6 ms·

Don't see the issue, looks like they saved on taxes due to depreciation, the use of stock options to compensate employees, and an R&D tax credit. None of this i

by Kranar 5y ago

Don't see the issue, looks like they saved on taxes due to depreciation, the use of stock options to compensate employees, and an R&D tax credit. None of this is remotely sophisticated or fishy.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
The only problem I have with it is big companies find it easy to avoid corporation tax, smaller companies find it much harder. It tilts the balance in favour of the larger businesses.
franga2000 5y ago
No matter how legal it is, they are paying 1.1% instead of 21%. This is a problem.
- EricE 5y ago
  Why is it a problem? Why isn't government overspending ever a problem?
  - franga2000 5y ago
    > Why is it a problem? People need government services, the government needs money to provide them. If corporations don't pay enough taxes, individuals and small businesses need to be taxed higher. Taxes are a burden on them. We shouldn't do that. > Why isn't government overspending ever a problem? It is, like all the time. When is the last time you heard something like a pre-election debate that didn't bring up government overspending?
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > Why isn't government overspending ever a problem? Whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If the government wasn't "overspending" to whatever measure you interpret that, the issue remains.
patentatt 5y ago
Why do I as an individual not get any of these benefits? Why can't I deduct the depreciation of my assets on my personal taxes? Why can't I change the way I pay for goods to avoid paying taxes? More importantly, why do I not only get these benefits, but I have to make up for all of these corporations getting these benefits by paying higher taxes. The money has to come from somewhere, why are all of the policies in favor of large businesses and in opposition to me as an individual? That's the issue.
- belval 5y ago
  As a serious answer: Because you don't employ people. From a taxation perspective it's much better to have companies running on quite low margins that allows them to keep existing. It's why some companies get subsidies so even though they are barely profitable, their employees, the voters, can stay happy. Netflix will have X engineers at +$300k/year paying taxes, injects money in the TV/movie industry with their productions and is overall a positive for the economy. Additionally: > Why do I as an individual not get any of these benefits? Why can't I deduct the depreciation of my assets on my personal taxes? Why can't I change the way I pay for goods to avoid paying taxes? While I don't know where you live or your financial situation, there are probably a ton of benefits/tax credits that you do in fact get to incentivize a specific behaviour (think retirement account, tax-free saving accounts, etc...)
  - patentatt 5y ago
    You're missing the point. I understand the pretext and boilerplate reasons given for why ordinary people pay lots of taxes but corporations don't. The deeper question that I pose to you and everyone else defending the status quo is WHY. There is no natural law of taxation, no platonic ideal to strive for. Tax policy is what it is because people have made it this way. There have been many decisions made, and other decisions could just as well have been made. Ask yourself why all of those decisions have been made in favor of corporations and not ordinary people. >Because you don't employ people. From a taxation perspective it's much better to have companies running on quite low margins that allows them to keep existing. It's why some companies get subsidies so even though they are barely profitable, their employees, the voters, can stay happy. All* of Netflix's income comes from subscribers who are ordinary people. Ordinary people are the reason why Netflix exists. Why don't we subsidize ordinary people to ensure their happiness? *(or at least most, for this discussion at least, I'm not familiar with all of Netflix' income streams) > Netflix will have X engineers at +$300k/year paying taxes, injects money in the TV/movie industry with their productions and is overall a positive for the economy. Again, all of that money flows from ordinary people, Netflix is just the conduit. People inject money to the industry via Netflix. Point is, it's all a matter of perspective and line drawing, and every line is drawn so that large corporations benefit, not ordinary people. It's all choices that have been made, and all in favor of large corporations. > While I don't know where you live or your financial situation, there are probably a ton of benefits/tax credits that you do in fact get to incentivize a specific behaviour (think retirement account, tax-free saving accounts, etc...) But none take my overall personal tax liability down to 1.1%. There's an order of magnitude difference there. Show me one (well off, just as Netflix is) W2 employee who has ever legally reduced their tax liability down to 1.1%.
Supermancho 5y ago
> saved on taxes due to depreciation This is regressive tax policy and the crux of the issue of fairness. The less money you have, the more liability you carry. The more money a corporation has, the more they can avoid taxes without actually offsetting (paying back to the public) from depreciation accounted by nature of their assets. Some of these assets may not even be fully owned, which is a separate gaming of the system. If the balance is to be theoretically paid through the economics of purchasing more goods, it's the same regressive trickle-down economics that has never been shown equivalent to tax revenue...by passing on the tax liability to smaller and smaller entities, who end up effectively paying the larger entity's tax burden.

by Kranar 5y ago

Don't see the issue, looks like they saved on taxes due to depreciation, the use of stock options to compensate employees, and an R&D tax credit. None of this is remotely sophisticated or fishy.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

The only problem I have with it is big companies find it easy to avoid corporation tax, smaller companies find it much harder. It tilts the balance in favour of the larger businesses.

franga2000 5y ago

No matter how legal it is, they are paying 1.1% instead of 21%. This is a problem.

EricE 5y ago
Why is it a problem? Why isn't government overspending ever a problem?
- franga2000 5y ago
  > Why is it a problem? People need government services, the government needs money to provide them. If corporations don't pay enough taxes, individuals and small businesses need to be taxed higher. Taxes are a burden on them. We shouldn't do that. > Why isn't government overspending ever a problem? It is, like all the time. When is the last time you heard something like a pre-election debate that didn't bring up government overspending?
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > Why isn't government overspending ever a problem? Whataboutism. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If the government wasn't "overspending" to whatever measure you interpret that, the issue remains.

patentatt 5y ago

Why do I as an individual not get any of these benefits? Why can't I deduct the depreciation of my assets on my personal taxes? Why can't I change the way I pay for goods to avoid paying taxes? More importantly, why do I not only get these benefits, but I have to make up for all of these corporations getting these benefits by paying higher taxes. The money has to come from somewhere, why are all of the policies in favor of large businesses and in opposition to me as an individual? That's the issue.

belval 5y ago
As a serious answer: Because you don't employ people. From a taxation perspective it's much better to have companies running on quite low margins that allows them to keep existing. It's why some companies get subsidies so even though they are barely profitable, their employees, the voters, can stay happy. Netflix will have X engineers at +$300k/year paying taxes, injects money in the TV/movie industry with their productions and is overall a positive for the economy. Additionally: > Why do I as an individual not get any of these benefits? Why can't I deduct the depreciation of my assets on my personal taxes? Why can't I change the way I pay for goods to avoid paying taxes? While I don't know where you live or your financial situation, there are probably a ton of benefits/tax credits that you do in fact get to incentivize a specific behaviour (think retirement account, tax-free saving accounts, etc...)
- patentatt 5y ago
  You're missing the point. I understand the pretext and boilerplate reasons given for why ordinary people pay lots of taxes but corporations don't. The deeper question that I pose to you and everyone else defending the status quo is WHY. There is no natural law of taxation, no platonic ideal to strive for. Tax policy is what it is because people have made it this way. There have been many decisions made, and other decisions could just as well have been made. Ask yourself why all of those decisions have been made in favor of corporations and not ordinary people. >Because you don't employ people. From a taxation perspective it's much better to have companies running on quite low margins that allows them to keep existing. It's why some companies get subsidies so even though they are barely profitable, their employees, the voters, can stay happy. All* of Netflix's income comes from subscribers who are ordinary people. Ordinary people are the reason why Netflix exists. Why don't we subsidize ordinary people to ensure their happiness? *(or at least most, for this discussion at least, I'm not familiar with all of Netflix' income streams) > Netflix will have X engineers at +$300k/year paying taxes, injects money in the TV/movie industry with their productions and is overall a positive for the economy. Again, all of that money flows from ordinary people, Netflix is just the conduit. People inject money to the industry via Netflix. Point is, it's all a matter of perspective and line drawing, and every line is drawn so that large corporations benefit, not ordinary people. It's all choices that have been made, and all in favor of large corporations. > While I don't know where you live or your financial situation, there are probably a ton of benefits/tax credits that you do in fact get to incentivize a specific behaviour (think retirement account, tax-free saving accounts, etc...) But none take my overall personal tax liability down to 1.1%. There's an order of magnitude difference there. Show me one (well off, just as Netflix is) W2 employee who has ever legally reduced their tax liability down to 1.1%.

Supermancho 5y ago

> saved on taxes due to depreciation This is regressive tax policy and the crux of the issue of fairness. The less money you have, the more liability you carry. The more money a corporation has, the more they can avoid taxes without actually offsetting (paying back to the public) from depreciation accounted by nature of their assets. Some of these assets may not even be fully owned, which is a separate gaming of the system. If the balance is to be theoretically paid through the economics of purchasing more goods, it's the same regressive trickle-down economics that has never been shown equivalent to tax revenue...by passing on the tax liability to smaller and smaller entities, who end up effectively paying the larger entity's tax burden.