4 ms·
This number is actually a shame in the sense that it shows how little taxes are paid by other big companies.
by atbpaca 1y ago
This number is actually a shame in the sense that it shows how little taxes are paid by other big companies.
- sieabahlpark 1y ago[dead]
- crazygringo 1y agoNo it's not. It shows how much more profitable Berkshire Hathaway has been than other big companies. Which is what it's known for. You'd never want other companies paying as much tax if they didn't have the profit to back it up. It would bankrupt them.
- paxys 1y agoNow apply that same logic to people.
- colechristensen 1y ago>You'd never want other companies paying as much tax if they didn't have the profit to back it up. It would bankrupt them. They do have the profit in that the money they make doing things exceeds the money they spend to do the thing, but though a series of tricks of varying legality and ethics they make it so on paper they do not have "profit" and therefore successfully avoid taxes. Amazon reported losses for the first 10 years while growing to billions in yearly revenue. >It would bankrupt them. It really wouldn't have. While Amazon was growing to dominate retail and putting very many competitors out of business, they were paying 0 corporate taxes. Many companies play these tricks and many people want them to pay fair taxes. If you need to be tax free to break even, you should go bankrupt. Especially in the Fortune 500 region.
- crazygringo 1y agoYou seem to be misunderstanding. Amazon paid no corporate taxes because it was reinvesting everything into growth. There's nothing illegal or unethical about that – in fact it's not a bug, it's a feature. We incentivize that because it means that Amazon winds up paying more taxes in the long run. Once it no longer has growth opportunities but is just raking in the profits, it winds up paying tons of taxes. Way more taxes than it would've been paying when it was much smaller. It benefits the tax base to let companies make their own decisions about when to grow and when to turn a profit. The last thing you want to do is to start taxing revenue rather than profit, because that slows down economic growth in the entire country. That would be terrible policy. It's not about tricks, it's literally about maximizing tax revenue over the long-term.
- colechristensen 1y agoI don't really think we needed to incentivize amazon to grow to dominate the market reaching 40% total retail ecommerce market share and destroying many competitors that weren't trying to race to monopoly. The companies taking profit not trying to conquer the world were doing the right thing and were put to disadvantage by the tax code. Tax revenue is not maximized by allowing rotating monopolies that only pay taxes for the relatively brief period between when they're growing and dying.
- ethansimmons 1y agoI also think the industries that Berkshire is generally in can't take advantage of some tax advantages that other companies are able to. Right?
- monero-xmr 1y agoThe correct corporate tax rate is zero, or the correct income tax rate is zero. Double taxation on employees of corporations is ludicrous and warping. IMO corporate tax should be zero, and we tax individual people instead.
- dpbriggs 1y agoLimited liability needs to priced to reflect the enforcement costs. Sole props are "free".
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y agoFor the hundredth time, it is not double taxation. Money is taxed (generally) whenever it moves between parties. You paid tax on your income; you give (some of) it to someone else for goods or services - they pay taxes on it again. That's not double taxation, that's how tax works. Money flows to the corporation. They pay some to employees, who pay tax on their income. They (might) pay some to shareholders, who (might) pay tax on dividends or capital gains. What is left (very simply speaking), the corporation pays tax on as its income.
- ummmzokbro 1y agoIt very much is double taxation and to state otherwise seems disingenuous. Taxing corporate profits is layering an additional (hefty) tax on its beneficiaries - people. Search 'double taxation' and you will see this term is generally accepted by financial professionals in many jurisdictions to describe the above scenario where a corporation makes a profit, is taxed at the corporate level and then additional taxes must also be paid by the receiver of the already taxed funds (ex. shareholder, bondholder).
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y agoIt is generally accepted by financial professionals with a particular political and ideological outlook on the tax system. You do some work, you earn income, which presumably (or hopefully) exceeds your perception of the cost of doing the work to you. You pay taxes on that. You then give the money to some third party, as a gift, for goods & services, to repay a debt, or whatever reason. Subject to the stipulations of the tax code, the recipient pays taxes on whatever they receive (e.g. for gifts there is a threshold, for debts they will pay tax only on the interest received etc. etc.). Nobody calls this double taxation. A corporation does what it does, earns income, which hopefully exceeds the cost of doing whatever it is that it does. They pay taxes on that. They then give the money to some third party, as a dividend or bond repayment or whatever other reason. Subject to the stipulations of the tax code, the recipient pays taxes on whatever they receive. Some people try to call this double taxation. Trying to dress this up with concepts like "the shareholders receive the profit, but taxes have already been paid on that" is just missing the point entirely: our tax system taxes money when it moves, not based on how it is labelled (at least when it works as intended).
- sneak 1y agoDo you ever stop to contemplate how much payroll tax is paid by Amazon and Apple?