6 ms·

If you are not paying more then you are making more. It will comeback to the society as taxes.

by rtx 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
trickstra 6y ago
It would, if the money wasn't being sent away and laundered (did Panama Papers not teach us anything?) or if the taxes weren't "forgiven" like in the case of Amazon or even the $750 Trump taxes. Practice shows that it doesn't come back, no matter how well it sounds in theory.
smt88 6y ago
> It will comeback to the society as taxes. It should, but it doesn't. Amazon is a classic example. Despite being the beneficiaries of many types of corporate welfare (including paying some full-time employees so poorly that they had to be on welfare), Amazon has paid $0 in tax a few times. In fact, there is no meaningful relationship between Amazon's profits and taxes. Their profits go up, and sometimes their taxes actually go down[1]. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/fWL3rv40cvsIPAqSvf1wzRPl44A=/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost/public/UC2UWT4MENA4DLABR2MZUK4X2I.png https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/fWL3rv40cvsIPAqSvf1wz...
- throwaway09223 6y ago
  No, their revenues go up not their profits. I understand you have a link with the word "profits." WaPo is misusing the term. Profits are revenues after expenses and the numbers in that graph are not taking certain expenses into account. When the expenses are taken into account the profit drops to zero. Specifically, one of the big expenses deducted before calculating tax was liquidation of employee stock options. And guess what? Instead of being taxed at the corporate income tax rate those options were taxed as individual income for the employees who exercised them -- an even higher rate! In your example the gains were in fact taxed. The tax was just applied in a different place than where you're happening to look.
  - smt88 6y ago
    Thank you for explaining profits to me. I'm glad you did so long after I went to business school, because your description of this situation is mostly wrong. > WaPo is misusing the term. Profits are revenues after expenses and the numbers in that graph are not taking certain expenses into account. "Profit" is not a defined term. It's shorthand for something else, usually gross profit, operating profit, or net income. For 2018, AMZN had gross profit of $93B, operating profit of $12B, and net income of $11.6B. The WaPo numbers in the graph use one of the latter two figures, so the graph is absolutely correct. It is NOT revenue in the graph, and their profits have absolutely gone up. Do you honestly think an edited and widely read paper like WaPo is going to make an incredibly basic accounting mistake in their business section? > In your example the gains were in fact taxed. No, they weren't. Most of Amazon's shares are not held by employees. Taxing employees is not solving the core issue that everyone is upset about, which is that Amazon (taken either as an entity or as its owners, most of whom are not employees) is paying close to 0% taxes. Period. That's it. No one is arguing whether the activity surrounding Amazon generates tax revenue. That's outside the scope of the argument.
    - throwaway09223 6y ago
      > "Profit" is not a defined term. It's shorthand for something else, usually gross profit, operating profit, or net income. And in this case, we are discussing profit as is relevant to the tax code. There is no need to be adversarial considering you've just said you agree with me. > No, they weren't. Yes, they were. > Most of Amazon's shares are not held by employees. This is irrelevant as capital gains are necessarily taxed. > which is that Amazon (taken either as an entity or as its owners, most of whom are not employees) is paying close to 0% taxes. Period. That's it. And this is just wrong. > That's outside the scope of the argument. It appears it would be most accurate to say that your argument hinges on a particular narrow definition of terms and scope of analysis. I don't think we need to discuss this further. Your point has been made, such that it is.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Amazon has paid $0 in tax a few times. This is a very misleading statement that I see thrown around a lot. Either it's done in bad faith, or it's ignorant of how corporate taxes work (and why). If you don't earn a profit, there's nothing to tax. Amazon has been (to the credit of their extremely patient investors) funneling their revenue back into growing the company instead of giving it to investors and the government. Amazon could jack up its prices, stop hiring, cut wages, lay off tens of thousands of workers, slash investments that grow the company, and they would realize a tidy profit. Now they are paying corporate taxes. I guess that would make populist politicians and pundits happy?
  - CJefferson 6y ago
    We know (in general) that Amazon makes no profit. However, there should still be a way to make Amazon pay for the value it gains from being based in a modern society.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      How about the value modern society gains from having Amazon in it?
      - CJefferson 6y ago
        I'm willing to bet Amazon gains a lot more value from society than society gains from Amazon.
        prepend 6y ago
        Let’s bet then. I think society gains more because of secondary effects that multiply up and down the supply chain. I think the difference is that the value for Amazon is focused on one company while the value for society is spread across 7 billion people.
        CJefferson 6y ago
- BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 6y ago
  Fun fact, everyone I hear speaking out about Amazon taxes and worker conditions, has Amazon Prime membership.
  - smt88 6y ago
    If taxpayer dollars subsidize Amazon, and Amazon then offers things that are very valuable to those same taxpayers, they shouldn't feel guilty about buying them. Those artificially low prices are because of their tax dollars, after all.
    - BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 6y ago
      That's an excuse, and very weak one. Tax subsidy is a minuscule part of the cost savings.

If you are not paying more then you are making more. It will comeback to the society as taxes.

by rtx 6y ago

If you are not paying more then you are making more. It will comeback to the society as taxes.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

trickstra 6y ago

It would, if the money wasn't being sent away and laundered (did Panama Papers not teach us anything?) or if the taxes weren't "forgiven" like in the case of Amazon or even the $750 Trump taxes. Practice shows that it doesn't come back, no matter how well it sounds in theory.

smt88 6y ago

> It will comeback to the society as taxes. It should, but it doesn't. Amazon is a classic example. Despite being the beneficiaries of many types of corporate welfare (including paying some full-time employees so poorly that they had to be on welfare), Amazon has paid $0 in tax a few times. In fact, there is no meaningful relationship between Amazon's profits and taxes. Their profits go up, and sometimes their taxes actually go down[1]. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/fWL3rv40cvsIPAqSvf1wzRPl44A=/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost/public/UC2UWT4MENA4DLABR2MZUK4X2I.png https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/fWL3rv40cvsIPAqSvf1wz...

throwaway09223 6y ago
No, their revenues go up not their profits. I understand you have a link with the word "profits." WaPo is misusing the term. Profits are revenues after expenses and the numbers in that graph are not taking certain expenses into account. When the expenses are taken into account the profit drops to zero. Specifically, one of the big expenses deducted before calculating tax was liquidation of employee stock options. And guess what? Instead of being taxed at the corporate income tax rate those options were taxed as individual income for the employees who exercised them -- an even higher rate! In your example the gains were in fact taxed. The tax was just applied in a different place than where you're happening to look.
- smt88 6y ago
  Thank you for explaining profits to me. I'm glad you did so long after I went to business school, because your description of this situation is mostly wrong. > WaPo is misusing the term. Profits are revenues after expenses and the numbers in that graph are not taking certain expenses into account. "Profit" is not a defined term. It's shorthand for something else, usually gross profit, operating profit, or net income. For 2018, AMZN had gross profit of $93B, operating profit of $12B, and net income of $11.6B. The WaPo numbers in the graph use one of the latter two figures, so the graph is absolutely correct. It is NOT revenue in the graph, and their profits have absolutely gone up. Do you honestly think an edited and widely read paper like WaPo is going to make an incredibly basic accounting mistake in their business section? > In your example the gains were in fact taxed. No, they weren't. Most of Amazon's shares are not held by employees. Taxing employees is not solving the core issue that everyone is upset about, which is that Amazon (taken either as an entity or as its owners, most of whom are not employees) is paying close to 0% taxes. Period. That's it. No one is arguing whether the activity surrounding Amazon generates tax revenue. That's outside the scope of the argument.
  - throwaway09223 6y ago
    > "Profit" is not a defined term. It's shorthand for something else, usually gross profit, operating profit, or net income. And in this case, we are discussing profit as is relevant to the tax code. There is no need to be adversarial considering you've just said you agree with me. > No, they weren't. Yes, they were. > Most of Amazon's shares are not held by employees. This is irrelevant as capital gains are necessarily taxed. > which is that Amazon (taken either as an entity or as its owners, most of whom are not employees) is paying close to 0% taxes. Period. That's it. And this is just wrong. > That's outside the scope of the argument. It appears it would be most accurate to say that your argument hinges on a particular narrow definition of terms and scope of analysis. I don't think we need to discuss this further. Your point has been made, such that it is.
mullingitover 6y ago
> Amazon has paid $0 in tax a few times. This is a very misleading statement that I see thrown around a lot. Either it's done in bad faith, or it's ignorant of how corporate taxes work (and why). If you don't earn a profit, there's nothing to tax. Amazon has been (to the credit of their extremely patient investors) funneling their revenue back into growing the company instead of giving it to investors and the government. Amazon could jack up its prices, stop hiring, cut wages, lay off tens of thousands of workers, slash investments that grow the company, and they would realize a tidy profit. Now they are paying corporate taxes. I guess that would make populist politicians and pundits happy?
- CJefferson 6y ago
  We know (in general) that Amazon makes no profit. However, there should still be a way to make Amazon pay for the value it gains from being based in a modern society.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    How about the value modern society gains from having Amazon in it?
    - CJefferson 6y ago
      I'm willing to bet Amazon gains a lot more value from society than society gains from Amazon.
      - prepend 6y ago
        Let’s bet then. I think society gains more because of secondary effects that multiply up and down the supply chain. I think the difference is that the value for Amazon is focused on one company while the value for society is spread across 7 billion people.
        CJefferson 6y ago
BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 6y ago
Fun fact, everyone I hear speaking out about Amazon taxes and worker conditions, has Amazon Prime membership.
- smt88 6y ago
  If taxpayer dollars subsidize Amazon, and Amazon then offers things that are very valuable to those same taxpayers, they shouldn't feel guilty about buying them. Those artificially low prices are because of their tax dollars, after all.
  - BMSmnqXAE4yfe1 6y ago
    That's an excuse, and very weak one. Tax subsidy is a minuscule part of the cost savings.