> “We are investing heavily in creating jobs and infrastructure across Europe – more than 100 billion euros since 2010”, an Amazon representative said. “Corporation tax is based on profits, not revenues, and last year Amazon EU Sarl made a loss as we opened more than 50 new sites across Europe and created over 65,000 well-paid jobs, taking our total European permanent workforce to over 200,000”, the spokesperson added.
People and news sites who write articles on corporate taxes like this never seem to get that taxes are based on profits and not revenue. Sometimes I wonder if it's willfully done to get a reaction out of their readers.
So you are saying that since Amazon paid no taxes they made absolutely no money on the sales? Arranging the company structure so that billions in profits are seen as losses in the bottom line is ridiculously easy and makes the whole corporate taxation system a joke.
They made money, sure. That's revenue. If I sell a widget that costs 1 dollar for 2 dollars, I made 2 dollars in revenue and 1 dollar in gross profit. But if I spend that 1 dollar towards the construction of a new factory, I made 0 dollars in net profit. So why should I get taxed on money that I didn't get to keep or profit from?
Amazon is not a profitable company, if you want to see how, just look at their yearly earnings reports, they're a public company so anyone can look.
Are you seriously believing that Amazon, the third largest company in the world, with enough revenue to dwarf the economy of many country, owned by a the second richest person in the world, who capitalist in a capitalist country is not profitable ?
> But if I spend that 1 dollar towards the construction of a new factory, I made 0 dollars in net profit
You have net profited $1-worth of factory. New assets don't magically stop being profit. Not even if they depreciate, because cash depreciates too.
The only thing one needs to ask is whether corporate tax makes sense in principle at all when one could instead "just" tax human use of assets owned by corporations as personal gain. Everything else gets taxed at the personal income or property side already anyway.
So, if you think that profit is the problem, how the same company could reward his boss so much that he is one of the richest person in the world?
The truth is that they declare artificial loss in European countries, where they get most of their revenues but would have to pay high taxes, and declare their huge profits in places like Delaware where they have tax exemptions.
> So, if you think that profit is the problem, how the same company could reward his boss so much that he is one of the richest person in the world?
He's not being "rewarded" as if someone is handing him sacks of cash. He's a shareholder, much as you and I might be. Most people through their 401k, if they own any amount of the total stock market index funds, are also sharedholders of Amazon. If Amazon grows and generates more revenue, the stock price grows, and thus we are "rewarded" for its growth, because we literally own part of the company. Bezos just owns a much larger share because, well, he started the company.
9 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadThey made money, sure. That's revenue. If I sell a widget that costs 1 dollar for 2 dollars, I made 2 dollars in revenue and 1 dollar in gross profit. But if I spend that 1 dollar towards the construction of a new factory, I made 0 dollars in net profit. So why should I get taxed on money that I didn't get to keep or profit from?
Amazon is not a profitable company, if you want to see how, just look at their yearly earnings reports, they're a public company so anyone can look.
You have net profited $1-worth of factory. New assets don't magically stop being profit. Not even if they depreciate, because cash depreciates too.
The only thing one needs to ask is whether corporate tax makes sense in principle at all when one could instead "just" tax human use of assets owned by corporations as personal gain. Everything else gets taxed at the personal income or property side already anyway.
The truth is that they declare artificial loss in European countries, where they get most of their revenues but would have to pay high taxes, and declare their huge profits in places like Delaware where they have tax exemptions.
He's not being "rewarded" as if someone is handing him sacks of cash. He's a shareholder, much as you and I might be. Most people through their 401k, if they own any amount of the total stock market index funds, are also sharedholders of Amazon. If Amazon grows and generates more revenue, the stock price grows, and thus we are "rewarded" for its growth, because we literally own part of the company. Bezos just owns a much larger share because, well, he started the company.