Large companies like Amazon are sick and tired of politicians who are incapable of writing effective tax law. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders: maximizing profits. They pay no taxes because the law lets them legally pay no taxes. No company is going to pay more than its competitors. Tax legislation written for the modern world that closes all the loopholes these corporations exploit would make them pay taxes.

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.

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

They are not being subsidized by tax payers. Amazon is subsidizing itself, from profitable years to unprofitable years. Carried forward loss is a very basic concept and principle of operating a business that without it, companies would not take the necessary risks or make the necessary investments to grow. Think about this scenario: a successful construction company wants to expand itself into a new market, which would cause it to incur 5 million dollars in immediate expansion costs - money to rent out new facilities, purchase new equipment, hire/train new people, marketing expenses in the new market, and etc. This 5 million in investment is only going to bring in 1 million in net profit in the first year, 2 million in the second year, and 3 million in the third year. So in the first year, the company is going to have a 4 million dollar loss. Shouldn't the business be able to deduct this 4 million dollar loss against the 5 million dollars it makes in the 2nd and 3rd year? If not, then the company may decide not to make the 5 million investment, or do it over a much longer period, leading to slower economic growth.

They get a tax break for losing money. Full stop. You can spin it however you want. That is corporate WELFARE.

+1 Businesses use our roads, airports and other public infrastructure, benefit from our national defense and from a workforce educated in public schools. They use their fair share of public resources and need to pay taxes as part of living in a civilized society.

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.

They are not being subsidized by tax payers. Amazon is subsidizing itself, from profitable years to unprofitable years. Carried forward loss is a very basic concept and principle of operating a business that without it, companies would not take the necessary risks or make the necessary investments to grow. Think about this scenario: a successful construction company wants to expand itself into a new market, which would cause it to incur 5 million dollars in immediate expansion costs - money to rent out new facilities, purchase new equipment, hire/train new people, marketing expenses in the new market, and etc. This 5 million in investment is only going to bring in 1 million in net profit in the first year, 2 million in the second year, and 3 million in the third year. So in the first year, the company is going to have a 4 million dollar loss. Shouldn't the business be able to deduct this 4 million dollar loss against the 5 million dollars it makes in the 2nd and 3rd year? If not, then the company may decide not to make the 5 million investment, or do it over a much longer period, leading to slower economic growth.

They get a tax break for losing money. Full stop. You can spin it however you want. That is corporate WELFARE.

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.

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.

Simple.

First, a good number of them are not profitable. But if you want to close them, heck, do so and China and Russia will love to welcome them.

Second, they create dozens of thousands of jobs and billions in customer value. More than any political party would create in a thousand years of hard work. But heck, close them like funny AOC just did with Amazon in NY and see what happens...

Low wage jobs with no health coverage and no pensions or 401k plans don't serve anyone well.

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.

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.

Because those corporations are contributing to society with job creation, tax paying employees versus those that just use resources and give nothing back.

Those people who are working at low wage jobs are contributing to society too, even if they don’t have multimillion dollar payouts like hedge fund managers. Shame on you for belittling the working poor.

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.

They are not being subsidized by tax payers. Amazon is subsidizing itself, from profitable years to unprofitable years. Carried forward loss is a very basic concept and principle of operating a business that without it, companies would not take the necessary risks or make the necessary investments to grow. Think about this scenario: a successful construction company wants to expand itself into a new market, which would cause it to incur 5 million dollars in immediate expansion costs - money to rent out new facilities, purchase new equipment, hire/train new people, marketing expenses in the new market, and etc. This 5 million in investment is only going to bring in 1 million in net profit in the first year, 2 million in the second year, and 3 million in the third year. So in the first year, the company is going to have a 4 million dollar loss. Shouldn't the business be able to deduct this 4 million dollar loss against the 5 million dollars it makes in the 2nd and 3rd year? If not, then the company may decide not to make the 5 million investment, or do it over a much longer period, leading to slower economic growth.

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/us/politics/democrats-taxes-2020.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Sorry, but this is pure BS. And when they get a rebate, it comes out of MY pocket! These companies take advantage of the US legal system, financial markets, education, clear air, etc., they should pay their fair share. I am amazed more people aren't upset. Additionally,

-- is it right when a hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rate than a NYC policeman?

-- that Jared Kushner's net worth increases by tens of millions yet he pays no taxes.

OK, I am going to be told that everything they do is legal. But that does not make it right.

This argument is flawed from the start. First, a hedge fund manager is not a corporation. If his personal tax rate is 0%, I would be surprised. Jared Kushner's net worth is not taxable.

First, why would you tax a corporation? It doesn't make sense. The corporation doesn't exist as a person (please don't bother to argue about rights since I am against personhood for corporations). The corporation is comprised of individuals. Tax the individuals. If the corporation shields profits, that's fine. It can't shield those profits forever. At some point it has to divest those assets. Either to cover losses or to pay to employees.

Jeff Bezos is _not_ Amazon. What's Bezos personal tax rate? I don't hear any mention of this. I gather it isn't 0% since that story doesn't sell.

Because those corporations are contributing to society with job creation, tax paying employees versus those that just use resources and give nothing back.

Those corporations are paying plenty in sales tax for equipment and supplies to operate. They are employing and paying people who spend money and pay all sorts of taxes. They pay mortgages and rent to people who likely pay other taxes.

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.

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.

Because those corporations are contributing to society with job creation, tax paying employees versus those that just use resources and give nothing back.

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.

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

Maybe you should take a basic accounting course. 0% tax bracket ends at $10k; standard deduction is $12k. A person making $22k a year pays more in taxes than Amazon.

Not true, dumbboy.

Most people making $22k a year pay ZERO or NEGATIVE fed income tax -- look it up.

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.

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

Maybe you should take a basic accounting course. 0% tax bracket ends at $10k; standard deduction is $12k. A person making $22k a year pays more in taxes than Amazon.

+1 And they are paying more taxes than Amazon, IBM, Halliburton etc while being below the poverty line. MAGA!

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.

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.

Simple.

First, a good number of them are not profitable. But if you want to close them, heck, do so and China and Russia will love to welcome them.

Second, they create dozens of thousands of jobs and billions in customer value. More than any political party would create in a thousand years of hard work. But heck, close them like funny AOC just did with Amazon in NY and see what happens...

Except that the businesses listed in the analysis were found to be profitable and paying no taxes in 2018. Maybe take a basic literacy class since you're having a hard time grasping those facts.

Anonymous wrote: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

Something’s wrong when the bottom half in America holds 1% of wealth, and the top 10% holds three-quarters of wealth.

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

Maybe you should take a basic accounting course. 0% tax bracket ends at $10k; standard deduction is $12k. A person making $22k a year pays more in taxes than Amazon.

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.

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.

Simple.

First, a good number of them are not profitable. But if you want to close them, heck, do so and China and Russia will love to welcome them.

Second, they create dozens of thousands of jobs and billions in customer value. More than any political party would create in a thousand years of hard work. But heck, close them like funny AOC just did with Amazon in NY and see what happens...