Would a Republican please tell me why it is fair these corporations pay $0 taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one remember all those huge inversions under Obama?

Sure, feel free to feed the hateful base...but then don't be surprised when large companies simply relocate their headquarters and profits and high-value jobs elsewhere.

The world is complex, folks.

Every country needs to put an end to this BS.

Yes, this requires some kind of international cooperation but that's close to impossible in something like this.

Remember Ireland, in the middle of all EU regulations and still able to lower its corporate taxes crazy low to attract companies worldwide.

[Anonymous]

Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

[Anonymous]

if you try not to take advantage of loopholes you are crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

+1.

The case of Amazon is pretty obvious but leave it to the NYT to create fake outrage to sell some papers and some clicks and support some senseless partisan talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

+1.

The case of Amazon is pretty obvious but leave it to the NYT to create fake outrage to sell some papers and some clicks and support some senseless partisan talking points.

It's not just Amazon. The NYT showed a list of the companies paying zero taxes and it includes Delta, Haliburton, Salesforce, IBM, Netflix and a lot of other companies Americans know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/democrats-taxes-2020.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

For decades, profitable companies have been able to avoid corporate taxes. But the list of those paying zero roughly doubled last year as a result of provisions in President Trump’s 2017 tax bill that expanded corporate tax breaks and reduced the tax rate on corporate income.

“Amazon, Netflix and dozens of major corporations, as a result of Trump’s tax bill, pay nothing in federal taxes,” Mr. Sanders said last week during a Fox News town hall-style event. “I think that’s a disgrace.”
Amazon

Delta Air Lines

Chevron

General Motors

EOG Resources

Duke Energy

Occidental Petroleum

Dominion Energy

Honeywell

Deere & Company

American Electric Power

Public Service Enterprise Group

Kinder Morgan

Prudential Financial

Principal Financial

FirstEnergy

Xcel Energy

PulteGroup

WEC Energy

Molson Coors

Devon Energy

Pioneer Natural Resources

DTE Energy

PPL

Halliburton

Ameren

Netflix

IBM

CMS Energy

Salesforce

[Anonymous]

Lots of Democrats trying to find solutions to this egregious bit of corporate welfare.

Several of the Democratic candidates have called for changes to the corporate system, and Ms. Warren has gone the furthest in issuing a detailed plan. Under her proposal, corporations would pay a new 7 percent tax on every dollar over $100 million in profits they earn anywhere in the world. She estimated the new tax would apply to roughly 1,200 companies and bring in $1 trillion.

Under Ms. Warren’s plan, Amazon would have paid $698 million instead of $0 in federal taxes for 2018. In a statement, the company said it “pays all the taxes we are required to pay in the U.S. and every country where we operate.”

Mr. Sanders, in his 2016 presidential campaign and in this one, has routinely talked about closing loopholes and capturing some of the billions in profits that multinationals have kept overseas in tax havens and out of the Internal Revenue Service’s reach.

Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota senator who is also running, has taken a different approach. She has tied a proposed increase in the corporate tax rate, to 25 percent from the current 21 percent, to plans to rebuild bridges, roads and airports nationwide. About $400 billion of her trillion-dollar infrastructure plan would be financed by the tax increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

+1.

The case of Amazon is pretty obvious but leave it to the NYT to create fake outrage to sell some papers and some clicks and support some senseless partisan talking points.

It's not just Amazon. The NYT showed a list of the companies paying zero taxes and it includes Delta, Haliburton, Salesforce, IBM, Netflix and a lot of other companies Americans know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/democrats-taxes-2020.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

For decades, profitable companies have been able to avoid corporate taxes. But the list of those paying zero roughly doubled last year as a result of provisions in President Trump’s 2017 tax bill that expanded corporate tax breaks and reduced the tax rate on corporate income.

“Amazon, Netflix and dozens of major corporations, as a result of Trump’s tax bill, pay nothing in federal taxes,” Mr. Sanders said last week during a Fox News town hall-style event. “I think that’s a disgrace.”
Amazon

Delta Air Lines

Chevron

General Motors

EOG Resources

Duke Energy

Occidental Petroleum

Dominion Energy

Honeywell

Deere & Company

American Electric Power

Public Service Enterprise Group

Kinder Morgan

Prudential Financial

Principal Financial

FirstEnergy

Xcel Energy

PulteGroup

WEC Energy

Molson Coors

Devon Energy

Pioneer Natural Resources

DTE Energy

PPL

Halliburton

Ameren

Netflix

IBM

CMS Energy

Salesforce

Many of those companies have NOT been "profitable companies" despite the NYT claim.

Amazon?

Netflix?

GM?

IBM?

Delta?

Someone is smoking too much pot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

+1.

The case of Amazon is pretty obvious but leave it to the NYT to create fake outrage to sell some papers and some clicks and support some senseless partisan talking points.

It's not just Amazon. The NYT showed a list of the companies paying zero taxes and it includes Delta, Haliburton, Salesforce, IBM, Netflix and a lot of other companies Americans know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/democrats-taxes-2020.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

For decades, profitable companies have been able to avoid corporate taxes. But the list of those paying zero roughly doubled last year as a result of provisions in President Trump’s 2017 tax bill that expanded corporate tax breaks and reduced the tax rate on corporate income.

“Amazon, Netflix and dozens of major corporations, as a result of Trump’s tax bill, pay nothing in federal taxes,” Mr. Sanders said last week during a Fox News town hall-style event. “I think that’s a disgrace.”
Amazon

Delta Air Lines

Chevron

General Motors

EOG Resources

Duke Energy

Occidental Petroleum

Dominion Energy

Honeywell

Deere & Company

American Electric Power

Public Service Enterprise Group

Kinder Morgan

Prudential Financial

Principal Financial

FirstEnergy

Xcel Energy

PulteGroup

WEC Energy

Molson Coors

Devon Energy

Pioneer Natural Resources

DTE Energy

PPL

Halliburton

Ameren

Netflix

IBM

CMS Energy

Salesforce

Many of those companies have NOT been "profitable companies" despite the NYT claim.

Amazon?

Netflix?

GM?

IBM?

Delta?

Someone is smoking too much pot.

Well then show your evidence that none of these companies earned a profit in 2018. Because otherwise it's your anonymous babbling vs. an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

Why should taxpayers subsidize their losses? Poor people don't get tax breaks for going into debt- they get 30% APR credit card rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

Why should taxpayers subsidize their losses? Poor people don't get tax breaks for going into debt- they get 30% APR credit card rates.

Oh Lordy.

Poor people making less than $30k in "profits"/ income pay zero taxes -- in fact the government pays THEM!!

You may want to take a basic business course

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

Why should taxpayers subsidize their losses? Poor people don't get tax breaks for going into debt- they get 30% APR credit card rates.

Oh Lordy.

Poor people making less than $30k in "profits"/ income pay zero taxes -- in fact the government pays THEM!!

You may want to take a basic business course

They may benefit from the social safety net because that's part of the compact the US has with its citizens. We subsidize those who are in poverty. But no one has explained why we're subsidizing profitable corporations with billions in revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, first of all this republican will tell you that Collins pays ZERO in federal taxes, so this is all based on lies. Secondly, why do republicans have to defend the world’s most rich liberal Jeff Bezos for not paying taxes. Take your beef up with him.

Pretty sure that Bezos pays plenty of taxes on his personal income.

Amazon employs lots and lots of people. Most of those people pay taxes. Tax the corporations more and fewer people will be working and paying taxes. Pretty simple. Amazon also pays rent, buys property on which it pays taxes (unless being given a break by local municipalities, etc.)

False. In the 1950s, we taxed corporations and the rich at much higher rates and yet the economy boomed. You're talking theory but I'm talking evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

+1.

The case of Amazon is pretty obvious but leave it to the NYT to create fake outrage to sell some papers and some clicks and support some senseless partisan talking points.

It's not just Amazon. The NYT showed a list of the companies paying zero taxes and it includes Delta, Haliburton, Salesforce, IBM, Netflix and a lot of other companies Americans know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/democrats-taxes-2020.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

For decades, profitable companies have been able to avoid corporate taxes. But the list of those paying zero roughly doubled last year as a result of provisions in President Trump’s 2017 tax bill that expanded corporate tax breaks and reduced the tax rate on corporate income.

“Amazon, Netflix and dozens of major corporations, as a result of Trump’s tax bill, pay nothing in federal taxes,” Mr. Sanders said last week during a Fox News town hall-style event. “I think that’s a disgrace.”
Amazon

Delta Air Lines

Chevron

General Motors

EOG Resources

Duke Energy

Occidental Petroleum

Dominion Energy

Honeywell

Deere & Company

American Electric Power

Public Service Enterprise Group

Kinder Morgan

Prudential Financial

Principal Financial

FirstEnergy

Xcel Energy

PulteGroup

WEC Energy

Molson Coors

Devon Energy

Pioneer Natural Resources

DTE Energy

PPL

Halliburton

Ameren

Netflix

IBM

CMS Energy

Salesforce

Many of those companies have NOT been "profitable companies" despite the NYT claim.

Amazon?

Netflix?

GM?

IBM?

Delta?

Someone is smoking too much pot.

Creative accounting. It's all a paper game, they can make their books show a profit, a loss, whatever they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to the original question, I guess it's simply a matter of whether you consider tax-loss carry forwards fair or not.

In years past, Amazon lost a lot of money. That would be like you having a negative income for the year. They basically get to net those losses against today's profits.

Is that fair? I think so, but I suppose you can argue against it.

+1.

The case of Amazon is pretty obvious but leave it to the NYT to create fake outrage to sell some papers and some clicks and support some senseless partisan talking points.

It's not just Amazon. The NYT showed a list of the companies paying zero taxes and it includes Delta, Haliburton, Salesforce, IBM, Netflix and a lot of other companies Americans know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/democrats-taxes-2020.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

For decades, profitable companies have been able to avoid corporate taxes. But the list of those paying zero roughly doubled last year as a result of provisions in President Trump’s 2017 tax bill that expanded corporate tax breaks and reduced the tax rate on corporate income.

“Amazon, Netflix and dozens of major corporations, as a result of Trump’s tax bill, pay nothing in federal taxes,” Mr. Sanders said last week during a Fox News town hall-style event. “I think that’s a disgrace.”
Amazon

Delta Air Lines

Chevron

General Motors

EOG Resources

Duke Energy

Occidental Petroleum

Dominion Energy

Honeywell

Deere & Company

American Electric Power

Public Service Enterprise Group

Kinder Morgan

Prudential Financial

Principal Financial

FirstEnergy

Xcel Energy

PulteGroup

WEC Energy

Molson Coors

Devon Energy

Pioneer Natural Resources

DTE Energy

PPL

Halliburton

Ameren

Netflix

IBM

CMS Energy

Salesforce

Many of those companies have NOT been "profitable companies" despite the NYT claim.

Amazon?

Netflix?

GM?

IBM?

Delta?

Someone is smoking too much pot.

Well then show your evidence that none of these companies earned a profit in 2018. Because otherwise it's your anonymous babbling vs. an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy

+1 You have to show some actual data, and not just say "someone is smoking too much pot" which makes it sound like you've been smoking too much pot.

[Anonymous]

Interesting Fact: The top 10% of taxpayers (aka Rich) pay 90% of all the taxes in this country

Another Interesting Fact: The bottom 50% of taxpayers (aka the poor) pay zero taxes in this country