4 ms·

You're saying Facebook - a company that has been profitable for many years - is still carrying over losses from previous years?

by xmprt 6y ago

RobRivera 6y ago
I think yes, there is no ambiguity that is being communicated. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that sufficient corporate structuring efforts can permit this despite a track record for profits. Where is your confusion?
vmception 6y ago
Super easy to do when you invest into growth and borrow against that future growth. When borrowing, like in the bond market, it is always easy to spend more of other people’s money than the amount you made that year. The market only looks at revenues and hope they increase so you can always keep borrowing greater amounts if they do increase. The government looks at net income and also extends credits for certains ways that the revenue was generated. The government incentivizes transactions, when you don't conduct enough transactions you pay the government instead. The people decided that taxes were too hard to comprehend, which isnt true for all of us, and vilify anyone who does comprehend. The collective understanding and reading comprehension is so low that they cant even effectively change the law, getting their representatives to just tax people that earn the same way they do more. Congratulations you taxed the most effective wage workers more you did it! Its just another perspective on reality that also happens to be more accurate and effective.
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  I mean, there is a growing consensus that corporations need to pay more taxes, yes. I don't know if the public generally "vilifies anyone who understands taxes". Some certainly do. But I would point out that those two things are separate and distinct from one another. I think there are greater obstacles for the collective of ordinary people being able to effectively change the law than reading comprehension, and one of those things is the nearly limitless capacity of large corporations to lobby government. The more they lobby, the less they pay, the more they earn, the more they lobby, the less they pay, the more they earn, the more they lobby, the less they pay, the more they earn. You could add into that cycle "...the less money is available to fund the government, the less money is available for education, the dumber the people get, the less capable they become at managing their own government, etc...". Never minding of course that schools are largely funded by property taxes (stupid IMO), it still affects the overall availability of public funding. Corporations should pay more because the tax code should be written to require it, not out of dumbness or virtuousness. The cycle of wealth inequality must be broken, and it's not a simple thing to actually implement a solution.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Eh 21% corporate tax vs 35% vs more doesn’t really make a difference when still tapping into the credit markets and spending bond holder money, the expenses will still outpace the net income - and nothing about that should change it doesnt make sense to The things you said also happen Governments also need a new revenue source. 100 years of passive income taxation while they too borrow against future revenue growth and we are to act like it’s their only option?
    - bonestormii_ 6y ago
      What would an appropriate revenue source be? I don't really think generating revenue should be the focus of the government as much as facilitating the growth of private industry through smart regulation, and then taxing them. The government is not a company. It shouldn't generally compete with private industry where it can be avoided. It's a meta organization that should focus on gluing the country together. It represents the people; the people should fund it; and it should support the people in doing so. It is an ancient model, and being a facilitator of private growth is not really all that passive.
      - vmception 6y ago
        And yet it overspends on those goals and can’t do them effectively None of the ideology matters if it can’t budget and where we are now, no taxation will fix its budget unless it resorts to full on expropriation of property
        bonestormii_ 6y ago
        I'm skeptical that no level of taxation can support the government. Bill Clinton was able to balance the budget, and that wasn't so long ago. The government collects trillions of dollars a year in taxes as it is. A significant percentage increase to the level of taxation against top earners would make a huge difference, and it is difficult to fathom what operation the government could run to remotely approach that level of increased revenue generation. What do you have in mind?
ghouse 6y ago
It's important to distinguish between operating profits, and taxable profits. They can have positive operating profits, but tax losses. For example, Congress recently (3-4 years ago?) changed the tax code to allow companies to expense, instead of amortize, capital equipment.

You're saying Facebook - a company that has been profitable for many years - is still carrying over losses from previous years?

by xmprt 6y ago

You're saying Facebook - a company that has been profitable for many years - is still carrying over losses from previous years?

RobRivera 6y ago

I think yes, there is no ambiguity that is being communicated. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that sufficient corporate structuring efforts can permit this despite a track record for profits. Where is your confusion?

vmception 6y ago

Super easy to do when you invest into growth and borrow against that future growth. When borrowing, like in the bond market, it is always easy to spend more of other people’s money than the amount you made that year. The market only looks at revenues and hope they increase so you can always keep borrowing greater amounts if they do increase. The government looks at net income and also extends credits for certains ways that the revenue was generated. The government incentivizes transactions, when you don't conduct enough transactions you pay the government instead. The people decided that taxes were too hard to comprehend, which isnt true for all of us, and vilify anyone who does comprehend. The collective understanding and reading comprehension is so low that they cant even effectively change the law, getting their representatives to just tax people that earn the same way they do more. Congratulations you taxed the most effective wage workers more you did it! Its just another perspective on reality that also happens to be more accurate and effective.

bonestormii_ 6y ago
I mean, there is a growing consensus that corporations need to pay more taxes, yes. I don't know if the public generally "vilifies anyone who understands taxes". Some certainly do. But I would point out that those two things are separate and distinct from one another. I think there are greater obstacles for the collective of ordinary people being able to effectively change the law than reading comprehension, and one of those things is the nearly limitless capacity of large corporations to lobby government. The more they lobby, the less they pay, the more they earn, the more they lobby, the less they pay, the more they earn, the more they lobby, the less they pay, the more they earn. You could add into that cycle "...the less money is available to fund the government, the less money is available for education, the dumber the people get, the less capable they become at managing their own government, etc...". Never minding of course that schools are largely funded by property taxes (stupid IMO), it still affects the overall availability of public funding. Corporations should pay more because the tax code should be written to require it, not out of dumbness or virtuousness. The cycle of wealth inequality must be broken, and it's not a simple thing to actually implement a solution.
- vmception 6y ago
  Eh 21% corporate tax vs 35% vs more doesn’t really make a difference when still tapping into the credit markets and spending bond holder money, the expenses will still outpace the net income - and nothing about that should change it doesnt make sense to The things you said also happen Governments also need a new revenue source. 100 years of passive income taxation while they too borrow against future revenue growth and we are to act like it’s their only option?
  - bonestormii_ 6y ago
    What would an appropriate revenue source be? I don't really think generating revenue should be the focus of the government as much as facilitating the growth of private industry through smart regulation, and then taxing them. The government is not a company. It shouldn't generally compete with private industry where it can be avoided. It's a meta organization that should focus on gluing the country together. It represents the people; the people should fund it; and it should support the people in doing so. It is an ancient model, and being a facilitator of private growth is not really all that passive.
    - vmception 6y ago
      And yet it overspends on those goals and can’t do them effectively None of the ideology matters if it can’t budget and where we are now, no taxation will fix its budget unless it resorts to full on expropriation of property
      - bonestormii_ 6y ago
        I'm skeptical that no level of taxation can support the government. Bill Clinton was able to balance the budget, and that wasn't so long ago. The government collects trillions of dollars a year in taxes as it is. A significant percentage increase to the level of taxation against top earners would make a huge difference, and it is difficult to fathom what operation the government could run to remotely approach that level of increased revenue generation. What do you have in mind?

ghouse 6y ago

It's important to distinguish between operating profits, and taxable profits. They can have positive operating profits, but tax losses. For example, Congress recently (3-4 years ago?) changed the tax code to allow companies to expense, instead of amortize, capital equipment.