61–70 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
May be people should have gotten a normal profession?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that engagement and discussing policies is important. But it does feel disingenuous and aimed at provoking outrage (to trigger a knee-jerk reaction) when you just mention a fact like "look at these rich guys that don't share anything!" and ignore the context of why it got to be the way it is. And I'm not saying that there aren't changes that could and should be made. Just that this particular article doesn't…
I thought this (among other paragraphs) provided context: "Though both parties have sought to lower the top corporate tax rate in the last decade — President Barack Obama proposed lowering it from 35 percent to 28 percent — Republicans in 2017 pushed it down to 21 percent, in addition to expanding some generous tax breaks. The new law allowed immediate expensing of capital expenditures, for example, in order to goose…
I don't think it can be considered fairly informative if it doesn't cover how we got to those values. From reading this article, one could still ask if a tax rate is at 21%, how does that mean a profitable company doesn't pay any taxes?
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…
Those all sound like corporate tax policies. That's literally what they're talking about. Clearly, a growing portion of the electorate doesn't like those policies. That's the first step in democracy, no? Engagement?
The only thing worse than a fool is an engaged fool.
First educate the people, then crank up the engagement. Doing it in the opposite order is a recipe for disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The "fair" share would be a fixed amount of money. Everything else is unfair as it means that some people should pay for others.
The sad state of things is that progressive taxes are unfair, but inevitable.
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…
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…
>>These are the actual things we should be talking about. I (hesitantly) disagree. That specific tax policy change is a tree in a vast forest. It happens to be relevant here, but without it... It's not like Amazon, Google, apple, etc would have paid anywhere near the simple tax rate had that legislation not been enacted. Amazon had a different loophole/strategy in 2016 and will have another one for whenever the 2017…
Then it should be discussed. Along with the policies already mentioned in the article and it's disingenuous not to do so. How can we expect to make informed decisions if we selectively choose what information to expose or hide for discussion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those all sound like corporate tax policies. That's literally what they're talking about. Clearly, a growing portion of the electorate doesn't like those policies. That's the first step in democracy, no? Engagement?
I agree that engagement and discussing policies is important. But it does feel disingenuous and aimed at provoking outrage (to trigger a knee-jerk reaction) when you just mention a fact like "look at these rich guys that don't share anything!" and ignore the context of why it got to be the way it is. And I'm not saying that there aren't changes that could and should be made. Just that this particular article doesn't…
it is all part and parcel with an upcoming election. get your direction from the PAC you deny feeds you stuff, write an article with enough truth in it to pass muster but leaving out enough to make a "rational" decision. Thereby upsetting people by appealing to jealousy, envy, and such, by playing on their morals. After all everyone is for justice, protecting children, the environment, and fairness, aren't they?
tripe like this doesn't belong on HN but with the election season spinning up we will get flooded with both direct and indirect stories that are politically driven.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rent and bills are (in general) not deductible expenses.
but the rent and bills of a corporation are deductable? Why is it different? A corporation has the same legal rights as a person, but a person has to pay more for these rights. It's unfair imho.
Let's say you run a small software company, which is a high margin business. You have $1,050,000 in revenue this year, and $500,000 in expenses, so you make $550,000.
You should be taxed on the $50,000 and the $550,000, not on the $1,050,000. Otherwise, if business expenses were not deductible, low margin and capital intensive businesses would be punished severely. We would have decreased investment in the economy and everyone would suffer for it.
If individuals could deduct their expenses, it would encourage people to spend every penny they make. The mortgage interest deduction is one example where this nudge becomes apparent (albeit real estate has merit as an investment, not just consumption). We already have a low enough savings rate as it is.