Take the 2-minute tour ×
Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who want to be financially literate. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is it true that in a business or an investment, we only pay tax if we make a profit? That is, if we make only a loss, there is no tax?

Why is this so? Because from what I understand, the tax is paid to the government because we are using the resources (roads, public libraries etc) built on government money. And we need to pay money to maintain these resources.

Now the man that makes a loss used these resources as much as the man that made a gain. So why does only one of them pay tax? Is the reason purely humanitarian?

share|improve this question
    
If we paid money on the basis of the resources we use, then instead of taxes, we should be charged per fireman visit, per police call or visit, per mile driven, per book checked out... And everyone would pay the same amount for a given service. This would be fairer in the sense that we'd pay for what we used, but it would also leave the poor paying a far greater proportion of their income for these services than the rich. –  Kyralessa May 4 '11 at 23:36
1  
Look at the bigger picture as well: even though that one man lost money, that money went somewhere to someone (suppliers, customers, etc.)...so when it went to that other person it was likely counted as income and therefore taxed. –  The Matt May 5 '11 at 0:19

5 Answers 5

up vote 5 down vote accepted

You mean to tell me that everyone doesn't pay his/her fair share?! Please say it isn't so. :)

Therein lies the welfare state: Tax the rich more heavily to subsidize the poor, and hobble the rich's ability to do so on their own accord.

In any case, though, in the United States, if you make any money whatsoever, that usually counts as income, and can hence be taxed. Here's the IRS' definition of gross income. Pretty all-inclusive, isn't it?

Businesses are allowed to deduct expenses to count against their income, but if one has more expenses than income year after year, (a) this is the road to financial ruin, and (b) the IRS puts an end to the tax losses after enough years of failing to show a profit.

So, sure, if a businessperson doesn't have any income, then they're technically using the roads, etc., "for free," but unless the businessperson wants to live off the land and the kindness of strangers, he'd better turn a profit eventually. Then he'll be taxed.

share|improve this answer
    
Are you even reading the question? It's about taxing businesses that make no profit. –  DJClayworth Nov 2 '11 at 13:50

There is more than one kind of tax. It is a little confusing because in reality the tax revenues collected by the Government aren't earmarked to a particular usage based on where they came from, usually. Well, the Gov't often CLAIMS they do, but for all practical matters it all goes in a big bucket. So just because a business or individual isn't paying income taxes doesn't mean they aren't paying anything for the use of Government furnished infrastructure/services.

You are limiting the scope of your question to Income Taxes, which are taxes paid on profits to a business or individual. It makes perfect sense that you wouldn't pay a tax on something you didn't get.

However, you aren't considering taxes that ARE being paid even by a company that isn't profitable. For example consumption taxes, employment taxes, and other fees. That same company paid sales tax on all the supplies it purchased, and probably collected/paid sales taxes on anything it sold. To take one of your examples, it paid for its share of using the roads through Government imposed taxes on fuel.

Don't worry about the Government. They know how to get theirs. They might not pull it from your right pocket, but they will make sure to get it from the left.

share|improve this answer

The business may not have paid any direct tax towards profit.
However it would have paid tons of indirect tax like Sales tax / Service tax on the goods / services rendered.
The raw material that he has purchased from vendors [leading to demand] would have been taxed. The salary he has paid [hence employees paying personal tax]

So essentially even from a loss making venture, the Govt has received enough tax money.

share|improve this answer

Not charging taxes on a money losing investment or business is much more than humanitarian it is common sense. In general money that is used to invest has already been taxed as income or inheritance to the person making the investment so taxing that money again not just the profit would provide a disincentive for people to invest. Which would be bad for economic growth over the medium and long term.

As far as taxing a money losing businesses goes, most businesses don't make money in their couple of years and adding further tax burdens would be counter productive because it would provide a major hurdle for people wanting to start a business. Other have already mentioned that the money losing operation likely paid indirect taxes as well. Small businesses provide a majority of the economic growth and innovation.

So in short additional taxes on money losing investments and businesses would be both foolish and shortsighted.

share|improve this answer

Think about it from a more pragmatic POV -- on what basis would you levy taxes on money that is lost?

If your house were robbed, should you have to pay taxes based on the money stolen from you? What if your car breaks down?

Income in its simplest form is revenue - cost of goods sold. So if I buy a car for $10,000 and sell it to you for $8,000, I have negative income.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.