4 ms·
Uber might be very sophisticated in its tax avoidance, but it's probably not a good example for research... inasmuch as the research has a policy focus. Uber l
by dalbasal 5y ago
Uber might be very sophisticated in its tax avoidance, but it's probably not a good example for research... inasmuch as the research has a policy focus.
Uber lose money. Corporate income tax is paid on profit.
These article frustrate me: "In 2019, Uber claimed $4.5 billion in global operating losses (excluding the US and China) for tax purposes — in reality, it brought in $5.8 billion in operating revenue."
Unless I'm missing something, these aren't contradictory. Uber really does lose money. That doesn't mean that there's nothing more to say, but it doesn't imply what the article article seems to think it does.
A business publication should have basic accounting literacy. This feels like a collection of other people's tweets, with more information lost than added. I suspect the author has not even read his own sources, beyond headlines.
- JI00912 5y agoIf Uber lost 4.5 billion, that also means they spent at least that much money. That's a lot of people who were able to sell good and services. That's actually a good thing. And while spending this money, Uber provided a useful service. Besides the journalist apparently not understanding how taxation works, the phrasing is used to make the situation sound nefarious without providing any evidence. 50 shell companies? Ok...? What if it was 20, would that still be suspicious? Or just 1? How many are ok? What are they used for? No info at all. The entire 'article' is a bunch of random remarks with no context. This is not journalism. This unresearched text belongs far down in somewhere in a comment field.
- dalbasal 5y agoI don't think it's nefarious, more likely lazy. I suspect I spent more time reading it than the author did writing it.