7 ms·

The part that you're not taking into account is that it's very easy to use creative accounting to "not make money", despite actually making lots of money, or to

The part that you're not taking into account is that it's very easy to use creative accounting to "not make money", despite actually making lots of money, or to make money elsewhere in more favorable tax regimes and not have to pay tax on it here. Yes, there are actual unprofitable businesses that are facing cyclical downturns or that are on the way to bankruptcy that legitimately truly lost money, and thus have no profits to tax, but this is often not the case.

WalterBright 7y ago
> The part that you're not taking into account is that it's very easy to use creative accounting to "not make money", despite actually making lots of money You may be thinking of "Hollywood accounting" where costs are shifted onto a profitable movie in order to not pay profit based royalties. This is possible because the movie is not an independent accounting entity. This doesn't work with federal income tax, which is applied to the corporation as a whole. > more favorable tax regimes That is true, but leads to the problem of the money being stuck in those countries and not spendable in the US. Apple has this problem big time. But it's also true that it is propaganda to count a company's properly profits earned in a foreign country and where proper taxes were paid in that country as somehow evading US taxes. For example, if X Corp was half in Germany, and half in the US, and paid 50% taxes in Germany and 50% in the US, if the headline says "X Only Paid 25% US Tax On Global Profits!!!!!" then it would be propaganda, wouldn't you say? > this is often not the case When the influence of unprofitable or low profit companies is not accounted for in the statistic, then the author has an agenda and the article is propaganda.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  No, I wasn't thinking of "Hollywood accounting". I was thinking of the kinds of ways of "not making money" that truly do result in corporation-wide losses on paper, reliably, year after year, despite the fact that such claims are clearly false on their face because if a company was actually incurring those losses it would go bankrupt instead of expanding (which it is). One good example of such a way to manufacture a paper loss so as to avoid paying taxes, while in actuality the business's value continues to grow, is depreciation.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Ok, name one such company, read its Annual Report, and present your evidence. > depreciation Depreciation allowances are based on what was paid for the item, not its value. If it is sold for more than was paid for it, the difference is taxable income. Value not realized is also not taxable income. I took a class in basic business accounting one summer. It was time well invested. I recommend it. (Though that doesn't make me a qualified accountant, I still use a CPA for the company books and rely on his advice. I pay no attention to what journalists say about accounting, they know as much about it as about Quantum Mechanics.)
- triceratops 7y ago
  > it is propaganda to count a company's properly profits earned in a foreign country and where proper taxes were paid in that country as somehow evading US taxes. Is it though? US citizens and tax residents (green card holders, people on work visas) pay US taxes on their worldwide income. Doesn't matter if it's earned outside the US. Doesn't matter if the person lives outside the US and hasn't set foot on American soil in decades. Doesn't matter if the income is derived from property acquired before the person ever came to America. At best they get credit for foreign taxes paid and if that's less than their US tax liability, they pay the difference to Uncle Sam. Why are the rules (seemingly) different for corporations?
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Those taxes are unjust and unfair. Applying that to corporations would make them noncompetitive in the global economy. Be careful what you wish for.
    - triceratops 7y ago
      > Applying that to corporations would make them noncompetitive in the global economy. Why? It would apply to all corporations doing business in the US, which is basically any company of note.
      - afiori 7y ago
        The natural reaction should just be to stop taxing citizens on worldwide income. One reason that could explain the difference between corporate and private taxes is that the companies can (in theory) prove how and where went/came from.
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        It would give a huge advantage to foreign companies. It would strongly discourage investment in US companies.
        triceratops 7y ago

WalterBright 7y ago

> The part that you're not taking into account is that it's very easy to use creative accounting to "not make money", despite actually making lots of money You may be thinking of "Hollywood accounting" where costs are shifted onto a profitable movie in order to not pay profit based royalties. This is possible because the movie is not an independent accounting entity. This doesn't work with federal income tax, which is applied to the corporation as a whole. > more favorable tax regimes That is true, but leads to the problem of the money being stuck in those countries and not spendable in the US. Apple has this problem big time. But it's also true that it is propaganda to count a company's properly profits earned in a foreign country and where proper taxes were paid in that country as somehow evading US taxes. For example, if X Corp was half in Germany, and half in the US, and paid 50% taxes in Germany and 50% in the US, if the headline says "X Only Paid 25% US Tax On Global Profits!!!!!" then it would be propaganda, wouldn't you say? > this is often not the case When the influence of unprofitable or low profit companies is not accounted for in the statistic, then the author has an agenda and the article is propaganda.

CydeWeys 7y ago
No, I wasn't thinking of "Hollywood accounting". I was thinking of the kinds of ways of "not making money" that truly do result in corporation-wide losses on paper, reliably, year after year, despite the fact that such claims are clearly false on their face because if a company was actually incurring those losses it would go bankrupt instead of expanding (which it is). One good example of such a way to manufacture a paper loss so as to avoid paying taxes, while in actuality the business's value continues to grow, is depreciation.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Ok, name one such company, read its Annual Report, and present your evidence. > depreciation Depreciation allowances are based on what was paid for the item, not its value. If it is sold for more than was paid for it, the difference is taxable income. Value not realized is also not taxable income. I took a class in basic business accounting one summer. It was time well invested. I recommend it. (Though that doesn't make me a qualified accountant, I still use a CPA for the company books and rely on his advice. I pay no attention to what journalists say about accounting, they know as much about it as about Quantum Mechanics.)
triceratops 7y ago
> it is propaganda to count a company's properly profits earned in a foreign country and where proper taxes were paid in that country as somehow evading US taxes. Is it though? US citizens and tax residents (green card holders, people on work visas) pay US taxes on their worldwide income. Doesn't matter if it's earned outside the US. Doesn't matter if the person lives outside the US and hasn't set foot on American soil in decades. Doesn't matter if the income is derived from property acquired before the person ever came to America. At best they get credit for foreign taxes paid and if that's less than their US tax liability, they pay the difference to Uncle Sam. Why are the rules (seemingly) different for corporations?
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Those taxes are unjust and unfair. Applying that to corporations would make them noncompetitive in the global economy. Be careful what you wish for.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    > Applying that to corporations would make them noncompetitive in the global economy. Why? It would apply to all corporations doing business in the US, which is basically any company of note.
    - afiori 7y ago
      The natural reaction should just be to stop taxing citizens on worldwide income. One reason that could explain the difference between corporate and private taxes is that the companies can (in theory) prove how and where went/came from.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      It would give a huge advantage to foreign companies. It would strongly discourage investment in US companies.
      - triceratops 7y ago