (in a business) is another word for revenue. I think you meant: business tax is assessed on profit.
No, my usage was correct and unambiguous. Describing income as revenue is incorrect. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/what-differe...
It does say that unqualified "income" means the net version but it's a push to say that makes it unambiguous. (And, at I said on a sibling comment, this seems to be a US convention.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the same observation. Not really sure what is the driver.
Unchecked power deteriorates empathy as classes drift further apart — an inevitability of un(der)regulated capitalism driving unprecedented inequality. This accelerates when the billionaire class seizes the levers of power and dismantle entire regulatory bodies like the Epstein class has done with the US government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could but then it would show that the effective tax was not 30% but 3% and there is a strong lobby in Washington against that.
You think public companies are just lying in their audited financial statements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, my usage was correct and unambiguous. Describing income as revenue is incorrect. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/what-differe...
That page says that "net income" message the sense you meant it and "gross income" means the sense I understood it. It does say that unqualified "income" means the net version but it's a push to say that makes it unambiguous. (And, at I said on a sibling comment, this seems to be a US convention.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The effective federal tax rate, and the amount of federal tax Meta paid as a percentage of income, are two different things. More details here: https://itep.org/meta-tax-breaks-trump-mark-zuckerberg/ The 10-K filed by Meta is linked to in that article, and can be found here: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001... If you dig into the details in the Income Tax Disclosure block, Meta paid $2.8B…
>Meta deferred a large chunk of Federal income taxes. How are can we reasonably expect them to be deferred for? Are we talking on the order of years, or decades?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, screw Robert Reich! Always looking out for the workers who make up the majority of this country. Why won't he look out for the poor multi-national corporations, who have no one to advocate for them or their tax rates?
> Always looking out for the workers How is spreading misinformation looking out for the workers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except he was skeptical about Meta's effective tax rate being 3%. Why are you making up scenarios that aren't real to justify hurting him?
The user you're defending (randomtoast)[1] isn't the one who expressed skepticism about the 3% claim (shubhamjain)[2]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47167886 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47167698
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just throw revenue in the denominator, though. Business tax is assessed on income. If you're going to make a claim about tax rate using an unconventional metric, you need to be explicit about what you've done; Reich isn't.
If you're Robert Reich, you can! You can make up anything, and someone will submit it to HN to waste everyone's time!