Live data from Hacker News

Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

nytimes.com

41–50 of 175 posts

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#41
post #22
post #19

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)?

Not making money is not the same as making losses. You can carry forwards losses you've made on investments.

> Not making money is not the same as making losses.

I have rent and bills to pay regardless of whether I'm making money, that is the definition of making a loss.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#42
post #19

The article is reluctant to mention the reason why they got those tax rebates, and focuses on the way people feel about it. This seems like bad journalism. According to CNBC, “Amazon's low tax bill mainly stemmed from the Republican tax cuts of 2017, carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable, tax credits for massive investments in R&D and stock-based employee compensation.” https://www.cnbc.c…

> 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)?

There used to be allowed. It was called "income averaging". But then the tax philosophies of the 80s happened.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#43

The article is reluctant to mention the reason why they got those tax rebates, and focuses on the way people feel about it. This seems like bad journalism. According to CNBC, “Amazon's low tax bill mainly stemmed from the Republican tax cuts of 2017, carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable, tax credits for massive investments in R&D and stock-based employee compensation.” https://www.cnbc.c…

Go look at Amazon's 8k and 10k filings; If memory serves it wasn't until 2015 or 2016 they turned a profit after almost 2 decades. It's been illegal, under racketeering laws, to sell at a loss in order to capture a market for a long, long time, and that's the real story here. Republicans and Democrats have let that one go; blaming political parties is a straw-man argument. They expect to utter the words and hope you…

If Amazon was selling at a loss until 2016 (almost twenty years since their IPO) where was the rest of the money coming from?

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#44
post #22
post #19

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)?

Not making money is not the same as making losses. You can carry forwards losses you've made on investments.

They're related. Suppose someone makes $100000 net over two years. Should the amount of tax they pay depend on what happened in the first year?

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#45
post #23

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…

Taxes are no end in itself, they are necessary to provide the infrastructure (streets, legal system, ...) so that people and businesses can thrive.

Not wanting to contribute to that is the epitome of free-riding.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#46
post #23

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…

Can you prove that all the other businesses that didn't survive, either online or shops weren't has much jobs than the one Amazon provide?

Also, all the taxes that they don't pay needs to be paid by others. For each optimizations done by those companies, it's as much money that needs to be paid by others as each country runs on a budget that is mainly based on taxes. Them not paying taxes as a direct impact on taxes that needs to be paid by the one who pay taxes as well as the quality of service and infrastructure of a country. Infrastructure they uses a lot by the way, like roads to deliver their goods for example.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go look at Amazon's 8k and 10k filings; If memory serves it wasn't until 2015 or 2016 they turned a profit after almost 2 decades. It's been illegal, under racketeering laws, to sell at a loss in order to capture a market for a long, long time, and that's the real story here. Republicans and Democrats have let that one go; blaming political parties is a straw-man argument. They expect to utter the words and hope you…

Not turning a profit does not mean or even imply selling at loss at all.

It does actually. Cost of doing business includes all costs.

If amazon believes they need to spend money on R&D then that R&D is a cost of doing business, if its not turning a profit with that R&D spending then the business is not sustainable by definition.

Amazon was not doing R&D for shits and giggles. Just because the time horizon was long doesn't mean it wasn't any less of a requirement for their success. Amazon would not be in the same place it is today if not for that expenditure so claiming it wasn't a "cost" is just disingenuous.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#48
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must admit that my knowledge is lacking in this area. Can someone offer a high-level explanation to one of the people who don't understand corporate taxes in the US? As far as my understanding goes, the bulk of taxes are paid on profit (to be more precise, operating income), and not revenue. As far as I understand, big companies do everything possible to make it seem like they are not profitable from an accounting…

You're missing that Amazon is reinvesting, not hiding profit.

"Margrethe Vestager, the EU commissioner in charge of competition, said Luxembourg’s “illegal tax advantages to Amazon” had allowed almost three-quarters of the company’s profits to go untaxed, allowing it to pay four times less tax than local rivals."

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/04/amazon-eu...

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#49
Taxing profits (as opposed to revenue, value add, capital gains..) is the ultimate quixotic temptation for politicians.

On paper, it is a fantastic tax. Google, Apple, FB, Amazon... all the new economy winners are very profitable, 20% - 30% margins & fast growth are expected (and priced into market caps).

They're so profitable that money is just piling up, atm. They can't usefully invest it all. This means you can tax their profits without affecting the real economy. There's nothing google is doing that it couldn't do if they had to pay $10bn (25%-30%) as a tax on profits.

OTOH, unprofitable companies (eg Tesla), would have trouble paying extra taxes. It'd need to come out of investments in production capacity, R&D, etc. They wouldn't have to pay.

Corporate income tax is just a sensible idea, on the face of it. Unprofitable? Don't pay. Profitable? Pay. Minimum economic disruption.

But in practice... across many times and places... it's proved very hard to make a corporate tax scheme work.

Tax policy complexity. Accounting complexity. Multiple jurisdictions. The looping cascade of company ownership, partial ownership, contractual relationships, making up the legal "structure" of a google or amazon.

It all adds up to a reality wherein politicans cannot make a law that says 25% tax.. and have that mean something similar to what it sounds like.

This is a pill very few politicans or voters can swallow. Of course we can! We're legislators. We make laws. We have police, and tax authorities. Google finance said google made $40.42bn. The rate is 25%. Gives us $10.1bn.

Empirically, they generally can't. Changing things to enable corporate tax would require massive, difficult legal/bureaucratic reforms. You would need to consider insanely difficult changes, like heavy handed restrictions on a company's ability to own other companies, and the types of legal entities that can own legal entities. You'd need new accounting standards. The bureaucratic guts of the economic machine.

Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax

#50
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Amazon is not Jeff Bezos. Taxing him would be a whole different topic of conversation. Probably more on the topics of executive compensation, taxes for high incomes, and a bunch of other possible subjects. Interesting discussion to be had, for sure, but not what the article is really about.

It all falls under the same umbrella, which as you accurately described as "rich guys who don't share anything" and as far as I'm concerned any amount of elevated consciousness around that is a good thing, even if strictly speaking taking money from Bezos the man and Amazon the company are two separate types of taxation and two different discussions. Bezos and his company Amazon both make almost unfathomable amounts of money and don't pay anywhere near what I'd consider a fair share of it back into society. As Amazon's PR people point out this is legal, naturally, but this article does a good job of contrasting Amazon using every tax trick in the book with normal human beings who aren't able to deduct their expenses for cancer treatment. Likely because the lobby representing the financial interests of individuals with cancer is not all that strong.

"Amazon doesn’t pay taxes, but I pay taxes" is a very good sound byte from this, even if the reasons why that's the case are obviously more complicated.

Post reply on HN