Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Do you have information on Amazon’s taxes you can share?

 

Not @StPaulHuskerbut I can share this with you.  The basics, they had losses years ago, and carried them forward so that when they had a profit, they could reduce it by past losses.   Trump bragged about this very thing when saying he paid zero income taxes on the campaign trail, saying how very smart he was.   

 

Quote

Amazon hasn't paid any taxes to the US government in the past two years. Actually, Amazon received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal tax credits in 2017 and 2018.

That might seem nuts, considering Amazon is the third-most valuable company in the world and earned a record $10 billion last year. But critics of Amazon's tax bill aren't accusing Amazon of doing anything improper.
"This is tax avoidance, not tax evasion. There's no indication of any wrongdoing, except on the part of Congress," said Matthew Gardner, senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank.
US tax code allows money-losing companies to reduce their future taxable income.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/tech/amazon-federal-income-tax/index.html

Link to comment

14 minutes ago, sho said:

Not @StPaulHuskerbut I can share this with you.  The basics, they had losses years ago, and carried them forward so that when they had a profit, they could reduce it by past losses.   Trump bragged about this very thing when saying he paid zero income taxes on the campaign trail, saying how very smart he was. 

 

I see absolutely no problem with losses carried forward if they are legitimate business losses.

 

Now, I have a way more problem with a company that makes 10 billion per year getting billions in incentives to locate in a city or state with no ties to performance and jobs.

 

All that said, I am not against making sure companies are paying their share.  But, just because a company has a bunch of losses and uses them to reduce their taxes...doesn't mean to me that something horrible went on.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I see absolutely no problem with losses carried forward if they are legitimate business losses.

 

Now, I have a way more problem with a company that makes 10 billion per year getting billions in incentives to locate in a city or state with no ties to performance and jobs.

 

All that said, I am not against making sure companies are paying their share.  But, just because a company has a bunch of losses and uses them to reduce their taxes...doesn't mean to me that something horrible went on.  

 

I'm not saying they did something wrong, but there is the growing belief that losses should be realized sooner and not be allowed to carry over so far.   Currently its 20 years.  I would like to see that drop to 5 years before it's gone.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, sho said:

 

I'm not saying they did something wrong, but there is the growing belief that losses should be realized sooner and not be allowed to carry over so far.   Currently its 20 years.  I would like to see that drop to 5 years before it's gone.  

OK....so, let's say I start a new business and I lose 1,000,000 per year for 5 years getting it started.  Then, I start making $250,000 per year.  You're saying, I shouldn't ever be able to get the tax benefit from $3,750,000 of those losses.

Link to comment

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK....so, let's say I start a new business and I lose 1,000,000 per year for 5 years getting it started.  Then, I start making $250,000 per year.  You're saying, I shouldn't ever be able to get the tax benefit from $3,750,000 of those losses.

 

If you make $250K for 5 years, then yes.  You are now making money, you've exhausted the losses you can carry forward and you start paying taxes on your $250K.   IMO, there's no reason a profitable company should be taking losses from 1998.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, sho said:

 

How long do you feel you should carry losses?   20 years, IMO, is too long.  I would be fine with 5.  

If you have the losses, you should be able to use them.

 

Now, I'm not a tax accountant and I didn't even stay at Holiday Inn.  So, I'm really struggling with the technicalities with this.  I would be willing to look at how they use them.  But, I'm firm with, if they have them, they can use them.

 

Another part of this is that with those losses, Amazon has created over 613,000 jobs and those people are all paying taxes and contributing to the economy.  This isn't as simple of an equation as people try to make it out to be.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, sho said:

 

If you make $250K for 5 years, then yes.  You are now making money, you've exhausted the losses you can carry forward and you start paying taxes on your $250K.   IMO, there's no reason a profitable company should be taking losses from 1998.  

 

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to tax stuff, but I disagree with this too, you absolutely should be able to carry losses forward like that unless the entity goes bankrupt (shouldn't be transferable).  Once they are whole then taxes would kick in, otherwise it's a penalty, but capital is needed up front to do almost anything.  That sort of buffer could also help a company stay in business if they had a few rough years.  Basically what the market needs for jobs and growth is stability and kicking people when they are down or trying to create something doesn't help that.

Link to comment

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

 

 

I came across this video on youtube.  You can watch the whole thing if you want, but the tax stuff starts around 6:30.  Basically amazon got paid 129 million by the government.

Don't use Amazon.  

 

Seriously so many of us talk a good game but when it comes down to it we still use Amazon (or basically any other company that we pretend we are against)  If you think that Amazon is getting away with something, don't use the service.  Capitalism.  You are in charge.

 

I hardly ever use Amazon.  Maybe once a year.

Link to comment

I use amazon constantly. I love Amazon. They've provided an unbelievable service and infrastructure for the world. Jeff Bezos is a genius who has earned his wealth and status. 

 

I'm allowed to simultaneously demand that Amazon pays their fair share and isn't given unreal special treatment. 

 

Getting rid of out of control and unchecked powerful lobbying/financial contributions as well as ease of offshore tax havens would go a hell of a long way toward solving most all of these problems. Does anyone know estimated figures of how much more tax money our government would have if the rich kept all their money in America?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, TGHusker said:

 

Warren - universal child care to be funded by wealth tax.    Well she is already to hand out the goodies.   

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/warren-to-unveil-universal-child-care-plan-funded-by-wealth-tax

 

Schultz (Starbucks not Sargent :D)  notes that  a far left person won't beat Trump.  I'm beginning to agree with him.  As these Dems race to the furthest point left, I think they will outrace the general population and more importantly the likely voters.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/howard-schultz-digs-in-says-radical-left-democrat-cant-beat-trump

 

 

For a guy who is so concerned about the future of the country, Schultz sure does a lot more attacking and critiquing of Democrats than he does about Trump. :huh:

 

It sure would be nice if he'd use that big independent Starbucks brain of his to direct some reasoned critiques the other way.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

For a guy who is so concerned about the future of the country, Schultz sure does a lot more attacking and critiquing of Democrats than he does about Trump. :huh:

 

It sure would be nice if he'd use that big independent Starbucks brain of his to direct some reasoned critiques the other way.

Schultz has yet to make a proposal or policy to fix anything. He's just running to try to prevent his taxes being raised.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Schultz has yet to make a proposal or policy to fix anything. He's just running to try to prevent his taxes being raised.

 

At this point that sure seems likely.

 

He can't articulate much of anything other than how un-American the left wing of the Democratic party is. Oh, and that he's a centrist independent.

 

It sure smells like he's just a very wealthy old dude trying to make sure the lefties don't threaten his fortune.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...