Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pasbesoin 4213 days ago
When, in naval-gazing films and TV, an entertainer character insists on x % of "gross" revenue, this is why.

There've been many articles and posts cited on HN that go into the tortured, and very profitable, machinations of entertainment industry financing and accounting.

Some argue towards making such finance, e.g. taxes, simple to the point where it can't be gamed. The tradeoff is that finance is used as much if not more so than overt legislation, to steer policy, investment, and ultimately -- imperfect as they are -- outcomes.

I'm not saying simplification is wrong. But keeping your system intact while you do it, is... well, not as simple as it might seem.

But there is a lot of potential benefit. How much further would clean(er) energy be, if we weren't propping up carbon fuels to the tune of billions in subsidies every year (including a substantial part of e.g. the U.S. military budget)? Would the Mid-East be quite such a mess, if no one was continually pouring money into its weapons systems and dictatorships?

Anyhoo, I typed way more than I intended.

When an outfit is doing fantastically well, to all appearances, yet the profit is missing, then start looking at / going after the gross. They have to pay their way, just like everyone else. Perhaps all the more so, the more they insist upon being a "corporate person" with "personal" rights (e.g. speech, et al.).

----

P.S. As an actual person, with a few policy-minded exemptions aside, I am taxed on my gross income. Not my net. (E.g. I don't get to deduct my groceries, nor my auto insurance, nor...) (Although, state sales tax in the U.S. does vary by state and is often, when lowered, meant to lessen the regressive nature of said tax for low income earners with respect to essential goods -- you gotta eat.)

Home owners get to deduct mortgage interest, while renters get no such break even though a significant chunk of their rent may effectively be paying the interest on the landlord's mortgage for the property. Pushing home ownership in the U.S. as a policy that apparently veered into the extreme, providing lots of marginal loans as raw inputs into the financial machinations that propelled the 2008 Great Recession.

Anyway... I'm taxed against my gross income. There's no magic rule that says businesses can only be taxed against their net. It's all policy -- not natural law. And when they game the system beyond all measure, they should expect that, sooner or later, policy will be changed.

The problem is in good part that, if they can make it later enough, they become another "too big". They've captured their regulation.

1 comments

You are taxed on your net (Adjusted Gross Income, minus deductions). That's what deductions and exemptiona are for.
I get to deduct a select subset of expenses. And if I try to claim I am living from year to year with a negative net, the IRS is going to want to know how this is possible -- in detail.

At one point, I personally rolled up the annual corporate net profit for over a billion U.S. dollars of gross revenue. It came out to (for various reasons I won't go into, here) circa 4 million. That's a much larger percentage of expense than I get to deduct in my personal life.

I realize this is a simplistic example. But when things start to get this extreme, we need to take a look at who is paying the taxes that benefit whom? Is this anywhere close to in balance and each "entity" paying their own way?

Paying their own way not just on principle, but because if they aren't, they may have a distorted and "inefficient" (I might chose the word "destructive") business model.

Should we in the U.S. really have to e.g. provide food stamps and other benefits out of tax revenue -- which has increasingly shifted to come primarily from individuals rather than businesses -- to Wal-Mart employees?

And many of the investment entities and their management that benefit in outsized measure from such... subsidization, are ostensibly paying a 15% rate -- before they whittle this down even further.

It's harder to compete with the "big boys", when you are facing an entirely different cost structure. Not just economies of scale, but finance and policy of scale.