Amazon and certain politicians

[WVUBRU]

Some morons that "go on a limb" with stupid assumptions and without facts in order to make excuses for their right wing agenda, their beloved and horrible president and other stupid statements they make should just shut up.

Amazon had a net profit over 11 billion. Paying $0 taxes is due to taking advantage by their accountants of the new tax law. It isn't due to fantasy **** as some idiots will spew.

Why do morons that know nothing continue to spout off on topics they shouldn't?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-taxes-zero-180337770.html

 

[MountaineerWV]

What is your point? Do you not believe a company should be able to write off operating expenses, capital improvements, losses, etc? I’m betting, and just gonna go out on a limb here, you have no idea how to correlate Amazon not paying any taxes with it actually being a good economic indicator.

If I, a private American citizen, made $11 billion, I'd be paying taxes. Just saying......

 

[WVUBRU]

If I, a private American citizen, made $11 billion, I'd be paying taxes. Just saying......

Maybe not under the Trump tax cuts.

But hey, let's cut food stamps for a single mom because of the national debt but giving Amazon and almost every other large corporation financial welfare is a good thing. And morons claim we can't understand?

 

[eerdoc]

First the Amazon HQ was not going into AOC's district. Was she against it, yes, as was most NY'ers. I was a bad deal for New York City. It would cost jobs and the tax base. Why would you pay Amazon 3 billion dollars if you are New York City.

I think you (along with AOC and others) have a vast misunderstanding—the deal was NOT that AMAZON would be receiving 3 billion dollars from the State. They were to receive a 3 billion reduction in taxes over (I believe) a 10 year period. The total tax to be paid by them over this same period would have been about 10 times the reduction. AOC is so dumb as to believe there is a pot of 3 billion available now for ‘her’ to spend for other purposes. Not so. Truth is that the State lost out on substantial tax revenue from AMAZON directly. They lost out on taxes to be collected from the individuals employed. The residents lost out on the many new jobs coming to (what I have heard to be) a part of NYC that cout benefit from some revitalization.
What a truly brilliant move to get them to take their business elsewhere! AOC is a pitiful joke, but she seems to represent masses of those who are what she is. Too bad the massive fake media will continue to provide a microphone into which she caspew her ignorance, silliness, and stupidity.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Maybe not under the Trump tax cuts.

But hey, let's cut food stamps for a single mom because of the national debt but giving Amazon and almost every other large corporation financial welfare is a good thing. And morons claim we can't understand?

How much growth did Amazon experience over the course of the last year? How many new jobs did they create? How much infrastructure and capital projects did they complete? How many new distribution centers did they build? How are their salaries for their workers? What about benefits? What about their LRP projections?

Shut the **** up Bru, your partisanship is coming through.

 

[WVUBRU]

Go screw yourself you ignorant ahole. Then eat my ****.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Some morons that "go on a limb" with stupid assumptions and without facts in order to make excuses for their right wing agenda, their beloved and horrible president and other stupid statements they make should just shut up.

Amazon had a net profit over 11 billion. Paying $0 taxes is due to taking advantage by their accountants of the new tax law. It isn't due to fantasy **** as some idiots will spew.

Why do morons that know nothing continue to spout off on topics they shouldn't?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-taxes-zero-180337770.html

And from your own ******* article:

“Though Amazon might have taken advantage of new breaks and loopholes available under TCJA, this isn’t the first year that Amazon has avoided paying federal tax. The company reported $5.6 billion in U.S. profits in 2017 and paid $0 last year as well.”

They didn’t pay any taxes under the old structure either. Now, because I know you know how easily it’s done, why don’t you elucidate for the rubes you’re trying to defend here how a corporation is able to do these things and how these mechanisms, are in fact good for the economy with respect to a corporation experiencing rapid growth like Amazon.

Or, just continue to let a false narrative perpetuate itself because it aligns with your ideology. We’ll see if you have any integrity or not.

 

[WVUBRU]

Yes, no ****. Corporatations have been getting ridiculous breaks for years and didn't need a rate cut in the manner this legislation gave it. Fact remains, you think you are an expert on every subject in the world, you have a reading comprehension issue and just spout complete nonsense more often than not. Now go eat my ****.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Yes, no ****. Corporatations have been getting ridiculous breaks for years and didn't need a rate cut in the manner this legislation gave it. Fact remains, you think you are an expert on every subject in the world, you have a reading comprehension issue and just spout complete nonsense more often than not. Now go eat my ****.

Hahahahha I actually only speak with authority on things I’m very knowledgeable about. Military, history, and business are areas where I’m smarter than the average bear.

Others, I’m merely speculating about and usually say it’s my opinion, matters of politics and law, and they’re usually grounded in sound logic as I don’t allow emotion to cloud or even appear in my decision and thought processes.

And then there are things I don’t get into discussions on at all other than to troll the rubes and that’s areas of science (environment, global warming, etc).

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Yes, no ****. Corporatations have been getting ridiculous breaks for years and didn't need a rate cut in the manner this legislation gave it. Fact remains, you think you are an expert on every subject in the world, you have a reading comprehension issue and just spout complete nonsense more often than not. Now go eat my ****.

And further, this is Bru’s partisanship showing, not his business knowledge. We can agree or disagree about the TCJA, which in this case, we do, but the reality is, in the case of Amazon, this isn’t a bad thing as MWV and TJ were indicating.

In the case of GE a couple of years ago, it was.

 

[Mntneer]

And from your own ******* article:

“Though Amazon might have taken advantage of new breaks and loopholes available under TCJA, this isn’t the first year that Amazon has avoided paying federal tax. The company reported $5.6 billion in U.S. profits in 2017 and paid $0 last year as well.”

They didn’t pay any taxes under the old structure either. Now, because I know you know how easily it’s done, why don’t you elucidate for the rubes you’re trying to defend here how a corporation is able to do these things and how these mechanisms, are in fact good for the economy with respect to a corporation experiencing rapid growth like Amazon.

Or, just continue to let a false narrative perpetuate itself because it aligns with your ideology. We’ll see if you have any integrity or not.

I’d love to see what their returns have been for the past ten years. I’d wager 2018 isn’t an anomaly, but instead par for the course, Trump tax cut or not.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I’d love to see what their returns have been for the past ten years. I’d wager 2018 isn’t an anomaly, but instead par for the course, Trump tax cut or not.

You’re a business owner, to what legal lengths do you go to reduce/remove your tax exposure? I’m going to guess the answer is, everything within your power, and in every case, I’m betting people unaffiliated with your organization benefit.

 

[WVUBRU]

I’d love to see what their returns have been for the past ten years. I’d wager 2018 isn’t an anomaly, but instead par for the course, Trump tax cut or not.

Look at the link I posted. It has an easy to read chart of past years. One needs to read their annual reports to get as much public information as possible but this topic being discussed won't be detailed. 2018 was a record year in terms of Revenue and profit so that is a new normal. 2017, they also did not pay taxes. Years before on the chart, they did pay taxes on Profit earned. Now, did they pay a "fair share"? That is debatable but in my viewpoint, large corporations typically do not and the government made that horrible situation even greater. That is what is the disgrace and point your side is missing in the discussion.

 

[WVUBRU]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-taxes-zero-180337770.html

 

[dave]

Some morons that "go on a limb" with stupid assumptions and without facts in order to make excuses for their agenda

Oh the irony. Its like there is zero self awareness here.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Look at the link I posted. It has an easy to read chart of past years. One needs to read their annual reports to get as much public information as possible but this topic being discussed won't be detailed. 2018 was a record year in terms of Revenue and profit so that is a new normal. 2017, they also did not pay taxes. Years before on the chart, they did pay taxes on Profit earned. Now, did they pay a "fair share"? That is debatable but in my viewpoint, large corporations typically do not and the government made that horrible situation even greater. That is what is the disgrace and point your side is missing in the discussion.

We aren’t missing it. IMO, providing jobs for people and stimulating the economy through capital growth projects is far more important than paying a “fair share”. Give someone a job and give them quality benefits and there is less of a need for the single mom on food stamps as you previously pontificated about. And while they may have not paid tax they almost assuredly did a better service for this country than anything the politicians would’ve chosen to funnel tax money into.

 

[WVUBRU]

Growing companies will expand and provide new jobs to feed the expansion. False "trickle-down" economic theory given on cutting taxes on corporations in order to feed job creation. Yes in a strong economy, corporations will create new jobs. Doing it through tax policy that isn't balanced (another point most right-wingers don't understand due to political agendas) will lead to negative economic conditions over the long term. Tax policy needs to be taken in consideration with other economic policies, both domestic and internationally, in order to provide solid and substantial growth. This tax cut will lead to negative long term effects such as Bush's did in 2002 and Reagan in 1982 and 1984.

 

[JWG66]

Some morons that "go on a limb" with stupid assumptions and without facts in order to make excuses for their right wing agenda, their beloved and horrible president and other stupid statements they make should just shut up.

Amazon had a net profit over 11 billion. Paying $0 taxes is due to taking advantage by their accountants of the new tax law. It isn't due to fantasy **** as some idiots will spew.

Why do morons that know nothing continue to spout off on topics they shouldn't?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-taxes-zero-180337770.html

Because they don’t know what they don’t know. And they are in a fast pace internet world where things happen too quickly to get all sides of an issue. But bet she could mix you a great drink.

Sure that NY seasoned politicians are just fuming over winning then watching her gleefully send it to TN. Who lost but now won....

 

[WVUBRU]

Because they don’t know what they don’t know. And they are in a fast pace internet world where things happen too quickly to get all sides of an issue. But bet she could mix you a great drink.

Sure that NY seasoned politicians are just fuming over winning then watching her gleefully send it to TN. Who lost but now won....

The comment of mine that you used has nothing to do with AOC and your rant.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Growing companies will expand and provide new jobs to feed the expansion. False "trickle-down" economic theory given on cutting taxes on corporations in order to feed job creation. Yes in a strong economy, corporations will create new jobs. Doing it through tax policy that isn't balanced (another point most right-wingers don't understand due to political agendas) will lead to negative economic conditions over the long term. Tax policy needs to be taken in consideration with other economic policies, both domestic and internationally, in order to provide solid and substantial growth. This tax cut will lead to negative long term effects such as Bush's did in 2002 and Reagan in 1982 and 1984.

I’m just going to ask you point blank. Do you think, on average, companies have increased IRAD and capital growth projects since and because of the tax cuts? Yes or no.

 

[WVUBRU]

I’m just going to ask you point blank. Do you think, on average, companies have increased IRAD and capital growth projects since and because of the tax cuts? Yes or no.

As a whole, yes but not as much as trickle down theorists wanted or projected. And that isn't my "thinking ". It is a substantiated fact with initial studies from corporate reports through 2018. So my conclusion is the impact you are hoping for won't come close to being achieved. And this was predictable and ignored by those pushing it.

 

[WVUBRU]

I have stated many times on here the tax legislation "turbo charged" the economy in the short term. That is fact. It is my opinion based on history and solid economic theory the legislation will be damaging over the long term.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

As a whole, yes but not as much as trickle down theorists wanted or projected. And that isn't my "thinking ". It is a substantiated fact with initial studies from corporate reports through 2018. So my conclusion is the impact you are hoping for won't come close to being achieved. And this was predictable and ignored by those pushing it.

So, IRAD is happening and that bears fruit 2 years from now, exceeded 3% GDP, individual earnings are up, vast majority of people kept more of their money, and record low unemployment while outperforming the predictions every single month.

All of that while keeping the boat anchor of the trade war wrapped around our necks.

Yea, I think I’ll take reality vs hypothetical partisanship.

 

[WVUBRU]

About to go into church so I'm done posting until much later so I will leave with an analogy this board can understand.

Would you rather have a one night stand with the best porn star at age 21 and then your dick falls off. Or would you rather have a great bachelor sex life then settle down with a good woman and have good sex the rest of your life?

I choose the latter every time.

 

[mule_eer]

We aren’t missing it. IMO, providing jobs for people and stimulating the economy through capital growth projects is far more important than paying a “fair share”. Give someone a job and give them quality benefits and there is less of a need for the single mom on food stamps as you previously pontificated about. And while they may have not paid tax they almost assuredly did a better service for this country than anything the politicians would’ve chosen to funnel tax money into.

I do like the qualifier you added about benefits. I have no idea what tge benefits at Amazon are, so I'm not disputing that in this case. I do have an issue with giving big breaks to companies that don't pay well or provide benefits for employees. That creates a tax burden in the form of public benefits for those employees. They will be on Medicaid and possibly food stamps. I'm not citing any specific examples, only putting it out there as a hypothetical.

 

[Mntneer]

You’re a business owner, to what legal lengths do you go to reduce/remove your tax exposure? I’m going to guess the answer is, everything within your power, and in every case, I’m betting people unaffiliated with your organization benefit.

Absolutely. And as a C-corp, we have benefit some from the tax changes, and are in the position to re-invest a little more into the company than we would have been able to do so otherwise. Whether it's "trickle down" or "trickle up", allow individuals and corporations to keep as much of their income as possible and do with as they best see fit. As the less the government attempts to manipulate the economy, through either tax cuts or tax increases (or spending cuts or spending increases) the better the chance the economy has to find a homeostasis.

I do like the qualifier you added about benefits. I have no idea what tge benefits at Amazon are, so I'm not disputing that in this case. I do have an issue with giving big breaks to companies that don't pay well or provide benefits for employees. That creates a tax burden in the form of public benefits for those employees. They will be on Medicaid and possibly food stamps. I'm not citing any specific examples, only putting it out there as a hypothetical.

I think that's a valid concern. I also do find it to be somewhat frustrating when larger corporations are given such tax incentives to bring their businesses "to town", while established local corporations are given no such incentive or reward for their "loyalty". We've had a number of large corporations located facilities here in the Eastern Panhandle, and while it HAS helped drive up employment and "trickled" out into the local economy, I do worry about the long term burden that the local communities may face in the long term.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

About to go into church so I'm done posting until much later so I will leave with an analogy this board can understand.

Would you rather have a one night stand with the best porn star at age 21 and then your dick falls off. Or would you rather have a great bachelor sex life then settle down with a good woman and have good sex the rest of your life?

I choose the latter every time.

I barebacked a $35 Korean *****. You’re asking the wrong guy.

 

[79eer]

Go screw yourself you ignorant ahole. Then eat my ****.

About to go into church

Funny stuff

 

[MountaineerWV]

I barebacked a $35 Korean *****. You’re asking the wrong guy.

But it was actually a dude....you left that part out.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

But it was actually a dude....you left that part out.

It was in her ***, so who can really say for sure. It was dark, I was shitfaced, and she was beautiful. The rest is extraneous and irrelevant discussion.

 

[boomerwv]

You’re a business owner, to what legal lengths do you go to reduce/remove your tax exposure? I’m going to guess the answer is, everything within your power, and in every case, I’m betting people unaffiliated with your organization benefit.

Absolutely. Amazon would be derelict if they paid more than they could get away with.

However, we have shown time and time that trickle down economics doesnt work. Business isnt going to spend more than it has to. Just look at what is happening in the rail industry right now, massive cuts despite record profits.

If corporations want big tax reduction at least tie it to benefitting the middle class.

 

[79eer]

However, we have shown time and time that trickle down economics doesnt work.

Enlighten us how it works.

 

[boomerwv]

Enlighten us how it works.

You mean the predictable expansion of the wealth gap and the predicable recessions in 1990 and 2008 that resulted? When do you think that next one is coming? Have a look at the latest retail numbers?

 

[79eer]

You mean the predictable expansion of the wealth gap and the predicable recessions in 1990 and 2008 that resulted? When do you think that next one is coming? Have a look at the latest retail numbers?

Simple question, if “trickle down economics doesn’t work”, ........ how does it work?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You mean the predictable expansion of the wealth gap and the predicable recessions in 1990 and 2008 that resulted? When do you think that next one is coming? Have a look at the latest retail numbers?

You’re tying what happened in 2008 to Bush’s tax cut? Shewwww, that’s some revisionist history there. And the 80s saw some of the best economic times of a couple of generations. The 80s economic climate also gave way to the eventual tech boom of the 90s due to the ability for companies to sink loads and loads of money into IRAD. You guys just make **** up and say it enough that you have actually deluded yourselves into believing corporations profiting is bad for the economy. It’s comical to watch.

 

[79eer]

You’re tying what happened in 2008 to Bush’s tax cut? Shewwww, that’s some revisionist history there. And the 80s saw some of the best economic times of a couple of generations. You guys just make **** up and say it enough that you have actually deluded yourselves into believing corporations profiting is bad for the economy. It’s comical to watch.

Pretty much sums things up.

 

[boomerwv]

Basically you expect that you can expand the tax base through growth by cutting taxes . It doesnt work

You’re tying what happened in 2008 to Bush’s tax cut? Shewwww, that’s some revisionist history there. And the 80s saw some of the best economic times of a couple of generations. The 80s economic climate also gave way to the eventual tech boom of the 90s due to the ability for companies to sink loads and loads of money into IRAD. You guys just make **** up and say it enough that you have actually deluded yourselves into believing corporations profiting is bad for the economy. It’s comical to watch.

Talking about revisionist history? The early 80s were terrible and the later 80s become a boom mostly because the FED began to cut rates. The tax cuts never paid for themselves as is always promised. Deficits skyrocketed and eventually taxes had to be raised. Reality set in by 1990 and we had a recession, which led to Bill Clinton and eventually a budget surplus. Bush took over, another tax cut, the surplus turned right back into a deficit and up, up ,up went debt.

We had better growth after the 1993 tax hikes than we had during the Reagan years.

Deregulation, one of the pillars of supply-siders is a direct cause of 2008. And what have we done in the past year? Started rolling back regulations on the same industry that put us into the 2008 disaster. You can see this coming from further away than a Paul Millard INT.

 

[Mntneer]

Basically you expect that you can expand the tax base through growth by cutting taxes . It doesnt work

Talking about revisionist history? The early 80s were terrible and the later 80s become a boom mostly because the FED began to cut rates. The tax cuts never paid for themselves as is always promised. Deficits skyrocketed and eventually taxes had to be raised. Reality set in by 1990 and we had a recession, which led to Bill Clinton and eventually a budget surplus. Bush took over, another tax cut, the surplus turned right back into a deficit and up, up ,up went debt.

We had better growth after the 1993 tax hikes than we had during the Reagan years.

Deregulation, one of the pillars of supply-siders is a direct cause of 2008. And what have we done in the past year? Started rolling back regulations on the same industry that put us into the 2008 disaster. You can see this coming from further away than a Paul Millard INT.

Yes. Revisionist history. As you conveniently left out dotcom, Arthur Andersen, Adelphia, etc., basically the Clinton recession. Oh, and who signed the overwhelmingly bipartisan Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law?

Correlation does not imply causation, so stop with the silly thinking that tax hikes spurs economic growth.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Basically you expect that you can expand the tax base through growth by cutting taxes . It doesnt work


Talking about revisionist history? The early 80s were terrible and the later 80s become a boom mostly because the FED began to cut rates. The tax cuts never paid for themselves as is always promised. Deficits skyrocketed and eventually taxes had to be raised. Reality set in by 1990 and we had a recession, which led to Bill Clinton and eventually a budget surplus. Bush took over, another tax cut, the surplus turned right back into a deficit and up, up ,up went debt.

We had better growth after the 1993 tax hikes than we had during the Reagan years.

Deregulation, one of the pillars of supply-siders is a direct cause of 2008. And what have we done in the past year? Started rolling back regulations on the same industry that put us into the 2008 disaster. You can see this coming from further away than a Paul Millard INT.

The **** does it mean when “tax cuts never pay for themselves”? You don’t pay for tax cuts ya goof. You guys have gone off the damn rails.

The early 80s was a shitshow brought on by the Carter administration’s mismanagement. The Reaganomics is what caused the overall growth wit a aggregate tax cut.

Clinton’s surplus was brought on by the .com (thanks Reagan/Bush) and the fall of communism (thanks Reagan) which caused us to slash our defenses budget.

The crash of 08 was 100% not related to tax cuts, thats just a lie. Or if you truly believe that, then you’re just a moron.

 

[EERs 3:16]

Have been busy and am just getting caught up on this subject. Haven't read much of the other threads posted so if I'm duplicating, THE can do whatever he wants with this thread.

NY should be in serious mourning certain politicians and individuals forced Amazon to reverse their decision. I am not impressed with the Green New Deal even though I support Climate Change legislation and the US needs to move forward with the rest of the world in order to save the world. But it is junk legislation. AOC cheering the decision of Amazon pulling out and finding out how she has organized a fight against, I fully disagree. She has lost all respect from me and I doubt I will support anything she may do in the future due to the first two things she has been a part of as a Representative. I hope she gets beaten badly in 2020.

But AOC and I doubt anyone else cares about my opinion.

First of all, AOC is the new face of the Democuck party and needs more exposure. Her youth and energy will bring more people to the big tent that is the Democuck party. Secondly, when attacking AOC, please remember that you’re attacking not only a minority, but a woman as well and that makes this thread extremely offensive! Instead of attacking AOC and her supporters, you should engage them and urge t hem to express their ideas more thoughtfully.....and more often. Shame on you for wanting to silence her!