Berkshire Hathaway Now Pays 5% of All Corporate Income Taxes in America

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Conflict-of-interest and indirect ownership

  • Some question article disclaimers claiming “no positions” in Berkshire, noting that any broad-market ETF effectively creates indirect exposure.
  • Others point out the fine print: such disclosures usually exclude broad-based ETFs and mutual funds, and this is standard practice to avoid conflict-of-interest issues.

“Fair share” and tax loopholes

  • “Fair share” is seen as undefined and political; suggestions range from “whatever Congress decides” to “when everyone feels equally unhappy.”
  • One side equates fairness with not using aggressive loopholes (e.g., corporations paying zero or negative tax on large profits).
  • Others argue that if it’s explicitly legal, it’s not cheating; law is based on text, not intent. Critics counter that lobbying-created loopholes and “dark store” property tactics show how rules are bent beyond the spirit of the law.
  • Retirement vehicles (IRAs, Roth, 401(k)s, backdoor Roths, Peter Thiel’s IRA) become a case study: are they legitimate incentives or abusive when used by billionaires?

Corporate vs individual taxation

  • Debate over whether corporate tax should exist at all:
    • One camp: corporations are legal persons using public infrastructure, so they should pay.
    • Another: corporations are capital-allocation machines; profits eventually become personal income, so tax individuals and capital gains instead.
  • Long thread over “double taxation”: some say taxing both corporate profits and shareholder income is double tax; others say it’s just taxing transfers between distinct legal persons, same as paying a plumber and then a landlord.

Profit, reinvestment, and zero-tax companies

  • Berkshire’s 5% share of corporate tax is seen either as proof it doesn’t aggressively avoid tax, or as evidence that many peers underpay.
  • Insurance and retained earnings (no dividends, long-term holdings) are cited as reasons its corporate tax bill is large.
  • Examples like Amazon and other big firms show how reinvestment and deductions can drive reported profit (and tax) to zero for years; defenders call this an intentional growth incentive, critics say it favors monopoly-building over smaller, profit-taking competitors.

Economic impact and system design

  • Linked research claims corporate taxes hurt GDP more than income taxes; skeptics call this corporate-friendly framing and note high-tax eras coincided with stronger labor purchasing power.
  • Some argue corporations allocate capital more efficiently than governments or individuals, so taxing them heavily reduces overall output; others highlight inequality, capital concentration, and the limited trickle-down to workers.
  • Several comments suggest shifting more burden to payroll or personal income taxes, but others warn individuals already face taxes on earnings, spending, property, and inheritance, while corporations exploit more planning options.