3 ms·

So that $28 billion in tax revenue they talk about. How does that jive with all of the statements that Amazon paid $0 in tax through savvy use of the laws? Ign

So that $28 billion in tax revenue they talk about. How does that jive with all of the statements that Amazon paid $0 in tax through savvy use of the laws? Ignorance? Wishful thinking? Marketing? I'm honestly not trying to be political, just wondering where they're getting that from.

bobcostas55 8y ago
Amazon pays $0 corporate income tax. They pay huge amounts of other taxes.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  Is there a citation for this that does not lead back to that probably-biased ITEP article? Edit: clarification, since it seems my question as misinterpreted. Is there a citation for the $0 in federal income tax?
  - Loughla 8y ago
    This is my question as well.
  - gimmeThaBeet 8y ago
    Their financial statements show they provisioned $1.2 B in income taxes worldwide for 2018, I suppose from that narrow perspective you have to define 'plenty'. Their effective tax rate seems like it's in the 10% range? I think it'd be difficult to measure their employee tax footprint, I haven't been able to find good numbers on that, a Fermi estimate makes their numbers seem plausible if they went according to plan. https://ir.aboutamazon.com/static-files/ce3b13a9-4bf1-4388-89a0-e4bd4abd07b8 https://ir.aboutamazon.com/static-files/ce3b13a9-4bf1-4388-8...
  - credit_guy 8y ago
    Not the OP, but here's a Bloomberg article about this [1]. It has a bit of an incendiary tone. Later Bloomberg published an editorial [2] explaining that actually there's nothing scandalous about the zero federal tax rate; it is due to a difference between tax accounting and GAAP accounting. For tax purposes deferred equity compensation is considered to be out-the-door the moment it is granted, for GAAP purposes it's out-the-door the moment it vests. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/tax-law-didn-t-help-amazon-pay-zero-in-2018-it-was-just-savvy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/tax-law-d... [2]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-26/amazon-s-vanishing-tax-bill-isn-t-a-scandal https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-26/amazon...
hessproject 8y ago
That figure comes from the taxes paid by the people they employ
- Loughla 8y ago
  That tastes bad to me. That's not amazon paying tax, that's just employees. That makes the statement in that letter seem disingenuous. Am I overthinking this?
  - hessproject 8y ago
    Just pointing out the number they're referring to For the record I'm an LIC resident and generally opposed to Amazon under the proposed plan
  - lenticular 8y ago
    No, you're not. This also conveniently ignores the additional costs to services.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > That tastes bad to me. That's not amazon paying tax, that's just employees. The entity that is charged the tax has nothing to do with who's actually paying the tax (in the real sense - the person who bears the burden of the tax). A sales tax that's added to a point-of-sales bill versus a sales tax that's invisible to the consumer and charged to the supplier has the exact same economic impact on both of them. For example, FICA taxes are nominally paid 50% by the employer and 50% by the employee, but over 90% of the actual tax incidence falls on the employee. Even if we changed the law so that 100% of FICA taxes were paid for by the employer, employees' after-tax wages would be the same.
yohann305 8y ago
you might be confused between Federal tax and State tax. Amazon paid $0 in Federal taxes but they still have to pay state tax in the states they do business in.
- pzone 8y ago
  This is correct. The $27B also counts income taxes paid by employees, property taxes based on rising valuations, and so on.
bogomipz 8y ago
>"How does that jive with all of the statements that Amazon paid $0 in tax through savvy use of the laws?" You want "jibe" here not "jive." For some reason this malapropism seems to be on the rise, not sure why. Jive is never correct in the context of "in agreement" or "in accordance." See: https://grammarist.com/usage/gibe-jibe-jive/ https://grammarist.com/usage/gibe-jibe-jive/

bobcostas55 8y ago

Amazon pays $0 corporate income tax. They pay huge amounts of other taxes.

vonmoltke 8y ago
Is there a citation for this that does not lead back to that probably-biased ITEP article? Edit: clarification, since it seems my question as misinterpreted. Is there a citation for the $0 in federal income tax?
- Loughla 8y ago
  This is my question as well.
- gimmeThaBeet 8y ago
  Their financial statements show they provisioned $1.2 B in income taxes worldwide for 2018, I suppose from that narrow perspective you have to define 'plenty'. Their effective tax rate seems like it's in the 10% range? I think it'd be difficult to measure their employee tax footprint, I haven't been able to find good numbers on that, a Fermi estimate makes their numbers seem plausible if they went according to plan. https://ir.aboutamazon.com/static-files/ce3b13a9-4bf1-4388-89a0-e4bd4abd07b8 https://ir.aboutamazon.com/static-files/ce3b13a9-4bf1-4388-8...
- credit_guy 8y ago
  Not the OP, but here's a Bloomberg article about this [1]. It has a bit of an incendiary tone. Later Bloomberg published an editorial [2] explaining that actually there's nothing scandalous about the zero federal tax rate; it is due to a difference between tax accounting and GAAP accounting. For tax purposes deferred equity compensation is considered to be out-the-door the moment it is granted, for GAAP purposes it's out-the-door the moment it vests. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/tax-law-didn-t-help-amazon-pay-zero-in-2018-it-was-just-savvy https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/tax-law-d... [2]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-26/amazon-s-vanishing-tax-bill-isn-t-a-scandal https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-26/amazon...

hessproject 8y ago

That figure comes from the taxes paid by the people they employ

Loughla 8y ago
That tastes bad to me. That's not amazon paying tax, that's just employees. That makes the statement in that letter seem disingenuous. Am I overthinking this?
- hessproject 8y ago
  Just pointing out the number they're referring to For the record I'm an LIC resident and generally opposed to Amazon under the proposed plan
- lenticular 8y ago
  No, you're not. This also conveniently ignores the additional costs to services.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > That tastes bad to me. That's not amazon paying tax, that's just employees. The entity that is charged the tax has nothing to do with who's actually paying the tax (in the real sense - the person who bears the burden of the tax). A sales tax that's added to a point-of-sales bill versus a sales tax that's invisible to the consumer and charged to the supplier has the exact same economic impact on both of them. For example, FICA taxes are nominally paid 50% by the employer and 50% by the employee, but over 90% of the actual tax incidence falls on the employee. Even if we changed the law so that 100% of FICA taxes were paid for by the employer, employees' after-tax wages would be the same.

yohann305 8y ago

you might be confused between Federal tax and State tax. Amazon paid $0 in Federal taxes but they still have to pay state tax in the states they do business in.

pzone 8y ago
This is correct. The $27B also counts income taxes paid by employees, property taxes based on rising valuations, and so on.

bogomipz 8y ago

>"How does that jive with all of the statements that Amazon paid $0 in tax through savvy use of the laws?" You want "jibe" here not "jive." For some reason this malapropism seems to be on the rise, not sure why. Jive is never correct in the context of "in agreement" or "in accordance." See: https://grammarist.com/usage/gibe-jibe-jive/ https://grammarist.com/usage/gibe-jibe-jive/