9 ms·

America needs to see Amazon’s tax returns

92 points by notinversed 7y ago

vgetr 7y ago
Apparently everyone is about the, “right to privacy” until their own envy overrides it.
- luckylion 7y ago
  That goes both ways, though. Apparently, most corporations are against the right to privacy ... until somebody wants to see how many tax loopholes they've used (and how much money they gave to politicians to create them).
  - vgetr 7y ago
    Which is exactly why creating more government will exacerbate the problem.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Privacy for a corporation itself isn't applicable and really somewhat oxymoronic given corporation transparency requirements. Fundamentally they must be owned and managed by someone else with stake in it. Heck, income and tax information aren't even guaranteed as having a right to privacy for humans. For corporations investors need to be able o be informed about their business operations - it is what separates it from a scam and prevents the investment system from collapsing as it would if there was nothing stopping anyone from just taking the money and running off with it. Earning and tax information wouldn't make sense as private. That doesn't mean that employees and customers have no right to privacy because of a corporation. Just like how states don't have rights but the people making them up do.
  - vgetr 7y ago
    Should we then require restaurants to install cameras to make sure waiters/waitresses are fully reporting their paper tips? Seems to me that fits within the category of tracking business operations.
    - xfde 7y ago
      Libertarian ideas like this are, frankly, stupid.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - vgetr 7y ago
        Funny how expressing the opinion that regulation will lead to harm gets you downvoted while calling someone, “stupid” doesn’t have a single effect.
        pwinnski 7y ago
        Parent comment referred to the idea of installing cameras to track tip recording as stupid, not you or any other person.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jacknews 7y ago
America, and the world, should see everyone's tax returns. What's the big secret? If you're proud of what you earn and the taxes that flow from that then show it. If you're not proud, then that should be exposed too.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  This always gets trotted out by people who make good money and who's family and friends basically all make good money. It's like the personal finance instance of saying "I have nothing to hide so I don't need privacy". I'd rather not have the in-laws knowing exactly how much I make or have my next employer know exactly how much more they're offering than the last one thank you very much. While I understand that in some countries tax returns are public, those countries are very different than the US in a multitude of ways (which are beyond the scope of this comment, I'm not going write a wall of text, those invite nit picking).
  - amelius 7y ago
    > I'd rather not have the in-laws knowing exactly how much I make or have my next employer know exactly how much more they're offering than the last one thank you very much. But on the flip side, you'll know exactly how much your colleagues make.
    - lvh 7y ago
      By framing it as a flip side it sounds like two sides of a “fair” coin, but for the vast majority of people their relationship to their employer is one with a serious power imbalance.
      - amelius 7y ago
        By knowing what your coworkers earn (just like your employer knows!) you decrease the power imbalance.
        7y ago
Proven 7y ago
I don't care about Amazon's tax returns. I care about my own, and the only thing that bothers me is that I pay too much tax. If Amazon paid more, I don't think any of us would pay less, so who cares how much they pay.
sshagent 7y ago
I'd like to see every mention of companies in the news to include the amount of tax they paid in the last year. So in this case "blah blah blah Amazon($0)".
- lvh 7y ago
  How do you propose to calculate that number? Take it from the SEC filing? Do you suggest that has explanatory power? A labor intensive business with low margins (say, a grocery) is likely to report low contributions, even though their actual social contribution is high (payroll taxes, employing people which allows them to consume further...)
- reallydontask 7y ago
  I seem to remember Barclays saying they'd paid X amount of tax (it was a lot). Turned out it was the tax that employees had paid. Fair enough, those people depended on Barclays for their livelihood but not quite what people have in mind when they think about the amount of tax a company pays Anyway, you can just imagine how companies would use that figure rather than corporate taxes Good idea though
  - granshaw 7y ago
    Wow, how did that go down in the UK? I can imagine the public being furious if Amazon pulled that same stunt here.
    - reallydontask 7y ago
      I don't think people were happy but, as far as I'm aware, nothing has changed regarding the amount of tax big companies pay so ....
    - ptah 7y ago
      UK public has lots to be furious about. it won't make one iota of a difference though. EDIT: global corporations are gods in the UK and effectively above the law
jakelazaroff 7y ago
> “We pay every penny we owe in corporate taxes including $2.6 billion over the past three years,” Amazon said when reached for comment. “We’ve invested $270 billion in the US since 2010 and created more than 275,000 jobs.” Does "every penny we owe" mean what a layperson would think, or does it mean their lawyers used every weird loophole they could find to make sure they "owe" nothing at all? The second part of the quote is irrelevant. It's nice that they're creating jobs, but they're only mentioning that to essentially bribe us into accepting being swindled out of money they owe. Just pay your taxes!
- sokoloff 7y ago
  "Every penny we owe" would presumably mean to a layperson "every penny legally required by the tax code," which I think is how Amazon intended it.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    Built into that meaning would be an incorrect understanding of the tax code, which I think one can say is purposefully being leveraged in PR statements like this. Which is to say they are purposefully being misleading.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      How would you propose they rewrite it?
      - SkyBelow 7y ago
        For PR it works sufficiently as is. My criticism of the statement is not in its effectiveness and I don't think any resolution of my criticism would allow them to keep the original goal of the statement.
    - kronin 7y ago
      How is an "incorrect understanding of the tax code" built into that statement? Are you saying that the average layperson doesn't understand the numbers shuffling that goes on to get the biggest deduction? All tax preparation advertisements I see on TV tout their ability to "get you the biggest refund". Why would it not be a safe assumption to apply that same thought to corporate taxes?
lvh 7y ago
Many of the candidates are US lawmakers. Have they attempted to acquire the tax return? They’re statutorily entitled to it, and the case for a “legitimate legislative purpose” (“the tax code sounds messed up and I want to fix it”) is much clearer than it was when Congress exercised the same right to attempt to acquire Trump’s tax returns. If they haven’t, this sounds like pandering. But hey, so’s “let’s axe student debt” instead of the obvious “let’s 20x Pell grants”, so...
- jerf 7y ago
  One of my least favorite politician games is when they're grandstanding about some problem and demanding some new power to address the problem, when they are already empowered to address the problem somehow. The administrative agencies are particularly prone to this; many of them have quite surprisingly vast powers, but will then claim helplessness in the face of some particular problem unless they're given even more. But you dig in, and while perhaps maybe the exact thing they're asking for is out of their power, they've got several other options for fixing the problem... if "fixing the problem" was their actual priority. But legislatures play this game plenty too. (And that's not even mentioning the cases where they created the problem in the first place.)
  - lvh 7y ago
    Agreed, and I think it’s even worse here: Bernie Sanders is saying he will do a thing that is explicitly his job as a Senator and explicitly not his job as President!
- mc32 7y ago
  The cost of college/university is outrageous, especially for the return on investment for many questionable degrees (questionable in the sense of market demand). We should funnel many more students into vocational schools where they’d contribute more to society (by not having to revert to waitressing as fall back). They could be nurses, welders, HVAC, etc earning good money. But no, we have many many people regretting their majors and many disillusioned with the job prospects of their peripheral majors. My pet peeve is the attention elite private schools get. They represent a very small fraction of all students. We should instead ensure state schools remain affordable but also ensure that grades mean something and not everyone “deserves” acceptance. We should push people who don’t fit in academically into vocations rather than string them along and have them fail in a career.
stakhanov 7y ago
Taxes should not be decided through a popularity contest and enforced through the court of public opinion. After the financial crisis, bankers were unpopular, so politicians in the U.K. curried favour with the public by bringing in a banker bonus tax. Tech companies were once the pride of the nation in the U.S. and the notion of creating tax incentives for tech investment in the U.S. was highly popular. Nowadays, they are no longer popular, so there is now a public outcry for taxing them more. Tax can't be like that, because investments don't go to where there is a lot of uncertainty. I do agree that Amazon not paying any tax is an indicator of a broken system that needs fixing. But politicians coming out and saying "I'm going to tax Amazon" is not right either. They should say what the system should be, bring it in, and then stick with it, making sure there is proper enforcement. They can't just come out during each electoral cycle and say "This year, we like Tesla, so whatever system doesn't have Tesla paying any taxes, that's the right system. And this year, we dislike Amazon, so whatever system levies a lot of taxes on Amazon, that's the system we're going to have. Not sure if the same will still be true next year, but we'll cross that bidge once we get to it."
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Really the aspect which taxes in theory should be "biased" towards is accounting for externalities positive and negative. If mines, banks, or any other industry risks needing expensive public remediation they /should/ be taxed more than mere profit margins. If they cannot afford it - well that is the point neither can we. In practice it is a complete mess of special interests paying money to insist that the government's highest priority should be getting people to drink more Ovaltine. The issues of that tax code are systemic but that level of abstraction is seldom understood.
  - stakhanov 7y ago
    Well: The bonus tax wasn't actually a tax on the amount of risk-taking that a bank was doing (with the understanding that some of that risk would land on the government balance sheet because of the too-big-to-fail effect). It was neither designed to be that, nor was the income that the exchequer earned from that in any way related to what it costs the government to cover that risk. It could be argued that by discouraging remuneration models whereby decision makers share in profits (and therefore also in downside risks), this tax might have even had the opposite effect of increasing risk-taking by increasing moral hazard. So, really, what it was was plainly and simply: "Here are a bunch of people who are disliked by the majority of the electorate. Therefore, let's have them give us some money." EDIT: This was the story I was talking about: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/business/global/10pound.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/business/global/10pound.h...
jerf 7y ago
America won't understand Amazon's tax returns. Between the vast bulk of people who simply won't understand them, and the small-but-loud minority of people who will be loudly misinterpreting them (in many cases, deliberately), I don't see this being helpful. It amounts to people asking for a platform to demagogue from. The amount of data we have now is really plenty to do the job. It's up to the professional legislators to figure out how to fix it.
- frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago
  I agree, transparency is bad and people shouldn't have information if they don't understand it. Also people shouldn't have information because they might misuse it.
  - mc32 7y ago
    The thing is fringe elements will abuse this and misrepresent. Just as on the right statistics will be used to misrepresent crime and such so that now many news orgs omit certain aspects of perp information so as not to contribute to that phenomenon.
    - noobermin 7y ago
      Was Edward Snowden wrong to expose pervasive spying from the government? That was, in fact, the government's argument regarding the leaks being damaging to national security.
      - 420codebro 7y ago
        Snowden did a noble deed. On the other hand, Manning is a fucking basket case.
      - mc32 7y ago
        This is a delicate thing. This kind of high level whistleblowing is necessarily frought with peril. It has to be one of those things that do knowing you’re sacrificing everything. Like being a deserter or being a double agent. Your belief has to be high and you should be willing to take the repercussions as a patriot. Not too dissimilar from being a colonial revolutionary.
lvh 7y ago
The President does not set tax policy. The legislature does, and many of these candidates are lawmakers. But in the recent debates we also discussed if candidates would prosecute Trump after he’s no longer a sitting President, apparently conveniently forgetting that it’s the DoJ, not the President, who decides who to prosecute.
- w4 7y ago
  > But in the recent debates we also discussed if candidates would prosecute Trump after he’s no longer a sitting President, apparently conveniently forgetting that it’s the DoJ, not the President, who decides who to prosecute. You’re mostly right on tax policy, though a lot of tax policy is set by guidance on and interpretation of the statutes, which the President can influence since Treasury is part of the Executive. On the other hand, if we set aside the politics of prosecuting an ex-President for a moment (that debate could go on and on), the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the President. It would be in those candidates’ power to set that prosecutorial agenda for the DOJ if elected.
  - lvh 7y ago
    That’s true! But just so we’re on the same page: both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. (Finally, I’m guessing we also agree that we’re not an statute interpretation or a regulation away from Amazon paying, let’s say, 10% of their SEC-reported profits in taxes.)
    - w4 7y ago
      > both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. Sure. But that’s a political judgement, not a statement about the actual powers of the Executive, which is what you were talking about above. It’s within the President’s power to instruct the AG to pursue a particular case, and if the AG refuses then the President may replace them. Whether or not that’s appropriate, politically tenable, or might expose a President to action by the Legislative Branch, is a totally different question.
fosco 7y ago
The tax code is not Amazons problem. They are legally obligated by their shareholders to make the biggest profit possible, likewise every other business. people should be protesting congress, not Amazon, this constant red herring is ridiculous, Amazon, like every other business is trying to compete and will pay as little taxes as possible. Tell congress to change the rules and all businesses will play by better rules. any other conversation about the meaning of Amazon paying the tax they have to I believe is a waste of time, both parties are guilty and the citizens are guilty for not protesting congress.
- johneth 7y ago
  > They are legally obligated by their shareholders to make the biggest profit possible, likewise every other business. They're not, it's a common misconception: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...
  - Xixi 7y ago
    Very interesting link. Here is the part relevant to this discussion: "Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.) [1] In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354
    - Xixi 7y ago
      The context of the quote from [1] is also well worth the read, in my opinion: "While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well. HHS would draw a sharp line between nonprofit corporations (which, HHS concedes, are protected by RFRA) and for-profit corporations (which HHS would leave unprotected), but the actual picture is less clear-cut. Not all corporations that decline to organize as nonprofits do so in order to maximize profit. For example, organizations with religious and charitable aims might organize as for-profit corporations because of the potential advantages of that corporate form, such as the freedom to participate in lobbying for legislation or campaigning for political candidates who promote their religious or charitable goals." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354#OPINION_3-23ref https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354#OPINION...
sschueller 7y ago
Aren't the tax returns of public companies public?
fyoving 7y ago
It's curious how when these people complain about corporations not paying taxes they reliably fail to mention that it's because of R&D tax credits. Not sure how wise it is for politicians to employ a populist strategy against companies that outstrip them in favorability among the average citizen.
a_CPA 7y ago
The historical Boston Tea Party event comes to mind. Not wanting to pay taxes (or in this case, legally minimizing your tax burden) is as American as apple pie.
tylerl 7y ago
Looking at individual company tax returns is the wrong solution to this problem. It's not just ineffective, it's dishonest. It's tempting to take a "tax the bastards" viewpoint and argue that the tax-avoiding companies are the problem, that they're freeloading, scamming the government. That's the message you get from the presidential candidates. But that argument wilfully ignores the most important fact: tax incentives are the way the government pays people and companies to change their behavior. The incentive says the government will pay you $X if you do some specific thing. Install solar panels, cut carbon emissions, employ members of a vulnerable population. There are thousands of options. They use the tax process to distribute the rewards because it's simpler and cheaper that way. Low-tax companies are just the ones who operate in spaces with a lot of these incentives. Identifying the companies isn't relevant, the companies aren't the problem. You want to instead identify the incentives that are eating up your revenue. How much does your solar panel incentive cost? That kind of thing. And before you ask: Yes, offshore income arrangement are another tax incentive. They're more complicated beause they involve several countries competing on tax rates, but it's just another version of the same problem.
- reallydude 7y ago
  > It's not just ineffective, it's dishonest. People don't understand, so they ask for more information. That's about as honest as it gets. > tax incentives are the way the government pays people and companies to change their behavior. Which has nothing to do with motivation. That's a large part of the ask.
thdxr 7y ago
Trying to establish a set of rules for what counts as a business expense and what doesn't for the infinite number of changing industries is a futile task. It also creates weird situations like Apple harboring cash outside the USA. We should get rid of the corporate tax rate and tax money when it comes out of corporations to real people (dividends, buybacks, etc) at a revenue neutral rate. Would make things a lot cleaner
- dmwallin 7y ago
  All this means is that large net-worth individuals will increase the practice of keeping money within a corporate structure and using that for as many expenses as possible.
  - thdxr 7y ago
    Through what mechanism can a large net worth individual get a company like Apple to buy things for them? They're not the only shareholder This is also possible to do today and when it happens the SEC investigates whether a $100M painting for the CEO's office was an appropriate expenditure of other shareholders money. The tax policy doesn't have a bearing on this type of fraud
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      letters of credit or equivalent, heck there are whole circuits already that work like that, they move around credits at neutral exchange rates so they end up financially as exchanging debts, like sardex.

92 points by notinversed 7y ago

vgetr 7y ago

Apparently everyone is about the, “right to privacy” until their own envy overrides it.

luckylion 7y ago
That goes both ways, though. Apparently, most corporations are against the right to privacy ... until somebody wants to see how many tax loopholes they've used (and how much money they gave to politicians to create them).
- vgetr 7y ago
  Which is exactly why creating more government will exacerbate the problem.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Privacy for a corporation itself isn't applicable and really somewhat oxymoronic given corporation transparency requirements. Fundamentally they must be owned and managed by someone else with stake in it. Heck, income and tax information aren't even guaranteed as having a right to privacy for humans. For corporations investors need to be able o be informed about their business operations - it is what separates it from a scam and prevents the investment system from collapsing as it would if there was nothing stopping anyone from just taking the money and running off with it. Earning and tax information wouldn't make sense as private. That doesn't mean that employees and customers have no right to privacy because of a corporation. Just like how states don't have rights but the people making them up do.
- vgetr 7y ago
  Should we then require restaurants to install cameras to make sure waiters/waitresses are fully reporting their paper tips? Seems to me that fits within the category of tracking business operations.
  - xfde 7y ago
    Libertarian ideas like this are, frankly, stupid.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - vgetr 7y ago
      Funny how expressing the opinion that regulation will lead to harm gets you downvoted while calling someone, “stupid” doesn’t have a single effect.
      - pwinnski 7y ago
        Parent comment referred to the idea of installing cameras to track tip recording as stupid, not you or any other person.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jacknews 7y ago

America, and the world, should see everyone's tax returns. What's the big secret? If you're proud of what you earn and the taxes that flow from that then show it. If you're not proud, then that should be exposed too.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
This always gets trotted out by people who make good money and who's family and friends basically all make good money. It's like the personal finance instance of saying "I have nothing to hide so I don't need privacy". I'd rather not have the in-laws knowing exactly how much I make or have my next employer know exactly how much more they're offering than the last one thank you very much. While I understand that in some countries tax returns are public, those countries are very different than the US in a multitude of ways (which are beyond the scope of this comment, I'm not going write a wall of text, those invite nit picking).
- amelius 7y ago
  > I'd rather not have the in-laws knowing exactly how much I make or have my next employer know exactly how much more they're offering than the last one thank you very much. But on the flip side, you'll know exactly how much your colleagues make.
  - lvh 7y ago
    By framing it as a flip side it sounds like two sides of a “fair” coin, but for the vast majority of people their relationship to their employer is one with a serious power imbalance.
    - amelius 7y ago
      By knowing what your coworkers earn (just like your employer knows!) you decrease the power imbalance.
      - 7y ago

Proven 7y ago

I don't care about Amazon's tax returns. I care about my own, and the only thing that bothers me is that I pay too much tax. If Amazon paid more, I don't think any of us would pay less, so who cares how much they pay.

sshagent 7y ago

I'd like to see every mention of companies in the news to include the amount of tax they paid in the last year. So in this case "blah blah blah Amazon($0)".

lvh 7y ago
How do you propose to calculate that number? Take it from the SEC filing? Do you suggest that has explanatory power? A labor intensive business with low margins (say, a grocery) is likely to report low contributions, even though their actual social contribution is high (payroll taxes, employing people which allows them to consume further...)
reallydontask 7y ago
I seem to remember Barclays saying they'd paid X amount of tax (it was a lot). Turned out it was the tax that employees had paid. Fair enough, those people depended on Barclays for their livelihood but not quite what people have in mind when they think about the amount of tax a company pays Anyway, you can just imagine how companies would use that figure rather than corporate taxes Good idea though
- granshaw 7y ago
  Wow, how did that go down in the UK? I can imagine the public being furious if Amazon pulled that same stunt here.
  - reallydontask 7y ago
    I don't think people were happy but, as far as I'm aware, nothing has changed regarding the amount of tax big companies pay so ....
  - ptah 7y ago
    UK public has lots to be furious about. it won't make one iota of a difference though. EDIT: global corporations are gods in the UK and effectively above the law

jakelazaroff 7y ago

> “We pay every penny we owe in corporate taxes including $2.6 billion over the past three years,” Amazon said when reached for comment. “We’ve invested $270 billion in the US since 2010 and created more than 275,000 jobs.” Does "every penny we owe" mean what a layperson would think, or does it mean their lawyers used every weird loophole they could find to make sure they "owe" nothing at all? The second part of the quote is irrelevant. It's nice that they're creating jobs, but they're only mentioning that to essentially bribe us into accepting being swindled out of money they owe. Just pay your taxes!

sokoloff 7y ago
"Every penny we owe" would presumably mean to a layperson "every penny legally required by the tax code," which I think is how Amazon intended it.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Built into that meaning would be an incorrect understanding of the tax code, which I think one can say is purposefully being leveraged in PR statements like this. Which is to say they are purposefully being misleading.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    How would you propose they rewrite it?
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      For PR it works sufficiently as is. My criticism of the statement is not in its effectiveness and I don't think any resolution of my criticism would allow them to keep the original goal of the statement.
  - kronin 7y ago
    How is an "incorrect understanding of the tax code" built into that statement? Are you saying that the average layperson doesn't understand the numbers shuffling that goes on to get the biggest deduction? All tax preparation advertisements I see on TV tout their ability to "get you the biggest refund". Why would it not be a safe assumption to apply that same thought to corporate taxes?

lvh 7y ago

Many of the candidates are US lawmakers. Have they attempted to acquire the tax return? They’re statutorily entitled to it, and the case for a “legitimate legislative purpose” (“the tax code sounds messed up and I want to fix it”) is much clearer than it was when Congress exercised the same right to attempt to acquire Trump’s tax returns. If they haven’t, this sounds like pandering. But hey, so’s “let’s axe student debt” instead of the obvious “let’s 20x Pell grants”, so...

jerf 7y ago
One of my least favorite politician games is when they're grandstanding about some problem and demanding some new power to address the problem, when they are already empowered to address the problem somehow. The administrative agencies are particularly prone to this; many of them have quite surprisingly vast powers, but will then claim helplessness in the face of some particular problem unless they're given even more. But you dig in, and while perhaps maybe the exact thing they're asking for is out of their power, they've got several other options for fixing the problem... if "fixing the problem" was their actual priority. But legislatures play this game plenty too. (And that's not even mentioning the cases where they created the problem in the first place.)
- lvh 7y ago
  Agreed, and I think it’s even worse here: Bernie Sanders is saying he will do a thing that is explicitly his job as a Senator and explicitly not his job as President!
mc32 7y ago
The cost of college/university is outrageous, especially for the return on investment for many questionable degrees (questionable in the sense of market demand). We should funnel many more students into vocational schools where they’d contribute more to society (by not having to revert to waitressing as fall back). They could be nurses, welders, HVAC, etc earning good money. But no, we have many many people regretting their majors and many disillusioned with the job prospects of their peripheral majors. My pet peeve is the attention elite private schools get. They represent a very small fraction of all students. We should instead ensure state schools remain affordable but also ensure that grades mean something and not everyone “deserves” acceptance. We should push people who don’t fit in academically into vocations rather than string them along and have them fail in a career.

stakhanov 7y ago

Taxes should not be decided through a popularity contest and enforced through the court of public opinion. After the financial crisis, bankers were unpopular, so politicians in the U.K. curried favour with the public by bringing in a banker bonus tax. Tech companies were once the pride of the nation in the U.S. and the notion of creating tax incentives for tech investment in the U.S. was highly popular. Nowadays, they are no longer popular, so there is now a public outcry for taxing them more. Tax can't be like that, because investments don't go to where there is a lot of uncertainty. I do agree that Amazon not paying any tax is an indicator of a broken system that needs fixing. But politicians coming out and saying "I'm going to tax Amazon" is not right either. They should say what the system should be, bring it in, and then stick with it, making sure there is proper enforcement. They can't just come out during each electoral cycle and say "This year, we like Tesla, so whatever system doesn't have Tesla paying any taxes, that's the right system. And this year, we dislike Amazon, so whatever system levies a lot of taxes on Amazon, that's the system we're going to have. Not sure if the same will still be true next year, but we'll cross that bidge once we get to it."

Nasrudith 7y ago
Really the aspect which taxes in theory should be "biased" towards is accounting for externalities positive and negative. If mines, banks, or any other industry risks needing expensive public remediation they /should/ be taxed more than mere profit margins. If they cannot afford it - well that is the point neither can we. In practice it is a complete mess of special interests paying money to insist that the government's highest priority should be getting people to drink more Ovaltine. The issues of that tax code are systemic but that level of abstraction is seldom understood.
- stakhanov 7y ago
  Well: The bonus tax wasn't actually a tax on the amount of risk-taking that a bank was doing (with the understanding that some of that risk would land on the government balance sheet because of the too-big-to-fail effect). It was neither designed to be that, nor was the income that the exchequer earned from that in any way related to what it costs the government to cover that risk. It could be argued that by discouraging remuneration models whereby decision makers share in profits (and therefore also in downside risks), this tax might have even had the opposite effect of increasing risk-taking by increasing moral hazard. So, really, what it was was plainly and simply: "Here are a bunch of people who are disliked by the majority of the electorate. Therefore, let's have them give us some money." EDIT: This was the story I was talking about: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/business/global/10pound.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/business/global/10pound.h...

jerf 7y ago

America won't understand Amazon's tax returns. Between the vast bulk of people who simply won't understand them, and the small-but-loud minority of people who will be loudly misinterpreting them (in many cases, deliberately), I don't see this being helpful. It amounts to people asking for a platform to demagogue from. The amount of data we have now is really plenty to do the job. It's up to the professional legislators to figure out how to fix it.

frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago
I agree, transparency is bad and people shouldn't have information if they don't understand it. Also people shouldn't have information because they might misuse it.
- mc32 7y ago
  The thing is fringe elements will abuse this and misrepresent. Just as on the right statistics will be used to misrepresent crime and such so that now many news orgs omit certain aspects of perp information so as not to contribute to that phenomenon.
  - noobermin 7y ago
    Was Edward Snowden wrong to expose pervasive spying from the government? That was, in fact, the government's argument regarding the leaks being damaging to national security.
    - 420codebro 7y ago
      Snowden did a noble deed. On the other hand, Manning is a fucking basket case.
    - mc32 7y ago
      This is a delicate thing. This kind of high level whistleblowing is necessarily frought with peril. It has to be one of those things that do knowing you’re sacrificing everything. Like being a deserter or being a double agent. Your belief has to be high and you should be willing to take the repercussions as a patriot. Not too dissimilar from being a colonial revolutionary.

lvh 7y ago

The President does not set tax policy. The legislature does, and many of these candidates are lawmakers. But in the recent debates we also discussed if candidates would prosecute Trump after he’s no longer a sitting President, apparently conveniently forgetting that it’s the DoJ, not the President, who decides who to prosecute.

w4 7y ago
> But in the recent debates we also discussed if candidates would prosecute Trump after he’s no longer a sitting President, apparently conveniently forgetting that it’s the DoJ, not the President, who decides who to prosecute. You’re mostly right on tax policy, though a lot of tax policy is set by guidance on and interpretation of the statutes, which the President can influence since Treasury is part of the Executive. On the other hand, if we set aside the politics of prosecuting an ex-President for a moment (that debate could go on and on), the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the President. It would be in those candidates’ power to set that prosecutorial agenda for the DOJ if elected.
- lvh 7y ago
  That’s true! But just so we’re on the same page: both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. (Finally, I’m guessing we also agree that we’re not an statute interpretation or a regulation away from Amazon paying, let’s say, 10% of their SEC-reported profits in taxes.)
  - w4 7y ago
    > both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. Sure. But that’s a political judgement, not a statement about the actual powers of the Executive, which is what you were talking about above. It’s within the President’s power to instruct the AG to pursue a particular case, and if the AG refuses then the President may replace them. Whether or not that’s appropriate, politically tenable, or might expose a President to action by the Legislative Branch, is a totally different question.

fosco 7y ago

The tax code is not Amazons problem. They are legally obligated by their shareholders to make the biggest profit possible, likewise every other business. people should be protesting congress, not Amazon, this constant red herring is ridiculous, Amazon, like every other business is trying to compete and will pay as little taxes as possible. Tell congress to change the rules and all businesses will play by better rules. any other conversation about the meaning of Amazon paying the tax they have to I believe is a waste of time, both parties are guilty and the citizens are guilty for not protesting congress.

johneth 7y ago
> They are legally obligated by their shareholders to make the biggest profit possible, likewise every other business. They're not, it's a common misconception: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...
- Xixi 7y ago
  Very interesting link. Here is the part relevant to this discussion: "Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.) [1] In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354
  - Xixi 7y ago
    The context of the quote from [1] is also well worth the read, in my opinion: "While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well. HHS would draw a sharp line between nonprofit corporations (which, HHS concedes, are protected by RFRA) and for-profit corporations (which HHS would leave unprotected), but the actual picture is less clear-cut. Not all corporations that decline to organize as nonprofits do so in order to maximize profit. For example, organizations with religious and charitable aims might organize as for-profit corporations because of the potential advantages of that corporate form, such as the freedom to participate in lobbying for legislation or campaigning for political candidates who promote their religious or charitable goals." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354#OPINION_3-23ref https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354#OPINION...

sschueller 7y ago

Aren't the tax returns of public companies public?

fyoving 7y ago

It's curious how when these people complain about corporations not paying taxes they reliably fail to mention that it's because of R&D tax credits. Not sure how wise it is for politicians to employ a populist strategy against companies that outstrip them in favorability among the average citizen.

a_CPA 7y ago

The historical Boston Tea Party event comes to mind. Not wanting to pay taxes (or in this case, legally minimizing your tax burden) is as American as apple pie.

tylerl 7y ago

Looking at individual company tax returns is the wrong solution to this problem. It's not just ineffective, it's dishonest. It's tempting to take a "tax the bastards" viewpoint and argue that the tax-avoiding companies are the problem, that they're freeloading, scamming the government. That's the message you get from the presidential candidates. But that argument wilfully ignores the most important fact: tax incentives are the way the government pays people and companies to change their behavior. The incentive says the government will pay you $X if you do some specific thing. Install solar panels, cut carbon emissions, employ members of a vulnerable population. There are thousands of options. They use the tax process to distribute the rewards because it's simpler and cheaper that way. Low-tax companies are just the ones who operate in spaces with a lot of these incentives. Identifying the companies isn't relevant, the companies aren't the problem. You want to instead identify the incentives that are eating up your revenue. How much does your solar panel incentive cost? That kind of thing. And before you ask: Yes, offshore income arrangement are another tax incentive. They're more complicated beause they involve several countries competing on tax rates, but it's just another version of the same problem.

reallydude 7y ago
> It's not just ineffective, it's dishonest. People don't understand, so they ask for more information. That's about as honest as it gets. > tax incentives are the way the government pays people and companies to change their behavior. Which has nothing to do with motivation. That's a large part of the ask.

thdxr 7y ago

Trying to establish a set of rules for what counts as a business expense and what doesn't for the infinite number of changing industries is a futile task. It also creates weird situations like Apple harboring cash outside the USA. We should get rid of the corporate tax rate and tax money when it comes out of corporations to real people (dividends, buybacks, etc) at a revenue neutral rate. Would make things a lot cleaner

dmwallin 7y ago
All this means is that large net-worth individuals will increase the practice of keeping money within a corporate structure and using that for as many expenses as possible.
- thdxr 7y ago
  Through what mechanism can a large net worth individual get a company like Apple to buy things for them? They're not the only shareholder This is also possible to do today and when it happens the SEC investigates whether a $100M painting for the CEO's office was an appropriate expenditure of other shareholders money. The tax policy doesn't have a bearing on this type of fraud
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    letters of credit or equivalent, heck there are whole circuits already that work like that, they move around credits at neutral exchange rates so they end up financially as exchanging debts, like sardex.