Exclusive The poorest person you know pays more taxes than Amazon

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

You can claim a tax deduction on employee pay, but it is not 100% tax deductible.

Actually it is, except in unusual cases.

Nor is the social security or Medicare an employer matches.

You are wrong about that too.

Amazon uses a loophole by giving their employees stock as compensation for work, instead of salary or wage, and writes off everything. If you think that's cool, cool.

The tax law says that's cool. What's your problem with it exactly?

Don't accuse me of holding a double standard just because i never said anything about any other companies doing it.

I don't believe I accused you of a double standard.

Did you expect me to write a research paper scrutinizing every company who has ever manipulated the tax code, just to be fair?

No, but at least some attempt at awareness of reality would be nice.

Or are you just on a witch hunt to prove me wrong because we generally don't agree on most things, and that's the game?

That's probably it.

And it is a curious coincidence that Trump says a bunch of misleading things about Amazon, and within a day or so, you post the same bunch of misleading things about Amazon - I don't think it is so surprising that people assumed the two were connected somehow.

barfo
 
Because being the richest cocksucker on the planet should come with some inherent responsibility.

Now, that statement I actually agree with 100%.

barfo
 
If Trump went on a rant about how the red-eared slider is the dumbest turtle around and then you posted a thread on the problems of red-eared sliders, then I imagine some posters would talk about Trump.
 
Actually it is, except in unusual cases.



You are wrong about that too.



The tax law says that's cool. What's your problem with it exactly?



I don't believe I accused you of a double standard.



No, but at least some attempt at awareness of reality would be nice.



That's probably it.

And it is a curious coincidence that Trump says a bunch of misleading things about Amazon, and within a day or so, you post the same bunch of misleading things about Amazon - I don't think it is so surprising that people assumed the two were connected somehow.

barfo
It easy to just point at things and say they are wrong, huh?

"Nope, nope aaaaaand nope"
No factoids or brief summaries to help your cause?

Too bad you don't hold yourself to the same standards you keep whining to me about. You demand an awful lot of research to just turn around and say "that's wrong". The standards you seem to hold other posters to are a glaring contrast from the half-assed, smug responses you muster.
 
It easy to just point at things and say they are wrong, huh?

"Nope, nope aaaaaand nope"
No factoids or brief summaries to help your cause?

Too bad you don't hold yourself to the same standards you keep whining to me about. You demand an awful lot of research to just turn around and say "that's wrong". The standards you seem to hold other posters to are a glaring contrast from the half-assed, smug responses you muster.

I dunno. You may have a point there - however I suspect that typically when I demand evidence it's something that can't trivially be verified or is likely to be bullshit. The basics of taxation are trivially verified, e.g. here and here.

barfo
 
Is this just a game to see who can get me to defend Donald Trump? Can you guys not just get it through your skulls that I found something I didn't like with Amazon's financial practices, and there were no strings attached to that? Does everything have to somehow wind it's way back to me being batshit crazy Trump maniac?

Seriously, it's getting old. Get a new fucking shtick.
No way, it is clearly Trump bro. I'm listening to some 15 year old System of a Down and it is all rainbows and unicorns. Nothing bad happened in the world before Trump.
 
I dunno. You may have a point there - however I suspect that typically when I demand evidence it's something that can't trivially be verified or is likely to be bullshit. The basics of taxation are trivially verified, e.g. here and here.

barfo

That's better.

So wages can be deductible in some cases, if certain requirements are met. That's definitely not a general rule that applies to all business owners. I seriously doubt that all businesses are able to reap these benefits at the end of the day, as it would eliminate the need for competitive wages altogether. The cost of labor is not 100% deductible across the market, that's just not possible.
 
No way, it is clearly Trump bro. I'm listening to some 15 year old System of a Down and it is all rainbows and unicorns. Nothing bad happened in the world before Trump.
Waaaaa waaaa, waaaaaa. Stomp foot! Waaaaaa. No fair - people don’t like Trump and they say it on the internet. Waaaaaa
 
Because being the richest cocksucker on the planet should come with some inherent responsibility.
yeah...not many of those guys around that'll pay more than they have to....Bill Gates sure did share the wealth though....he's given a lot to education and humanitarian causes...I don't know much about this guy but he's in the company of dictators and royal families...I don't think the queen of England has much inherent responsibility either...as I said..it's not fair but if you find the loop holes...it's a seriously flawed system ...pay for play
 
Waaaaa waaaa, waaaaaa. Stomp foot! Waaaaaa. No fair - people don’t like Trump and they say it on the internet. Waaaaaa
I feel that you MIGHT catch on to what's going on. The rest of them are lost.

I didn't know jack shit about Obama signing that bill that let's the military detain citizens indefinitely (but he wrote a note promising that HE wouldn't do it) because your media gave him a pass. I don't watch Fox, maybe they informed the public.

You've only got TDS in the early stages. You even glossed completely over the hypocrisy I posted about his budget deal. That's because that ain't what your media is telling you. I just hear about stuff here and what I catch on the local Sinclair tv station I watch in the morning. (NOT BIASED!!!!)
 
I didn't say this year. There was a year where he made a whole lot and paid nothing according to a copy of his return made public by his accountant. I don't believe he's made any returns totally public in all the intervening years. I believe he released his version of what he paid at the last year that was finalized.

Huh? The post you are responding to challenged my knowledge of a poor person who paid more taxes than Trump. Are you saying I cannot challenge your assertion that implied I know no such person?
 
I feel that you MIGHT catch on to what's going on. The rest of them are lost.

I didn't know jack shit about Obama signing that bill that let's the military detain citizens indefinitely (but he wrote a note promising that HE wouldn't do it) because your media gave him a pass. I don't watch Fox, maybe they informed the public.

You've only got TDS in the early stages. You even glossed completely over the hypocrisy I posted about his budget deal. That's because that ain't what your media is telling you. I just hear about stuff here and what I catch on the local Sinclair tv station I watch in the morning. (NOT BIASED!!!!)
I know you try not to be biased. But you easily see TDS but never comment on the VD version of the syndrome where everyone gets pimply boners at anything Trump says.

It’s become a combat sport. Which team? It’s gone too far and both sides tend to give passes way to easily to slimy shit from their side. But my honest view is that although there certainly is slimy stuff pushed by anti-Trumpers, I think the stuff from the pro-Trump side is slimier and certainly more dangerous.

Basically two sides to the same coin, but the trump side landed in horse crap.
 
I know you try not to be biased. But you easily see TDS but never comment on the VD version of the syndrome where everyone gets pimply boners at anything Trump says.

It’s become a combat sport. Which team? It’s gone too far and both sides tend to give passes way to easily to slimy shit from their side. But my honest view is that although there certainly is slimy stuff pushed by anti-Trumpers, I think the stuff from the pro-Trump side is slimier and certainly more dangerous.

Basically two sides to the same coin, but the trump side landed in horse crap.
You know how they say a large portion of the population has herpes and doesn't even know it?

Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

Trump is the Joe Pesci mobster who can't control himself and Hillary was the DeNiro who was more polished. Trump was just new. If he believed half of the things he said during the campaign I'd be ecstatic. He doesn't, obviously.
 
Last edited:
You know how they say a large portion of the population has herpes and don't even know it?

Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

Trump is the Joe Pesci mobster who can't control himself and Hillary was the DeNiro who was more polished. Trump was just new. If he believed half of the things he said during the campaign I'd be ecstatic. He doesn't, obviously.
I like I like that.

However, DeNirl isn’t standing over us with a butcher knife anymore, but Pesci is.

We have a president. His every action and statement will get discussed. Especially when lies more than any president in history and seems to relish corruption by his guys.
 
I like I like that.

However, DeNirl isn’t standing over us with a butcher knife anymore, but Pesci is.

We have a president. His every action and statement will get discussed. Especially when lies more than any president in history and seems to relish corruption by his guys.
Let's talk about that shit. I already said I'd impeach him for wasting tax money to go to Maralago. Or that I'd throw them all out, something like that.

Back to my casino analogy, Trump is the Pesci, but the real bad guys are sitting behind a restaurant playing cards and watching us freak out while they laugh their asses off and get richer.

Congress? Patented, trademarked and owned completely.

Term limits? They'll just steal more faster.
 
If we ever found out the truth we'd be like the girl at the end of 10 Cloverfield lane when she sees something she didn't believe was real. Jaw dropping
 
That's better.

So wages can be deductible in some cases, if certain requirements are met. That's definitely not a general rule that applies to all business owners.

Probably 99.99% of wages paid to employees who are not themselves owners of the business are deductible. It's definitely a general rule that applies to all business owners.

I seriously doubt that all businesses are able to reap these benefits at the end of the day, as it would eliminate the need for competitive wages altogether. The cost of labor is not 100% deductible across the market, that's just not possible.

What you wrote there isn't true. None of it is true. I think you are confusing deductions with tax credits. Yes, if the goverment gave you back $1 for every $1 of wages, everyone would pay infinite amounts of money to their employees. That's not the way it works. You can deduct employee wages (and lots of other expenses) from your revenue to get your taxable income. That doesn't make the wages free to the business owner. It just means you don't pay income tax on them.

If I hire jonnyboy to sell my product, and his salary is $5, and he sells $15 of merchandise, then my taxable income is $10, the IRS gets maybe 35% of $10, and jonnyboy gets $5. If jonnyboy gets a $15 minimum wage, my taxable income is zero and the IRS gets $0.

barfo
 
Let's talk about that shit. I already said I'd impeach him for wasting tax money to go to Maralago. Or that I'd throw them all out, something like that.

Back to my casino analogy, Trump is the Pesci, but the real bad guys are sitting behind a restaurant playing cards and watching us freak out while they laugh their asses off and get richer.

Congress? Patented, trademarked and owned completely.

Term limits? They'll just steal more faster.
I’m in agreement except I put trump actually at the table with the big boys. He might not have the planning of evil that the bosses do but he jumps at the chance to do serious harm just to pad his ego.

I don’t think however that the bosses are out of reach. But if we are stopped from going after the henchmen then nobody will ever flip. Trump has to be a target, he’s piling up too many bodies.
 
(Former Amazon employee talking)
First, Bezos pulls in very little income. I think at one point he was making 22k or something because he had to. Just about the entirety of his 100+B is in Amazon stock. Value, not cash.

When he cashes out stock to buy a new yacht or a baseball team or Whole Foods, he pays capital gains on it.

He probably has a team of accountants that help him not put another dime into a Republican-controlled Congress than he has to.

Amazon also is among the least profitable (by margin) companies, like, ever.
Amazon Never Makes Money But No One Cares
Alright, technically the title’s not all true. The company made money last year, lost it the previous year, and made it the year before that. It appears that profitable years will continue their trend of outnumbering the losing ones, but it took a while get to this point, and Amazon) was still in the red for its history until 2009.

The world’s largest online store is a lasting testament to the slow-burn model of sustaining a business, the idea that maybe it makes sense to proceed methodically when your competitors are going out of their way to burn through the short term (and, not coincidentally, their cash.) Hindsight might dim the details of this, but around the turn of the century the market had extremely strong, and volatile, and often contradictory opinions of companies whose primary venue of business was this mysterious new construct called the Internet. Books, you say? That I select and pay for via my computer? And then receive through the mail? Okay, sounds suspicious, but I’m willing to give it a shot. (Perhaps this was long enough ago that we need to mention that once upon a time Amazon sold only books – durable, high-margin items that were easy to ship.)

The expression “Internet retailer” sounds impossibly quaint in 2014, like “digital camera” or “aircraft flight,” but during Amazon’s nascence it was revolutionary. As an Internet retailer that specialized in a particular good, Amazon was the contemporary of other companies that are today long defunct but in the late ‘90s-early ‘00s seemed no less viable than Amazon itself – historical footnotes such as eToys; Pets.com; and Webvan (a company that not only offered to beat other retailers’ grocery prices, but would deliver to your door without charging a fee). Back then, balance sheet fundamentals were almost a distraction, something for analysts to downplay if not completely ignore.

Which can’t possibly fly in the long term. Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos understood (and understands) a lot of things intuitively, not the least of which was that sooner or later, Wall Street is going to come to its senses and realize that these prices that are detached from reality cannot be sustained. Investors are going to want tangible results, proof of a company’s viability.

Amazon was founded in 1994, first traded publicly in 1997, and didn’t turn a profit until 2001. Four years of losses are an eon for any company, especially an upstart, and especially one with such grand ambitions. Amazon lost a staggering amount of money while building its brand and grasping market share, putting itself in a position where it would eventually dominate. The company lost several billion dollars its first few years, money that very few people thought would ever be recouped. Here are the company’s annual net income numbers:

Year Annual Net Income
2013 $274M
2012 $39M
2011 $631M
2010 $1.15B
2009 $902M
2008 $645M
2007 $476M
2006 $190M
2005 $359M
2004 $588M
2003 $35M
2002 $149M
2001 $567M
2000 $1.4B
1999 $720M
1998 $125M
1997 $31M
1996 $6M
1995 $303T
1994 $50T

Add it all up, and Amazon’s profits for its entire existence are still less than what ExxonMobil takes home every 2.5 weeks. Amazon’s investors and lenders had uncommon patience early in the company’s public trading history, as Bezos and his executive team managed to convince them that not only was Amazon viable, but pioneering. Investor sentiment being what it was, the stock jumped capriciously. If you’d bought Amazon stock in June of 1997 and held it for 22 months, you would have turned $1,000 into $68,913. If you’d bought Amazon stock in Dec. of 1999 and held it for 22 months, you’d have turned $1,000 into $56. And if you’d invested aggressively then, doubling down on Amazon instead of cutting your losses, and bought $1,000 more, you’d be sitting on $62,229 today. Excluding dividends, and there’s a good reason for doing so.

Amazon has never paid a dividend. But not because the company is amassing a giant hoard of cash, like Apple famously does. Even today, having turned the corner, Amazon isn’t really that profitable in relation to its revenue. Its profit margin for the last quarter was less than 1%. Retail profit margins are traditionally lower than those in other industries, but still, a sub-1% margin is remarkable. Why is it so low, and is this by design?

Because, and yes. As large as Amazon’s market share is, it still isn’t enough for management. The idea is to become the definitive place to buy just about everything, and to accomplish that, Amazon must compete on price – to the point where the company even tries to eradicate its inherent disadvantage over neighborhood retailers by offering unlimited shipping for a flat annual rate. Amazon might not get you your cleaning supplies or automotive accessories as quickly as the nearby drugstore or aftermarket shop can, but would you be willing to wait a couple of days if it meant not having to leave your keyboard? And what if Amazon threw in extras that no competitor can touch? (The company’s flat-rate shipping service, Amazon Prime, allows digital streaming of select movies and TV shows – something Walgreens [NYSE:WAG] and AutoZone would obviously have a hard time replicating.)

The Bottom Line

With famously receptive customer service, an easily navigable storefront, and selection the vastness of which is hard to describe, Amazon does everything possible to maintain and increase its ranks of happy customers. Investors have responded in kind, bidding the stock up to enormous levels – currently in the neighborhood of 630 times earnings. Such a P/E ratio is hard if not impossible to keep at that size in the long run, but it does speak to the market’s belief in Amazon’s business model – get as many customers as possible, satisfy them as much as possible, let the virtuous circle continue, profit (however modestly). Or as Bezos himself puts it, “Proactively delighting customers earns trust, which earns more business from those customers, even in new business arenas. Take a long-term view, and the interests of customers and shareholders align.”

The tax code is a, more or less, equal opportunity game. You wanna work losing money every year for 7 years until you finally make a profit? They have a deduction for you.
You want to drop 250k of your own money investing in a company doing, of all things, a search algorithm, years before its IPO? Then sure, reap the 1.5B or so that his shares in Google are worth today (20 years after he bought in). And when you cash out, they have a tax for you.
Want to spend all of your profit doing R&D for the next big thing? There's a deduction for that.

The poorest people I know got paid ~3k last year to live in America, due to the Child Tax Credit. A family member who is a sole proprietorship got every dime of federal and state tax he paid back due to not making a profit. Get in the game, man, instead of booing from the sidelines.
 
(Former Amazon employee talking)
First, Bezos pulls in very little income. I think at one point he was making 22k or something because he had to. Just about the entirety of his 100+B is in Amazon stock. Value, not cash.

When he cashes out stock to buy a new yacht or a baseball team or Whole Foods, he pays capital gains on it.

He probably has a team of accountants that help him not put another dime into a Republican-controlled Congress than he has to.

Amazon also is among the least profitable (by margin) companies, like, ever.


The tax code is a, more or less, equal opportunity game. You wanna work losing money every year for 7 years until you finally make a profit? They have a deduction for you.
You want to drop 250k of your own money investing in a company doing, of all things, a search algorithm, years before its IPO? Then sure, reap the 1.5B or so that his shares in Google are worth today (20 years after he bought in). And when you cash out, they have a tax for you.
Want to spend all of your profit doing R&D for the next big thing? There's a deduction for that.

The poorest people I know got paid ~3k last year to live in America, due to the Child Tax Credit. A family member who is a sole proprietorship got every dime of federal and state tax he paid back due to not making a profit. Get in the game, man, instead of booing from the sidelines.

My understanding from my CPA stepfather is that you have to be making discernible progress toward making a profit to charge your expenses as tax deductible. He wouldn't let me go more than three years toward my own engineering company without showing significant improvement. I have a hard time swallowing the fact that the IRS would allow someone 7 years to show a profit.
 
I would care less about taxes if most corporations would pay a fucking livable wage.
 
My understanding from my CPA stepfather is that you have to be making discernible progress toward making a profit to charge your expenses as tax deductible. He wouldn't let me go more than three years toward my own engineering company without showing significant improvement. I have a hard time swallowing the fact that the IRS would allow someone 7 years to show a profit.

I think that's more an issue for a family business where there can be a suspicion that the company is losing money only because the owner is paying himself too much. With a big corporation like Amazon, that's really not a factor - Amazon can (and might) lose money for decades.

Amazon pays a lot of employees who pay a lot of income tax. I doubt the IRS is, overall, unhappy with Amazon.

barfo
 
My understanding from my CPA stepfather is that you have to be making discernible progress toward making a profit to charge your expenses as tax deductible. He wouldn't let me go more than three years toward my own engineering company without showing significant improvement. I have a hard time swallowing the fact that the IRS would allow someone 7 years to show a profit.
Same with my family member (3yrs, or else it can be declared a "hobby" not a business). The other aspect that I assume you ran into was that you were trying to get a small business off the ground by working with your own savings, banks, etc. Amazon went almost straight to VC and going public.

Like I said before, the game is open to just about everyone who wants to take a risk.
 
I would care less about taxes if most corporations would pay a fucking livable wage.

Exactly, rather than small tax cuts for the middle and lower class, let's bring the wages up to livable wages by raising the minimum wage where it needs to be for survival. This administration wants to tear apart programs to help the poor and needy also wants to keep wages below poverty level. It doesn't work both ways and it has been proven that those lower range wage earners will put majority of any pay increases back into the economy. A win win for everyone.
 
I would care less about taxes if most corporations would pay a fucking livable wage.

Why the hell do you want corporations to be detemining what is a living wage for you or anyone else?
Let them compete for help by offering a wage that attracts the help they need. Of course, you do not want the labor market flooded with more workers. Increasing the supply of workers.
will indeed lower the wages required to attract the help.
 
Why the hell do you want corporations to be detemining what is a living wage for you or anyone else?
Let them compete for help by offering a wage that attracts the help they need. Of course, you do not want the labor market flooded with more workers. Increasing the supply of workers.
will indeed lower the wages required to attract the help.

Do you think the minimum wage should remain at the federal level of $7.25?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top