I'm actually iiving in New York and everyone I know was concerned with how Amazon's workers and shopping would add to transit times. Also, the financial benefit would need 10 years to be repaid, because it was 25,000 jobs over 10 years. And Amazon is, apparently, not great to work for. They don't Air Condition their warehouses, and workers sometimes literally pass out from the heat in the summer. That sounds more like a literal sweatshop than a job.
The "average" salary?? Because the average salary would include a handful of people making millions a year. I'm interested in what the median salary is, but CNBC (which is basically a 24/7 infomercial for Wall Street) goes out of their way not to mention that.
I, too, saw that 'average' and instantly became suspicious. There's a reason national home sale prices are 'median' and not 'average'. Outliers (which are always going to be high outliers for physical things like income and home values because of the zero bound on the low end) skew averages.
As for AOC getting a pass, from whom?? She is excoriated constantly in both the right-wing and mainstream media as being radical. It happens on a daily basis. Ben Shapiro, from what I can tell, seems to tweet about her about every half-hour. The only reason she gets a "pass" is that she knows how to stand up for herself and doesn't run and hide in the corner every time she gets criticized like nearly every Democrat has done up to this point for 30 years. There are viral narratives floating around about her that she has been evicted multiple times and has a credit score in the 400s that are completely false. I believe there was also a fake nude photo. The idea that she is getting a pass is absurd. In relative terms to her actual position, which is a single freshman Congresswoman, she is probably receiving more scrutiny than any other member of the House, including Pelosi herself.
I'll also point out, that despite being worth almost a TRILLION dollars ($800 billion), Amazon, as a company, paid NO federal taxes for the second year in a row. None. In fact, they got a refund of $129 million. So, as Bernie astutely pointed out, a single person's monthly Prime membership is more than Amazon contributed in federal taxes in the last two years.
I'm not so sure about this. This is a bit of hyperbole.
Cash taxes paid (net of refunds) were $412 million, $957 million,and $1.2 billion for 2016, 2017,and 2018. As of December 31, 2018, our federal net operating loss carryforward was approximately $627 million and we had approximately $1.4 billion of federal tax credits potentially available to offset future tax liabilities. Our federal tax credits are primarily related to the U.S. federal research and development credit. As we utilize our federal net operating losses and tax credits we expect cash paid for taxes to increase.
While that may or may not be FEDERAL tax, they're paying taxes to somebody.
That $1.2 billion seems small, let me explain.
A company's market capitalization (how much all its public available shares are worth), its actual equity (how much the company got for all its shares it personally sold), and its assets (net worth), and its net operating income are 4 very different critters.
Amazon is basically $800B market capitalization, $43.5B equity, $162.6B net assets, and only $11.3B in total consolidated income pre-tax, with a net income post-tax of just over $10B.
Don't get me wrong, $1.2 billion is roughly just a 10% effective tax rate.
Market capitalization is inflated because the shares that Amazon sold have been sold and resold for higher and higher value, because Amazon is seen as a good stock to own.
If Amazon sold me a single stock share for $5, and I sold it for $10, to someone who sold it for $50, and now it's worth $100, Amazon still only got $5 for that share. The other $95 went to someone else.
Edit-Ok, found Amazon's tax provisions in their F/S. Page 62.
For 2018, current income tax is -$129M federal, $322M state, $563M international, total of $756M. When you add in the deferred taxes, which is $565M federal, $5M state, and -$129M international, it comes out to $1,197M, yielding the $1.2B provision for net income tax on the Income Statement.
Edit2-Also, their net sales was $232.9B. Total operating expenses (almost all COGS and fulfillment, of course) was $220.5B. Net sales is another metric by which to determine the size of a company.
As an aside, I would never buy Amazon stock. True, I don't see the company going under anytime soon.
But as I pointed out, their market capitalization is grossly high compared to the actual stock and assets of the company, and they don't pay dividends, the word barely even appears in their F/S (and that only in the legalese regarding restricted stock).
Hell, they can't AFFORD to do dividends of any reasonable amount relative to the stock price. 10 billion against 800 billion is a pittance.
So the only way to "profit" from the stock, that I can see, is to sell it at an even higher price than you bought it for. Maybe I'm missing something, I'm no financial advisor and I've only had 1 finance class and a boatload of accounting, but I'd rather have something a little more sane and that gave dividends.
Amazon is basically $800B market capitalization, $43.5B equity, $162.6B net assets, and only $11.3B in total consolidated income pre-tax, with a net income post-tax of just over $10B.
Edit2-Also, their net sales was $232.9B. Total operating expenses (almost all COGS and fulfillment, of course) was $220.5B. Net sales is another metric by which to determine the size of a company.
Triple post:
Compare to Microsoft (I know, different industries, not DIRECTLY comparable).
Microsoft is slightly higher at $830B market capitalization, but has $83B in equity, $259B in net assets, and $36.4B in pre-tax income, with a post-tax income of $16.6B. They got hammered by some of the TCJA regarding one-time taxing of foreign income, giving an effective tax rate of 55%.
MS total gross revenue (sales) is $110B, with cost of revenue of $38B.
So, Microsoft is only slightly larger in market capitalization, but is a MUCH bigger company physically. But doesn't sell as much product because Amazon has more than twice the sales revenue.
Still a lot of market inflation of stock (always going to happen, because of secondary sales of stock), but it's only roughly 10-1 instead of 20-1, and MS gives dividends (not much, about $1/share, but their stock is only ~$108/share, not $1600/share and no dividends).
3) Pressure from the increased population. The study suggests that population will increase by an average of 69,000 due to the attraction of the larger economy. In addition a significant percentage of the average 28,000 extra direct jobs are likely to go to out of state applicants - so the total increase in state population (including families of direct employees) is likely to be over 100,000. The costs of that in terms of infrastructure requirements, waste collection, policing, education etc will be considerable:
- existing New York state budget = $176 billion
- existing population = 20 million
Pro-rata, that cost for an extra 100,000 would be $880 million per year, which would be far more than the projected net benefits. In fact the additional costs would certainly be far less than that due to marginal vs average effects and the lower costs associated with high income earners, but I think they would still be considerable.
Taking account of some lower level potential replacement for Amazon and the additional costs associated with the development, I continue to believe the view I expressed before was correct, i.e. that providing these incentives would not make economic sense even if you're just looking at the impact on the state budget of New York alone.
Assuming the individuals entering the state are proportional tax burdens this analysis is spot on even when accounting for the projected income taxes, sales taxes and all. But, I don't know how valid that assumption is.
I don't know how much I agree that it should be compared to an unknown other entity however, unless there was someone else competing for the same site or something which as far as I know isn't the case so any other business wouldn't be mutually exclusive.
Cash taxes paid (net of refunds) were $412 million, $957 million,and $1.2 billion for 2016, 2017,and 2018. As of December 31, 2018, our federal net operating loss carryforward was approximately $627 million and we had approximately $1.4 billion of federal tax credits potentially available to offset future tax liabilities. Our federal tax credits are primarily related to the U.S. federal research and development credit. As we utilize our federal net operating losses and tax credits we expect cash paid for taxes to increase.
I had a quick look at this to see why they were paying no federal taxes. I got a bit hung up on the figures for deferred tax as the movement in the deferred tax provision during 2018 was $347m (page 64), but the charge to income was $441m (page 62). I don't understand why those are not the same, but perhaps it's just too early in the morning for me.
However, the main point is that there is a reconciliation on page 63 between the amount of tax expected on profits and the actual tax charge in the accounts. For 2018 the expected charge (at the current federal rate of 21%) is $2.4bn, but the actual charge is $1.2bn. The main reason for that is something called stock-based compensation.
I looked up what that is and it works as follows:
- a company can offer stock options to employees as an alternative to salary.
- those options are exercisable at an agreed price. If the company share price has moved up between the time the option was offered and the time it was exercised the employee gets more benefit than they were originally expecting. That benefit is taxed as income on the employee.
- the company is able to claim the amount of income charged to employees as deductions in their accounts (there are detailed provisions that may limit those deductions, but I didn't look into those).
This tax treatment seems odd to me. I guess the original logic behind it was to avoid a double tax charge for both the individuals and company on the same income, but the way it's been implemented seems to avoid any tax charge:
- the fair cost to the company of a stock option is the value at the time the option is created (anyone could potentially buy an option commercially at that rate - if we ignore margins and dealing costs).
- the benefit to the individual of the option is the value at the time it is exercised (they can sell the shares at the current rate - if we ignore margins and dealing costs and any anti-avoidance rules about the length of time shares have to be held).
- there's clearly therefore a benefit to someone in the situation where a company's share price has been rising. That benefit is being charged to individuals' personal taxes - which seems perfectly reasonable.
- however, we've now identified a benefit and charged that to taxes. Why then is the company allowed to offset that against their own taxable income, so that (ignoring the difference between corporate and personal income tax rates) there is no net income being charged to tax at all?
It may be that someone thought this was a good idea in order to encourage companies to offer share options rather than paying cash salaries - the argument goes that giving employees a stake in the company will improve their economic performance. If that's the logic though, it seems an extremely expensive way to try and get such an improvement. I suspect the underlying reality had more to do with large companies exercising influence on tax legislation through contributions made to representatives.
I also considered posting about international transfer pricing and the way in which multi-national companies target their profits on low-tax jurisdictions. I think I'll let someone else take up that conversation though if there's interest in it.
Also nothing screams national emergency more than admitting you didn't need to do it and then going to your hotel resort for a weekend of golfing fun and eating omelettes.
He once again seems to be suggesting this morning that Saturday Night Live shouldn't be allowed to make fun of him without an investigation taking place into NBC. This is the 3rd or 4th time he has said this. And more Stalinist rhetoric about the media, in all caps this time.
Supposedly Bernie will be announcing soon. He'd get my vote.
I kind of wish he wouldnt. I like a lot of what he stands for, but most of that has been moved to become acceptable to the rest of the party. I like him more than several members in the field (Gabbard, Warren, Delany, etc) - but he's old. More likely to be a 1 term president than anyone else except for maybe Biden. Dont get me wrong - I'd vote for him over Trump in a heart beat.
I also have some animus for parts of his base after 2016... which is probably unfair to put on the candidate himself.
According to Councilwoman Jo Ann Hardesty, texts show collusion between the police and alt-right activists. Lt. Jeff Niiya and Far right protest leader, Joey Gibson, have been texting each other. (This happened in Oregon)
And a new game has come into Alpha status. It is called "Jesus Strikes Back: Judgement Day", where the player can take on the Avatar of Jesus or some other leader (Including Trump, Hitler, Putin, Hugo Chavez, Benito Mussolini, Jair Bolsonaro or others) and kill SJW's, Antifa, feminists, "The Rainbow Reich", illegal aliens, actual terrorists, doctors (?!), socialists, and the final boss: RFNBGFPHB… the radical non-binary gender fluid pansexual humanoid berserker. Gay 3 times over, which I suppose makes him really worth killing.
Sigh. Now, the game's creators say it's a parody. But... why Doctors? That, I just don't get. Also, Parody? I think not. All the "Heroes" are right wing (or aligned that way) and all the targets are left wing. My guess is that Doctors can perform abortion, so that's why they are on the list. Still, again, I say "Really?"
Trump's base is going after Chris Wallace on FOX news after he did a really hard-hitting interview with Rush Limbaugh and Steven Miller. I believe one of the Epithets used was "Arrogant Jew!" This meant that he made both of them answer actual questions. :P He met Miller with statistics refuting the need for a border wall to combat drugs, and he suggested that Limbaugh was a hypocrite for supporting President Donald Trump’s use of executive power to thwart the will of Congress.
Andrew Gilum was probed by The FBI when Ron DeSantis accused him of being a corrupt politician. He was completely cleared. Vogue Brazil, like the Republican Party so long ago had a "Slavery Party". Donata Meirelles stepped down after pictures from her 50th birthday party and dinner were heavily criticized for its colonial references to slavery. The picture in question, which has since been deleted, was posted on Instagram showing Meirelles at her party in northeast Brazil sitting on a chair flanked by black women. The clothes looked like uniforms worn by slaves and the chair looked similar to wicker chairs used by slave masters. In a statement to CNN, Condé Nast, the parent company of Vogue Brazil, confirmed that Meirelles had resigned. Further, her position as style director “will be extinguished, since it has been designed specifically to her.” Isn't it lovely, that this woman had a position designed especially for her, and she decided to run a party based around slave images?
Trump's DHS director decided to gut the task force protecting US elections from being hacked by outside entities. :P While signs point to the Democrat being eager to Impeach the Trumpster Fire and his henchmen.
In a move that really made me laugh, CBS cut off Trump's "National Emergency" speech 21 minutes or so in to Broadcast "The Price is Right" instead. Which just goes to show, "The Price is Right" is srs Bzns, yo.
And in more local news, three teachers have been taken off the job after displaying nooses labeled "Back to School Necklaces". in their classrooms. This happened at a middle school in Long Island, NY. The classroom had mostly black and hispanicstudents and also displayed the words "Ha Ha" and #Yes.
And Jason Chaffetz, former GOP lawmaker, went on Fox news to cheer about the death of a 7 year old girl who died in the custody of Border Patrol, because, in his own words, "It sends the right message". Seriously? This man is a sick (expletive Deleted) to cheer the death of a seven year old girl.
At 16 years old, Australian explorer Jade Hameister is the youngest person to ever complete the polar hat-trick by reaching the North and South Poles and crossing Greenland, but even she has to deal with loudmouth critics who have opined that her place is in the kitchen. In 2016, after the then-14-year-old become the youngest person to ski to the North Pole from outside the last degree of latitude (a distance of about 60 miles), she gave a TEDx talk in Melbourne in which she encouraged young women to embrace an adventurous mindset, and to resist societal pressures that discourage them from their ambitions. Male YouTube commenters took offense to Hameister’s message, as users flooded the page with the phrase, “Make me a sandwich,” an internet meme that mocks women for having ambitions aside from making food for a man. She responded, "I skiied back to the pole again... to take a photo for all the men who responded, "Make me a sandwich." to my TEDX talk. I made you a sandwich (ham and cheese). Now ski 37 days and 600 KM to the South Pole and you can eat it."
And a reprt has come out revealing that the Feds have Lost, yes, Lost, 1475 children. How can we in the US allow this? This is horrendous. And Trump's wall threatens 93 Endangered Species.
Supposedly Bernie will be announcing soon. He'd get my vote.
I kind of wish he wouldnt. I like a lot of what he stands for, but most of that has been moved to become acceptable to the rest of the party. I like him more than several members in the field (Gabbard, Warren, Delany, etc) - but he's old. More likely to be a 1 term president than anyone else except for maybe Biden. Dont get me wrong - I'd vote for him over Trump in a heart beat.
I also have some animus for parts of his base after 2016... which is probably unfair to put on the candidate himself.
Newer faces for new coalition.
I think a lot, not all of course, of the animus from parts of his base were probably Russian bots. I don't care if he's only a one term president he's right on pretty much every issue from wars to healthcare. He started the whole Medicare for all thing that a lot of other candidates only half heartedly pretend like they endorse. He's 5 years older than Trump. I suppose he's pretty old.
Other than him I guess I like Gabbard, Warren, and throw one that zeke says the media picked I guess. I don't know anything about klobachar. Not excited about Booker.
I think a lot, not all of course, of the animus from parts of his base were probably Russian bots. I don't care if he's only a one term president he's right on pretty much every issue from wars to healthcare. He started the whole Medicare for all thing that a lot of other candidates only half heartedly pretend like they endorse. He's 5 years older than Trump. I suppose he's pretty old.
Other than him I guess I like Gabbard, Warren, and throw one that zeke says the media picked I guess. I don't know anything about klobachar. Not excited about Booker.
It's a fair point - I dont exactly know who is a Russian bot and who isnt. I'm not reasonably going to assume they all were, though. Since the start of the 2020 election primary cycle, I feel like I'm starting to see the same kind of messages coming from that base, trying to torpedo as many candidates on the left as possible who arent Sanders or Warren. I dont want a repeat of 2016.
In other news - Looks like 7 Labour MPs broke off from the Labour party. They're going to caucus(Dont know if that's the correct term in Parliamentary politics?) as independents. It seem (from my less than full internet sleuthing) that these MPs were all very centrist, and had felt that Labour had gone too far left.
Out of curiosity, @Grond0 - do you know if something like this is common or uncommon? That is, MPs splitting off to become "independent"? - Especially from the opposition party?
Oh come the hell on. His SON-IN-LAW is now basically a member of Trump's legal team and he controls the investigation?? In what solar system is this considered acceptable??
@BallpointMan I would say it's very unusual in national UK politics (a bit less so in local government). Individuals changing party (including to independent) happens every now and then, but for a group (even a small group) to do so is very rare. I can't remember that happening since the SDP split from Labour in the early 1980s.
The reasons for the split now are pretty similar to the situation with the SDP - concerns over a movement to the left by Labour and a lack of tolerance of difference within the party. That lack of tolerance comes from both the top and the bottom:
- the main reason why Corbyn was elected leader in the first place (against the expectations and wishes of the vast majority of Labour MPs) was grassroots activism. For quite a few years now left wing elements in the party have been systematically capturing local party mechanisms, gradually acquiring more influence over party decisions. Now that they have that local control there's been quite a lot of friction with sitting MPs, where the MPs don't share the left wing agenda.
- Corbyn himself has showed a distinct desire to control the debate within the party. That perhaps shouldn't be seen as unusual as parties that argue among themselves tend to perform badly electorally. However, it's certainly a bit ironic given that Corbyn was for so many years one of the biggest rebels in the Labour party and would never have dreamed of supporting anything he didn't agree with just to toe the party line ...
I suspect the reason they haven't formed a new party is that they have been unable to find enough support to make that credible, although they felt they couldn't remain within Labour any longer. I'm sure the hope is that they will attract more people - both from Labour and other parties - to allow a real centrist party to emerge. At this stage I'm not too optimistic about that happening, but we'll see.
Here's the statement of values they've issued. It's all pretty bland - I agree with everything they've said, but I don't think it's going to raise too much excitement. One interesting point I did note is specific support for strengthening "multilateral, international rules-based order" as a way of addressing challenges of globalisation, migration and technological advances. I'm pleased to see that there, as it's not a particularly popular point of view at the moment, but I think it is a necessary one. The reality is that there are no countries in the world today that can exist without considering the wider world - and there are no countries that are powerful enough to dictate their views on the world to other countries. If it's accepted that agreements are necessary on travel, trade, migration, climate change, health issues, security etc then you either need a multilateral framework to manage those or you try and negotiate everything independently with everyone. Obviously Trump believes the latter approach is preferable, but that doesn't lead me to believe it's any more realistic to attempt it .
Oh come the hell on. His SON-IN-LAW is now basically a member of Trump's legal team and he controls the investigation?? In what solar system is this considered acceptable??
Anyone else facepalmed when they read Japan's Prime Minister nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Price at the behest of the White House?
...
i.dOn'T.eVEn...
Trumps embarrassing need to be liked only gets more cringeworthy as time goes on especially as he continually turns out to be a toothless dope who gets played by Congress at every turn.
That being said, has anyone ever come up with a legitimate reason Obama was granted one when first entering office?
@BallpointMan I would say it's very unusual in national UK politics (a bit less so in local government). Individuals changing party (including to independent) happens every now and then, but for a group (even a small group) to do so is very rare. I can't remember that happening since the SDP split from Labour in the early 1980s.
How damaging is this to Labour's chances to form a government in the future? I assume it significantly reduces the likelihood of getting a majority in Parliament - are the expectations that these independents would not be likely to help Labour form a government in the future?
I guess I'm trying to understand the ramifications for Labour moving forward
Anyone else facepalmed when they read Japan's Prime Minister nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Price at the behest of the White House?
...
i.dOn'T.eVEn...
Trumps embarrassing need to be liked only gets more cringeworthy as time goes on especially as he continually turns out to be a toothless dope who gets played by Congress at every turn.
That being said, has anyone ever come up with a legitimate reason Obama was granted one when first entering office?
No, because he didn't deserve it. The difference of course being that he most certainly did not ASK to be nominated. If reporting at the time is to be believed, he was legitimately startled when he got the news and didn't even want to go to Oslo to accept. Obama himself knew it wasn't warranted and was more of a PR headache than it was worth by ten-fold.
Anyone else facepalmed when they read Japan's Prime Minister nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Price at the behest of the White House?
...
i.dOn'T.eVEn...
Trumps embarrassing need to be liked only gets more cringeworthy as time goes on especially as he continually turns out to be a toothless dope who gets played by Congress at every turn.
That being said, has anyone ever come up with a legitimate reason Obama was granted one when first entering office?
Not even Obama could figure out why he'd gotten the prize. The best anyone could come up with, was "he's not Dubya". I wonder what the "(s)he's not Trump" prize will be.
One interesting point I did note is specific support for strengthening "multilateral, international rules-based order" as a way of addressing challenges of globalisation, migration and technological advances.
This isn't related to the general point of your post but it was interesting enough to be worth addressing. I think this is ideal in theory, but so far it hasn't worked on the ground. The problem with international rules currently is that the places where they most need to be applied are the places where they are enforced the least. International rules don't do much if anything to stop massive i.p theft or human rights abuses, and there is little to no current effective mechanism to enforce them on sufficiently powerful, volatile, or influential nations. Then there remains the question of how much enforcement mechanisms do more harm than good such as when sanctions on North Korea led to food shortages that starved off large portions of the population.
It's a complicated situation that I think only will be smoothed out, in part, over time.
Anyone else facepalmed when they read Japan's Prime Minister nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Price at the behest of the White House?
...
i.dOn'T.eVEn...
Trumps embarrassing need to be liked only gets more cringeworthy as time goes on especially as he continually turns out to be a toothless dope who gets played by Congress at every turn.
That being said, has anyone ever come up with a legitimate reason Obama was granted one when first entering office?
Not even Obama could figure out why he'd gotten the prize. The best anyone could come up with, was "he's not Dubya". I wonder what the "(s)he's not Trump" prize will be.
It was absolutely by virtue of being the man who followed Bush. People seem to have forgotten just how despised we were internationally because of Iraq.
Anyone else facepalmed when they read Japan's Prime Minister nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Price at the behest of the White House?
...
i.dOn'T.eVEn...
Trump realized, after he tried nominating himself last year. So he probably wrote up another nomination letter, said Abe sign this or I am going to apply tariffs to Sushi and everything Hello Kitty. And knowing Trump isn’t going to win regardless just played along but won’t admit to it.
Roger Stone seems to think that complying with a court-ordered gag order means you can not so casually insinuate that the judge presiding over your case should be assassinated:
North Carolina officials have reported that they are investigating an act of election fraud in which a political operative attempted to manipulate absentee ballots to benefit Mark Harris.
Kim Strach, the board’s executive director, and witnesses said that the operation involved forging signatures, completing ballots and mailing them from post offices near the voter’s home, and may have involved more than 1,000 absentee ballots or request forms.
Mr. Harris has a 905-vote lead over his Democratic rival, Dan McCready.
We don't yet know what role, if any, Harris himself or other figures played in this event.
Comments
I, too, saw that 'average' and instantly became suspicious. There's a reason national home sale prices are 'median' and not 'average'. Outliers (which are always going to be high outliers for physical things like income and home values because of the zero bound on the low end) skew averages.
I'm not so sure about this. This is a bit of hyperbole.
From Amazon's FY 2018 filing, p27:
While that may or may not be FEDERAL tax, they're paying taxes to somebody.
That $1.2 billion seems small, let me explain.
A company's market capitalization (how much all its public available shares are worth), its actual equity (how much the company got for all its shares it personally sold), and its assets (net worth), and its net operating income are 4 very different critters.
Amazon is basically $800B market capitalization, $43.5B equity, $162.6B net assets, and only $11.3B in total consolidated income pre-tax, with a net income post-tax of just over $10B.
Don't get me wrong, $1.2 billion is roughly just a 10% effective tax rate.
Market capitalization is inflated because the shares that Amazon sold have been sold and resold for higher and higher value, because Amazon is seen as a good stock to own.
If Amazon sold me a single stock share for $5, and I sold it for $10, to someone who sold it for $50, and now it's worth $100, Amazon still only got $5 for that share. The other $95 went to someone else.
Edit-Ok, found Amazon's tax provisions in their F/S. Page 62.
For 2018, current income tax is -$129M federal, $322M state, $563M international, total of $756M. When you add in the deferred taxes, which is $565M federal, $5M state, and -$129M international, it comes out to $1,197M, yielding the $1.2B provision for net income tax on the Income Statement.
Edit2-Also, their net sales was $232.9B. Total operating expenses (almost all COGS and fulfillment, of course) was $220.5B. Net sales is another metric by which to determine the size of a company.
Main audited financials start page 36.
But as I pointed out, their market capitalization is grossly high compared to the actual stock and assets of the company, and they don't pay dividends, the word barely even appears in their F/S (and that only in the legalese regarding restricted stock).
Hell, they can't AFFORD to do dividends of any reasonable amount relative to the stock price. 10 billion against 800 billion is a pittance.
So the only way to "profit" from the stock, that I can see, is to sell it at an even higher price than you bought it for. Maybe I'm missing something, I'm no financial advisor and I've only had 1 finance class and a boatload of accounting, but I'd rather have something a little more sane and that gave dividends.
Triple post:
Compare to Microsoft (I know, different industries, not DIRECTLY comparable).
Microsoft is slightly higher at $830B market capitalization, but has $83B in equity, $259B in net assets, and $36.4B in pre-tax income, with a post-tax income of $16.6B. They got hammered by some of the TCJA regarding one-time taxing of foreign income, giving an effective tax rate of 55%.
MS total gross revenue (sales) is $110B, with cost of revenue of $38B.
So, Microsoft is only slightly larger in market capitalization, but is a MUCH bigger company physically. But doesn't sell as much product because Amazon has more than twice the sales revenue.
Still a lot of market inflation of stock (always going to happen, because of secondary sales of stock), but it's only roughly 10-1 instead of 20-1, and MS gives dividends (not much, about $1/share, but their stock is only ~$108/share, not $1600/share and no dividends).
Assuming the individuals entering the state are proportional tax burdens this analysis is spot on even when accounting for the projected income taxes, sales taxes and all. But, I don't know how valid that assumption is.
I don't know how much I agree that it should be compared to an unknown other entity however, unless there was someone else competing for the same site or something which as far as I know isn't the case so any other business wouldn't be mutually exclusive.
Good points by the way @Grond0.
I had a quick look at this to see why they were paying no federal taxes. I got a bit hung up on the figures for deferred tax as the movement in the deferred tax provision during 2018 was $347m (page 64), but the charge to income was $441m (page 62). I don't understand why those are not the same, but perhaps it's just too early in the morning for me.
However, the main point is that there is a reconciliation on page 63 between the amount of tax expected on profits and the actual tax charge in the accounts. For 2018 the expected charge (at the current federal rate of 21%) is $2.4bn, but the actual charge is $1.2bn. The main reason for that is something called stock-based compensation.
I looked up what that is and it works as follows:
- a company can offer stock options to employees as an alternative to salary.
- those options are exercisable at an agreed price. If the company share price has moved up between the time the option was offered and the time it was exercised the employee gets more benefit than they were originally expecting. That benefit is taxed as income on the employee.
- the company is able to claim the amount of income charged to employees as deductions in their accounts (there are detailed provisions that may limit those deductions, but I didn't look into those).
This tax treatment seems odd to me. I guess the original logic behind it was to avoid a double tax charge for both the individuals and company on the same income, but the way it's been implemented seems to avoid any tax charge:
- the fair cost to the company of a stock option is the value at the time the option is created (anyone could potentially buy an option commercially at that rate - if we ignore margins and dealing costs).
- the benefit to the individual of the option is the value at the time it is exercised (they can sell the shares at the current rate - if we ignore margins and dealing costs and any anti-avoidance rules about the length of time shares have to be held).
- there's clearly therefore a benefit to someone in the situation where a company's share price has been rising. That benefit is being charged to individuals' personal taxes - which seems perfectly reasonable.
- however, we've now identified a benefit and charged that to taxes. Why then is the company allowed to offset that against their own taxable income, so that (ignoring the difference between corporate and personal income tax rates) there is no net income being charged to tax at all?
It may be that someone thought this was a good idea in order to encourage companies to offer share options rather than paying cash salaries - the argument goes that giving employees a stake in the company will improve their economic performance. If that's the logic though, it seems an extremely expensive way to try and get such an improvement. I suspect the underlying reality had more to do with large companies exercising influence on tax legislation through contributions made to representatives.
I also considered posting about international transfer pricing and the way in which multi-national companies target their profits on low-tax jurisdictions. I think I'll let someone else take up that conversation though if there's interest in it.
Also nothing screams national emergency more than admitting you didn't need to do it and then going to your hotel resort for a weekend of golfing fun and eating omelettes.
I would support Tulsi if I had to choose, myself. She's consistently anti war and has said some good things about the influence of big tech companies.
I kind of wish he wouldnt. I like a lot of what he stands for, but most of that has been moved to become acceptable to the rest of the party. I like him more than several members in the field (Gabbard, Warren, Delany, etc) - but he's old. More likely to be a 1 term president than anyone else except for maybe Biden. Dont get me wrong - I'd vote for him over Trump in a heart beat.
I also have some animus for parts of his base after 2016... which is probably unfair to put on the candidate himself.
Newer faces for new coalition.
And a new game has come into Alpha status. It is called "Jesus Strikes Back: Judgement Day", where the player can take on the Avatar of Jesus or some other leader (Including Trump, Hitler, Putin, Hugo Chavez, Benito Mussolini, Jair Bolsonaro or others) and kill SJW's, Antifa, feminists, "The Rainbow Reich", illegal aliens, actual terrorists, doctors (?!), socialists, and the final boss: RFNBGFPHB… the radical non-binary gender fluid pansexual humanoid berserker. Gay 3 times over, which I suppose makes him really worth killing.
Sigh. Now, the game's creators say it's a parody. But... why Doctors? That, I just don't get. Also, Parody? I think not. All the "Heroes" are right wing (or aligned that way) and all the targets are left wing. My guess is that Doctors can perform abortion, so that's why they are on the list. Still, again, I say "Really?"
Trump's base is going after Chris Wallace on FOX news after he did a really hard-hitting interview with Rush Limbaugh and Steven Miller. I believe one of the Epithets used was "Arrogant Jew!" This meant that he made both of them answer actual questions. :P He met Miller with statistics refuting the need for a border wall to combat drugs, and he suggested that Limbaugh was a hypocrite for supporting President Donald Trump’s use of executive power to thwart the will of Congress.
Andrew Gilum was probed by The FBI when Ron DeSantis accused him of being a corrupt politician. He was completely cleared. Vogue Brazil, like the Republican Party so long ago had a "Slavery Party". Donata Meirelles stepped down after pictures from her 50th birthday party and dinner were heavily criticized for its colonial references to slavery. The picture in question, which has since been deleted, was posted on Instagram showing Meirelles at her party in northeast Brazil sitting on a chair flanked by black women. The clothes looked like uniforms worn by slaves and the chair looked similar to wicker chairs used by slave masters. In a statement to CNN, Condé Nast, the parent company of Vogue Brazil, confirmed that Meirelles had resigned. Further, her position as style director “will be extinguished, since it has been designed specifically to her.” Isn't it lovely, that this woman had a position designed especially for her, and she decided to run a party based around slave images?
Trump's DHS director decided to gut the task force protecting US elections from being hacked by outside entities. :P While signs point to the Democrat being eager to Impeach the Trumpster Fire and his henchmen.
In a move that really made me laugh, CBS cut off Trump's "National Emergency" speech 21 minutes or so in to Broadcast "The Price is Right" instead. Which just goes to show, "The Price is Right" is srs Bzns, yo.
And in more local news, three teachers have been taken off the job after displaying nooses labeled "Back to School Necklaces". in their classrooms.
And Jason Chaffetz, former GOP lawmaker, went on Fox news to cheer about the death of a 7 year old girl who died in the custody of Border Patrol, because, in his own words, "It sends the right message". Seriously? This man is a sick (expletive Deleted) to cheer the death of a seven year old girl.
At 16 years old, Australian explorer Jade Hameister is the youngest person to ever complete the polar hat-trick by reaching the North and South Poles and crossing Greenland, but even she has to deal with loudmouth critics who have opined that her place is in the kitchen. In 2016, after the then-14-year-old become the youngest person to ski to the North Pole from outside the last degree of latitude (a distance of about 60 miles), she gave a TEDx talk in Melbourne in which she encouraged young women to embrace an adventurous mindset, and to resist societal pressures that discourage them from their ambitions. Male YouTube commenters took offense to Hameister’s message, as users flooded the page with the phrase, “Make me a sandwich,” an internet meme that mocks women for having ambitions aside from making food for a man. She responded, "I skiied back to the pole again... to take a photo for all the men who responded, "Make me a sandwich." to my TEDX talk. I made you a sandwich (ham and cheese). Now ski 37 days and 600 KM to the South Pole and you can eat it."
And a reprt has come out revealing that the Feds have Lost, yes, Lost, 1475 children. How can we in the US allow this? This is horrendous. And Trump's wall threatens 93 Endangered Species.
I think a lot, not all of course, of the animus from parts of his base were probably Russian bots. I don't care if he's only a one term president he's right on pretty much every issue from wars to healthcare. He started the whole Medicare for all thing that a lot of other candidates only half heartedly pretend like they endorse. He's 5 years older than Trump. I suppose he's pretty old.
Other than him I guess I like Gabbard, Warren, and throw one that zeke says the media picked I guess. I don't know anything about klobachar. Not excited about Booker.
It's a fair point - I dont exactly know who is a Russian bot and who isnt. I'm not reasonably going to assume they all were, though. Since the start of the 2020 election primary cycle, I feel like I'm starting to see the same kind of messages coming from that base, trying to torpedo as many candidates on the left as possible who arent Sanders or Warren. I dont want a repeat of 2016.
In other news - Looks like 7 Labour MPs broke off from the Labour party. They're going to caucus(Dont know if that's the correct term in Parliamentary politics?) as independents. It seem (from my less than full internet sleuthing) that these MPs were all very centrist, and had felt that Labour had gone too far left.
Out of curiosity, @Grond0 - do you know if something like this is common or uncommon? That is, MPs splitting off to become "independent"? - Especially from the opposition party?
The reasons for the split now are pretty similar to the situation with the SDP - concerns over a movement to the left by Labour and a lack of tolerance of difference within the party. That lack of tolerance comes from both the top and the bottom:
- the main reason why Corbyn was elected leader in the first place (against the expectations and wishes of the vast majority of Labour MPs) was grassroots activism. For quite a few years now left wing elements in the party have been systematically capturing local party mechanisms, gradually acquiring more influence over party decisions. Now that they have that local control there's been quite a lot of friction with sitting MPs, where the MPs don't share the left wing agenda.
- Corbyn himself has showed a distinct desire to control the debate within the party. That perhaps shouldn't be seen as unusual as parties that argue among themselves tend to perform badly electorally. However, it's certainly a bit ironic given that Corbyn was for so many years one of the biggest rebels in the Labour party and would never have dreamed of supporting anything he didn't agree with just to toe the party line ...
I suspect the reason they haven't formed a new party is that they have been unable to find enough support to make that credible, although they felt they couldn't remain within Labour any longer. I'm sure the hope is that they will attract more people - both from Labour and other parties - to allow a real centrist party to emerge. At this stage I'm not too optimistic about that happening, but we'll see.
Here's the statement of values they've issued. It's all pretty bland - I agree with everything they've said, but I don't think it's going to raise too much excitement. One interesting point I did note is specific support for strengthening "multilateral, international rules-based order" as a way of addressing challenges of globalisation, migration and technological advances. I'm pleased to see that there, as it's not a particularly popular point of view at the moment, but I think it is a necessary one. The reality is that there are no countries in the world today that can exist without considering the wider world - and there are no countries that are powerful enough to dictate their views on the world to other countries. If it's accepted that agreements are necessary on travel, trade, migration, climate change, health issues, security etc then you either need a multilateral framework to manage those or you try and negotiate everything independently with everyone. Obviously Trump believes the latter approach is preferable, but that doesn't lead me to believe it's any more realistic to attempt it
In Conservative America, investigators run defense but only for conservative criminals.
...
i.dOn'T.eVEn...
Trumps embarrassing need to be liked only gets more cringeworthy as time goes on especially as he continually turns out to be a toothless dope who gets played by Congress at every turn.
That being said, has anyone ever come up with a legitimate reason Obama was granted one when first entering office?
How damaging is this to Labour's chances to form a government in the future? I assume it significantly reduces the likelihood of getting a majority in Parliament - are the expectations that these independents would not be likely to help Labour form a government in the future?
I guess I'm trying to understand the ramifications for Labour moving forward
No, because he didn't deserve it. The difference of course being that he most certainly did not ASK to be nominated. If reporting at the time is to be believed, he was legitimately startled when he got the news and didn't even want to go to Oslo to accept. Obama himself knew it wasn't warranted and was more of a PR headache than it was worth by ten-fold.
Not even Obama could figure out why he'd gotten the prize. The best anyone could come up with, was "he's not Dubya". I wonder what the "(s)he's not Trump" prize will be.
This isn't related to the general point of your post but it was interesting enough to be worth addressing. I think this is ideal in theory, but so far it hasn't worked on the ground. The problem with international rules currently is that the places where they most need to be applied are the places where they are enforced the least. International rules don't do much if anything to stop massive i.p theft or human rights abuses, and there is little to no current effective mechanism to enforce them on sufficiently powerful, volatile, or influential nations. Then there remains the question of how much enforcement mechanisms do more harm than good such as when sanctions on North Korea led to food shortages that starved off large portions of the population.
It's a complicated situation that I think only will be smoothed out, in part, over time.
It was absolutely by virtue of being the man who followed Bush. People seem to have forgotten just how despised we were internationally because of Iraq.
Trump realized, after he tried nominating himself last year. So he probably wrote up another nomination letter, said Abe sign this or I am going to apply tariffs to Sushi and everything Hello Kitty. And knowing Trump isn’t going to win regardless just played along but won’t admit to it.
We don't yet know what role, if any, Harris himself or other figures played in this event.