If a business spends $40B to try to develop a new line if business, that is a business expense. If you are claiming that Meta’s R&D for virtual reality was not a legitimate business expense, but purely for Zuckerberg’s personal satisfaction, then good luck proving that.
Or are you arguing for a tax on revenue, instead of profit?
>are trivially available for a billionaires pet project.
What could this even mean? That it is trivial to become a majority owner of a business with enough cash flow to be able to spend $40B on R&D? If so, then you we live in different universes.
Based on the fact that Meta was able to spend $x money on developing VR?
Seems like pretty arbitrary and baseless reasoning to conclude taxes liabilities were too low.
Just a sign that profits aren’t being sufficiently taxed if $40b are trivially available for a billionaires pet project.
If a business spends $40B to try to develop a new line if business, that is a business expense. If you are claiming that Meta’s R&D for virtual reality was not a legitimate business expense, but purely for Zuckerberg’s personal satisfaction, then good luck proving that.
Or are you arguing for a tax on revenue, instead of profit?
>are trivially available for a billionaires pet project.
What could this even mean? That it is trivial to become a majority owner of a business with enough cash flow to be able to spend $40B on R&D? If so, then you we live in different universes.
1 reply →