5 ms·

Amazon, Meta, Alphabet report plunging tax bills thanks to AI and tax changes

45 points by epistasis 8mo ago

SilverElfin 8mo ago
Sad. What we need is higher taxes on the largest and most powerful corporations and lower taxes for small business and startups so they can compete fairly. This just extends the reign of the corporate oligarchs.
- jazz9k 8mo ago
  The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. This doesn't include the jobs created to support everything (and the taxes paid from these jobs). We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. This promotes forward-thinking and almost always adds new jobs during the investment phase and after. More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is a good example of this. They pay more in taxes than any other state and have almost nothing to show for it but a failing education system, crumbling infrastructure, and high crime. The main issue is that those companies should be require to hire US citizens and not outsourcing, for these jobs. The tariffs Trump had in place were a good start.
  - hollerith 8mo ago
    >We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. The US tax code does allow business to write off R & D.
    - saulpw 8mo ago
      Not anymore for software.
      - hollerith 8mo ago
        That is not accurate: software dev expenses can still be "written off": the write-off just must be spread over a number of years.
  - epistasis 8mo ago
    That's incorrect information, roughly half of US tax revenue is from income taxes, roughly a third is payroll taxes (not sure whether to attribute that to employees or corporations paying), and then corporate taxes and excise taxes are only about a tenth of US tax.
    - cyanydeez 8mo ago
      Payroll is mostly the employees money gping to social programs.
      - tonyedgecombe 8mo ago
        I didn’t think payroll taxes were hypothecated in the US?
        legitronics 8mo ago
        In general, no they aren’t. But there is the social security tax, which is individually tracked and collectively allocated for that office. And the Medicare tax which goes off directly to that program. These two constitute a major component of money going into the system.
        nickff 8mo ago
        There was a time when that was the intent, but it doesn’t really matter anymore, as there are not enough payroll taxes to cover the programs anymore.
  - SilverElfin 8mo ago
    > The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. When you hoard far more than just a slim majority, paying a majority isn’t unexpected and it can still be unfair. But I think you are talking about federal personal income tax not corporate tax. > We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. They already do in various ways. > More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is a good example of this. I agree California is wasteful. But we can tax and just give the money directly to people. > The main issue is that those companies should be require to hire US citizens and not outsourcing, for these jobs. Not even close to the main issue. Why not just redistribute the gains instead of playing games with these other schemes?
    - moomoo11 8mo ago
      Do you live in California? I mean sure it might be wasteful (name one entity private or public that doesn’t suffer from assholes and corruption), but the quality of life here is far better than in Texas or any other state. We have labor rights, environmental protection, hell even the ethical farming practices like how eggs are produced. Life here is objectively better for the people. It’s obviously more expensive. There’s demand for people to live here. Even if some people leave more want to move here or wish they could. Shitting on California is 90% of the time some form of cope for many people. They know they could never make it here so the best they can do is complain about it from whatever **hole they’re in.
      - SilverElfin 8mo ago
        I don’t disagree with what you are saying. But the rise in spending per capita, even if you adjust for inflation or population growth or other factors, doesn’t make sense. I agree the demand drives up certain costs like housing. But those are in the private markets. But I don’t understand is what the state government and local governments are spending all of the money on. And there are certainly some prominent wasteful programs such as the high-speed rail project or various programs for homelessness. I expect there’s more of those kinds of waste. In the end, I think simply giving people money is an effective way to make society better. I’m not against the taxation as much as the low return for the additional spending that has happened in the last few decades.
  - croes 8mo ago
    > The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. First, not true. Second, even if true it wouldn’t be surprising, if you have most of the wealth you pay most of the tax money. It’s surprising that that’s not even the case. Third, it explains California. Of course the state with the highest GDP has also the highest tax income
    - mulmen 8mo ago
      We don’t tax wealth though so wouldn’t we expect the highest income to pay the most tax?
- renewiltord 8mo ago
  What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest. Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a money hoarder. Inequality is the number one problem.
  - _alternator_ 8mo ago
    It doesn't feel like you’ve thought through the nuances and implications of this policy, and the tone makes me think you don’t really want to.
    - croes 8mo ago
      I guess it’s sarcasm
    - zug_zug 8mo ago
      Agree on both counts… but I do. I’m sure there are systemic changes that are possible, and it’s a topic worthy of brainstorming
    - renewiltord 8mo ago
      What do you mean? We all agree that billionaires shouldn’t exist. I just think that millionaires also shouldn’t. Though now that I think of it, is it okay that hundred thousand aires should exist? This Aires is definitely not Buenos.
      - saulpw 8mo ago
        Billionaires are gross, millionaires are fine. You're committing the "slippery slope" fallacy in defense of excessive wealth inequality. (And if you genuinely believe what you're saying, recognize that your words are being taken as either disingenuous or foolish, and are having the opposite effect of promoting your cause).
mortsnort 8mo ago
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2025/04/03/multimedia/00biz-tech-trump-1-vpqj/00biz-tech-trump-1-vpqj-articleLarge.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2025/04/03/multimedia/00biz-...
- epistasis 8mo ago
  What a coincidence! Good thing that after the DOGE cuts and tax increases through tariffs, the deficit has been closed. Huh, I'm seeing a deficit of $1.8T in 2025, same as the deficit of $1.8 in 2024, the gauge must be broken... Edit: hold on, breaking news from 1776: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices" -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
polski-g 8mo ago
Yes obviously this would be the case. They're taxes on income, not revenue. If they decide to invest in the future, it eats into their income.
- Macha 8mo ago
  Presumably you mean profit and not income, since income is revenue
  - lotsofpulp 8mo ago
    In that context, income is obviously short for net income.

45 points by epistasis 8mo ago

Sad. What we need is higher taxes on the largest and most powerful corporations and lower taxes for small business and startups so they can compete fairly. This just extends the reign of the corporate oligarchs.

jazz9k 8mo ago
The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. This doesn't include the jobs created to support everything (and the taxes paid from these jobs). We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. This promotes forward-thinking and almost always adds new jobs during the investment phase and after. More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is a good example of this. They pay more in taxes than any other state and have almost nothing to show for it but a failing education system, crumbling infrastructure, and high crime. The main issue is that those companies should be require to hire US citizens and not outsourcing, for these jobs. The tariffs Trump had in place were a good start.
- hollerith 8mo ago
  >We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. The US tax code does allow business to write off R & D.
  - saulpw 8mo ago
    Not anymore for software.
    - hollerith 8mo ago
      That is not accurate: software dev expenses can still be "written off": the write-off just must be spread over a number of years.
- epistasis 8mo ago
  That's incorrect information, roughly half of US tax revenue is from income taxes, roughly a third is payroll taxes (not sure whether to attribute that to employees or corporations paying), and then corporate taxes and excise taxes are only about a tenth of US tax.
  - cyanydeez 8mo ago
    Payroll is mostly the employees money gping to social programs.
    - tonyedgecombe 8mo ago
      I didn’t think payroll taxes were hypothecated in the US?
      - legitronics 8mo ago
        In general, no they aren’t. But there is the social security tax, which is individually tracked and collectively allocated for that office. And the Medicare tax which goes off directly to that program. These two constitute a major component of money going into the system.
      - nickff 8mo ago
        There was a time when that was the intent, but it doesn’t really matter anymore, as there are not enough payroll taxes to cover the programs anymore.
- SilverElfin 8mo ago
  > The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. When you hoard far more than just a slim majority, paying a majority isn’t unexpected and it can still be unfair. But I think you are talking about federal personal income tax not corporate tax. > We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. They already do in various ways. > More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is a good example of this. I agree California is wasteful. But we can tax and just give the money directly to people. > The main issue is that those companies should be require to hire US citizens and not outsourcing, for these jobs. Not even close to the main issue. Why not just redistribute the gains instead of playing games with these other schemes?
  - moomoo11 8mo ago
    Do you live in California? I mean sure it might be wasteful (name one entity private or public that doesn’t suffer from assholes and corruption), but the quality of life here is far better than in Texas or any other state. We have labor rights, environmental protection, hell even the ethical farming practices like how eggs are produced. Life here is objectively better for the people. It’s obviously more expensive. There’s demand for people to live here. Even if some people leave more want to move here or wish they could. Shitting on California is 90% of the time some form of cope for many people. They know they could never make it here so the best they can do is complain about it from whatever **hole they’re in.
    - SilverElfin 8mo ago
      I don’t disagree with what you are saying. But the rise in spending per capita, even if you adjust for inflation or population growth or other factors, doesn’t make sense. I agree the demand drives up certain costs like housing. But those are in the private markets. But I don’t understand is what the state government and local governments are spending all of the money on. And there are certainly some prominent wasteful programs such as the high-speed rail project or various programs for homelessness. I expect there’s more of those kinds of waste. In the end, I think simply giving people money is an effective way to make society better. I’m not against the taxation as much as the low return for the additional spending that has happened in the last few decades.
- croes 8mo ago
  > The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. First, not true. Second, even if true it wouldn’t be surprising, if you have most of the wealth you pay most of the tax money. It’s surprising that that’s not even the case. Third, it explains California. Of course the state with the highest GDP has also the highest tax income
  - mulmen 8mo ago
    We don’t tax wealth though so wouldn’t we expect the highest income to pay the most tax?
renewiltord 8mo ago
What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest. Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a money hoarder. Inequality is the number one problem.
- _alternator_ 8mo ago
  It doesn't feel like you’ve thought through the nuances and implications of this policy, and the tone makes me think you don’t really want to.
  - croes 8mo ago
    I guess it’s sarcasm
  - zug_zug 8mo ago
    Agree on both counts… but I do. I’m sure there are systemic changes that are possible, and it’s a topic worthy of brainstorming
  - renewiltord 8mo ago
    What do you mean? We all agree that billionaires shouldn’t exist. I just think that millionaires also shouldn’t. Though now that I think of it, is it okay that hundred thousand aires should exist? This Aires is definitely not Buenos.
    - saulpw 8mo ago
      Billionaires are gross, millionaires are fine. You're committing the "slippery slope" fallacy in defense of excessive wealth inequality. (And if you genuinely believe what you're saying, recognize that your words are being taken as either disingenuous or foolish, and are having the opposite effect of promoting your cause).

mortsnort 8mo ago

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2025/04/03/multimedia/00biz-tech-trump-1-vpqj/00biz-tech-trump-1-vpqj-articleLarge.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2025/04/03/multimedia/00biz-...

epistasis 8mo ago
What a coincidence! Good thing that after the DOGE cuts and tax increases through tariffs, the deficit has been closed. Huh, I'm seeing a deficit of $1.8T in 2025, same as the deficit of $1.8 in 2024, the gauge must be broken... Edit: hold on, breaking news from 1776: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices" -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

polski-g 8mo ago

Yes obviously this would be the case. They're taxes on income, not revenue. If they decide to invest in the future, it eats into their income.

Macha 8mo ago
Presumably you mean profit and not income, since income is revenue
- lotsofpulp 8mo ago
  In that context, income is obviously short for net income.