Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, the GOP could have done their "tax reform" so that it closed these loopholes. Yet they lowered corporate tax rates and lowered taxes on the ultrarich and now we have the result: soaring deficits and large companies like Amazon, IBM and Delta that are paying 0$ in taxes. MAGA!

In some ways it's nice they've pulled off the sheet and now we can see the GOP as the party of billionaires it's been for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then get a skill that pays more.

Easier said than done. Why don't you go to Trump country and say that and see how that message plays.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then get a skill that pays more.

Not to mention, when companies skimp on wages and benefits like health insurance and retirement, somebody pays. And that somebody is the middle class taxpaying American. So corporations pay no taxes, pay low wages that don’t genuinely cover the cost of productivity, and then the American tax payer makes up the difference in social welfare benefits.

Something stinks.

Easier said than done. Why don't you go to Trump country and say that and see how that message plays.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then get a skill that pays more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then get a skill that pays more.

Do you recommend robots for low wage jobs, or how will that work get done if everyone decides to get "skills that pay more" and avoid those jobs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then get a skill that pays more.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

It sounds like you have a source. Why don't you share it?

There are many sources, lazy dude.

Hint: start by researching how it is possible that 43% of American people play zero or negative federal income tax. Then if you want use some free tax software to see what you would pay in the real world, in a realistic scenario while making $22k...

Oh I have sources. I want to see yours. I'm calling BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

It sounds like you have a source. Why don't you share it?

There are many sources, lazy dude.

Hint: start by researching how it is possible that 43% of American people play zero or negative federal income tax. Then if you want use some free tax software to see what you would pay in the real world, in a realistic scenario while making $22k...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, the GOP could have done their "tax reform" so that it closed these loopholes. Yet they lowered corporate tax rates and lowered taxes on the ultrarich and now we have the result: soaring deficits and large companies like Amazon, IBM and Delta that are paying 0$ in taxes. MAGA!

In some ways it's nice they've pulled off the sheet and now we can see the GOP as the party of billionaires it's been for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, the GOP could have done their "tax reform" so that it closed these loopholes. Yet they lowered corporate tax rates and lowered taxes on the ultrarich and now we have the result: soaring deficits and large companies like Amazon, IBM and Delta that are paying 0$ in taxes. MAGA!

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

It sounds like you have a source. Why don't you share it?

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

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: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.