Amazon Will Pay $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits (fortune.com) 468
Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00. From a report: According to a report published by the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) policy Wednesday, the e-tail/retail/tech/entertainment/everything giant won't have to pay a cent in federal taxes for the second year in a row. This tax-free break comes even though Amazon almost doubled its U.S. profits from $5.6 billion to $11.2 billion between 2017 and 2018. To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate -- making its tax rate -1%.
ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is solely on Congress. They pass and modify the tax laws so that they are so riddled with loopholes that, if you make a great deal of money, either as an individual or a company, and can hire the best tax attorneys, no taxes are required.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
You are a liar. I've done my taxes, and paid more this year. Lots of people have been complaining about this.
Re:ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of the SALT deduction cap. Mainly those in CA and NY. This tax cut actually raised the taxes on wealthy people because of this.
IMO, I think that salt deduction is unfair and crap. There is no reason why I should pay more federal taxes than another person just because they decided to live in a high tax sate and I wanted to live in a low tax state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that people that make the same amount of money should have to pay the same federal taxes regardless where they live. I think that is unfair just like it is unfair Amazon paying 0 federal taxes.
I can vote with my feet for a high tax state or not. I cannot vote with my feet with the federal government. If you want high taxes then pay higher taxes but don't force me to pay more because of a loop hole.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
IMO, I think that salt deduction is unfair and crap. There is no reason why I should pay more federal taxes than another person just because they decided to live in a high tax sate and I wanted to live in a low tax state.
You get to live in your "low tax" states because those high tax states are donor states for your leeching. High tax states get back far less from the feds than the put in, while the "low tax" states leech far more money from the fed than they put in, that way they can have those "low tax" rates.
.95, of what they put in back. Virtually every "low tax" state would have their state budgets decimated by that... which might teach them a little bit about responsibility. It might also teach all the people in those "low tax" states to have a little bit of gratitude towards all of the taxpayers in the rest of the states who've been subsidizing them for decades.
If you don't think so, then lets all push for a constitutional amendment that says no state can receive more than 1.05, nor less than
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
but those figures do not enter into the equation of the argument that "high tax states" do not receive their money back.
Whether or not those are included depends on which study you're talking about.
Shifting what counts and what does not count moves the edge cases a bit, but the major trend remains - the "blue" states are subsidizing the "red" states.
Which is fine. We're all one union. It just gets annoying when the folks from the "taker" states whine about the feds not helping them enough or preach about self-reliance.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Who exactly should Alabama tax?
Alabamans.
We blue states don't begrudge sending you money. What we begrudge is your complaints about our people are moochers while claiming your people are self-reliant uber-Randian supermen.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a middle income earner? You sure you don't live in CA or NY? Did you actually look at your taxes paid or did you look at the refund amount?
Withholding tables changed. For many they simply didn't overpay nearly as much so got a smaller refund but paid less.
Always been like this (Score:3)
" In 2016, the company earned $10 billion but recorded a tax benefit of $400 million for a 12-month tax rate of -4.5%, according to Forbes."
"GE was one of 18 Fortune 500 companies that paid no net federal income taxes between 2008 and 2015"
https://www.thestreet.com/stor... [thestreet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I was also reminded of the furor over GE's year of paying no taxes. That was seen as being remarkably bad back then, and now it's set to be the new normal. Congrats.
Re: (Score:3)
If by "always" you mean "mostly since the '80s and especially since the turn of the century" and by "normal" you mean "an uncommon phenomenon occurring mostly within a handful of specific megacorporations." The numbers and history don't lie:
https://itep.org/the-35-percen... [itep.org]
Re: ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
I dispute your finding (Score:5, Informative)
I dispute your finding
http://www.governing.com/week-... [governing.com]
and
https://rockinst.org/wp-conten... [rockinst.org]
with the data to support it from
https://www.govinfo.gov/conten... [govinfo.gov]
NY and NJ pay a lot of taxes and don't get it all back.
and Politifact California, can't find your reference, cite your source
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
The average return has dropped 8% this year... maybe you got a cut but perhaps you are also taking advantage of things that are not available to most people. I haven't done mine yet but a lot of people that I know personally that have ended up with a worse return than last year despite similar earnings and deductions.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
A difference in your return doesn't indicate anything about whether you paid more or less tax compared to earlier years. You may have paid less tax and also seen a lower return because your withholding changed.
My return dropped this year, so I'm part of that trend. But I also paid less tax this year.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
> The average return has dropped 8% this year
This is the most politically charged nonsense statistic I have heard in years.
Dude, ANY return just means you fucked up your withholding. Assuming you get paid like a salary, your return is just the government giving you back your own money that you overpaid. One year I owed 4000, the next I got back about 200. What changed? I had screwed up my settings in a web app that controlled the amount payed per check, and fixed it the next year.
If someone looks at lower taxes, goes through miles of data, and comes up with "8% lower refund" as the one bad thing they can say (with the implication that taxes have gone up, when they have gone down)....
Come on lol
Re: (Score:2)
That would be reasonable, but if that trend is seen across thousands of returns, it would seem like there is an underlying issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I saw a $3000 reduction this year and I'm solidly a middle income earner. This idea that because your REFUND is less that means you've paid more is ridiculous. All a big refund means is that you have given more money to the government for a year than you needed to. That's YOU mismanaging your own taxes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The pundits conveniently leave out the fact that the withholding tables were changed and people had less taken out of each check, therefore lowering refunds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying it proudly does not make any one person's bias universal.
George Washington would've said corporations are what destroys an economy, because the whole point of a corporation is to prevent individual responsibility for actions.
The founding fathers hated corporations for very good and well documented reasons, but of course teaching actual real history isn't something Americans have ever been big on.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, it is ludicrous that Amazon didn't pay anything but pretending there are no large scale economic benefits for the middle class in something like this and especially in increasing capital in corporations on the whole is disingenuous.
Then please demonstrate those benefits to the middle class. Wages are stagnant and not keeping up with inflation, and the middle class doesn't own much in the way of stocks. Large corporations like Amazon have driven lots of family owned business into the ground.
Please let us know where the economic benefit to the middle class is, because it's not really evident to most of us.
Re: (Score:3)
Trickle down economics is the idea that if you give a break to the people at the top, then then will share the benefits of that break to the people under them, and so on.
Reality has demonstrated that this is absolutely NOT what happens. When you give the rich breaks, they keep it all for themselves and fuck everybody underneath.
Re: (Score:3)
"ITEP notes that its non-existent federal tax payment is a result of the Trump Administrationâ(TM)s corporation-friendly tax cuts."
Uh huh
"The think tank writes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only decreased corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%,"
It doesn't look at those Amazon paid either rate so that isn't it.
"but it also didnâ(TM)t close âoea slew of tax loopholes that allow profitable companies to routinely avoid paying federal and state income taxes on almost half of their profits"
S
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
When corporations pay taxes, the cost is passed on to some combination of shareholders (lower dividends or less capital investment), customers (higher prices), and employees (lower wages).
It would be better to just eliminate corporate taxes, and tax these groups directly. If you think employees should pay more, then increase payroll taxes. If you think customers should pay more, then increase sales taxes.
If you think shareholders should pay more, which is where most people think the burden should fall, then indirectly taxing the corporation is a terrible way to achieve that. It means the stocks in grandma's pension fund are taxed exactly the same as a billionaire's holdings. I would make more sense to tax dividends or capital gains only once at the individual level, so grandma pays at the low income rate, while the billionaire pays a higher marginal rate.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes on profits are passed on to shareholders... but never to employees or customers, obviously. If there was more money to be made from charging customers more or paying employees less, they'd be doing it already for more profit. Corporations do not ever leave profit on the table and decide to be philanthropic just because they've hit a particular profit target already.
A 100% tax on corporate profits would be ideal if it weren't for the need to encourage capital investment by shareholders for growth. Corp
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Large corporations have been paying little to no taxes for decades. [thestreet.com]
Control your butthurt.
Re: (Score:3)
This is solely on Congress. They pass and modify the tax laws...
The fatal flaw in this plan is that Amazon can buy a chunk of "Congress" for a few million dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we need election reform.
Re: (Score:3)
Reminder, it's not Tax Attorneys that write the tax code, that's on the politicians we (collectively) re-elect year after year. All tax attorneys do is review the laws crafted by the politicians and look for ways to minimize tax liabilities.
As noted here [slashdot.org], while income taxes weren't paid by Amazon (at the lower corporate tax rate), taxes were paid at the highest personal income tax rate AND subject to Medicare taxes by the employee exercising their stock options - a net win for the government, since the same
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't Amazon not make profits for like the first 10 years or so of their existence? How much money did they spend building out their infrastructure?
Don't they get to write off all those loses from capital investments over that period?
I haven't reviewed there financial statements, but I can see how this would easily be true...
Re: (Score:2)
If they make no profit over their first 10 years then I wouldn't expect them to pay any income tax (since they had no net income). The problem is that they made $11b profit and didn't pay anything in taxes (they actually got a refund). Now I am not an accountant but from my understanding profits are the money left over after you have accounted for the money spent building infrastructure and other capital investments.
Re:ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
First, there are different accounting standards. Wall Street uses GAAP ("generally accepted accounting principles," I believe) and sometimes non-GAAP (ignoring some non-cash costs like stock options). The IRS uses its own rules.
In the GAAP and non-GAAP rules, profits are for the given year (or quarter) only. So a loss in a previous period isn't subtracted from profits before reporting, just as profits from a previous period aren't added to the current report. Likewise with IRS rules, you can generally carry forward losses. So if they had a loss in the previous year, until they've realized that much profit, they won't pay taxes.
Now what is probably really going on is that much of the profits are realized by overseas subsidiaries, so they pay taxes in places like Ireland, but until those profits are moved back to the US, they don't pay US taxes on them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they wrote it all off BACK THEN. How many times do you want to let them write that off though? The infrastructure is built and they are making billions in profits now.
I bought a pack of gum, how many million in write-offs am I now entitled to?
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest issue is that Small Businesses who are trying to grow, normally have to pay the bulk of the corporate taxes.
We really need to get some bravery in government.
Either stand up and say, we are just not going to have corporate Taxes, and make it difficult to hide share holders living and luxury expenses under corporate spending. or say we are going to have Corporate Taxes, and make sure the Money they show to the share holders, is the same money they show to the IRS.
Oddly enough the biggest problem
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not "no longer capitalism", that's a consequence of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps, but if they were "paying" taxes to the government, they'd just raise the price on their products and services by an appropriate amount until their profit margins were once again where they wanted them to be. Not all companies may be able to do that, but Amazon certainly can.
Taxes are expense items. Companies generally keep income >= expense or eventually they go under. Lots of that going around for what it's worth.
That's completely wrong. Taxes have no bearing on Amazon's prices or most other companies. It's all about market share and what the market will bear. Tax planning comes after.
And there is no way that taxes can make a company go under because the tax rate is less than 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
That's completely wrong. Taxes have no bearing on Amazon's prices or most other companies. It's all about market share and what the market will bear.
Not exactly. The price only typically is set at "what the market will bear" for specialty items. For commodities, typically competition will drive the price of that commodity well below what the public is willing to pay because its a competitive market. While someone might be WILLING to pay $5.00 for a gallon of milk, if one store tries to sell it for $5 and another prices it at $4, people are naturally going to go to the lower price. Then the first store reduces their price to $3.75 to get the business
Re: (Score:3)
Well, good thing Amazon still have competitors who are paying taxes then. Their prices won't be affected the way Amazon's will.
Re: (Score:3)
My comment was that too many years of expenses exceeding income leads to bankruptcy. Taxes are merely one expense. For many companies, you are correct that tax planning must come after "market will bear" comparisons. Amazon is to the point that people go to amazon.com to the exclusion of shopping on other on-line places or local retail for many items. For amazon, tax planning can indeed be dealt with by price adjustments and no consumer would bat an eye. At any rate, taxes are paid out of income or reducing
Re: (Score:2)
I think when your profits go up $5,000,000,000+ in a year you can afford to absorb at least some income taxes without passing them along to the consumer.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh no! Then customers would be forced to support local, brick-and-mortar, small businesses instead (the ones that actually DO pay taxes and create real jobs).
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the size of the business, taxes are an expense item. And customers make that calculation all the time. Do I go drive around to 10 different local stores, try to find parking, walk to them in the wind and rain, see if they even carry an item I'm looking for, and then pay the same or higher price that Amazon is selling something for - or just click on amazon.com. Amazon is winning this battle for many things short of groceries and their purchase of Whole Foods gives them a entry there. And by th
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but if they were "paying" taxes to the government, they'd just raise the price on their products and services by an appropriate amount until their profit margins were once again where they wanted them to be.
If they could raise prices without losing customers, they would have done so already. Why would Amazon settle for a 20% profit margin when they could have a 25%* profit margin instead?
* Numbers invented to illustrate the point
Re: (Score:2)
If they and their competition pay the same tax rate, they will all raise prices to match. But that's clearly not the case here. It's costs that affect all sellers that get passed on to buyers, including corporate tax rates, were those at all evenly applied.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes are expense items. Companies generally keep income >= expense or eventually they go under. Lots of that going around for what it's worth.
That's true within reason. But still, something is clearly off with our tax code if under existing law Amazon owes nothing.
I don't blame Amazon at all for doing everything legal to pay no taxes - they have a duty to do so. The fault lies with the congresscritters who continue to enable the loopholes.
I'm not sure corporate income tax even makes sense in the first place, for the reasons you explain, but while we have one it certainly shouldn't penalize small companies at the expense of the biggest multinati
Re: (Score:3)
they'd just raise the price on their products and services by an appropriate amount
Not true. If they could charge higher prices, they would already be doing it.
An income tax increase would only raise prices if it applied to their competitors as well. Few of Amazon's competitors are paying 0%.
until their profit margins were once again where they wanted them to be.
They want them to be at infinity. Companies aim to maximize profits. They don't settle for a level that is "fair" or "good enough".
Taxes are expense items.
Income taxes are not an expense, because they are not part of COGS. VAT and excise taxes, and other taxes on revenue are expenses, but taxes on profit are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes are ultimately paid by people. Corporate taxes are merely expense items. And unfortunately, there aren't enough wealthy people to cover the cost of government even if you tax their income at a high rate.
We need to look at eliminating payment for services rendered in any form other than salary or wages. Skip the payments of the well off by stock options. There is too much manipulation there and too much of tax favorable treatment. Get over the delusion they've foisted on people that somehow paying in
So who is paying for their employees' SS & SSI (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: So who is paying for their employees' Social Security and SSI disability?
A: We are.
I'm more than a little bit tired of the wealthiest corporations and individuals paying proportionally less in taxes than even people in the bottom tax bracket. Giving tax breaks to help small businesses grow makes sense. Giving huge tax breaks to help one of the largest businesses in the world grow does not.
It's time for a tax revolution at the ballot box. Vote only for politicians who declare a willingness to make our tax code more fair and less protective of the wealthy. Raise capital gains taxes. Phase out corporate tax exemptions for companies earning more than 100M annually or add a business version of the alternative minimum tax. Make our tax system fair.
Re:So who is paying for their employees' SS & (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: So who is paying for their employees' Social Security and SSI disability?
A: We are.
No, Social security and SSI disability are paid by both the employee and the employer, and are not "Income Taxes".
Your ignorance of the topic undercuts and invalidates your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
1. The employer's share of payroll taxes are paid for by the employee, in the form of a lower wage. If the employer hired you knowing they'd be paying you a salary of $50,000/yr plus $3825/yr in their share of your payroll taxes, then they hired you knowing you would cost them $53,825/yr. So absent the payroll taxes, they would've hired you at a salary of $53,825/yr. Since you are receiving
Re: (Score:2)
Q: So who is paying for their employees' Social Security and SSI disability?
A: We are.
Um ... no [fool.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Raise capital gains taxes. Phase out corporate tax exemptions for companies earning more than 100M annually or add a business version of the alternative minimum tax. Make our tax system fair.
I've started suggesting the following ideas to try to make the tax system more fair:
Maybe if corporations don't pay taxes, we can get closer to overturning the stupid idea that
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could make the corporations pay all the taxes and the people pay no taxes. This would also be a step closer to overturning the idea the corporations are people. 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Q: So who is paying for their employees' Social Security and SSI disability?
A: We are.
I'm more than a little bit tired of the wealthiest corporations and individuals paying proportionally less in taxes than even people in the bottom tax bracket. Giving tax breaks to help small businesses grow makes sense. Giving huge tax breaks to help one of the largest businesses in the world grow does not.
It's time for a tax revolution at the ballot box. Vote only for politicians who declare a willingness to make our tax code more fair and less protective of the wealthy. Raise capital gains taxes. Phase out corporate tax exemptions for companies earning more than 100M annually or add a business version of the alternative minimum tax. Make our tax system fair.
I'd love to but both parties are bought and paid for. The Democrats have a few fringe players who talk about reform they are not in power and are marginalized. Those types also typically hate me as a cis-gendered white male so why would I support them? The reason aggrieved groups are given such a microphone by media is that it keeps the spotlight off declining standards of living, wages going down, etc. BLM doesn't cost companies a thing after all.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you misunderstand. Instead of paying the government their corporate income tax, they're getting money BACK. They're actually paying NEGATIVE income tax. That means we're literally paying for some portion of their other tax liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter unless those other taxes are higher as a result of them paying less corporate taxes and that increase is enough to more than offset the negative corporate income tax. We're still effectively paying those other taxes because Amazon is paying negative income tax.
Is this just because of previous years losses? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe nothing to see here?
Re:Is this just because of previous years losses? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the chart at the bottom of TFA shows they've made profits for several years and except last year and this year, used to pay (very small) taxes on those profits. they've just been getting better at playing the system as their profits are rising.
Re: (Score:2)
Partly, and partly from executives exercising stock options - see my Slashdot comment explaining this based on a Forbes article from 2013 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
No businesses really pay taxes (Score:3)
They are a business expense and are passed directly to the consumer of their goods and/or services.
So actually, you pay their taxes.
Before we bash Amazon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before we bash Amazon it's important to note the following from the linked to article.
"...ITEP notes that its non-existent federal tax payment is a result of the Trump Administration’s corporation-friendly tax cuts. The think tank writes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only decreased corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, but it also didn’t close “a slew of tax loopholes that allow profitable companies to routinely avoid paying federal and state income taxes on almost half of their profits.”
According to The Week, Amazon ended up paying an 11.4% federal income tax rate between 2011 and 2016, which is a contrast to the -1% rate this year."
Re:Before we bash Amazon... (Score:5, Funny)
Before we bash Amazon it's important to note the following from the linked to article.
"...ITEP notes that its non-existent federal tax payment is a result of the Trump Administration’s corporation-friendly tax cuts. The think tank writes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only decreased corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, but it also didn’t close “a slew of tax loopholes that allow profitable companies to routinely avoid paying federal and state income taxes on almost half of their profits.”
According to The Week, Amazon ended up paying an 11.4% federal income tax rate between 2011 and 2016, which is a contrast to the -1% rate this year."
Wow, that's terrible, it must have pushed them close to bankruptcy to pay such an onerous tax burden for those years.
Unlike the Federal Government (Score:3, Interesting)
Amazon actually spends their money to help bring people good things.
We will pay either way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if we could tax Amazon without the cost being passed to everyone else, would you support it?
Tax (Score:2)
If only they weren't 100% compliant with all applicable laws, and there was an obvious way to change those laws to mean that they do have to pay tax!
I mean... who'd ever live in such a world!
So much better to let them - or anyone else - do it, completely legitimately, then try to invoke ire that they decided it was a good thing to do, not pay any tax that they weren't required to.
I tell you now, if the taxman gave me an option to not pay any tax, completely legitimately, with no comeback, I'd damn well exer
Explan Please (Score:5, Insightful)
The fine print of Amazon’s income tax disclosure shows that this achievement is partly due to various unspecified “tax credits” as well as a tax break for executive stock options.
In researching what "a tax break for executive stock options" means, I found a Forbes article from 2013, that described it this way:
The option break,which Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) calls an “unjustified corporate loophole,” works like this: A company issues options to executives to buy stock at a certain, usually low price. (For example, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg had options to purchase 120 million shares for just 6 cents a share when the company went public last May at $38 per share.) Then, when the executive exercises those options, the company gets to deduct the difference between the executive’s exercise price and the shares' higher market value, even though the company hasn’t actually paid the exec that large amount of cash. As a result, while Facebook reported $1.1 billion in pretax U.S. profits for 2012, it owed no corporate income taxes and in fact qualified for $429 million in refunds. (One key here is that companies report their earnings to shareholders and the SEC under different rules than they use to report taxable income to the IRS.)
It went on to explain:
Defenders of this tax treatment for executive options point out that it’s not like Uncle Sam is getting stiffed. That's because the executive must report the same amount deducted by the company as ordinary income. So while corporations avoid a 35% corporate income tax, wealthy executives pay individual income taxes (after this year's fiscal cliff tax deal) at a top 39.6% rate. Plus, the whole amount is considered compensation subject to Medicare taxes at a 3.8% rate. (That’s the normal 2.9% Medicare rate, equally split between employer and employee, plus a 0.9% Medicare surcharge on highly paid employees that was part of ObamaCare.) And, of course, the exec has state individual income taxes to pay too. (In California, the top rate on income above $1 million is now a whopping 13.3%.) Some companies such as Facebook, “net settle” options. As Forbes contributor Robert Wood, a tax lawyer, explains here, that means Facebook made tax payments to Uncle Sam on employees’ behalf (essentially, it withheld taxes the workers owed), giving them only the shares they would end up with, after tax. (Note that the tax treatment of executive stock options—also called nonqualified stock options--is entirely different than the tax treatment of the "qualified" or "incentive" stock options typically handed out to rank and file employees.
So taxes were paid, mainly by the employee exercising the stock options, but also to an extent by the corporation as well - the article sums it up thusly:
To tax geeks, the treatment of executive stock options makes perfect sense: A tax deduction on the corporate side is balanced by taxable income to the employee.
Source: Stock Options Meant Big Tax Savings For Apple And JPMorgan, As Well As Facebook [forbes.com]
The takeaways - rather than tax the income at corporate tax rates (21.5%) the income is taxed at the highest individual rate (39.6%) AND Medicare at 3.8% and state tax rates, and the source of these deductions predate the Trump administration, since the above article is from during the Obama Administration. The origins of the tax break are left as a research project for the reader, I've done my part by showing the taxes are still paid by the employee that got the tax break, and paid at a higher rate than the corporation would have paid. (All tax rates described are from the 2103 article, the concerned reader is invited to substitute in post-Trump tax break rates if they like, the principle remains the same.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We are getting stiffed. If taxes worked properly, they would pay a business income tax, and then when someone is paid by that business, they pay individual income tax on top of it.
If that doesn't make sense, remember that corporations are people. If Joe makes $2000 from his job, he pays income tax on it. When he hires me to fix his water heater, I receive $1000 from Joe. Now I pay income tax on $1000. Am I getting double taxed? Or is the tax system working as it should?
Now replace Joe in my example with Ama
Isn't that what they are supposed to pay. (Score:2)
Your 401-K is happy now (Score:2)
From the CNN Finance summary: "Institutional investors hold a majority ownership of AMZN through the 57.75% of the outstanding shares that they control. This interest is also higher than at almost any other company in the Internet Retail industry."
Just eliminate corporate taxes... (Score:2)
Besides the unfortunate loss in employment opportunities for unscrupulous accountants and lawyers, I think the US would be better off if they eliminated all corporate income taxes. There are so many loopholes and handouts that it is impossible to make companies pay an equitable amount.
To compensate for the loss of federal income, personal taxes should be raised, especially taxes on capital gains, and loopholes closed so that corporate resources cannot be used for personal gain without taxation.
Most US
Tax them to help fund the military (Score:3)
That's surprisingly low (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's surprisingly low (Score:4, Interesting)
Tic Tock (Score:2)
Amusing (Score:3)
Even though ( via Citizens United ) Corporations are now " people " too, not all citizens are equal apparently. Especially when it comes to paying their share of taxes. :|
Whereas the vast majority of us pay somewhere between 20-30% in Federal Taxes every year, it seems most corporations pay no where near this amount. With some, like Amazon, not paying anything at all.
How do we fix this ?
Can it be fixed ?
Why is the majority of the tax burden sitting on the shoulders of the individual tax payer instead of the multi-billion dollar shoulders of Mega-Corp ?
If morons would stop opposing flat tax (Score:3)
This wouldn't happen with no deduction flat taxes, or even a sliding scale no deduction tax system.
Flat tax anyone? (Score:3)
All those against a simple, flat tax; how is the complex, loophole ridden tax system working out for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Government provides services. Those services have to be funded. Yes, theoretically we could probably run a government on just a Value Added Tax, if we weren't trying to be the policeman for the entire world.
Meh, our defense budget is only $676 B out of a total budget of $4 T. It's not the cold war any more.
Actual government services, such as roads and courts, are even less, down around 10% IIRC. Those probably could be funded with some other form of tax, but the form of the tax isn't some much the point. Mostly our government is a pension system these days, and for some reason free Americans are hostile to the idea of alternatives to systems like Social Security and Medicare, which give the government the p
Re: (Score:2)
The progressive tax system, runs under the idea, the more you make the higher percentage you pay. This is because the percent is just a stupid way of taxing.
Because to survive you may need $25,000 a year, a 2,500 in taxes cuts into your ability to survive. while if you make $250,000 25,000 in taxes is manageable and you still would have a good quality of life.
However the problem is the system is so complex, that the richer you are, the more resources you have to move your money into tax free methods.
A sales
Re:Where can small businesses get this deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk to the folks that write the tax code, they structured it this way for a reason, and we (collectively) keep re-electing them.
Re:Tax Returns.. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it's not average, but maybe close enough? 44% of the people pay $0.00 in federal income taxes:
https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or less than 0 with refundable tax credits.
Re: (Score:3)
The average taxpayer doesn't buy billions of dollars worth of depreciating assets that incentivize economic growth through myriad other mechanisms than a simple income tax return.
The average tax payer spends a thousand dollars a month. There's a few hundred million of them, and combined they spend tens of billions on the economy. Yet we tax them just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet I'm sure Amazon isn't kind to go lightly on their employees who find public transport inadequate to get into work reliably.
What does (or should) federal income tax have to do with public transportation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This has nothing to do with the Trump tax reform, it is from previously earned tax credits and executives exercising stock options, see my fuller comment here [slashdot.org] to understand this is based on tax "loopholes" that pre-date the Trump administration (it describes how Facebook earned $1BN in profit in 2012 and got a tax REFUND of over $400M - the Trump Tax Breaks weren't in effect in 2012...
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume Amazon doesn't get audited? Being audited and subsequently being found to have complied with the tax code results in no change - the issue here is the tax code that allows corporations to deduct employee stock options (see here [slashdot.org]), something which pre-dates the Trump administration.
For example, in 2012 Facebook reported $1BN in profit and yet received a $400M+ tax refund - "For those that don't have a pocket calculator handy, that works out to a tax rate of" over negative 40%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's allot of people who want no taxes, but that is in effect saying you don't want first responders, public schools, jails or infrastructure - roads, bridges, etc. It's cheaper and safer to pay for public schools than to deal with the hoards of uneducated, unemployable hoodlums that would be rampant in society.