Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Will Pay $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00. From a report: According to a report published by the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) policy Wednesday, the e-tail/retail/tech/entertainment/everything giant won't have to pay a cent in federal taxes for the second year in a row. This tax-free break comes even though Amazon almost doubled its U.S. profits from $5.6 billion to $11.2 billion between 2017 and 2018. To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate -- making its tax rate -1%.

8 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks, Republican tax reform! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Thanks, Trump!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  2. Re:ridiculous by link-error · · Score: 5, Interesting

        Didn't Amazon not make profits for like the first 10 years or so of their existence? How much money did they spend building out their infrastructure?
      Don't they get to write off all those loses from capital investments over that period?

          I haven't reviewed there financial statements, but I can see how this would easily be true...

    --
    -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
  3. Oh no! by Comboman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    if they were "paying" taxes to the government, they'd just raise the price on their products and services

    Oh no! Then customers would be forced to support local, brick-and-mortar, small businesses instead (the ones that actually DO pay taxes and create real jobs).

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  4. Unlike the Federal Government by Kohath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Amazon actually spends their money to help bring people good things.

  5. Re:ridiculous by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When corporations pay taxes, the cost is passed on to some combination of shareholders (lower dividends or less capital investment), customers (higher prices), and employees (lower wages).

    It would be better to just eliminate corporate taxes, and tax these groups directly. If you think employees should pay more, then increase payroll taxes. If you think customers should pay more, then increase sales taxes.

    If you think shareholders should pay more, which is where most people think the burden should fall, then indirectly taxing the corporation is a terrible way to achieve that. It means the stocks in grandma's pension fund are taxed exactly the same as a billionaire's holdings. I would make more sense to tax dividends or capital gains only once at the individual level, so grandma pays at the low income rate, while the billionaire pays a higher marginal rate.

  6. That's surprisingly low by Headw1nd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So the thing I'm amazed at is given the stranglehold Amazon seems to have on its market, they only made 11.4 Billion for the year. From what I can see, Apple posted a 14.1 Billion profit on Q4 alone.

    1. Re:That's surprisingly low by raftpeople · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And 90% of that profit is from AWS, not from selling merchandise.

  7. Re:ridiculous by penandpaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are making quite a few assumptions and simplify it as "low tax bad high tax good" when in reality it isn't that simple. Are you upset about welfare like medicare or medicaid? Or are upset about federal grants? Or army bases and national labs? There are many ways federal dollars go back to a state be specific on what you don't like.

    those high tax states are donor states for your leeching

    Nice language. Do you always hate the poor and underclass or just the ones that you can't see? I hate to break this to you but not every state has Hollywood, Silicon Valley, or Wallstreet. Nor does every state have the number of millionaires to pay for all the government services you are asking for. Alabama, for example one of the top "receivers" of federal dollars, is ranked 41st for number of millionaires with the 6th highest poverty rate in the nation. Who exactly should Alabama tax? CA can afford those services that you are bemoaning Alabama as "leeching" because the Feds force it?

    You are conflating two things when you start talking about state tax contributions vs individual tax burdens. You are taking an average and forcing an individual to pay more because of an average. That isn't a good recipe for fair tax codes. If it was, then it is perfectly acceptable to have Amazon pay nothing. You are saying that someone in Alabama making the same as someone in CA should pay more because Alabama is poor and can't afford what CA affords. You're an ass hole.