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

421–430 of 512 posts

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

#421

Post by prostoalex »

MetalGuru wrote: post #343
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?…

Do losses actually carry forward in full like you're describing? I was under the impression there was an annual limit in the amount you can deduct. For an individual, that limit is $3k.

$3,000 is the deduction limit against personal income. Deduction against capital gains is limitless.

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

#422

Post by anonymous5133 »

JDiculous wrote: post #390
pathseeker wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think payroll expenses are not a part of profit, so no double taxation here. The point is that any money that exits a corporation gets taxed again somewhere. So if a company does really well one year and makes a profit, it gets taxed on that profit even if it keeps it in the bank. Then they use that remaining profit to pay payroll next year and then employees or owners get taxed again.

Sales tax is a double-tax. So what?

Double taxation is unethical.

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

#423

Post by prostoalex »

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.

This happened in California, and now every state senator sees the State Senate as a rotating door and a launchpad for the next career. Get in, introduce some populist bill with your name attached to it, disregard any long-term consequences, get positive press headlines, use the momentum to get hired for the next job.

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

#424

Post by anonuser123456 »

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…

>Maybe the system could be different where companies directly pay for the road upgrades they need and the power infrastructure upgrades they need, etc...

This is the solution most economists would suggest.

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

#425

Post by anonymous5133 »

onion2k wrote: post #48
driverdan wrote: post #34

Rather than being outraged at the headline, what are the actual details? Why were they able to pay no taxes? Was it due to carried losses or something like that? Anyone mad at a company for not pay taxes is misdirecting their anger. Companies follow the law. If you don't like the law elect different politicians. Don't get mad at companies that follow the law.

If I spend a few million to get some lawyers to work out a legal loophole that means I can murder someone and get away with it that wouldn't make it OK to actually do it. The same applies to tax avoidance. It might be legal but it's still wrong .

I don't care if you think tax avoidance is wrong. I am still going to maximize my life around avoiding taxes and I feel absolutely zero remorse for doing it.

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

#426

Post by theartfuldodger »

arkades wrote: post #273
theartfuldodger wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Profits should follow arbitrary calendar years?

Because private citizens aren’t given the same affordances. The double standard is objectionable.

Interestingly ( to me) I will be deducting losses specifically from Netflix this tax season and will have carryover in 2020.

There are a handful of available carryovers and the concept of NOL is very similar to a private citizen as this discussed concern is to a business.

Innovation and front heavy spending is very much improved do to this issue. It is a sound concept.

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

#427

Post by jayess »

SilasX wrote: post #189
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.

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?…

So many replies to your comment, but no one seems to be able to answer the question. Articles like these manufacture outrage with no detail whatsoever on why the company paid no income taxes.

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

#428

Post by hjanssen »

pathseeker wrote: post #381
hjanssen wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still fail to see your point. A lobbyist still has a fundamentally different job than a lawyer, and they both use fundamentally different tactics to reach fundamentally different goals.

They don't have fundamentally different jobs. They are there to represent their clients' interests and advocate for them.

You can say the same about a debt collector. Thats just too broad of a statement to do anything with it.

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

#429

Post by Spivak »

objektif wrote: post #415
chongli wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people love to throw around the word "shareholders" like it's a pejorative. The word seems to carry connotations of greedy old Uncle Scrooge, Uncle Pennybags, or some spoiled Saudi Prince. That's a highly distorted view. Lots of "shareholders" are people's retirement funds, pensions, and the like. When those funds finally pay out, they get taxed as income just like for everybody else.

Most stocks hold by Americans are owned by the top 10%. Unfortunately this libertarian trickle down fantasy of trickle down economics is not correct.

This is a stupid argument. Say we have 100 people in our economy, 90 of them $50k, 9 of them make $200k, and 1 person makes 1 million. Everyone invests 10% of their income in 'stoks' which cost $5/each.

Each of the 90 people invest $5k and have 1000 stoks.

Each of the 9 people invest $20k and have 4000 stoks.

The millionaire invests $100k and has 20,000 stoks.

The top 10% have 99.96% of the stoks.

It would be weird if the richest people didn't own most of the stocks. It doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem.

Post reply on HN