Amazon to pay $0 in income tax for the second year in a row. - Polidicks

Well income tax theory, at least here in Australia, goes that you are entitled to deductions for expenses you incurred in producing your assessable income. A hospitality wage earner typically can’t claim a deduction for purchased video games, because video games don’t help that person earn their hospitality wage. With companies, typically >90% of their expenses relate to carrying on their business, and therefore those expenses are income tax deductible. But of course it depends on the person or entity. Eg I once prepared an income tax return for a media personality and could claim her Netflix subscription as an income tax deduction, as she paid it herself (not her employer) and it related to her particular job in the media industry. Even if companies don’t pay much tax, many companies will often declare dividends, and dividends eventually find their way into the tax returns of individuals as assessable income.

Fortunately, close friends would be devastated if I died. That's all I really live for right now. I would already of died in a blaze of glory for a cause long ago if I didn't have friends and family that cared.

Student loans repayment maxes out at 1200. Most student loan payments are around 500 to 800 dollars. You get maybe 3 months pack of long term debt investing in yourself. If this was a company, they'd just get told they owe bubcus.

Yes, but this is because corporations aren't people; a corporation should be incentivized to stimulate the economy as much as possible by spending all of its money every year, but a person doing the same loses the security that they need to be a functional person. If a corporation isn't actively stimulating the economy, it isn't doing it's job in our system, which is why the measures are put in place. It's good for everyone if corporations compete and grow. (Remember that all of this is talking about ~idealized situations~, in reality it's more complicated than this and people will abuse systems but spending-related tax deductions really aren't a bad thing for society)

Hang on why is this on politics? Isn't Amazon a company or is this related to politics.

What do you think taxes are?

God damn communist tactics to take my money...

Sorry, what? Student loans shouldn't be made deductible because it would make people lose their security? That's some galaxy brain tier crap. You've got it completely backwards. If you're gonna argue that profits reinvested into expansion should be deductible because it "stimulates the economy" (more on why that's bullshit later) then people should logically be incentivized to become fiscally independent in the same way. Students loans are pretty much required these days to get jobs that ensure financial security. Housing loans are needed if you want to actually own your home rather than burn money every month for no gain. Car loans are also pretty much required to expand your job opportunities beyond the immediate area. All of those things are just as important for a strong economy as the growth of companies, if not more, not to mention individual independence and well-being. And yet these are either not deductible at all or have such a comically low ceiling that they might as well not be. Meanwhile, corporations enjoy unlimited deductions on reinvested profits. And you don't think there's a gross double standard here? This doesn't foster competition at all. Quite the contrary, in fact. Company expansion is often done by acquiring competitors. Detaxing profits reinvested in expansion rewards big companies with big profits much more than it does their smaller potential challengers, which also accelerates the devolving of industries into local or global monopolies. A proper tax policy to foster competition would either involve a properly sized ceiling beyond which profits are not deductible or a progressive tax that cuts more into big profits than small ones. But this 0% across the board bullshit? That's counterproductive. You seem to assume that any and all expansion "stimulates the economy". That's not true at all. What do you think Amazon will do with all this tax-free profit, exactly? Most probably choke even more smaller competitors by selling shit at a loss and eating the costs through sheer investments to strengthen their monopoly, before eventually raising prices once there is no competition customers can turn to.

And I'm not talking about idealized situations, I'm talking about now and its stupid that corporations are both considered people and not people.

That's the point of mass movements and grassroots organized direct action. The majority of good things that workers have today were gotten through organized labor movements, and there's a reason they were whittled away over time.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/497/af1e0372-b1a2-41eb-885b-2410fbd2d160/image.png presented without comment

Very few things in the history of the United States were given when they were asked for. Instead, the want of those things was often derided, cast away, minimized, ridiculed, and sometimes even violently beaten or made criminal; often simply due to religious disagreement, racism, classism, or sexism. The most successful movements in US History all have one thing in common: People lost jobs, blood, and sometimes even lives in the attempt to gain what they sought.

I don't have the ability to respond to this entire post right now but I would like to say that I thought you were extrapolating student loans to arbitrary spending as a consumer, not talking specifically about them. I absolutely think that students loans or any other spending that betters society in an objective way by an individual should also be deductible because that kind of behavior should be encouraged. Things like: Student loans Student housing Getting vaccinated Moving to another place for a job Installing more efficient appliances Ripping out your lawn and replacing it with something more eco friendly Etc

Right, so you think that by default, a person's spendings isn't beneficial enough to society to warrant being deducted. Only a select few exceptions do. However, according to you, no matter how a company reinvests its profits, it's considered beneficial to the economy and thus warrants to being deducted, with no upper limit, regardless of the fact that a company's expansion is obviously not always beneficial to society and is sometimes outright detrimental to it. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

I disagree with Peachy’s interpretation of how deductions should be considered. But as I myself stated at the top of this page, I support the theory that income tax deductions should generally be allowed for any expense incurred in producing assessable income. For a company, that will be virtually all of its expenses, as most companies are sensible with their spending in that manner. For individuals, not all expenses are incurred in producing assessable income. Video games and smart TVs typically don’t help you earn your income, for example. It’s not like individuals get rorted, though. Here in Australia, companies must pay 27.5% minimum on their taxable income. For individuals, they don’t start paying tax until they earn more than $18,200, where the first tax bracket of 19% begins.

I didn't say that it needed to be without limit and regardless of type of spending. I was saying why the laws weren't inherently bad and why they often act as a positive and not a negative despite how "obviously" bad they are. Just because I didn't write a dissertation detailing the exact nuances of my stance, assuming that I mean the most extreme version is fairly uncharitable.

The original argument was never that deductions should incentivize financial decisions that help earn more income, but that it should reward those that "stimulate the economy" or benefits society in general. I've already explained why spending profits to expand is not necessarily beneficial to society at large. A company acquiring a competitor is "being sensible" with their spending, as it establishes dominance in their market. But the immediate result is less competition, no value was created, and the corresponding market inches closer to a mono/oligopoly. I really don't see why we should reward such decision with tax breaks. Doesn't really make a difference if basically none of it is taxable. And I just explained why they actually are, and how they give preferential treatment to companies over people, not applying its principles consistently across the board.

This is a piping-hot take, so I'ma let it cool off for a minute . . . Okay. "It's good for everyone if corporations compete and grow." https://chartable-images.edapps.nile.works/chartable/5b4796e19def54000e1f983c/2300.jpg?v=1533907767.670501 I'm pretty sure corporations were doing fine and dandy during these years.

If companies couldn't deduct expenses then any company that buys a product and resells it literally couldn't exist Do you people fucking understand profit margins

You understand there's a pretty significant difference between expenses (ie operational costs) and profits reinvested into expansion, right? Nobody in this thread ever said expenses should be taxed. What we said is that reinvesting profits (ie earnings minus operating expenses) into expansion (ie making the company grow) shouldn't absolve those profits from taxes. So in your example, if a company spent $10,000 and earned $11,000, and reinvested all their profits into expanding, with a marginal tax rate of 25%, they'd pay $250. Next time, try to actually make sure you actually understand the point people are making before going on an angry tangent and looking like an idiot when they point out your mistake.

Expanding is an operational cost.

A cost that doesn't need to be made. You can stay in one city, with one store and make a steady amount of money, or you can spend some of the money you have to expand and make a different amount of steady money. Just because it's a cost doesn't mean it's an operational cost.

Expanding isn't operational, its an opportunity cost.

No. Operating (Operational) costs are the expenses which are related to the operation of a business, or to the operation of a device, component, piece of equipment or facility. They are the cost of resources used by an organization just to maintain its existence. Profits reinvested into expansion are not required to keep a business running, they are not operating costs. The definition of profits is literally "earnings minus operating costs".

Under that definition, wouldn't a company be irresponsible to put itself in a situation where it has to pay external costs, like taxes? It almost seems like a catch 22, and there's no situation where it's reasonable to tax companies so long as they "reinvest". Why would they do anything else?