[jerf]

"I have rent and bills to pay regardless of whether I'm making money, that is the definition of making a loss."

That is not a loss. That is an exchange of value; you pay $100 for your heating bill and receive $100 of heating.

A loss is when you have some value, and it disappears, and you have no compensating value. Buying a stock at $100 and selling it at $50 is a transaction in which you have less money at the end than you had at the beginning, and where you also had no compensating value exchange

Normal taxpayers do have rights to do things like carry forward losses in many circumstances. Business do get to be not taxed on expenses, but there are conditions on that. You can tell there are conditions on that because you can't just form an LLC and declare all your expenses to be losses, because you won't meet the conditions for your expenses to be losses. Note that that is the source of the problem, "form an LLC" is something you can totally do very easily, it's the failure for your personal expenses to qualify that is the problem.

While it might be emotionally satisfying to tax businesses on expenses, it's not hard to think about it a bit and realize why letting taxpayers deduct all their expenses, or trying to tax businesses on their expenses even when they didn't make a profit, are both not great ideas. (Think about the incentives created. Taxpayers don't need any more incentives to spend all their money on "expenses" as it is, if you've seen the credit card debt statistics.)

[chii]

A company paying a cost of $50 to produce widgets for 1 year (and don't sell any that year), then selling all the widgets on the 2nd year for a profit of $100, can claim that they made a loss of $50 in the previous year, and therefore only have $50 that's taxable.

A person who works for 1 year for $100 income, then stops working the 2nd year (and live off their income from the 1st year), must pay their taxes at the $100 rate. If they are allowed the same 'carry forward' as a corp, they should pay at the tax rate of $50 for both years, rather than at $100 for the first year, and $0 at the 2nd year. And yet, this isn't allowed for a person. Of course, you could claim that the gov't can't tell that the first $100 is supposed to be 'averaged out' in the future. So would the situation be any different if you lived off savings for the first year, and replenished them in the 2nd year? I don't think this is any different.

[cascom]

Sorry that is not how it works - basic tenets of accounting (matching revenues and costs) those widgets would sit on the balance sheet and no loss would be recognized in year 1 and just profit in year 2

[will_brown]

>those widgets would sit on the balance sheet and no loss would be recognized in year 1 and just profit in year 2

Unless of course the company manufacturing the widgets (A) sells them to a wholly owned subsidiary (B) for a loss...then A can take the deduction.

[cascom]

Who would then make an even bigger profit, for no tax savings

[will_brown]

you do know that this is a well known tax avoidance strategy right? The profits would be later used to offset the losses carried forward by the parent.

Are you an accountant/CPA or attorney?

[cascom]

Perhaps you could pencil out this well known tax avoidance strategy (unless you are really talking about time value of money, jurisdictional arbitrage, or some dodgy maneuver that wouldn’t stand up to an audit)

[phkahler]

Paying wages and by extension R&D is nothing more than business expenses. It's hard to see why that qualifies as losses that can be used to offset future earnings. I'm sure there is an "explanation", but that is ultimately what people are upset about. It has lead to where they are today and to many people that doesn't sit well.

[jerf]

I am a believer in being upset about the right things. "Expenditures" are not automatically "losses". There are things that may be upsetting about how businesses are taxed, but there mere fact that they are taxed differently than people, or that it subjectively feels unfair that they are, is not one of them. There are reasons for that variance in taxing. Many of them are quite good and ultimately play to the benefit of both the employees of that business (who like having a functioning business around to pay them) and society (who like not just the taxes that come from the business, but all taxable activity it generates, including paying people incomes and health insurance and such).

If most people feeling their way through this problem got their way, they'd simply destroy businesses entirely. They wouldn't necessarily mean to, and only a handful of people would actually appreciate that as a result, with even fewer of those would appreciate it after ten years of experiencing it, but it would be the result.

This is a thing that has happened, and can be studied in history, and is actually happening in the world right now; countries have destroyed their entire business base for good, feel-worthy reasons. Generally speaking, most people have not liked the results. It is not a thing that is beyond the pale, or impossible to happen, or can't happen here, so it's worth encouraging people to be more careful than just feeling.

(This is more opinion than the above, but I don't really believe in the existence of "businesses that aren't taxed", because the business is non-trivially responsible for all of the income tax their employees generate, and directly pay Social Security, health care taxes, sales tax on all the things they buy, and so on. It isn't really the case that there are companies that reach the end of their fiscal year and not a single dollar was "paid in taxes". All it is is that they aren't necessarily paying income taxes, one particular tax, in a field full of lots and lots of taxes. The idea that "companies aren't being taxed" is a lot of rhetoric, which isn't intrinsically a problem, but it can be very misleading and lead to emotions not well-calibrated with reality. By this standard, there's actually a lot of Americans who "don't pay taxes" too, which really makes it all seem a great deal less unfair, and even pay negative taxes, but they still pay various taxes even so, because income is only one taxation element.)