Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

71–80 of 175 posts

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

#71
post #63
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It mentions tax rate laws, but those don't actually cover why Amazon effectively paid no taxes. I.e. massive investments in R&D, stock-based employee compensation, carry-forwards losses, and whatever else I may still be missing. 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 mea…

I don't think its an article about Amazon's tax bill as such. It's about how Ohio voters and presidential candidates are reacting to Amazon and several other firms' effective tax rates.

If they went through what Amazon and Goodyear and GM and Duke Energy all did then they would just be rehashing the report that they conveniently linked.

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

#73
post #58

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.

Sounds silly, but feel free to become a corporation. Well, it's not quite as easy as I say. When I went remote I had to start my own contracting company. Because I live in Japan and (at the time) corporations were the default company configuration, my contracting company was formed as a corporation. There are lots of advantages:

- I can deduct the rent for my work space. In fact, theoretically in Japanese law I can even rent an entire building and offer myself the ability to rent living space for about $150 per month, with the company eating the rest as a loss. Probably you can do something similar in other countries (although I couldn't actually do it... because in order to rent a place I need a company and in order to form a company I need an address... so... well, it didn't quite work out).

- Internet, some of my utilities, etc, etc are expenses. Some furniture as well. Some of it has to be depreciated, though, so I don't get the benefit immediately.

- I can set my salary to anything I want. If it is beneficial for the company to make a profit and for me to make peanuts, then it's fine. If the opposite is beneficial, then it's fine.

- A fair number of expenses can be deducted by having a life insurance plan for employees, etc, etc.

On the downside:

- I have to submit all my accounts using dual entry accounting. The government gets stroppy if I make a mistake because they expect me to be a corporation.

- I have to submit year end accounting. Seriously, I have no time for this and employ a wonderful tax accountant to do this for me. My tax accountant saves me money, but getting a good one is like getting a good car mechanic -- it's hit or miss and can be very expensive if you choose the wrong person.

- I have to do the payroll, calculate withholding tax, pay fees and employment taxes. I have to do this every month and if I'm late I get a really big fine. Luckily my wife does this (seriously, I would never do this without my wife doing all the heavy lifting)

- I have stupid amounts of bank fees because I have to transfer money between 3 different banks just to pay myself. We actually use a sneaker net in one phase: I literally withdraw our payroll from the ATM and deposit in another ATM just to save $20 in transfer fees. Of course, I have to document all of this so the government knows I'm not fiddling anything.

In the end, it's an absolute PITA. I don't really recommend it. I think I save a little money this way over when I was being paid salary. It's really hard to tell, though. However, if you factor in all the work that I need to do, I think I'm being paid about $2 an hour for that effort. Or I should say my wife is. If I didn't have her, it would not be worth it at all.

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

#74
post #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 profit able, 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 t…

We make laws. We have police, and tax authorities. Google finance said google made $40.42bn. The rate is 25%. Gives us $10.1bn.

Your post is very insightful. The only thing I’d add is that when you have a $10 billion tax bill that you can afford to pay $5 billion to attorneys and accountants to avoid it.

That’s the crux of the problem to me. No matter what scheme the government can come up with to tax it, the numbers are so large that it is in the company’s interest and ability to find loopholes. That’s why we end up with sophisticated shell companies shuffling money around in tax havens that are perfectly legal but don’t make sense outside of tax avoidance schemes.

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

#75
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)?

This is offtopic but my country (NL) allows this:

I earned €1600 in 2016 as a student and then €50k in 2017 and 2018 as I started working fulltime. So now I can make a request for 'averaging' my taxes and I now get a some money back.

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

#76
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)?

This is offtopic but my country (NL) allows this: I earned €1600 in 2016 as a student and then €50k in 2017 and 2018 as I started working fulltime. So now I can make a request for 'averaging' my taxes and I now get a some money back.

Same in Israel

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

#77
post #32
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But what is taxed does steer society. Imagine only taxing on pollution (so not on wages/sales/home ownership). Currently we tax on wages/ sales/ home ownership and not on Amazon an little on pollution. Look around to see the result.

I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that Amazon alone should pay a tax on revenue (steering business to its competitors and reducing consumption slightly), that every company should pay a tax on revenue (steering business from more expensive and less vertically-integreated competitors to Amazon, but reducing overall consumption) or something else entirely?

Im saying all tax is paid by consumers in the end. But what is being taxed is still interesting.

I'm suggesting Amazon is currently doing what it does because of taxation law. It simply complies/optimizes. Profit taxed? Dont make profit. Pollution free, dont worry about pollution.

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

#78
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That is in EU, we're talking about the USA corporation.

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

#79
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds silly, but feel free to become a corporation. Well, it's not quite as easy as I say. When I went remote I had to start my own contracting company. Because I live in Japan and (at the time) corporations were the default company configuration, my contracting company was formed as a corporation. There are lots of advantages: - I can deduct the rent for my work space. In fact, theoretically in Japanese law I can e…

>although I couldn't actually do it... because in order to rent a place I need a company and in order to form a company I need an address... so... well, it didn't quite work out

Couldn’t you get the building first, register as a corporation, then subsidize all following months through the corporation?

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

#80
> carryforward losses from years when the company was not profitable

The idea of carrying forward losses in general is sound, but I'm beginning to wonder if there should be an exception. If the loss is intentional, using investment instead of profit to drive growth, I'm not so sure those losses deserve to be carried forward. Probably an unpopular opinion here on HN, but I think denying reductions in those cases would be beneficial not only in terms of tax revenue from the larger companies but also in terms of reducing the VC-fueled ""unicorn or bust" mentality among the smaller ones.

Post reply on HN