4 ms·

I may be wrong, but I understand this is because the company invests all of its income into its business - which means more jobs, work for other companies, and

I may be wrong, but I understand this is because the company invests all of its income into its business - which means more jobs, work for other companies, and so on. I think it better money goes into the economy, in a reasonably efficient way, rather than being taken by the State, and used in an unreasonably inefficient way.

davidt84 2y ago
According to the article, you are wrong.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
yzydserd 2y ago
Its due to carry forward of net operating losses from previous years, stock compensation deductions, and other depreciations and deductions.
xyst 2y ago
Neoliberalism runs deep with this comment.
- okanat 2y ago
  This is a neoliberalist forum. All startup ecosystem is a neoliberal concept.
rvnx 2y ago
In the past, they used another technique as well, they used corporate money to buy Dogecoin (and some Bitcoin too) to justify investments. Not in a small amount, we talk about more than 1B USD. https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/20/elon-musk-discloses-that-tesla-owns-dogecoin-but-how-much-does-it-have/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/20/elon-musk-discloses-that-t... From a tax perspective, they are spending to acquire assets, which is very convenient.
- nickff 2y ago
  Not all spending is tax-deductible, I believe that only expenses are generally 100% tax deductible on day one.
- Maxatar 2y ago
  Buying dogecoin or any crypto, security or asset can not be deducted though. Losses can be deducted, and the depretiation of various assets can be deducted, but the purchase itself isn't considered an expense and can't be deducted. Otherwise all companies would just buy gold with their profits and never pay taxes.
- kjksf 2y ago
  Buying Bitcoin doesn't reduce taxes. It's no different than investing company's cash into a different currency or bonds. In fact, when Tesla bought Bitcoin accounting rules for Bitcoin were very unfavorable in that the bitcoin wasn't valued at the price in a given quarter but, and it's hard to believe, only at the lowest ever price. So on paper the company could only loose money by holding Bitcoin. That idiotic rule was part of Democrat's lawfare against Bitcoin. This accounting rule was changed recently. Also, Tesla never bought Dodgecoin. That Techcrunch article is just wrong.
tdb7893 2y ago
Doesn't net income already take into account these sorts of costs? I thought it was after R&D and construction investments and things Edit: I legitimately don't know (and am a bit confused as to the exact thing the article calls income). I just know as often an R&D expense I think my salary is taken out before net income
Hikikomori 2y ago
Or less jobs if they're investing in automation. Tesla likes h1b so it's not like most good jobs go to Americans anyway.
larkost 2y ago
No. If Tesla (and the other companies mentioned) were investing all of this money into the business, then it would not be showing up as profits. Company taxes are not like individual taxes where only income is considered, and spending (mostly) disregarded. Depending on which line on the income statement this is about, it is either money that could be sent to shareholders as dividends or buybacks, or money going into the cash reserves of the company. And you are pushing a lot of opinion on the "unreasonably inefficient way". Governments are often very efficient spenders when you look at outcomes, often making private industries look awful. Medicare is a great example. It has a expense ratio of about %1.3, whereas the estimate for the Medicare Advantage plans (where they get to play games about who they let in) is that most of those private companies have an expense ratio of about %17. Private insurers are generally a bit better, usually at about %8. To put more of a point on this, in the Affordable Care Act it was felt necessary to put a cap on the expense ratio of private insurers at %20 (%15 for large providers). That right there defines the "unreasonably inefficient way" we should be talking about. I am not arguing that there is no waste in government, that would be silly. But the notion that government spending is generally a waste is not supported by the facts, and is more of a religious statement.
dutchbookmaker 2y ago
It is especially absurd though when you have a business that depends on ROADS. As if the roads just pay for themselves.
- HamsterDan 2y ago
  In my state, many of the new roads being built do in fact pay for themselves via tolls. I expect that model of financing to get much more common now that computers are able to automatically read your license plate and issue the toll.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Tolls are an easy way to make sure roads are worse for everyone. privatizing roads is like, the top 5 worst things to privatize.
iforgot22 2y ago
Profit means it wasn't reinvested. May be later, or not.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>which means more jobs Not in this case: https://electrek.co/2024/12/30/tesla-replaced-laid-off-us-workers-with-foreign-workers-using-h-1b-visas-that-musk-want-to-increase/ https://electrek.co/2024/12/30/tesla-replaced-laid-off-us-wo... Pretty sure that wasn't even the only layoff this year.

davidt84 2y ago

According to the article, you are wrong.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

yzydserd 2y ago

Its due to carry forward of net operating losses from previous years, stock compensation deductions, and other depreciations and deductions.

xyst 2y ago

Neoliberalism runs deep with this comment.

okanat 2y ago
This is a neoliberalist forum. All startup ecosystem is a neoliberal concept.

rvnx 2y ago

In the past, they used another technique as well, they used corporate money to buy Dogecoin (and some Bitcoin too) to justify investments. Not in a small amount, we talk about more than 1B USD. https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/20/elon-musk-discloses-that-tesla-owns-dogecoin-but-how-much-does-it-have/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/20/elon-musk-discloses-that-t... From a tax perspective, they are spending to acquire assets, which is very convenient.

nickff 2y ago
Not all spending is tax-deductible, I believe that only expenses are generally 100% tax deductible on day one.
Maxatar 2y ago
Buying dogecoin or any crypto, security or asset can not be deducted though. Losses can be deducted, and the depretiation of various assets can be deducted, but the purchase itself isn't considered an expense and can't be deducted. Otherwise all companies would just buy gold with their profits and never pay taxes.
kjksf 2y ago
Buying Bitcoin doesn't reduce taxes. It's no different than investing company's cash into a different currency or bonds. In fact, when Tesla bought Bitcoin accounting rules for Bitcoin were very unfavorable in that the bitcoin wasn't valued at the price in a given quarter but, and it's hard to believe, only at the lowest ever price. So on paper the company could only loose money by holding Bitcoin. That idiotic rule was part of Democrat's lawfare against Bitcoin. This accounting rule was changed recently. Also, Tesla never bought Dodgecoin. That Techcrunch article is just wrong.

tdb7893 2y ago

Doesn't net income already take into account these sorts of costs? I thought it was after R&D and construction investments and things Edit: I legitimately don't know (and am a bit confused as to the exact thing the article calls income). I just know as often an R&D expense I think my salary is taken out before net income

Hikikomori 2y ago

Or less jobs if they're investing in automation. Tesla likes h1b so it's not like most good jobs go to Americans anyway.

larkost 2y ago

No. If Tesla (and the other companies mentioned) were investing all of this money into the business, then it would not be showing up as profits. Company taxes are not like individual taxes where only income is considered, and spending (mostly) disregarded. Depending on which line on the income statement this is about, it is either money that could be sent to shareholders as dividends or buybacks, or money going into the cash reserves of the company. And you are pushing a lot of opinion on the "unreasonably inefficient way". Governments are often very efficient spenders when you look at outcomes, often making private industries look awful. Medicare is a great example. It has a expense ratio of about %1.3, whereas the estimate for the Medicare Advantage plans (where they get to play games about who they let in) is that most of those private companies have an expense ratio of about %17. Private insurers are generally a bit better, usually at about %8. To put more of a point on this, in the Affordable Care Act it was felt necessary to put a cap on the expense ratio of private insurers at %20 (%15 for large providers). That right there defines the "unreasonably inefficient way" we should be talking about. I am not arguing that there is no waste in government, that would be silly. But the notion that government spending is generally a waste is not supported by the facts, and is more of a religious statement.

dutchbookmaker 2y ago

It is especially absurd though when you have a business that depends on ROADS. As if the roads just pay for themselves.

HamsterDan 2y ago
In my state, many of the new roads being built do in fact pay for themselves via tolls. I expect that model of financing to get much more common now that computers are able to automatically read your license plate and issue the toll.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Tolls are an easy way to make sure roads are worse for everyone. privatizing roads is like, the top 5 worst things to privatize.

iforgot22 2y ago

Profit means it wasn't reinvested. May be later, or not.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>which means more jobs Not in this case: https://electrek.co/2024/12/30/tesla-replaced-laid-off-us-workers-with-foreign-workers-using-h-1b-visas-that-musk-want-to-increase/ https://electrek.co/2024/12/30/tesla-replaced-laid-off-us-wo... Pretty sure that wasn't even the only layoff this year.