Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If a company retains earnings, it has to pay taxes on them (as profits), but the money is still at risk (from a shareholder’s point of view) if something bad happens to the company (lawsuit or market problem). Shareholders usually want to receive whatever money the company has saved up, to safeguard it from being lost for no reason, and so that they (the shareholder) can put it to use elsewhere. This would change if the government stopped taxing retained earnings.


That doesn't fully explain why this doesn't happen with non-profits.


Many nonprofits do this — it’s called an endowment fund.


> This would change if the government stopped taxing retained earnings.

No it wouldn't, because

> the money is still at risk (from a shareholder’s point of view) if something bad happens to the company (lawsuit or market problem).


It would definitely change, because a shareholder could then take a loan against the non-taxed retained earnings they are owed. So then it comes down to whether the tax is higher or lower than the loan interest (adjust for the risk you mentioned).


Retained earnings are not taxed per se. A company pays taxes on profits. Whether the profits are distributed to shareholders or retained makes no difference whatsoever as far as taxes are concerned.


They are taxed; they are taxed because they are a subset of profits, which is a taxed category. They are not taxed more than other profits, but that doesn’t mean they’re ’not taxed’.


they are not

retained earnings by definition are the accumulation of net incomes, and net income by definition is post tax

what went into the produce the retained earnings (profit) has been taxed

but the retained earnings themselves are not subject to additional taxation (with a few exceptions)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: