Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

itep.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 512 posts

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#301

Post by m0zg »

The outrage at Netflix is misplaced. If you don't throw in an extra $20K with your taxes yourself (which you can do, btw), then you'd be a hypocrite if you're mad at Netflix for not doing the same.

Rather, you should be mad at your elected representatives at the federal level and in the state of California in particular that they passed the laws that make this possible. Stop electing the same idiots for decades, force them to pass term limits, and _maybe_ something will change. Until then, enjoy Netflix's free ride.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#302

Post by scarface74 »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #288
scarface74 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate taxes are value destructive. A company is either going to use that money to expand, creating a more jobs, paying employees more - who will pay taxes, or buy back stock or pay dividends. The only real issue I have is the difference between capital gains taxes and income taxes.

"Value destructive" to whom? I don't want all the companies in my area to pay excessive taxes, but they also don't otherwise pay for any negative externalities that they cause or contribute to, except through taxes. I don't want to shoulder the burden alone for their roads and traffic and pollution and power-grid-improvement requirements et cetera. Maybe the system could be different where companies directly pay for…

That’s simple to solve via property taxes, gas taxes, yearly car registration fees, and even toll roads.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#303

Post by smacktoward »

crdoconnor wrote: post #297
naasking wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? Lobbying for them means designating a representative. How is that any different from what corporations are doing? They just happen to have deeper pockets. Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important . It means they reflect an important as…

>So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? They could create form letters for their members to email their representatives. Some charities I belong to operate this way. Obviously Comcast could do this too but I don't think they'd be successful getting real people to lobby on their behalf. >Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of th…

> Obviously Comcast could do this too but I don't think they'd be successful getting real people to lobby on their behalf.

You might be surprised; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing for the way it's usually done.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#304

Post by ralala »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #261
SilasX wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is that simple (in the sense of the parent's post): you need to know the specifics of why they were paying no taxes. If, as in the comment, they were carrying over losses, then there's nothing really objectionable. You lost $10 million last year. You profited $10 million this year. Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. Did they get a specific exemption against the public interest that no one else got?…

>Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. The average worker isn't allowed to do that even when they lose money in a given year. Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Maybe the time is to just remove the loopholes in general from both business and personal income taxes.

Because this rule is necessary for businesses to be able to invest on long term goals.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#305

Post by scarface74 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #300
scarface74 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate taxes are value destructive. A company is either going to use that money to expand, creating a more jobs, paying employees more - who will pay taxes, or buy back stock or pay dividends. The only real issue I have is the difference between capital gains taxes and income taxes.

Or do some bullshit accounting to move the money off-shore, like pay billions to use their own trademark to a country in which they bought off politicians to get low taxes; so they can pay out the money without paying in to the governmental system in the country in which the money was raised.

That’s where property, gas, car, taxes etc come in.

All of the tax avoidance would be reduced by the company that had the lowest corporate income tax.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#306

Post by spullara »

deeviant wrote: post #292
chongli wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Because a business isn't a person. Taxing a business is taking real money away from payrolls, money that would get taxed again anyway once it was paid out. Corporate income tax only makes sense when you look at it as a barrier to entry for competition in the marketplace. Big companies like Netflix know how to avoid taxes. Small companies don't.…

Except a large portion of revenue does not go to workers, but to shareholders, who pay far less taxes then those who strain their backs in creating said revenue.

For companies like Netflix that don't pay dividends, none of it is going to shareholders.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#307

Post by lorenzhs »

a-priori wrote: post #276
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. The average worker isn't allowed to do that even when they lose money in a given year. Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Maybe the time is to just remove the loopholes in general from both business and personal income taxes.

I don't know about American taxes, but at least in Canada individuals can do this for capital gains / losses. If you have investments that produce losses one year, you can carry those losses forward to cancel out capital gains in following years and reduce your tax payable.

In Germany, if you have less taxable income than tax deductions, you can carry that loss forward, too. It's a rare case, though, but it can save you several thousand when pursuing a second degree.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#308

Post by el_cujo »

a-priori wrote: post #276
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. The average worker isn't allowed to do that even when they lose money in a given year. Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Maybe the time is to just remove the loopholes in general from both business and personal income taxes.

I don't know about American taxes, but at least in Canada individuals can do this for capital gains / losses. If you have investments that produce losses one year, you can carry those losses forward to cancel out capital gains in following years and reduce your tax payable.

This is how it works in America as well.

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#309

Post by OrwellianChild »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #261
SilasX wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is that simple (in the sense of the parent's post): you need to know the specifics of why they were paying no taxes. If, as in the comment, they were carrying over losses, then there's nothing really objectionable. You lost $10 million last year. You profited $10 million this year. Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. Did they get a specific exemption against the public interest that no one else got?…

>Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. The average worker isn't allowed to do that even when they lose money in a given year. Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Maybe the time is to just remove the loopholes in general from both business and personal income taxes.

If the average worker has any stock or index fund investments, that worker absolutely can take advantage of this (in the U.S.). It's called tax-loss harvesting - worth reading about here [1].

[1] https://www.madfientist.com/tax-loss-harvesting/

Re: Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

#310

Post by throwaway190102 »

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #261
SilasX wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is that simple (in the sense of the parent's post): you need to know the specifics of why they were paying no taxes. If, as in the comment, they were carrying over losses, then there's nothing really objectionable. You lost $10 million last year. You profited $10 million this year. Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. Did they get a specific exemption against the public interest that no one else got?…

>Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. The average worker isn't allowed to do that even when they lose money in a given year. Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Maybe the time is to just remove the loopholes in general from both business and personal income taxes.

Individual workers are allowed to do this. In the form of deductions for various types of expenses such as medical and various other deductions.

But it means something different to make a wage and to make a profit. There are definitely loopholes to close in our busted tax system, I agree with that 100%. While we are at it we should eliminate all subsidies for various types of carved out businesses from oil to corn. But Characterizing loss calculations as a loophole I don't think is correct. If I'm not mistaken most corporate tax schemes in the rest of the world use similar concepts, it's a fairly basic accounting concept.

Post reply on HN