• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amazon will pay $0 in taxes on $11,200,000,000 in profit for 2018

Hedgology said:
I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I know, Amazon is surrounded and abides by many different tax systems. The words "fair," "equitable," "ethical," and "moral" are all subjective terms. They provide no basis on what Amazon's obligations are.
Click to expand...

I think its very clear what I am discussing, that Amazon is reported to not be paying tax in the USA of which I consider to be unethical, not just nor equitable. I made that quite clear.

Quite ironically reports from Amazon won't break up their overall tax into geographical location, its quite a conflicting situation. I was responding on that report, of which I believe, after reading multiple other sources.

No doubt those terms are subjective but they have clear definitions. For that I think its pretty clear by what I mean when I state that its not fair to have one company not paying any tax but achieving record profits and another paying the defined tax rate.
 
goldkam said:
I think its very clear what I am discussing, that Amazon is reported to not be paying tax in the USA of which I consider to be unethical, not just nor equitable. I made that quite clear.

Quite ironically reports from Amazon won't break up their overall tax into geographical location, its quite a conflicting situation. I was responding on that report, of which I believe, after reading multiple other sources.

No doubt those terms are subjective but they have clear definitions. For that I think its pretty clear by what I mean when I state that its not fair to have one company not paying any tax but achieving record profits and another paying the defined tax rate.
Click to expand...

Why would you think it is unethical for Amazon to be following the tax law, likely to the letter?
They did not write the law, they are just following it, in a way to minimize their Corporate taxes.
This is like saying that someone who writes their mortgage interest off of their income is unethical!
 
Rogue Valley said:
A gift from Donnie and the GOP.

The majority of Americans are getting back 8.4% less in tax refunds.
Click to expand...
One has precisely NOTHING to do with the other.
 
goldkam said:
I think its very clear what I am discussing, that Amazon is reported to not be paying tax in the USA of which I consider to be unethical, not just nor equitable. I made that quite clear.

Quite ironically reports from Amazon won't break up their overall tax into geographical location, its quite a conflicting situation. I was responding on that report, of which I believe, after reading multiple other sources.
Click to expand...

Item #9 of a company's 10-K outlines where they are paying taxes (Domestically and Internationally), as well as the amount of allowances and tax charges inflicted within a specific year.

Go check it out.

No doubt those terms are subjective but they have clear definitions. For that I think its pretty clear by what I mean when I state that its not fair to have one company not paying any tax but achieving record profits and another paying the defined tax rate.
Click to expand...

Those terms have definitions but do not change the fact that everyone has their own idea of what is ethical or fair.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, of course his wealth is an accumulation of his income, less his outgo. It works the same for everyone. What I'm asking is whether his income was taxed along the way the same as yours and mine. I wonder. Maybe he did pay the top marginal tax rate on everything in that top tax bracket. Maybe he didn't. Here's the question: Do billionaires have the ability to shelter some of their income in ways ordinary income earners don't?
Click to expand...

They do, but there is no need to go through all of that effort. Bezo's compensation is roughly $1.6 million. What some people (wrongly) assume is that executive compensation consist mostly of a salary, which it doesn't. Executive compensation can consist a mixture of stock awards, bonuses and other compensation.

Why reward yourself a $1.6 million salary and pay the highest marginal tax rate when you can just pay yourself only a faction of that with a modest tax rate?

Also, the reason why Bezos is the wealthiest man on the planet is because majority of his wealth is in his company's stock, which is trading at a multiple of 75x earnings.
 
longview said:
Why would you think it is unethical for Amazon to be following the tax law, likely to the letter?
Click to expand...

To begin with based on the report I don't believe the tax law is ethical if it is one rule for this group and another rule for another group. Thus attempting to morph this into me arguing with someone following the law would be to distort my argument.

longview said:
They did not write the law, they are just following it, in a way to minimize their Corporate taxes.
Click to expand...

I understand that...of course businesses will utilise cost savings in any way possible. But I come back to my first point and now more importantly the rule of law.
 
Hedgology said:
Item #9 of a company's 10-K outlines where they are paying taxes (Domestically and Internationally), as well as the amount of allowances and tax charges inflicted within a specific year.

Go check it out.
Click to expand...


I cannot find in their financials a breakdown of tax paid per country. They may have to list what countries they are paying tax in as you noted, yet it doesn't denote any requirment to breakup their taxes into how much they paid in each country.



Hedgology said:
Those terms have definitions but do not change the fact that everyone has their own idea of what is ethical or fair.
Click to expand...

What I think is ethical is (of which I already made clear but you are playing linguistics with me) a tax law that ensures the principles of the rule of law are upheld. That is very clear on my view on this issue.
 
goldkam said:
To begin with based on the report I don't believe the tax law is ethical if it is one rule for this group and another rule for another group. Thus attempting to morph this into me arguing with someone following the law would be to distort my argument.



I understand that...of course businesses will utilise cost savings in any way possible. But I come back to my first point and now more importantly the rule of law.
Click to expand...

On your first point, How was Amazon treated any different than any other business?
Were the rules for them somehow different, than for other businesses?
 
goldkam said:
I cannot find in their financials a breakdown of tax paid per country. They may have to list what countries they are paying tax in as you noted, yet it doesn't denote any requirment to breakup their taxes into how much they paid in each country.





What I think is ethical is (of which I already made clear but you are playing linguistics with me) a tax law that ensures the principles of the rule of law are upheld. That is very clear on my view on this issue.
Click to expand...

And how is the "rule or law" not upheld when you don't even know how Amazon was able to lower it's tax liability.
 
Taxing corporate profits is the wrong level of intervention. Depends whether the profit goes. Bonuses to execs? Not so great. But capital investment, R&D, etc? This is economic growth that we shouldn't be stifling which is why corporate profits is the wrong level to target. Unfortunately the general public hears 'corporate profits' and imagines upper management earnings. But they're not equivalent. If your concern is with the latter, target high-income earners not corporate profits.
 
longview said:
On your first point, How was Amazon treated any different than any other business?
Were the rules for them somehow different, than for other businesses?
Click to expand...

So the original discussion was premised around report Amazon was paying no tax within the USA. Thus my assertion on the different treatment between businesses.
 
goldkam said:
So the original discussion was premised around report Amazon was paying no tax within the USA. Thus my assertion on the different treatment between businesses.
Click to expand...
Plenty of businesses pay no tax within the USA, as they have no net profit after deducting business expenses.
I remember reading how Toyota was not paying any US taxes because the cost of the parts made over seas plus the assembly
cost was the price of the car, no profit, no taxes.
 
longview said:
On your first point, How was Amazon treated any different than any other business?
Were the rules for them somehow different, than for other businesses?
Click to expand...

For a while, they got by without collecting sales tax. That has been remedied, I believe.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Is this OK with you?
Click to expand...
I like Amazon, I respect Bezos' business acumen. Smart guy, very forward looking, lots of convenient services.

It's not OK with me that they paid $0 in federal corporate taxes.

This is a fault of the tax code, unless Amazon lobbied for specific tax breaks that were enacted into law.
 
Hedgology said:
And how is the "rule or law" not upheld when you don't even know how Amazon was able to lower it's tax liability.
Click to expand...

Drawing focus on the "how" is irrelevant. It's the inevitable result, of which the rule of law focuses on, and of which is creating an inequity.
 
goldkam said:
Drawing focus on the "how" is irrelevant. It's the inevitable result, of which the rule of law focuses on, and of which is creating an inequity.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The rule of law only cares about what people can or cannot do, not the result of one's actions.
 
longview said:
Plenty of businesses pay no tax within the USA, as they have no net profit after deducting business expenses.
Click to expand...

The net profit of Amazon for 2018 was in excess of 11.2 billion dollars. That, as the insertion of "net" denotes, was after expenses had been deducted. That point is not applicable to Amazon.

longview said:
I remember reading how Toyota was not paying any US taxes because the cost of the parts made over seas plus the assembly
cost was the price of the car, no profit, no taxes.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that is accurate. The basis of what you are stating is for at least one year Toyota was only just breaking even, that is they were earning $0 in profit. How did they pay staff, distribute dividends etc??
 
Hedgology said:
You're wrong. The rule of law only cares about what people can or cannot do, not the result of one's actions.
Click to expand...

The principles of the rule of law is "everyone is subject to the same laws and that nobody is above the law" meaning if the results of ones actions violates these principles it violates the rule of law. You cannot simply look at situations and their actions and ignore the consequences.
 
It seems a lot of people on here are ok with paying more in US income taxes then many large corporations.
the GAO stated that in 2017 42% of all large corporations that make over a million dollars in US profits do not pay 1 cent in US income taxes and in 2018 that will go up to about 65%
so the people that do pay US income taxes are paying for the infrastructure these corporations use to make their profits.
That is what is not fair if they use the infrastructure to make and get their product to market and make these large profits they should pay some of the taxes that pay for it
I personally do not like paying more in US income taxes then a Corp. that is making billions in US profits.
it is time to change the tax laws so these corps pay something
I think they should be able to deduct all the taxes they pay and nothing else and lower the corp. income tax rate to say a flat 7 to 9 % so they all pay something for using the infrastructure they use to make that profit
have a nice night
 
It's not right. Even if you were a masterful business planner, you're still using the social fabric of this country to profit. You're using people's money and energy to serve your own interests. You have some fiduciary responsibility to society.

A company that wealthy paying no taxes is a crime against humanity, especially when it's well known that they treat their laborers like garbage.

Imagine a world where, when people get to a certain success level and they're comfortable, they just pour it all back into society. I'm not talking about token charity that lets you get a tax write off, but actual philanthropy that is a direct overflow from your personal success.

People would still profit and society would be taken care of.

But nope... people are addicted to making money, even after they have so much of it they'll never spend it. Yeah they're legally allowed to, but it's still morally questionable. At some point it becomes parasitic capitalism.
 
goldkam said:
The net profit of Amazon for 2018 was in excess of 11.2 billion dollars. That, as the insertion of "net" denotes, was after expenses had been deducted. That point is not applicable to Amazon.



I am not sure that is accurate. The basis of what you are stating is for at least one year Toyota was only just breaking even, that is they were earning $0 in profit. How did they pay staff, distribute dividends etc??
Click to expand...
If you think Amazon violated the tax law, the IRS has a report line!
As for Toyota labor costs, even those of executives are paid out of gross profits, the net profits are what is left after all the normal expenses are paid.
 
goldkam said:
The principles of the rule of law is "everyone is subject to the same laws and that nobody is above the law" meaning if the results of ones actions violates these principles it violates the rule of law. You cannot simply look at situations and their actions and ignore the consequences.
Click to expand...

Sure I can because everyone knows consequences doesn't matter. The law doesn't care if you committed a victim-less crime. It's still a crime. Unless you're prepared to prove that Amazon committed a crime, you have nothing...
 
longview said:
That was not just Amazon, but all internet businesses.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was.
And there was a big controversy over whether an out of state retailer should have to pay state sales taxes. The answer to that one was that they aren't paying sales taxes, but colleting them from the customers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom