
America needs to see Amazon’s tax returns - notinversed
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/1/19102713/amazon-tax-returns-federal-2020-election-warren-biden-sanders
======
fosco
The tax code is not Amazons problem. They are legally obligated by their
shareholders to make the biggest profit possible, likewise every other
business.

people should be protesting congress, not Amazon, this constant red herring is
ridiculous, Amazon, like every other business is trying to compete and will
pay as little taxes as possible. Tell congress to change the rules and all
businesses will play by better rules.

any other conversation about the meaning of Amazon paying the tax they have to
I believe is a waste of time, both parties are guilty and the citizens are
guilty for not protesting congress.

~~~
syn0byte
"He only hits you because you made him do it by not listening.", "Well, you
were dressed slutty so its your own fault."

Your argument is morally reprehensible.

~~~
dang
" _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone
says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
lvh
Many of the candidates are US lawmakers. Have they attempted to acquire the
tax return? They’re statutorily entitled to it, and the case for a “legitimate
legislative purpose” (“the tax code sounds messed up and I want to fix it”) is
much clearer than it was when Congress exercised the same right to attempt to
acquire Trump’s tax returns.

If they haven’t, this sounds like pandering. But hey, so’s “let’s axe student
debt” instead of the obvious “let’s 20x Pell grants”, so...

~~~
jerf
One of my least favorite politician games is when they're grandstanding about
some problem and demanding some new power to address the problem, when they
are already empowered to address the problem somehow. The administrative
agencies are particularly prone to this; many of them have quite surprisingly
_vast_ powers, but will then claim helplessness in the face of some particular
problem unless they're given even more. But you dig in, and while perhaps
maybe the exact thing they're asking for is out of their power, they've got
several other options for fixing the problem... if "fixing the problem" was
their actual priority.

But legislatures play this game plenty too.

(And that's not even mentioning the cases where they created the problem in
the first place.)

~~~
lvh
Agreed, and I think it’s even worse here: Bernie Sanders is saying he will do
a thing that is explicitly his job as a Senator and explicitly not his job as
President!

------
stakhanov
Taxes should not be decided through a popularity contest and enforced through
the court of public opinion.

After the financial crisis, bankers were unpopular, so politicians in the U.K.
curried favour with the public by bringing in a banker bonus tax.

Tech companies were once the pride of the nation in the U.S. and the notion of
creating tax incentives for tech investment in the U.S. was highly popular.
Nowadays, they are no longer popular, so there is now a public outcry for
taxing them more.

Tax can't be like that, because investments don't go to where there is a lot
of uncertainty.

I do agree that Amazon not paying any tax is an indicator of a broken system
that needs fixing. But politicians coming out and saying "I'm going to tax
Amazon" is not right either. They should say what the system should be, bring
it in, and then stick with it, making sure there is proper enforcement.

They can't just come out during each electoral cycle and say "This year, we
like Tesla, so whatever system doesn't have Tesla paying any taxes, that's the
right system. And this year, we dislike Amazon, so whatever system levies a
lot of taxes on Amazon, that's the system we're going to have. Not sure if the
same will still be true next year, but we'll cross that bidge once we get to
it."

~~~
Nasrudith
Really the aspect which taxes in theory should be "biased" towards is
accounting for externalities positive and negative. If mines, banks, or any
other industry risks needing expensive public remediation they /should/ be
taxed more than mere profit margins. If they cannot afford it - well that is
the point neither can we. In practice it is a complete mess of special
interests paying money to insist that the government's highest priority should
be getting people to drink more Ovaltine.

The issues of that tax code are systemic but that level of abstraction is
seldom understood.

~~~
stakhanov
Well: The bonus tax wasn't actually a tax on the amount of risk-taking that a
bank was doing (with the understanding that some of that risk would land on
the government balance sheet because of the too-big-to-fail effect). It was
neither designed to be that, nor was the income that the exchequer earned from
that in any way related to what it costs the government to cover that risk. It
could be argued that by discouraging remuneration models whereby decision
makers share in profits (and therefore also in downside risks), this tax might
have even had the opposite effect of increasing risk-taking by increasing
moral hazard.

So, really, what it was was plainly and simply: "Here are a bunch of people
who are disliked by the majority of the electorate. Therefore, let's have them
give us some money."

EDIT: This was the story I was talking about:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/business/global/10pound.h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/business/global/10pound.html)

------
jerf
America won't understand Amazon's tax returns. Between the vast bulk of people
who simply won't understand them, and the small-but-loud minority of people
who will be loudly misinterpreting them (in many cases, deliberately), I don't
see this being helpful. It amounts to people asking for a platform to
demagogue from. The amount of data we have now is really plenty to do the job.
It's up to the professional legislators to figure out how to fix it.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
I agree, transparency is bad and people shouldn't have information if they
don't understand it. Also people shouldn't have information because they might
misuse it.

~~~
mc32
The thing is fringe elements will abuse this and misrepresent. Just as on the
right statistics will be used to misrepresent crime and such so that now many
news orgs omit certain aspects of perp information so as not to contribute to
that phenomenon.

~~~
noobermin
Was Edward Snowden wrong to expose pervasive spying from the government? That
was, in fact, the government's argument regarding the leaks being damaging to
national security.

~~~
mc32
This is a delicate thing. This kind of high level whistleblowing is
necessarily frought with peril.

It has to be one of those things that do knowing you’re sacrificing
everything. Like being a deserter or being a double agent. Your belief has to
be high and you should be willing to take the repercussions as a patriot. Not
too dissimilar from being a colonial revolutionary.

------
sshagent
I'd like to see every mention of companies in the news to include the amount
of tax they paid in the last year. So in this case "blah blah blah
Amazon($0)".

~~~
reallydontask
I seem to remember Barclays saying they'd paid X amount of tax (it was a lot).
Turned out it was the tax that employees had paid.

Fair enough, those people depended on Barclays for their livelihood but not
quite what people have in mind when they think about the amount of tax a
company pays

Anyway, you can just imagine how companies would use that figure rather than
corporate taxes

Good idea though

~~~
granshaw
Wow, how did that go down in the UK? I can imagine the public being furious if
Amazon pulled that same stunt here.

~~~
ptah
UK public has lots to be furious about. it won't make one iota of a difference
though. EDIT: global corporations are gods in the UK and effectively above the
law

~~~
egypturnash
Your edit applies to the US, as well. Probably the whole world.

~~~
ptah
I think the old concept of nation, where a government holds power, is dwarfed
by globalised corporations. something needs to happen for people to get
sovereignty back from corporations. not sure what though

------
tylerl
Looking at individual company tax returns is the wrong solution to this
problem. _It 's not just ineffective, it's dishonest._

It's tempting to take a "tax the bastards" viewpoint and argue that the tax-
avoiding companies are the problem, that they're freeloading, scamming the
government. That's the message you get from the presidential candidates. But
that argument wilfully ignores the most important fact: tax incentives are the
way the government pays people and companies to change their behavior.

The incentive says the government will pay you $X if you do some specific
thing. Install solar panels, cut carbon emissions, employ members of a
vulnerable population. There are thousands of options. They use the tax
process to distribute the rewards because it's simpler and cheaper that way.

Low-tax companies are just the ones who operate in spaces with a lot of these
incentives. Identifying the companies isn't relevant, the companies aren't the
problem. You want to instead identify the _incentives_ that are eating up your
revenue. How much does your solar panel incentive cost? That kind of thing.

And before you ask: Yes, offshore income arrangement are another tax
incentive. They're more complicated beause they involve several countries
competing on tax rates, but it's just another version of the same problem.

~~~
reallydude
> It's not just ineffective, it's dishonest.

People don't understand, so they ask for more information. That's about as
honest as it gets.

> tax incentives are the way the government pays people and companies to
> change their behavior.

Which has nothing to do with motivation. That's a large part of the ask.

------
thdxr
Trying to establish a set of rules for what counts as a business expense and
what doesn't for the infinite number of changing industries is a futile task.
It also creates weird situations like Apple harboring cash outside the USA.

We should get rid of the corporate tax rate and tax money when it comes out of
corporations to real people (dividends, buybacks, etc) at a revenue neutral
rate. Would make things a lot cleaner

~~~
dmwallin
All this means is that large net-worth individuals will increase the practice
of keeping money within a corporate structure and using that for as many
expenses as possible.

~~~
thdxr
Through what mechanism can a large net worth individual get a company like
Apple to buy things for them? They're not the only shareholder

This is also possible to do today and when it happens the SEC investigates
whether a $100M painting for the CEO's office was an appropriate expenditure
of other shareholders money. The tax policy doesn't have a bearing on this
type of fraud

~~~
LoSboccacc
letters of credit or equivalent, heck there are whole circuits already that
work like that, they move around credits at neutral exchange rates so they end
up financially as exchanging debts, like sardex.

------
sschueller
Aren't the tax returns of public companies public?

------
lvh
The President does not set tax policy. The legislature does, and many of these
candidates are lawmakers.

But in the recent debates we also discussed if candidates would prosecute
Trump after he’s no longer a sitting President, apparently conveniently
forgetting that it’s the DoJ, not the President, who decides who to prosecute.

~~~
w4
> _But in the recent debates we also discussed if candidates would prosecute
> Trump after he’s no longer a sitting President, apparently conveniently
> forgetting that it’s the DoJ, not the President, who decides who to
> prosecute._

You’re mostly right on tax policy, though a lot of tax policy is set by
guidance on and interpretation of the statutes, which the President can
influence since Treasury is part of the Executive.

On the other hand, if we set aside the politics of prosecuting an ex-President
for a moment (that debate could go on and on), the DOJ is part of the
Executive Branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the President. It
would be in those candidates’ power to set that prosecutorial agenda for the
DOJ if elected.

~~~
lvh
That’s true! But just so we’re on the same page: both of those things are
general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this
list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have
answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is
abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote.

(Finally, I’m guessing we also agree that we’re not an statute interpretation
or a regulation away from Amazon paying, let’s say, 10% of their SEC-reported
profits in taxes.)

~~~
w4
> _both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically
> not “go audit /prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I
> think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of
> law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my
> vote._

Sure. But that’s a political judgement, not a statement about the actual
powers of the Executive, which is what you were talking about above.

It’s within the President’s power to instruct the AG to pursue a particular
case, and if the AG refuses then the President may replace them. Whether or
not that’s appropriate, politically tenable, or might expose a President to
action by the Legislative Branch, is a totally different question.

~~~
lvh
Sure, yep, you’re right, no argument here, I was definitely muddling the line
between what the president can do and what they can probably get away with.
“Launch nukes” is probably another example in that category. Thanks!

------
a_CPA
The historical Boston Tea Party event comes to mind. Not wanting to pay taxes
(or in this case, legally minimizing your tax burden) is as American as apple
pie.

------
fyoving
It's curious how when these people complain about corporations not paying
taxes they reliably fail to mention that it's because of R&D tax credits.

Not sure how wise it is for politicians to employ a populist strategy against
companies that outstrip them in favorability among the average citizen.

------
vgetr
Apparently everyone is about the, “right to privacy” until their own envy
overrides it.

~~~
Nasrudith
Privacy for a corporation itself isn't applicable and really somewhat
oxymoronic given corporation transparency requirements. Fundamentally they
must be owned and managed by someone else with stake in it. Heck, income and
tax information aren't even guaranteed as having a right to privacy for
humans.

For corporations investors need to be able o be informed about their business
operations - it is what separates it from a scam and prevents the investment
system from collapsing as it would if there was nothing stopping anyone from
just taking the money and running off with it. Earning and tax information
wouldn't make sense as private.

That doesn't mean that employees and customers have no right to privacy
because of a corporation. Just like how states don't have rights but the
people making them up do.

~~~
vgetr
Should we then require restaurants to install cameras to make sure
waiters/waitresses are fully reporting their paper tips? Seems to me that fits
within the category of tracking business operations.

~~~
xfde
Libertarian ideas like this are, frankly, stupid.

~~~
vgetr
Funny how expressing the opinion that regulation will lead to harm gets you
downvoted while calling someone, “stupid” doesn’t have a single effect.

~~~
pwinnski
Parent comment referred to the idea of installing cameras to track tip
recording as stupid, not you or any other person.

------
jakelazaroff
_> “We pay every penny we owe in corporate taxes including $2.6 billion over
the past three years,” Amazon said when reached for comment. “We’ve invested
$270 billion in the US since 2010 and created more than 275,000 jobs.”_

Does "every penny we owe" mean what a layperson would think, or does it mean
their lawyers used every weird loophole they could find to make sure they
"owe" nothing at all?

The second part of the quote is irrelevant. It's nice that they're creating
jobs, but they're only mentioning that to essentially bribe us into accepting
being swindled out of money they owe. Just pay your taxes!

~~~
sokoloff
"Every penny we owe" would presumably mean to a layperson "every penny legally
required by the tax code," which I think is how Amazon intended it.

~~~
SkyBelow
Built into that meaning would be an incorrect understanding of the tax code,
which I think one can say is purposefully being leveraged in PR statements
like this. Which is to say they are purposefully being misleading.

~~~
kronin
How is an "incorrect understanding of the tax code" built into that statement?
Are you saying that the average layperson doesn't understand the numbers
shuffling that goes on to get the biggest deduction? All tax preparation
advertisements I see on TV tout their ability to "get you the biggest refund".
Why would it not be a safe assumption to apply that same thought to corporate
taxes?

~~~
SkyBelow
Because when people interpret some behavior being done to the legal extent
possible, on average they will do so with a poor understanding of the law and
their interpretations will assume behavior which is in line with how they
think the law works, not how it actually works. While this is their own
misunderstanding, it is common enough and exploited purposefully enough that I
don't think one can just declare Caveat Emptor (assuming that to buy into
something is also a valid translation, which is probably isn't).

------
jacknews
America, and the world, should see _everyone 's_ tax returns.

What's the big secret? If you're proud of what you earn and the taxes that
flow from that then show it. If you're not proud, then that should be exposed
too.

~~~
jedimastert
There are several problems:

1) There are many people in my life who would make it much more difficult if
they knew how much I make. I've kept it from them for a very good reason and
they're definitely the kind of people who would just go and look that kind of
stuff about random people they know. This would tell them how much I have in
investments and property as well.

2) It would necessarily reveal far too much personally identifying information
or not serve the purpose you'd want it to. If I had ran away from an abusive
or stalking relationship, they could simply look up the state and municipality
I pay taxes in, and what company I worked for, making it almost trivial to
find me. This could also mean finding (and targeting) anyone that works for a
certain company.

3) It would be far too easy for companies to use this information for any
number of purposes. I'm currently getting a huge amount of mail about moving
companies and brokers because my landlord publicly put my condo up for sale.
It could get much worse than that.

4) If I'm the daughter of an extremely conservative family but I'm working at
a strip club, even if I'm "not proud" of what I do that give no good cause to
expose it to the world.

These are the situations from off the top of my head and already it would
reveal far more information than I'm comfortable with. "If you have nothing to
fear than you have nothing to hide" is _never_ an appropriate excuse to
curtail anyone's privacy.

~~~
freddie_mercury
Tax returns are public in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Iceland.

Do you think your 4 examples are endemic problems in those countries?

~~~
vidar
In Iceland the returns are not public in their entirety, just the total
taxable income and the total bill due.

~~~
jacknews
Yes, I perhaps misspoke when I said tax returns. Of course the actual
individual deductions should not be public, only the gross amounts.

