221–230 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You asked: >How much in taxes should you pay on a loss?
It was implied that the loss here was defined as difference between corporate revenues and expenses. This concept doesn't apply to personal income taxes and gambling losses.
That is true, but not just.
I may be wrong, but I understand this is because the company invests all of its income into its business - which means more jobs, work for other companies, and so on. I think it better money goes into the economy, in a reasonably efficient way, rather than being taken by the State, and used in an unreasonably inefficient way.
Not in this case: https://electrek.co/2024/12/30/tesla-replaced-laid-off-us-wo...
Pretty sure that wasn't even the only layoff this year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is especially absurd though when you have a business that depends on ROADS. As if the roads just pay for themselves.
In my state, many of the new roads being built do in fact pay for themselves via tolls. I expect that model of financing to get much more common now that computers are able to automatically read your license plate and issue the toll.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Check out Hess v Commissioner. For certain types of businesses the individual is almost indistinguishable from the business.
To save people the trouble. > The relevant ruling on this subject came in 1994 in a case known as Hess v. Commissioner. The plaintiff, a self-employed exotic dancer, had implants that expanded her bust size to the size 56FF. For tax purposes, she treated these as a deductible business expense on her schedule C. The IRS contested her deduction. > ... The courts ruled in her favor: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-br…
But that aside, it seems to make sense to make the business and person the same when the business is you. No one else can truly replace that exotic FF dancer. Her clients die with her, and won't truly be replicated no matter what.
Odds are someone can be trained to do your paperwork and run your business. That may be the distinctive factor.
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…
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.
That's a win-win all around, the consumer saves $7,500 off the list price up front, they have to finance less etc, and Tesla gets a tax credit.
I wish this article was written with a less biased tone. I'm genuinely interested in understanding it better. As far as I can tell, the article cites two things: $500M tax savings by using an accelerated depreciation schedule (unclear if they saved $500M more by using accelerated vs a regular depreciation schedule, but I assume no) and they claimed $300M in tax credits. The article doesn't address the other $1.5B, pr…
>I think the real thing here is the weaponization of EV tax credits as some sort of boogeyman. It's a hot topic right now since Trump just ended the EV credits. Which you'd think Musk would want to keep. And beyond this article, Musk has "quiet quit" on Tesla as a car company, based on his earning calls. They said little about cars and instead deflected the hype to "AI robots" in 2027. It's all just so weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Paying taxes is the right thing to do for the country. Yet the system gets purposely broken, people lose faith that any system could work, tax dollars run for the shadows, and the cycle accelerates. I don’t know what the fix is. We need to restore faith, but you need revenue to build faith, and revenue depends on established faith.
I'm not sure it's the de facto right thing to do. Recall that the USA didn't tax income until 1913, relying primarily on tariffs and excise taxes to fund the federal government. And yet, the country was doing just fine before that—expanding its infrastructure, winning wars, and growing its economy. The introduction of income tax fundamentally changed the size and scope of government. With the current size of federal…
There were of course lots of other taxes being levied in the USA, poll taxes, property taxes, but the money went to state government rather than federal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do. The biggest of all tax giveaways is the home mortgage deduction and tax deduction on employer paid healthcare. The tax sheltered things like retirement accounts, HSAs, Roths, college savings plans, energy credits, home improvement credits, car breaks, annd do on, are also huge tax giveaways to citizens. Those are the biggest tax breaks in all US law, far larger than all of corporate breaks combined. Then, as…
None of these things, or even the combination of all of these things, allows an individual to shield 100% of their income from taxes, the way corporations shield their income from taxes.
The vast majority of corp pay income tax, unless (and this is nearly never many years in a row) they have such tax rollovers from prev year.
Now, they also still pay property taxes, enemployment taxes, half your SS, taxes on goods bought, and a host of other taxes, independent from income taxes.
All your outrage is simply ignorance of how taxes work, and so far you’re wrong about all your unfounded belief. Go read how taxes work, learn to read SEC filings. CBO has detailed solid reports prepared covering all this stuff.
When you think something about taxes is outrageous, it’s going to be because you don’t understand them, and you’ve filled your head with tripe from sources designed to mislead you. Read actual tax law and filings, and all this misunderstanding will go away.
You know what’s ironic is that Tesla survived because of Obama era subsidies. They were desperate to get one private enterprise to succeed because so many solar and other “clean” energy private ventures failed during that period. So, in my view, Obama created Elon. Now the rest of America has to deal with it in addition to the abject failure that is PPACA which ballooned US healthcare costs (not that Republicans have…
Also, under Obama SpaceX got it's first big contracts from NASA, without which SpaceX wouldn't exist today. That was a risky bet then, but the government got a really good return on that investment.
that's when I learned I'm playing the wrong game by trying to provide private services instead of targeting gvt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They absolutely do! Earned Income is a refundable tax credit - 47% of all Americans pay no net income tax, and some receive a refund in excess of any taxes paid.
* excluding payroll tax deductions, both personal and employer paid (which is effectively still a tax you're paying). They also pay sales tax, which isn't an income tax per se, but when you have to spend every dollar you make to survive, it might as well be. Everyone contributes.