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

371–380 of 512 posts

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

#371

Post by standardUser »

chanandler_bong wrote: post #79
otachack wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Companies lobby to keep, even coerce, laws that benefit them and allow these sorts of things to happen. What is the common person, or collection of persons, supposed to do when they are against that kind of force? I believe one way is to actually be involved in politics and get into the seats that govern and make the laws. But it's easier said than done.

The answer is to outlaw lobbyists, it would fix a lot of problems. That, and enact term limits for Congress. That will fix even more.

Around half of Americans reliably vote for candidates that support lower taxes for businesses. Add in term limits, and they'll just vote for a different candidate that supports lower taxes for businesses.

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

#372

Post by smokeyj »

throwawaymath wrote: post #244
smokeyj wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you think there are simple answers to big problems it's generally because you don't actually understand the problem. Or it's pretty obvious and some people are intentionally dense. For example, why are people still being imprisoned for possessing a harmless plant like marijuana? Colorado showed some "complex issues best left to the adults" are a societal level fabrication rooted in ignorance and fear. People w…

> Or it's pretty obvious and some people are intentionally dense. It doesn't seem at all obvious to me how you would outlaw lobbying - in general or by specific types of companies. Do you think I'm being intentionally dense? Maybe most large problems aren't actually trivial, and the reason they don't get solved by message board suggestions is because those suggestions wouldn't work. Just a thought. If you disagree, w…

> If you disagree, why don't you walk me through your proposal in a less handwavey manner

You could say companies aren't allowed to spend money to intentionally target or influence elected representatives.

Sure it's hardly defined at all, and maybe I spent 30 seconds on it. But if a jury of my peers unanimously think an exec was trying to influence a representative, then why not levy a huge fine? As far as the legality, is there anything interstate commerce doesn't encompass?

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

#373

Post by Stratoscope »

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.

From 1964 to 1986, individuals were allowed to average their income over five years. (Or was it four?)

Now only farmers and fishermen are allowed to do this, and some retirees who receive a lump sum retirement plan distribution.

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

#374

Post by trhway »

mikestew wrote: post #232
hjanssen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you trying to say with that?

I'm saying that "airing grievances" "for money" has prior art. I'm a busy person, and the opinion stated says that it should be illegal for me to hire a person to represent my views before, say, a congressperson. Or it should be illegal to hire a person more eloquent than myself to state my case; a professional, as it were. We hire lawyers because navigating the law is difficult. Should we not also be allowed to hire…

In small claims court you can't be represented by a lawyer for example. Both - being represented and representing - aren't constitutional rights. So it is up to society whether to allow or prohibit it in various cases.

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

#376

Post by 1123581321 »

SilasX wrote: post #242
rayiner wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's due to carryover losses, which is usually what this sort of rage bait boils down to, it's not only "legal" but "not wrong." Carryover losses are the mathematical byproduct of a tax system that taxes gains in wealth ( i.e. income) but must be sampled annually. It would be completely brain damaged to treat two companies differently that make the same total profit over a fixed period depending merely on the patt…

Agreed, but, in fairness, the personal income tax contains exactly this brain damage. If I make $100k in one year and then $10k the next, I pay 19% of it in income taxes, even though I averaged $55k/year which should mean paying 14.6% of it in taxes. (Using figures for a single filer from the 2019 brackets; assuming away the person deduction for simplicity.) https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxes/federal-income-tax-br…

You're right, but this is known to people with lumpy income and they do not like it. There's some mitigation depending on how you depreciate or don't depreciate on a Schedule C (people with this issue tend to be self-employed) or if you have the ability to run your income through a corporation to even it out.

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

#377

Post by a-priori »

lorenzhs wrote: post #307
a-priori wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very interesting. This feels like one small baby step away from a negative income tax scheme where you'd receive that difference immediately, rather than having to wait until you make more income in a later year.

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

#378

Post by delecti »

trothamel wrote: post #325
delecti wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to be more pedantic. The EFF is a 501(c)(3) organization, and that's a type of corporation. If you want to outlaw lobbying by for-profit corporations, then they'll just create subsidiary lobbying organizations. The NRA is a 501(c)(4), which is also a tax exempt non-profit designation, and realistically it serves primarily as a lobbying group for gun manufacturers.

I'd say that's selling the NRA short. I have a few friends that are NRA members, they're as focused on gun rights as the corporations are.

That's a fair point. Though while they may not be exclusively a lobbying front for gun manufacturers, I think it's still fair to say they serve that purpose.

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

#379

Post by pathseeker »

ergothus wrote: post #269
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…

> Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects. This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't. - In my "if the world were simple" dreams I'd say something like "every voter can spend $200 - any lobby…

>This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't.

No, it's a signal that you might be proposing an economically destructive policy. You're not required to listen to lobbyists or take their suggestions.

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

#380

Post by lmilcin »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #316
lmilcin wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than that, public companies have obligation to maximise profits for their shareholders as long as they are following the letter of law. There is not much choice here, they can't pay even if they wanted unless they can show this is somehow in shareholders' best interest.

>public companies have obligation to maximise profits for their shareholders // They're not. Not in EU or USA at least. So, not they aren't under any obligation to be shitty to the public by diminishing tax paid in the countries they operate in. Anyone posting an attempted contradiction should cite the relevant laws making it a legal requirement for companies to maximise profits [above any [other] moral consideration…

Well. The law does not say that the reason for company to exist is to bring profit. In that you are correct, there is no legal requirement for companies to maximise profits. For example, in Delaware, company may be formed for "any lawful business or purpose".

Now, once the "business and purpose" of the company is defined to be profit for the shareholders the company has fiduciary duty to perform in the "best interest" of the company and its shareholders as defined by this mission statement.

As long as paying minimum tax serves the best interest of company that is brought for profit of its shareholders then that's what the company is bound to do.

As I mentioned, it is possible that pure monetary value is not the best interest in the company. That's why, for example, companies spend on image building, because it believes it is in the best interest for the company and the shareholder in achieving long term mission of bringing profit (as long as the mission is "for profit").

The company may build local school or feed poor children in Africa, as long as it serves the best interest of the company and shareholders as defined by its mission.

"In a famous 1970 article in The New York Times Magazine, Milton Friedman wrote that the “great virtue” of the shareholder wealth maximization norm is that “it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to ‘exploit’ other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes.”" (https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...)

The way I understand it is US, the people, who decide what is in the best interest of the companies. We have power to decide that being pro-environment is in the best interest of every company and we also have power to make it in the future the best interest of every company to pay taxes. But now that the standards are set, at any given point in time, the officers of the company have obligation to serve in its best interest and we only have ourselves to blame for allowing this to continue be the best interest of the company.

Post reply on HN