> Colin Robertson wonders why he pays federal taxes on the $18,000 a year he makes cleaning carpets, while the tech giant Amazon got a tax rebate.
Who cares about what Colin Robertson thinks?
Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
91–100 of 175 posts
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#92Earlier 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…
Fair enough. I agree that the word count would much better be spent on discussing the relevant legislation and resulting tax codes.
But let me be honest. I wouldn't read that story. I'm not a tax policy wonk, nor am I qualified to opine on the legislative process except to express exasperation at the gridlock. I am however qualified to vote for candidates who are and that first requires awareness of the issues, a topic orthogonal to a precise understanding of the solutions, just like I need a doctor to tell me what to do about my infection after the pain has brought attention to it, not explain the intricate details of how assays work or how antibiotics disrupt bacterial functions.
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#93The 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)?
[deleted]
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it costs you 95 cents to make 1 dollar, an 8% revenue tax would means you would pay 1.03 in cost to make 1.00.
In my country, my company has to pay 21% VAT. For a dollar in sales we have to add 21% in taxes. But we deduct the VAT paid, so if we had to buy stuff for 95 cents, we'd get back the VAT paid on that, resulting in having to pay taxes only on the difference, being 5 cents x 21%, approx 1 cent. Hence it being called "value added tax". I think this is a better tax than income taxes because it taxes consumption, not labo…
Except then it affects poor people more as consumption of things that people need makes up more of their income than the rich who have more disposable income, savings, capital and investments. Thus driving even more wealth inequality. But HN readers are more of the "Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire" types...
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#95> Colin Robertson wonders why he pays federal taxes on the $18,000 a year he makes cleaning carpets, while the tech giant Amazon got a tax rebate. Who cares about what Colin Robertson thinks?
There's also no way that he doesn't get a massive refund at the end of the year based on his salary.
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#96> Colin Robertson wonders why he pays federal taxes on the $18,000 a year he makes cleaning carpets, while the tech giant Amazon got a tax rebate. Who cares about what Colin Robertson thinks?
synecdoche: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (such as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (such as society for high society), the species for the genus (such as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (such as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (such as boards for stage)
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say you run a gas station, which is a notoriously low margin business. You have $1,050,000 in revenue this year, and $1,000,000 in expenses, so you make $50,000. 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…
At a high level of just considering taxable income that is true. However, the difference is there are a lot more things a corp can do to reduce taxable income than an individual can do. If you happen to be the owner of a corp you can also use those things to your individual benefit. If the argument is to say "income is income", then "expenses are expenses" should apply too. Edit: typo
If you go to a high level of abstraction, you remove useful distinctions. That is not a productive line of thought. Not all income is the same, and not all expenses are the same. Excise taxes and any "nudge" tax laws make this obvious.
It is true that there are some tax deductions that are abused. However, the effect of encouraging investment by businesses is much more important.
>If you happen to be the owner of a corp you can also use those things to your individual benefit.
This could be considered an abuse. However, the benefit of encouraging investment by businesses far outweighs the negative of this abuse. We tend to focus our attention on a few big individuals who cheat, and this excessive focus throws off our moral intuitions. Heck, the gas station owner might have deducted the cost of buying a toolbox needed at the workplace, and then borrowed a wrench from that toolbox to go home and fix his plumbing. That would be fine with me, to the extent that all the damn tax paperwork stops being worth keeping track of.
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say you run a gas station, which is a notoriously low margin business. You have $1,050,000 in revenue this year, and $1,000,000 in expenses, so you make $50,000. 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…
At a high level of just considering taxable income that is true. However, the difference is there are a lot more things a corp can do to reduce taxable income than an individual can do. If you happen to be the owner of a corp you can also use those things to your individual benefit. If the argument is to say "income is income", then "expenses are expenses" should apply too. Edit: typo
> the difference is there are a lot more things a corp can do to reduce taxable income than an individual can do.
this is exactly it. Rental costs are deducted as expenses for a corporation, but the same rental expense cannot be deducted from income. Arguably, the cost of staying alive for a person is an expense for making the income!
To make it catagorized would be too complex though - i would propose that personal income should be average-able across that person's lifetime. I.e., if i made $1000000 in one year, i should be able to spread the income from when I first started working (and paying taxes), so that my average income per year is the same number. Then you back pay all the "missing" taxes from those years, rather than suddenly jump to the $1,000,000 tax bracket and the gov't taking 45% from you in one go.
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#99Earlier 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.
Individuals can only do this for 7 years FYI. Corporate carry forward is much longer (is there even a limit? I'm not sure. I usually don't keep my corporations that show a loss for longer than a few years before dissolving them and forming new ones).
Re: Some voters are sick of companies like Amazon paying no corporate tax
#100Earlier 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.
You get a personal exemption and a standard deduction for your living expenses. Yes, it's unfairly low compared to Jeff Bezos's deduction for his Gulfstream plane and executive cafe.