Is that calculation really correct? Does it count tax for all the employees? Does it count all specialized tax for things like gas or VAT, for all the things Netflix buys in their operation? What about all the media that Netflix buys and produces? What about all the taxes levied there on salaries and other activities? The article also talks about "income" and not "revenue"...
The numbers don't make sense to me. Their annual report [0] says pre-tax income of $2 billion, not $2.8 billion (p41). Even if you disallow deducting interest expense and use operating income, that's still only $2.6 billion. Meanwhile, they're paying $400 million in taxes (p43). That looks a lot more like 20% to me than 1%. What am I missing?
They are probably referring to the fact that 1/2 the payroll tax is paid by the employer. The employee does not pay this tax, and it is directly paid by the employer for every employee.
Well it is tax money that is sent to the government and that is taken from the total amount of money that the company receives for the products it provides. If we are talking about some moral side of the issue (as the articles tries to, if I'm not mistaken), then why wouldn't we count it?
I'm not saying that the company shouldn't pay a direct tax on their profit, but that I want to know the real number counting everything. Focusing on some fraction of that number can be misleading, especially when the editors try to distill it into a short title, with possible agendas no less.
That is true that in some countries the employee income is taxed at source, but it doesn't mean that the tax is not paid by the employee just because the company sends it on his or hers behalf.
It is happening this way because governments don't trust people that they would send that money each month.
What employees pay should be a completely separated equation, as this is what employee makes with their own hard work, not the corporation.
