Submitted by giteam t3_y3txle in dataisbeautiful
Comments
almightygarlicdoggo t1_isahpe4 wrote
Given how big YouTube is, I expected it to generate much more profit. It's even smaller than Amazon in 1997
thblackdeth t1_isalcvy wrote
Helps explain why in the last two years it feels like YouTube is doing 4-5x more adds
I suspect part of the difference is also paying content creators enough. That cuts into Google's share, if they don't give creators enough money, the content will go to other platforms
almightygarlicdoggo t1_isam15z wrote
Yes I think that makes sense, nevertheless it's still odd given how big YouTube is. This might be why it has so few competitors, they would have to operate at a very big loss for many years, I don't think many companies have that much money to throw away
thblackdeth t1_isamc9d wrote
Yeah good point, it has to be insanely expensive to have enough storage space and bandwidth for all the videos. If you can't pull in enough of a crowd quickly, it would be massive losses.
almightygarlicdoggo t1_isanz2s wrote
Interestingly, as you previously commented, you might be right why they are pulling so may ads nowadays, their revenue in 2016 was "only" 6.7$bn. And with how expensive you said it is to operate, I don't think they were making that much profit back then, even though it was still a massive corporation.
TheRomanRuler t1_isat40i wrote
Cost of hosting videos is enormous. Its why Youtube has practical monopoly on the stuff. Just storing that many videos takes huge amount of storage, allowing people to view it in HD resolution across the world for free... its hugely expensive.
Its actually amazing that we have free platform like Youtube at all.
lucun t1_isaz6m5 wrote
Note that is Youtube revenue, not profits. We're not sure if YT is even profitable or not since Alphabet doesn't break out YT in their operating/net profit lines. YT is rolled up under Google Services outside of the revenue categories in Alphabet's earning reports.
timthebombdizzle t1_isb1920 wrote
I think Amazon in 1997 was million, not billion. It's 1000x more.
almightygarlicdoggo t1_isb4fvt wrote
Yes you're right, I misread
Accomplished-Video71 t1_isbf35h wrote
It's in "other". Ads are obviously the cash cow and I think having YT ads it's own category makes a lot of sense.
ProductOfLife t1_isbhszj wrote
Net profit / Tax IPO = 43.98%
Net profit / Tax 2021 = 517.00%
dr_leo_marvin t1_isbptbl wrote
Yeah majorly down! From 70% to 16%. How is that possible? Good lawyers and knowledge of tax loopholes or policy changes?
ChrisFromIT t1_isbzinl wrote
Probably a bit of both.
Koopslovestogame t1_iscen3o wrote
Is the double Irish still a thing?
Edit: just checked myself and they said they’d stop doing it Jan 1 2020.
ApprehensiveWhale t1_iscikee wrote
Their employees excised their stock options early. If you hold stock options before converting them to stocks then it gets treated as capital gains. If you excise before the holding period is up it gets treated as ordinary income instead.
If I'm reading their 10-K right (it's been a long time since I studied financial & tax accounting), they held a provision in 2003 for early conversions, which was reduced in 2004 by $42m.
beemccouch t1_iscjy3k wrote
And politicians voting to reduce taxes on corporations
too_old_still_party t1_iscoaol wrote
GOOG has room to grow. It’s $98 a share rn, get some.
TheSpoonKing t1_isdaosw wrote
Found the Googler, shouldn't you be working?
dr_leo_marvin t1_isdc942 wrote
Wut is that?
amatulic t1_isdegr9 wrote
It's a tax loophole. It's closed now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
But companies moved on to other loopholes that are as good or better.
Street-Individual292 t1_isdlb4x wrote
IPO years in general will be misleading because stock compensation isn’t tax deductible until it’s vested, which temporarily spikes effective tax rates. It doesn’t mean they’re actually paying that much, it’s just the way it’s recorded on financial statements
For reference, their tax rate was 36% in 2004
Street-Individual292 t1_isdlc9j wrote
Not for US companies
Street-Individual292 t1_isdlf5n wrote
>But companies moved on to other loopholes that are as good or better
I’d disagree with this. The whole point of changing our international tax laws back in 2018 was to establish a global minimum tax for US companies
Street-Individual292 t1_isdlfvi wrote
That’s not really why.
Street-Individual292 t1_isdmzvy wrote
To be fair, 2003 is an extreme outlier year, as IPO years usually are. Google wasn’t actually paying 70% of their profit in tax
Street-Individual292 t1_isdn4m3 wrote
How is that sickening?
Street-Individual292 t1_isdncun wrote
Stock compensation isn’t tax deductible until it’s vested, so an IPO year is going to have a huge upward adjustment. The following year, their rate was 35%
Koopslovestogame t1_isdv54j wrote
taps forehead “Irish company”
onetwofive-threesir t1_isdwasl wrote
No it wasn't. The tax laws were changed to give companies "incentives" to return capital/jobs to the US (which we know they never do in the long term).
The tax law reduced our corporate taxes to their lowest levels in recent history. They also lowered the average person's taxes, but only temporarily (they will be rising over the next 5-6 years). And then they created new schemes, such as the business owner pass thrus. And I think they lowered the capital gains tax (don't quote me on that one).
The only somewhat positive thing they implemented was a one-time tax on corporate earnings overseas. This was used to help pay for some of the tax breaks they gave companies, but also offset the total cost of the bill. This encouraged the companies to repatriate their overseas earnings since they were going to be taxed anyways. Thought was, if they bring the money home, they'll invest in the US economy - except they said they wouldn't and then they didn't - they gave their shareholders dividend increases and stock buybacks...
Global minimum taxes were never on the table in 2017. That is a recent phenomenon...
Ricksterdinium t1_isdwf62 wrote
Please add a reference if you're actually adding a reference.
Ricksterdinium t1_isdwglj wrote
How is it not??
gautiexe t1_isdxzcx wrote
Not a googler dude. Although there is some Indian pride!
nworb200 t1_ise072k wrote
70% tax is sickening. Why even fucking bother?
AtrainUnjustlyBanned t1_ise5j2m wrote
I can think of $106M reasons
TheSpoonKing t1_ise6ya4 wrote
So you support one of the worst tech ceos on the planet because he's the same ethnicity as you? Great.
Lopsided_Reading_362 t1_ise75kv wrote
What type of chart is that?
datsun1978 t1_ise8gv8 wrote
%of tax is lower now. This is a problem rite. And so the gap between the have and have not just grows.
justheretoannoyyou t1_isedxuo wrote
what did the state do that justifies taking 241M from someone else?
cereal-kills-me t1_isefhp9 wrote
The costs are high. But we’re talking about revenue not profit, so costs aren’t really relevant to revenue. I’m very surprised that YouTube isn’t up there closer to Google search ads.
slayer828 t1_isekfca wrote
70% is too much, 16% is too little. Why should they pay less taxes than the middle class.
The company SHOULD pay more in taxes then the workers who make the billions.
garygoblins t1_iselz0y wrote
While I agree corporations don't pay quite enough, people actually don't pay more than this. The vast majority pay a much lower effective tax rate.
"The Tax Foundation derives an average tax rate of 14.6% for the top 50% of taxpayers, just 3.4% for the bottom 50%, and an average of 13.3% overall."
Street-Individual292 t1_isep6p3 wrote
Pretty much everything that you said is true, but your last two sentences are wrong. The TCJA established two different minimum taxes on global income for corps. One is called GILTI and the other is called BEAT. GILTI is the framework for the global deal that countries are attempting to implement now, but the US has had this in place for 5 years now
[deleted] t1_isephwo wrote
[deleted]
Street-Individual292 t1_isepnng wrote
They’re not paying less tax than the middle class. Corporate effective tax rates are calculated very differently than individual rates
A rate of 16% doesn’t actually mean they’re paying 16% of their profit in tax
AtrainUnjustlyBanned t1_isev5sq wrote
Lol I am a libertarian I'm not going to defend ridiculous tax levels
I am just saying saying "what's the point is quite the exaggeration.
Street-Individual292 t1_isfsru1 wrote
Because their reported effective tax rate isn’t the rate they actually pay. The large difference between the two rates mainly come from the way they have to report stock compensation
Christoffervi t1_isg55ca wrote
Sankey diagram.
giteam OP t1_isab707 wrote
Source:
Google investor relations
Genuine Impact newsletter
Tools:
Tableau, Figma