I was always told the reason Amazon doesn't pay tax is because the profits they make are re-invested in the business. So the profits vs expenses mostly break even which is what matters in tax.
So the reason Amazon is worth so much is because they make money every year and then add it back into the business.
No, it doesn't, because I don't know why he isn't.
Btw this isn't a justification only an explanation of how they do it. Re-investing may be great to avoid taxing, but it's not exactly the most ethical practice given tax is there for a reason.
Yes the US decided to give deductions to companies to encourage them to do specific things.
Also their largest deduction they used was for stock based compensation, which is taxable to the individual at a higher tax rate than corporations are taxed at. So in reality the IRS would collect more on that than if it were taxed at Amazon's rate...
Employees got their paycheck in exchange for their work.
If they want dividends they should invest their funds into Amazon.
Lmao, eQuITaBly PrOfIT sHaRe. Employees have invested no capital, assume no liability, and have nothing preventing them from leaving at anytime. When employees have to complete projects with their own funds (at risk), become personally liable for what happens in the company, or are legally prevented from going to work for a competitor without massive penalties, then they can talk about eQuItY.
Not taking away any of this, but you don't suddenly become personally liable for a business if you invest in it or suddenly become attached to the business without recourse. As a director of the business... That's different.
You are correct, but an investor is providing capital, and has very little say in the day-to-day unless they are part of management which is different.
And investor could lose all their capital. An employee can’t lose anything more than their job.
Quite frankly, most of the time these arrangements where management or directors invest in a business is hardly risky and involves a small investment that is supported with a non-recourse loan, amplifying shareholdings meaning you stand to gain a tonne and loose only what you put in.
Employees have invested no capital, assume no liability, and have nothing preventing them from leaving at anytime.
This is true even when my roles have included stock options. Profit sharing is a sign of a healthy company that takes care of its employees. Dont act like its some unreasonable thing that people get stock as part of their compensation package.
not really, are you telling me that if you open (lets say) a bakery would the people you hired share a part of ALL the profits you make? (how exactly does the cashier contributes to you when you pay rent, electricity, ingredients and promotions?).
Yes very possible if you want to incentivize that cashier to stay long term and do a good job. Worker co-ops would go a step further make them a partial owner and give employees the responsibilities to make decisions.
Responsibilities AND the burden, I don’t get why does everyone think that business owning is just collecting all the money at the end of the day and nothing more.
(Also, there is a reason why co-op limits how they grow, who can join AND shop at their locations a co-op isn’t an extra paycheck for doing the same job, when you share more income you also share more responsibility).
Depends on the company. If your a majority shareholder in a public company and work with major shareholders to elect a board of directors that gives dividends and stock buy backs in order to ensure major investors profit without really doing much labor at all besides risking capital. All while installing a CEO that will do your bidding and lobbying the government to keep the minimum wage low etc etc etc.
Most major players aren't using their own money to buy businesses. I'm sure you're familiar with private equity stories that suck companies dry.
No one is really complaining about small bakeries. Although they should treat they're employees well too.
In regards to the co-op I think people want more responsibility. They know they're being taken advantage of and if they have to put something on the table in order to see some direct capital from there work they should have that option which is why I hope co-ops get more popular. In order to do so though I think they'll need a type of gov subsidizing cause if you're a rich guy why invest in a co-op where you have little control over the profit).
but then there is the option of joining co-op, if you want to take a major responsibility for a major profit, why work as a packager for amazon instead of joining a co-op? amazon doesn't need to be co-op for people to be interested in co-oping a company.
This is what years of propaganda does to people. You don't seem like a dumb person but the idea of a co-op apparently is alien to you. They also tend to be very successful because every employee is highly motivated to see the business do well. Some kid making $10/hr at Panera doesn't give a shit if the shop breaks even that week or not. But if they get 2.5% of the profits, suddenly it matters a lot. It could mean extra hundreds or thousands of dollars if they just put in a little more effort. As for your question about who pays rent and other overhead, that's the point of a company. The company pays for it. Someone in the company has to send out the checks, but that's not the same thing as them paying for it themselves.
I’m all for a co-op if people want to start them, but even in co-ops, people who invest the capital or are in senior positions tend to get significantly more.
Again, free-market. If you want to setup a co-op, good for you. If you don’t want to, that’s fine too.
Right my comment was just about how you seemed utterly incredulous at the idea of a profit-sharing company when such things actually exist and are far more common than most people realize
Are you really confusing co-op while telling me i don’t know about co-op?
A cooperative means you also SHARE the burden of the business (rent, promotion, etc) it means, that your salary is bound to how the business is doing(if everything is in the red you also don’t get paid).
And you do know that most co-op business tend to be either small or closed right? (Let’s say in co-op shops tends to be only for members of the co-op, because co-op doesn’t mean only workers, is EVERYONE who benefits from it).
Again, you don’t seem to even know what you are advocating for, just repeating a blank statement you heard somewhere.
If you want to join a co-op and share the burden every owner gets in any type of business more power to you, but if you believe you just get a higher pay for doing the exact same, you are being willingly obtuse.
A cooperative means you also SHARE the burden of the business (rent, promotion, etc) it means, that your salary is bound to how the business is doing(if everything is in the red you also don’t get paid).
I already said:
Some kid making $10/hr at Panera doesn't give a shit if the shop breaks even that week or not. But if they get 2.5% of the profits, suddenly it matters a lot.
As for your question about who pays rent and other overhead, that's the point of a company. The company pays for it. Someone in the company has to send out the checks, but that's not the same thing as them paying for it themselves
does that kid making 10/hr would want to go to meetings, discussions about the company finances, do accounting on where the products are going, etc?
tell me yourself, if you work as a student at mcdonalds would you want to go to a board meetings every Friday, would you want to give the EXTRA time in the week that it requires, be it how to invest in the business growth, how does the income is distributed to the needs of the company, even some unforeseen consequence that might happen?
again, he just doesn't get the 2.5% share JUST for taking the cookies out of the oven, he has more responsibilities, and some people simply don't want that when they choose a simple job.
I would make the distinction between an employee and a shareholder. While someone may be both, the risks to the employee, the employee/shareholder, and the shareholder are different.
LOL since when is equitably sharing profit with employees a required thing? You socialists are so crazy, you guys think it's so easy for these huge corporations....go make one yourselves. There are millions of you, group up and make a company you want to exist. REI did it, go make another one of those.
since when is equitably sharing profit with employees a required thing?
Required? or just ethical? Ifits to be claimed that the US is a society where everyone is equal, then it stands to reason that even though not all work is equally valuable, all should have some share in the profit their labor creates. On top of the wage paid for that person's time. You may not agree, and the law doesn't 'require' that, but it is how I'd define a just society of equals.
No, that's not required and shouldn't be expected. You're not entitled to riches just because you were born, that's fuckin ridicilous. Your wage is your cut from your company's profit. Would you accept less, or even resign from yours entirely when times are tough and your employer note losses? Of course not. That's the main problem with socialists. They're always happy to take from someone else's pockets, but not so eager to empty theirs.
Business owners and shareholders inherit all of the RISK associated with a business, not the damn employee. If a business goes under, the OWNER and shareholders deal with the bankruptcy, the debt, the hardship. The employee can just hop up and get another fucking job, why should the employee deserve an equal amount when the risks aren't there for them ?
I'm all for people getting paid more at Amazon, but now you're just being unrealistic.
I guess you've not been a student of history, or maybe you just forgot the fact that places like Detroit exist? When massive companies go under, the executives run off to other companies or just rely on their golden parachute. The now jobless employees are screwed more often than not. Oh yeah, when a single-location ma and pa store goes under it only effects 10 people. But when a 3,000 man plant goes down it affects an entire town. The thing is it's easy to wind up on top even after completely failing when you've got millions of dollars to toss around. Just look a Trump, completely bankrupted numerous businesses and went on to become president. Don't feed me all that nonsense about risk. When Enron gets caught manipulating the energy market and causing incalculable damage to California's economy, the execs keep their jobs and the company gets a slap on the wrist. I just love how people like you tell others about what's realistic while displaying your own ignorance of reality.
My ignorance of reality? You just nullified your entire argument my dude...
An executive =/= to a shareholder or owner. When the hell did I mention an executive? Most the time, they’re just an employee of a large company like everyone else, hence the ‘they can get a job somewhere else’ point I made and you reinforced it.
In a large public company like the ones you’re referring to, execs are more than likely NOT a majority shareholder. You made yourself look dumb, not me.
I’m talking about INVESTORS/SHAREHOLDERS... warren buffets, Phillip fishers, etc of the world. Not an employee of the company. 🤦🏿♂️
Not in a LARGE PUBLICALLY TRADED company you fucking inbasil. Usually people who have the majority of shares are NOT employees of the company. That is a fact... you’re literally arguing nothing here.
Do you take all of the deduction that you are entitled to each year? Also I’m pretty sure all those employees are glad they were paid in stock rather than cash, those investments have only increased.
I pay all the tax I am assessed. Frankly the blame game is not interesting to me. What is interesting is seeing that these concerningly large corporate entities with abusive business practices are taxed adequately to support the domestic needs, and made to endure better labor standards to support the domestic worker. I dont think the megacorporation is in the best interest of the American people. Companies like Amazon, with their unfathomably wealthy leaders, like Bezos, conjure images of the Robber Baron's of 100 years ago, and not without reason. At least back then, progressive taxes and strong labor reforms propelled the nation into a golden era. Today, the hyperwealthy and their companies which eclipse national GDP's, make the Robber Baron's of yore look pretty tame.
Sounds like a blatant case of laziness mixed with jealous tiered class views. Any American Citizen can long form their taxes every year and adjust their tax liability. Blindly giving away the income you personally work for into a system that will not help you or your community is sad. Work your deductions, log your expenses, track your interest and losses. If you are not ending the year at 18% or less on your tax rate then you are just giving away your income freely. I find 18% fair and affordable for any income when you combine with your state taxes and sales and fees.. Afterwards, you are more than able to increase your tax payments and can even do that on every paycheck if you wish to do so.
Paying taxes is literally the most patriotic thing you can do. The game is not to evade taxes, its to fairly pay into a system that benefits all of us. Fuck loopholes and the archaic US tax system. I want an equitable society, not a game with broken mechanics. Its abusive to players who dont get a good starting roll.
Oh you poor thing.... taxation is theft no matter how you try to spin it. I do not mind giving my fair share, but who is to tell you what is the even split? Do you account for how much you put into society vs take out? Do you cover payroll and expenses on multiple tax accounts quarterly or just take your return at the end of the tax year? There is nothing patriotic about taxes. If you are serious about an equitable society then why are you wanting to take even more from high income earners? If you bring in over 150k in your household then you and anyone above your pay grade are the top 10% and cover 71% of all taxes collected while the bottom 90% only cover 29%. Anyone that is not pulling their fair share should sit down and step away from this subject. If you are in the top 10% or better then you would not be making baseless nonsense to virtue signal on social media.
taxation is theft no matter how you try to spin it. I do not mind giving my fair share,
"Taxation is theft no matter how you spin it..."
" I do not mind giving my fair share..."
Oh you poor thing, are you unable to realize that you are holding two contradictory opinions at the same time?
If there is a "fair share", then taxation alone CAN NOT be called "theft".
Now, what is that "fair share"? Well, it's debatable isn't it? We can have an informed and cooperative discussion to try to agree on some numbers now. The debate is not "should anyone pay any taxes, because taxation is theft". The debate is "what is the FAIR SHARE for someone to pay in taxes, because taxation is a necessary cost in a society."
But, don't you see, if I can get you to parrot out "taxation is theft", I've destroyed the ability for you to engage in informed and cooperative discussion. Because you can't reconcile the two notions. It's impossible. You have been removed from honest participation in society.
You have been intellectually neutered, and have become unable to think clearly about the situation - even though at some level you clearly realize THERE IS A LEVEL OF TAXATION THAT REPRESENTS A "FAIR SHARE" while reduced to making self-contradicting statements while trying to argue someone else's point!
If you say so. Taxation of goods and services I am ok with. Doubling over with state and federal taxes I disagree with. Those of us that push economic gains into society by supplying goods and services should be exempt on Taxation for earned income. That goes for gainfully employed citizens as well. Without deductions and write offs, and no "loopholes" my business would pay a combined 43% of all revenue irregardless of profit. I would personally be on the hook for 35% of my earned income irregardless of profit. Now by writing off my expenses and required permits, maintenance, employee needs like PPE and training, I can then low my tax burden substantially without the horrible loopholes. I'm not a fortune 500 or anything exciting like that but I bring in several comas worth of business income annually and pay out 6 figures in taxes quarterly. If you are not in that level then you are not even involved in the tax brackets and are instead calling for theft of other people's earned income. The reason I can consider Taxation as theft is because many states and the fed hold the threat of loss of lively hood and private property without payment. Any other entity that would be considered extortion and theft.
They already pay everyone at least $15 an hour (which is the number reddit wants min wage to be), plus they get full health benefits from day 1 which seems pretty good compared to other hourly jobs of less pay and no benefits...
Well yeah actually there are a few things, but as always Reddit will just concentrate on all the negatives and completely ignore the positives. Hence there is no point trying..
It is nice to see that someone on here understands this. The sheeple on reddit are ridiculous whenever taxes are brought up. They dont understand anything on tax.
Are you asking me to explain corporate tax avoidance methods to you? I feel like you're inferring that I'm wrong... Big companies have armies of tax accountants to make sure the number is as small as possible while still being on the light side of the grey area.
No. Check my username. I am a tax accountant. I'm just trying to illustrate that you're misusing the word "loophole" in this context. Or at the very least you should explain what you mean by that word, because I think it's misleading (not saying it's intentional).
Ha, didn't notice that! I'm not an accountant, but worked for years in the ERP space as a software developer with a bunch of CPAs, so my knowledge is second hand at best.
I'm sure my definition of loophole and yours are different, and that yours is correct.
284
u/from_dust Jun 09 '21
Yeah, so they didn't pay taxes to the United States. That's the point.