Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in Income Taxes

Re:Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in... by mikestew on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @12:59PM (#19097710)

I'm saying that "airing grievances" "for money" has prior art. I'm a busy person, and the opinion stated says that it should be illegal for me to hire a person to represent my views before, say, a congressperson. Or it should be illegal to hire a person more eloquent than myself to state my case; a professional, as it were. We hire lawyers because navigating the law is difficult. Should we not also be allowed to hire professionals as we take part in the making of those same laws?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in... by trhway on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @02:38PM (#19098944)

In small claims court you can't be represented by a lawyer for example. Both - being represented and representing - aren't constitutional rights. So it is up to society whether to allow or prohibit it in various cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in... by hjanssen on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @01:18PM (#19097939)

I still fail to see your point. A lobbyist still has a fundamentally different job than a lawyer, and they both use fundamentally different tactics to reach fundamentally different goals.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in... by pathseeker on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @02:45PM (#19099027)

They don't have fundamentally different jobs. They are there to represent their clients' interests and advocate for them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Netflix Posted Biggest-Ever Profit in 2018 and Paid $0 in... by hjanssen on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @03:47PM (#19099746)

You can say the same about a debt collector. Thats just too broad of a statement to do anything with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]