[mhaymo]

There are legitimate reasons for a valuable company to make little to no profits. Namely re-investment in growth. Your proposal would make it impossible for businesses to spend todays profits on growth for tomorrow, and would thereby dramatically slow economic growth.

[iguy]

Yes. The whole idea of describing the tax on profits as an involving "declared taxable income" is misleading.

Few workers work without a salary, but plenty of companies run without profit... because they are re-investing and growing, or because they are slowly shrinking and dying. Lots of tax can still be collected (on money going out as salaries, and through VAT on money coming in) and their existence can still be useful (making stuff we need, and employing people) even if the books exactly balance at the end of the year.

[harry8]

This is actually incorrect. Investment is not tax deductable. Invest all your salary in an S&P500 index fund as a tax deduction?

Business expenses are tax deductable. Investment is not.

Yes I'm completely aware that this is one of Amazon's stated defences for tax dodging. Tax dodging is their core competency. I hate that.

[mhaymo]

No you're incorrect, and drawing a false distinction between spending company money on growth instead of profits, and other business expenses. There is no distinction for tax purposes, nor should there be.

[harry8]

If you buy assets you can claim the depreciation on them as a tax deductable expense.

If investment was tax deductable no company would pay tax ever. Simply invest all profits in an s&p500 index fund and pay no tax.

There is a distinction between business expenses and investment. There is one for tax purposes. It is abused roundly in tax dodges.

This conversations will now go nowhere. If you care about understanding it you've got some research to do to convince yourself, I will be unable to do so.