151–160 of 175 posts
> carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable The idea of carrying forward losses in general is sound, but I'm beginning to wonder if there should be an exception. If the loss is intentional, using investment instead of profit to drive growth, I'm not so sure those losses deserve to be carried forward. Probably an unpopular opinion here on HN, but I think denying reductions in those cases would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though I agree with the annoyance of high marginal rates for one-time windfalls of income, I think it's more practically workable to only allow forward averaging in the form of "pay all the taxes now and fill out this new form XYZ to allow you to perform the alternative averaging process over the next 4 tax years". Otherwise, you end up effectively amending N returns (possibly opening them back up for examination), n…
Computing tax rates against a moving average of the last 5 years income is a simple and elegant way to have the same effect. Young people would have lower rates while they’re establishing themselves, people with windfalls would end up paying rates in line with their annual compensation (instead of just maxing out the brackets with a big percentage of their income). Also, people with sustained high income would be tax…
Downsides: results in a 3x income tax charge if an income earner dies suddenly (assuming you want to settle their estate in less than 5+ years). Acts as a loan from the feds to the taxpayer, resulting in income taxes due after you stop working (perhaps you became disabled or got fired [or die, as above]), and results in deferral of income tax receipts to the government during the transition.
Overall, I really like it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree that these companies are using the tax code to write off losses that they are intentionally incurring in order to achieve a lower cost point than their (profitable) competitors. This is a very predatory practice that should be ended. Companies should compete in the marketplace. Having tax payers foot the bill for some companies disruption gambit makes no sense.
Any new company, including a mom&pop restaurant or whatever, will have startup costs that established companies do not (e.g. buying equipment, training people, etc). How do you propose to distinguish those from these "predatory" losses? Or should those losses not be carried over either?
The key IMO is that the company should be paying tax somewhere along the line. Right now VC is a double gift - it provides funds to grow, and the corresponding expenditures magically turn into "losses" that erase future tax. Besides its effect on government revenue, it also gives VC-funded companies an unfair advantage (as though they didn't have enough) over competitors who are being taxed more for having the audacity to grow organically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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)?
None of the “well actually” replies you’re getting has yet mentioned that carrying forward personal capital losses is capped at $3000 per year. How could anyone argue that is remotely the same as Amazon avoiding billions in taxes? There are also a lot of other ways companies get much more favorable tax treatment than people — for one thing just very fundamentally, they are taxed on profits but people are taxed on rev…
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…
They reported $12 billion in profit last year. That's not low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the “well actually” replies you’re getting has yet mentioned that carrying forward personal capital losses is capped at $3000 per year. How could anyone argue that is remotely the same as Amazon avoiding billions in taxes? There are also a lot of other ways companies get much more favorable tax treatment than people — for one thing just very fundamentally, they are taxed on profits but people are taxed on rev…
In theory, that's what the standard deduction is for. If you spend $1MM/month on rent, that's a luxury and should use after-tax dollars. If you spend $500, that's a necessity and should use before-tax dollars. Thus the 12,000 standard deduction: the first $1000/month you spend on rent, food etc is done with before-tax dollars, subsequent dollars use after-tax dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that engagement and discussing policies is important. But it does feel disingenuous and aimed at provoking outrage (to trigger a knee-jerk reaction) when you just mention a fact like "look at these rich guys that don't share anything!" and ignore the context of why it got to be the way it is. And I'm not saying that there aren't changes that could and should be made. Just that this particular article doesn't…
Fair enough. I agree that the word count would much better be spent on discussing the relevant legislation and resulting tax codes. But let me be honest. I wouldn't read that story. I'm not a tax policy wonk, nor am I qualified to opine on the legislative process except to express exasperation at the gridlock. I am however qualified to vote for candidates who are and that first requires awareness of the issues, a top…
Which makes it so easy for the NYT to manipulate you into jealous frenzy.
A lot of people see an outrageous headline and too few ask "what's the other side of the story?" The media knows this and can use it to direct your ire at any of their competitors because it's so effective
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that engagement and discussing policies is important. But it does feel disingenuous and aimed at provoking outrage (to trigger a knee-jerk reaction) when you just mention a fact like "look at these rich guys that don't share anything!" and ignore the context of why it got to be the way it is. And I'm not saying that there aren't changes that could and should be made. Just that this particular article doesn't…
I'm fine with outrage-inducing propaganda against people who have tens or hundreds of billions of dollars since that class as a whole spends so much time putting out propaganda in their favor. I'm not particularly interested in the details as long as it elevates consciousness about the inherent problems with a society that allows Jeff Bezos to have more money than he could spend in ten thousand lifetimes while millio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The only thing worse than a fool is an engaged fool. First educate the people, then crank up the engagement. Doing it in the opposite order is a recipe for disaster.
That kind of sounds like you're saying "These people aren't smart enough to have a say in how their lives are run".
No one is smart enough to make good decisions while uninformed.