Slashdot Mirror


Keeping Microsoft Happy

Jeff writes "In Citizen Microsoft, I report on Microsoft's use of Nevada corporations to avoid approximately $327 million in Washington state taxes while telling voters they need to pay more to fund education. I also contrast Microsoft's attacks on the open source community with its in-state lobbying efforts and its recent promise to get more involved in local politics. The cover has Gates in a gorilla suit."

95 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Bananas by mfh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Keeping Microsoft Happy ... The cover has Gates in a gorilla suit.

    Lots and lots of bananas.

    I report on Microsoft's use of Nevada corporations to avoid approximately $327 million in Washington state taxes while telling voters they need to pay more to fund education.

    Now that's a monkey business!

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Bananas by kundor · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've always thought of him as more of a chimp than a gorilla. I mean, gorillas are imposing and can appear wise, whereas chimps are little scamps who'll try to get away with anything.

    2. Re:Bananas by whiteranger99x · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I would think that this was more like monkey business ;)

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    3. Re:Bananas by Afrosheen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Genius? That's a dubious title for Bill Gates. He's a sharp businessman, nothing more, nothing less. He saw opportunities to steal IP before IP was a big deal, and he took them.

      Look at it this way. If it wasn't him, it would be someone else in his spot. The market wanted personal computers, with an operating system that was readily available and ran on commodity hardware. He provided half of that equation. Meanwhile, niche computing and heavyweight stuff was reserved for Unix, Irix, Sun and other players. His real genius was releasing bug ridden software that ran just well enough to let you get some work done, but not well enough to convince you that you didn't need the latest upgrade release.

      Ask any Windows 95 user why they would want 98. Is there a long list of features that are new? Not really. Instead, it promised what every other Microsoft upgrade promised and continue to promise: greater stability, speed, performance, and compatibility. For those of you that refuse to get on the upgrade conveyor belt, you'll be left ass-out in the cold when MS declares end-of-life for your OS and stops releasing patches for it. Upgrade or get owned.

      There are those of us that prefer choice and we generally use MacOS or Linux. So what if we don't have 1000 crap games and 3 good ones. So what if we can't download heaps of junk freeware. So what if we don't need virus protection software and commercial firewalls. We get along just fine without MS.

      Actually I can't throw too many stones, because every call I get from an end user that has 215 pieces of spyware and adware clogging up their pc is money in the bank for me. The sad thing is, they think what they use is all that can be used without taking out a second mortgage to buy a G5 tower. One customer actually asked me about Linux, especially after he saw how beautiful it was running on my Dell laptop. Converted.

    4. Re:Bananas by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If given a choice, I would take Bill Gates over Steve Jobs anyday. Ever watch that TV special with those two in the 80s. Gates was a complete geek, but Jobs was a geek with serious attitude problems toward his own engineers.

      They portrayed him as this abusive chief with absolutely zero respect toward everyone who worked for him. Ego trip every day and made his engineers pushed to an unhealthy limit.

      Bill Gates made bad software acceptable in the market. Steve Jobs would have made bad corporate culture acceptable.

    5. Re:Bananas by Foggerty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Bill Gates made bad software acceptable in the market. Steve Jobs would have made bad corporate culture acceptable."


      Does "Bad corporate culture" include illegal abuse of a monopoly position? Does it perhaps include falsifying evidence in a court of law? How about astroturfing? How about all the other crap that Microsoft pulled off?

      Plus, bad software thrown into the bargin!

      Sorry, HOW exactly would Steve Jobs be better?

    6. Re:Bananas by Teckla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If given a choice, I would take Bill Gates over Steve Jobs anyday. Ever watch that TV special with those two in the 80s. Gates was a complete geek, but Jobs was a geek with serious attitude problems toward his own engineers.

      They portrayed him as this abusive chief with absolutely zero respect toward everyone who worked for him. Ego trip every day and made his engineers pushed to an unhealthy limit.

      Bill Gates made bad software acceptable in the market. Steve Jobs would have made bad corporate culture acceptable.

      I'm not sure which is worse: the fact that you base your opinion of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs on a made-for-TV movie, or the fact that people were dumb enough to rate your post +4, Interesting.

      Next time, try to base your opinions of people on something a little more substantial, will you please?

  2. No way by Kell_pt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I must say no willing gorilla would allow its body to be used in such a photography. It's an outrage!

    --
    "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
  3. Re:My God! by Silverlancer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lets hope that they take the money and use it to make Windows better instead of using it to fund SCO.

    Oh, sorry, I was in a parallel universe for a second there. Won't happen.

  4. The Article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    SW Logo

    September 29 - October 5, 2004

    Citizen Microsoft

    It's time we stopped acquiescing to the behemoth in Redmond, because what's good for big business isn't necessarily good for Washington.

    by Jeff Reifman

    By any measure, Microsoft is capitalism's greatest success. In July, the company announced plans to distribute $75 billion in dividends to shareholders over the next four years. One executive, in a morale-boosting internal e-mail, recently called Windows the most successful product in history. Even Googling "corporation" returns Microsoft at the top of the search results. But what has been best for Microsoft's shareholders has not always been best for Washington taxpayers and our community.

    Every time Microsoft hires someone in Washington, it creates 3.5 new jobs here. According to the company, Microsoft created an estimated 117,620 new jobs in Washington between 1990 and 2001. But while Microsoft promotes the positive impact of success, all this growth has placed a heavy burden on our schools, roads, and overall livability.

    Recently, Forbes ranked Seattle as the most overpriced city in the country. Our school class sizes are the fourth largest in the nation. Washington's percentage of residents enrolled in college ranks 46th out of 50 states. Seattle teacher salaries rank 97th out of 100 major cities. Our traffic is the 17th worst in the country. And let's not forget more than 167,000 Washington children without health care and the growing ranks of homeless citizens staking out highway off-ramps in search of handouts.

    Most of us accept on faith that what's good for business is good for our state. Our Legislature spends much of its time trying to make Washington a competitive choice for businesses. But it's about time we started asking hard questions about where our competitiveness is taking us and who is pushing the agenda. How is it that with one of the richest corporations in the world in our backyard, our state has become less livable?

    Tax exemptions are the mantra of Washington's Legislature. As Seattle Weekly reported earlier (see "$64 Billion Falls Through the Tax Cracks," Feb. 18), the state has amassed 503 business tax breaks valued at $64 billion per biennium budget. Cheered on by corporate lobbyists, including Microsoft's, Gov. Gary Locke and lawmakers implemented $20 billion of those exemptions in just the past four years. Last year, the state granted an additional $3.2 billion in breaks over the next 20 years to entice Boeing to locate the 7E7 assembly plant in Everett instead of some other state. Meanwhile, Forbes reports, Seattle ranks in the bottom fifth of major cities in job growth, income growth, cost of living, and housing affordability. And the state is predicting a $3 billion deficit by the end of the decade. As Microsoft's shareholders begin to reap their $75 billion dividend, they leave a growing infrastructure deficit in Washington.

    That's the result of good times. Until now, Microsoft has enjoyed tremendous financial success. But it's entering a new era of software competition. It won't be able to rely on the dominance of the Windows operating system to be profitable. In fact, Microsoft's dependence on revenue from Windows and its other flagship product, the Office suite of applications, makes it vulnerable to new and increasingly popular alternatives to those now-ubiquitous programs. The free market is responding to the monopoly in Redmond. It's going to get tough. Meantime, last week the company said it plans to become far more active in Washington politics than in the past, citing the business climate, education funding, and transportation as areas where the state can do better. These aren't improvements with which Microsoft wishes to help. These are areas of concern the company wants remedied at taxpayer expense. If you want to anticipate how Microsoft might approach these and other local issues as the software business becomes more challenging, you need to study the company's track record with competitors

    1. Re:The Article. by slashname3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Playing tax evasion games is just another way for Microsoft to maximize the money they can collect before their bubble bursts. The $75 billion stock divided is the start of Microsofts decline. They realized that in the next few years their monopoly on the desk top will start to slip away. So they are now starting the process of pulling as much money out of the company as they can. By the time they deliver the next version of their OS there will be a lot of companies that will decide to move to something other than Microsoft. Then the real decline will start. It will take many years but it will happen.

    2. Re:The Article. by TechnoPope · · Score: 4, Informative

      So basically, Open Source is suddenly going to eat up all of MS's market share. MS will cease to be. World Hunger will end. And Peace will break out around the world.

      Or...

      Maybe this is the same kind of analyzing that gets done on Apple every six months saying that it will go under. Let's just be honest for a second. Microsoft isn't going to go away. They may not be THE market share holder forever, but they aren't going to go away. The beauty of software is that people have a choice. Just like you can choose to use linux (or BSD,OSX,Netware,BE, whatever floats your boat), people can, and will, choose Windows. As great as Linux is, it has quite a few shortcomings, as does Windows, as does OS X. Everybody is basically equal.

      So while their desktop market share will probably go down (at 90% it's hard for it not to), this doesn't mean that Linux will automagically become world leader supreme. Let's not kid ourselves.

      --
      Slashdot...it's like Fox news, but without the biased sl...or maybe not.
    3. Re:The Article. by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds to me like Seattle/Washington State's real problem is politicians who are all too willing to give corporations tax breaks. I'm not naive enough to believe that these politicians are not receiving rewards for doing this. Maybe they'll eventually get a clue and realize that having corporations set up shop in the state is not going to generate much revenue for the state unless they are actually required to pay taxes. There is no reason Microsoft is not required to pay Washington taxes, other than the fact that the state government doesn't have the backbone to make them pay.

    4. Re:The Article. by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They realized that in the next few years their monopoly on the desk top will start to slip away.
      I think they realised that their monopoly on the desktop will no longer give them huge financial growth. There are a lot of windows95 machines out there - they are reaching the point where they are running out of new people to sell an operating system and office programs to.

      Linux also fills the niche of a half decent operating system on the cheapest hardware, which may cut the margins but I think those saying it is a threat just want to see themselves as being important and part of some movement bringing MS down. MS will bring itself down if it happens, and I don't care one way or another so long as I can use a good *nix clone on cheap, relatively powerful hardware. Linux could be better, and is becoming so - and I still see features being added to the latest breed of WinNT that were present in the version of linux I was using eight years ago.

      We have to keep in mind that we use computers to run applications, so we have to run an OS that runs the applications we use. With a lot of new things being cross-platform (even compiling on a Mac) Microsoft may end up being the odd man out instead of their old role of being the only game at the cheap end of town (or think of it as T-Fords vs Bentleys). Most decent new commercial software that needs to run on a server has a web front end now anyway, so the client is cross-platform.

  5. Ironic by whiteranger99x · · Score: 4, Funny

    The cover has Gates in a gorilla suit....

    As opposed to Steve Balmer who just jumps and dances around like one. :D

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  6. Re:unsubstantiated garbage by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seven years ago, Microsoft opened a small office in Reno, Nev., to collect the money it got from PC manufacturers that installed Windows and Office on the computers they sold. In the years since, Microsoft has sheltered more than $60 billion in royalty revenue in Nevada, a state with no corporate income tax, costing Washington an estimated $327 million in unrealized tax revenue.

    That should be easy to verify, contact the SecState of Nevada

  7. Microsoft is evil... by angryflute · · Score: 4, Funny

    And in other news, the sky is blue, and the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

    1. Re:Microsoft is evil... by polecat_redux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it's almost as if MS is acting like a greedy American corporation bent on increasing profits at any cost. For shame.

  8. Wake up and join the Real World... by Hangtime · · Score: 5, Informative

    all sorts of companies incorporate in Nevada not just Microsoft for this same purpose. In fact, while Delaware is the number one state to incorporate, Nevada follows up close behind because of the lax laws. Just like I'm sure you, your friends, and your family go down to Oregon to do your Christmas shopping so you don't have to pay state sales tax. If you want to close these loopholes then every state needs to have consistent incorporation statutues and laws. The only companies that incorporate in their own state are the ones who can't afford to incorporate in another and/or follow another state's governance laws and procedures .

    1. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by Hangtime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ohhh! Ohhh! I got an idea too. What if the majority of my revenue comes from another state since were are talking about state INCOME tax and where my LABOR comes from can have nothing to do where I make my money. But wait, what if I have multiple businesses, all of whom who have labor in every state, and I need one jurisdiction to deal with all possible legal challenges to contracts. That's when I incorporate in Deleware because the Delware Chancery Courts are the default Supreme Court for business law in the country. No, you cannot expect anyone to incorporate in just any state based upon the parameter that suits your purpose at the time. You have to either create consistentcy in US law or you have to deal with situations such as this.

    2. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by plasm4 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You have to either create consistentcy in US law or you have to deal with situations such as this.
      I'd imagine there would be many states rights issues with attempting something like this.
    3. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, in general, there are lots of reasons to incorporate in different states other than just saving money on taxes. I don't know what the specifics in Washington state vs. Nevada are, so I won't comment on that. But in Massachusetts, a corporation doing business in the state and registered as a business entity in the state has "nexus" in the state and thus is subject to the corporate excise tax on all income apportioned to or attributable to the state. It doesn't matter where you are incorporated - I run a Delaware Corporation, and still have to pay a minimum 456 dollar excise tax to Massachusetts every year.


      You generally incorporate in a different state to take advantage of their chancery courts, anonymity laws and corporate stucture statutes (allowing more flexible or customized corporate structures, like the Delaware Series LLC for example). And you want to have your corporate entities in a state that doesn't add a substantial amount of tax on top of what you'll already owe to the states where you do business and generate income (Delaware, for instance, charges only a nominal amount of tax every year based on the number of shares outstanding - but like I said, this doesn't mean I don't pay excise or corporate taxes, I still pay them in MA since that's where I do business!). Additionally Massachusetts has a foreign corporation registration fee which makes up for any money you save by registering your corporation in another state - so you literally save nothing (and we're talking about differences here of a few hundred dollars a year, not something Microsoft cares about).


      If Microsoft is doing business in Nevada and attributing income to that state, then that's not really a loophole at all. If they are mis-attributing income, that's just fraud. There are tax loopholes out there, but this article doesn't really make clear what loopholes Microsoft is actually using, or if Microsoft just uses Nevada corporations for business entities and groups subsumed within Microsoft Inc. because of their flexible corporate law. Maybe Washington just isn't as anal as Massachusetts about collecting their taxes from all businesses, or just are failing to enforce the appropriate attribution of income to Washington state? This stuff is always confusing in the software world, since it's not always so clear cut to say where the work was performed and where the income came from.

    4. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " all sorts of companies incorporate in Nevada not just Microsoft for this same purpose"

      Of course they do. It's just that if you are incorporated in Nevada and are not paying WA taxes then maybe you ought to keep your mouth shut about how WA spends the taxes it collects from other people.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    5. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by multimed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ultimately this is a major reason I think we should move to VAT or sales taxes and just get rid of everything else. The fact is major corporations always have a cadre of lawyers to find ways around taxes. And even if they didn't, it really wouldn't matter because the government really can't tax corporations, it can only use them to help collect taxes from individuals. Whatever taxes corporations actually end up paying are just another expense and get taken care of by boosting the cost of their goods and services to cover them. The rich have very high nominal tax rates but considerably lower effective tax rates. Of course I don't actually expect sales/VAT to every become a reality. Tax prepartion and advising is a billion dollar industry. Politicians wouldn't turn their backs on millions of dollars in lobbying money, and the complexity of the tax and budget system is a main source of their power.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    6. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by km790816 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sales tax = regressive taxation = hurts the poor much more than the rich

      Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income.
      Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.

      Conservatives love this, too. When the Republicans took over the Iowa Legislature 10 years ago (and things were good) they cut income tax by 10% across the board (giving a massive break, in terms of real dollars to the rich).

      Years later, when things weren't so good, they raised the state sales tax 1%, which had the same affect: hurting the poor in terms of both real dollars and % of income.

      Let's clean up our existing tax laws first--eliminate the subsidy on SUVs, make it harder to create tax shelters in the Caribbean.

    7. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by Hangtime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with a national sales tax but as you said it will never happen. Its the same reason we will not have a flat tax either. Gotta keep those tax advisors and the people at Turbo Tax's Intuit unit employed. There is another reason income taxes will not be replaced by either one of these. Income taxes give governments the ability to both reward and punish certain behaviors. For instance, you get a break for giving money to chairity, purchasing an electic car, or putting a child through school. You do not have the ability to reward and punish such behaviors when everyone is just paying a flat rate or paying a tax on goods.

      Also, I would not sign on to a VAT until there was specific language in the law that declared an income tax and VAT could not exist at the same time.

    8. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it would start to pass certain powers to the Federal Govt

      I guess that whole "United STATES" thing just went over your head in high school history class, eh?

      There are certain areas that make sense to be centralised;

      And those areas are enumerated in the Constitution. Try actually reading the document to see what they are. Pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments.

      not only would it make complying with the law easier

      Since law for everyone, everywhere would be set at the federal level, and local concerns would never hold any weight or water. Might as well do away with the idea of statehood altogether.

      but it would save the taxpayers a lot of $$$ in not having to employ fifty sets of state legislature and bureaucracy...

      Clearly you've never worked for government. The larger the bureaucracy, the more inefficient it becomes. You'd still need approximately the same amount of government, only now it'd be under control of the feds and cost much, much more to operate. Worse, that government no longer answers to the locals who pay for it.

      I'll pass on your test-bed version of one-world government, thanks.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    9. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Informative

      " guess that whole "United STATES" thing just went over your head in high school history class, eh?"

      You know.. although many of us realize the US is a federation of states.. it presents itself to the world, and generally acts as any other country would. The outside world sees "THE USA", one of may countries. The internal stuff about states and their respective powers is just that, internal.

      Though I realize the distinction is very important to Americans, and very real, it's not significiant to outsiders. The US acts as a single entity, globally. Policy is set globally. Military is global. The international community doesn't really give a crap who the governor of texas is, but we sure do care who the president of the US is. Perception is everything.

    10. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by bar-agent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income.
      Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.


      I don't see the problem here. It's fair. The word fair means that everyone plays by the same rules.

      If they both buy a $20,000 car, then they both pay $21,000 total. If Poor Boy thinks that $21,000 is too much, then he shouldn't buy the car.

      Is Poor Boy at a disadvantage compared to Rich Boy, who can afford $21,000 for a car? Yes, he is. That's because he's poor. If you want to remedy that, the proper solution is to give him money, rather than make the laws unfair.

      I am having trouble understanding the moral framework here...

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    11. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by Ghostx13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea, I absolutly want the Federal Govt. to have more power than it already does. The Federal Govt. that uses it's police powers to force me to pay for people that refuse to pay for themselves. The same Federal Govt. that has made a fiasco of the social security system.

      This is one of the major problems with the US today. People that are uneducated on our form of goverenment. The Federal Goverenment IS NOT supposed to have even the amount of control it currently enjoys. Our forefathers founded this country with the vision of a very minimalistic Federal government. Over the course of history States rights have gradually been eroded to the point that the very concept of States rights is laughable.

      More over the current income tax we are forced to pay at gunpoint was rule unconstitutional by the Supream Court in 1895. So the Congress passed the 16th amendment, and income tax was here to stay.

      Regardless of political affiliation, I think both Dems and GOPs will both agree that the last thing the Fed needs is more power and influence over us.

    12. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      gross profits = total sales

      Actually, gross profits doesn't exist. It's referred to as gross sales, gross revenue, or just revenue. Profit is always and only income-expenses. I'm being pedantic, I realize.

      you would actually wind up pushing a lot of businesses right out of the country

      You have no evidence of that.

      You also have no evidence your hare-brained scheme will actually work. Sue me for thinking critically and analyzing your proposal, and also considering how many companies have moved from state to state or chosen to setup in specific states or other countries entirely because of tax laws involved. It's a historic and economic fact that overtaxing a group of people will drive them out of the area. A revolution was conducted in this country over that exact issue. Evidence I don't need. Not when all you need to understand what I said is a basic history lesson, a leven of education I achieved in the third grade. Don't know about you, though.

      and generally do a lot more harm than good.

      Nor of that.

      Aha, lack of reading comprehension. I stated how it would cause more harm than good in my first post, but it appears you may not have read it. Since you managed to quote my post, that's solid evidence you did read it, so lack of reading comprehension is the obvious conclusion.

      See? that's called "power of reason". Analytical reasoning and problem solving our the purposes of studying math in school. Both of those are usually skills that are established pretty early in school at least to a minimum level to understand what I said.

      Aha, so I attacked you. Why would I do that? I provided a thoughtful response to your statement and received curt baseless responses. I expected meaningful dialog, and I got, well, double-standard. You ask me for evidence to criticize your proposal, but you don't provide evidence to back it up. That brings the assumption that your proposal is good. So let's pursue every single proposal anybody dreams up under the assumption it's good, without thinking about it.

      Keywords: without thinking about it.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    13. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      To make the point a little clearer, you only made $8000 in a year...but somethings cost the same for everybody...[i'll exclude basic food] things like toothpaste and deoderant, clothes and automobiles...stuff you gotta have to live. Sure you can spend less than a rich guy...but can you REALLY? After all, if you're a minimum wage guy you can't shop at Sam's for huge discounts...you have to buy the small [high markup] sizes! But for the short list of things you MUST have there's not much you can do about it. Sure, you and the rich guy both buy the same $20 shirt and pay 6% sales tax...the rich guy still comes out ahead because after a certian point "living expenses" are a neglegable part of their income...so that's money they get "free and clear" ...often they can use the "buildup" [and federally insured to boot!]of money to get that $20 shirt for $15...where you couldn't possibly.

      You pointed out that you're a hard worker...well good for you, we need more like you!!! BUT...that thinking also makes you a shmuck! If you want real equality of taxes, realize that "income tax" taxes the over all money you make, while sales tax taxes what you MUST buy to a certian extent. The percentage of your income you MUST spend being poor is drastically higher than the rich guy... to put it another way how many hours did you have to work to pay the sales tax on the same $20 shirt...a minimum wage guy would have to work 4 hours just to pay for the shirt plus another hour for the sales tax...the rich guy might work 1 hour for the whole $100 trip to the mall... see the difference? oh, and the rich guy doesn't pay "medical bills" because somebody else [insurance] pays them...so while you work to pay debt, they get compound interest...basically from you!!

      When you start talking about the "top 20%" there's a large spread there as well...after all, 10 families at $100k pay far more real taxes than 1 family with $1m! After all, that's 10 pairs of soccer shoes, 10 Xboxes, 10 pairs of braces...versus only 1 for the guy making a $1m. While the income tax would be close to the same, the "extras" like sales, telcom, etc could be 10x higher part of income for the 'poorer' folk.

    14. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by mattdm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see the problem here. It's fair. The word fair means that everyone plays by the same rules.

      Errr, what part of "1.0% is different from 5.0%" is hard to understand? Phrasing the "same rules" in flat dollar values is "unfair". Using a percentage automatically scales to every situation, and is therefore the completely fair way.

      Now _should_ things be fair in this way? I'll leave that for someone else. :)

    15. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by FFFish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the proper solution is, quote, to give him money, endquote, then wouldn't reducing his tax be the way to do it?

      No wonder you're having trouble understanding your moral framework.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    16. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by LtOcelot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Myself, I'm having trouble understanding who would moderated up this self-confessed idiocy. The money you "give" "Poor Boy" has to come from somewhere, which means, in this example, it must come from "Rich Boy". If you're going to do that, you might as well just adjust the tax rates to start with and avoid the inefficiency of a separate program.

      Incidentally, the fact that one Boy is Poor and the other Rich implies that they aren't playing the same game, so the parent post's definition of "fair" doesn't apply.

    17. Re:Wake up and join the Real World... by tshak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see the problem here. It's fair. The word fair means that everyone plays by the same rules.

      Right, and fair means at the same cost, or burden to everyone, not the same relative dollar value. Ten percent of a lower middle class income is a huge burden which directly affects their quality of life. Ten percent on an upper middle class income, while more dollars, is hardly any burden. Progressive tax systems allow for a fair burden on everyone, regardless of class.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  9. Why not make some politicians squirm? by mortram · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they wanted to evade $350 million in taxes, all they had to do was threaten to leave the state. It worked for Boeing. In fairness, WA state has a very, very messed up B&O tax... In fact they maintain the most regressive tax structure in the nation.

  10. New Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:

    "Every time Microsoft hires someone in Washington, it creates 3.5 new jobs here. According to the company, Microsoft created an estimated 117,620 new jobs in Washington between 1990 and 2001. But while Microsoft promotes the positive impact of success, all this growth has placed a heavy burden on our schools, roads, and overall livability."

    Wow - How could Microsoft be so insensitive as to create jobs.

    However, this also raises the BS meter. I always love when I hear "We create xx jobs for every one we hire". Sounds good... but it doesn't add up. To even out, there has to be a job somewhere that causes -1.5 people to be hired. Other than the 435 CongressPricks, and the one in the Oval Office, there aren't too many jobs like that.

    1. Re:New Math by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow - How could Microsoft be so insensitive as to create jobs.

      So, because Ms creates jobs, they shouldn't have to pay income tax? On what planet does that make sense?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:New Math by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "So, because Ms creates jobs, they shouldn't have to pay income tax? On what planet does that make sense?"

      The planet where that sort of tax dodge is allowed?

      Your beef's with the gov't, not MS.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  11. Kettle, Meet Pot by mfh · · Score: 2, Funny

    that story was porrly written.

    Even if it was true, you can't state such things if you can't spell or use proper capitalization. Troll post. *sigh*

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  12. Since the submitter forgot... by mblase · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...here's a link to the actual article.

  13. Didn't read the summary did you? by maggeth · · Score: 4, Informative

    submitter WROTE the article. you are the one who didn't read.

  14. This is not new or news by erick99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Companies do everything they can do to minimize their taxes. P.R. folks can make any corporate behavior sound like God would have done no differently. Corporate executives like Balmer can come to believe that every thought they have is pure visionary genius and should be shared (i.e. education spending). People will learn these things and become indignant and outraged. Nothing, however, tends to change.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
  15. Amazon Loves Nevada Taxes Too by theodp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out the testimony of Paul Misener, Amazon's VP of Global Public Policy, as he reminds Nevada legislators who questioned Amazon's failure to pay sales tax that Amazon solved its Washington and Georgia tax problems by closing fulfillment centers in the two states.

    1. Re:Amazon Loves Nevada Taxes Too by prostoalex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Huh? I live in WA state and pay tax on each purchase from Amazon, regardless of where fulfillment comes from.

  16. Who wouldn't? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, I did NOT RTFA, but, why would anyone pay taxes they could legally avoid? I am not talking about evading taxes, but rather, using whatever loopholes are available to avoid paying more than you must. In the case of a publically held company it would be irresponsible not to.

    This is more an indictment of the various tax laws and the shenanigans of the legislative bodies that enact them than of any company or individual that might take "advantage" of them.

    Legislators, state and federal, have no incentive to make straight-forward, logical, honest tax laws. They get too much gain from making the laws obstuse and full of holes, for special friends.

    Oh, and if you look at any statistics, poor people don't pay enough taxes.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  17. There's no loophole by melted · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you haven't paid sales tax while being in another state you have to pay "use" tax in your home state. This tax is equal to the amount of sales tax you'd have to pay if you made the same purchase in your home state. For someone in WA this means that if they went down to Oregon and spent $1K on merchandise taxable in WA, they owe the state $88 in taxes or whatever they pay in their county.

  18. not as simple as that by plasm4 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is very easy to circumvent. You set up a company where all your employees are located. You set up another company in the tax shelter state. You have the taxed company do business with the untaxed company. Maybe the taxed company pays a consulting fee to the untaxed company. The taxed company suddenly shows no profit, therefore it pays no income tax. The untaxed company shows a huge profit but it pays no income tax anyway so it doesn't matter. There are a million other ways to legally get around paying taxes.

  19. Re:Of all the things to knock MS for... by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2, Funny
    I totally agree. Governments shouldn't be given money. After all, roads just build themselves. Teachers, Police Officers, and Firefighters all work free. People who are too disabled to work can happily subsist without any money to live on.

    Yeah that's right, it's sarcasm. Fucking moron.

  20. Finally! by rts008 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Enough is enough! I can't take any more of this animal mistreatment! Call the SPCA; call the Friends of Animals; call the gorilla a lawyer!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  21. New article by hfis · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "In Citizen Linux, I report on how many Linux users legally avoid paying taxes, as they are strange people who do not like to give their money away. I also contrast the open source community's attacks on Microsoft with its attitude of 'Peace, love and Linux'. The cover has Linus Torvalds in a gorilla suit."

    Would this get posted to Slashdot? I highly doubt it. Seriously, who can blame MS for this one? Raise your hand if you enjoy paying taxes. Hell, the majority of you guys probably wouldn't support piracy if it wasn't a way to skive out of spending your hard earned cash.

    Give the microsoft bashing a break already, it's beyond despicable.

    1. Re:New article by Moofie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's despicable about it? Why should I not decry behavior I think is wrong?

      I'll tell YOU what's despicable. Having the audacity to tell the State of Washington how to spend tax dollars, knowing full well that every state in the Union is strapped for cash. The audacity part comes in when you realize that Microsoft doesn't even PAY any taxes.

      Want the situation to get better? Start destroying these megalith corporations that flaunt the law. Put commerce back in the hands of the people that really run this country's economy: Small businesses.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:New article by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news, Jesus Christ is now a card-carrying member of the Church of Satan. When asked, he commented "Microsofties read slashdot, why can't I?"

      It could happen, really, it could. ;)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  22. Re:unsubstantiated garbage by BrookHarty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We already have multi-state tax codes, maybe the states should get together to work on closing the "Nevada" tax gap.

    BTW, if Microsoft didnt get tax breaks here, I'm sure some other state would gladly offer it. Corporations are already playing states against each other, really shows you how much power Corporations have.

    So, while there are answers, nothing will change.
    Business as usual. [pun intended]

  23. Unfortunately... by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Americans aren't all that good about being consistant, even within a single State. (Not that any other country is much better.) To expect all fifty States to unify around a single optimised set of laws is hopeful at best. Most Americans would even argue that such a concept is "bad" as the present system gives individuals the ability to "customize" where they live, to a degree.


    Probably a more realistic system would be to require a corporation to state its "home turf" (much as a ship states its home nationality). The corporation would then have to obey the laws (including tax laws) of its home turf AS WELL AS the laws of wherever any outposts were.


    So having a branch in Nevada would mean Microsoft had to pay Nevada taxes AND Washington taxes.


    This isn't unusual, and is how many countries elsewhere work income tax. Those from Britain will remember the Ken Dodd trial, where the British Government successfully argued that overseas earnings - even those where he had paid tax overseas - were ALSO taxable in the UK.


    Yeah, you could argue that this is unfair, but the problem is that a lot of big-name celebrities and corporations have moved to tax havens. As tax exiles, they get to keep all of their money. The consequence of that is that, in order to maintain any kind of level of service, everyone else has to pay more.


    Eventually, what you end up with is the very rich being wholly and completely subsidized by the very poor. Welfare in reverse. Such a system is inherently unstable. The poor - by definition - don't have much in the way of resources, so the greater their burden, the greater the chances of the system collapsing.


    Let's take an admittedly extreme example. Let's say that the economy rested virtually entirely on the shoulders of minimum wage workers. It is physically impossible to work more than 3 shifts in a day. Given all that, and given the State and Federal income taxes at that level of income, how many minimum wage workers would you need to cover the average State budget and a typical Federal budget?


    If the answer exceeds the population of the US, then neither the States NOR the Federal Government can afford to support tax exiles.


    (In an ironic twist, those who do live in tax exile are often the most influential in Government, inverting the age-old critisism that there should be no taxation without representation. Here, they have no taxation, but often all the representation.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      So having a branch in Nevada would mean Microsoft had to pay Nevada taxes AND Washington taxes.


      You effectively do. You have to pay corporation registration and filing fees in the jurisdiction your corporation is registered in, in exchange for taking advantage of their general corporate organizational laws and chancery courts. You pay corporate excise or income taxes in the state where you actually conduct business, and if you conduct business in multiple states, you essentially are supposed to divide up that income and attribute it appropriately to each state. At least, this is the way the states that I'm familiar with deal with the issue. Delaware doesn't want to charge you full excise taxes for doing business there, they make good money out of having the best, most flexible, and well tested corporate structure statutes.


      In any case, a state can't really tax a corporation or individual on income that is already getting taxed at a state level elsewhere, at least not without chasing everybody out. For a national corporation, anyway, this is all particularly confusing. If you employ all your people in state A and develop your software there, then you should probably pay taxes there. But it's possible to transfer ownership of that software to a corporation in another state, for example, and have it's income attributable to a totally separate entity in that other state, making it look like operations in state A are not that profitable while the corporation as a whole is raking in lots of profits (this may be what Microsoft is doing, but it's not clear from the article at all).


      Anyway, the only way to make the kind of uniform changes you describe would be to do so at the federal level and impose them on the states (not likely). What if you have a branch in Nevada, Washington and Florida? How about in every state? Well, you already have to pay taxes in all these states, but you can't expect a company to pay taxes on all their income in ALL the states they do business in, they'd owe more taxes than they have income! So you come back to the problem of attributing and assigning income - it's a sticky problem, and ultimately you have to rely on a certain degree of honesty and tools like Sarbannes-Oxley to force that honesty. Beyond that, states need to deal with corporations that are abusing tax laws when they occur - if all your employees are in Washington and the company is making 10 billion dollars a year, but only attributing a billion dollars of it to work done in Washington, they are probably abusing the definitions provided for by law and they need to be cracked down on.

    2. Re:Unfortunately... by Hangtime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Americans aren't all that good about being consistant, even within a single State. (Not that any other country is much better.) To expect all fifty States to unify around a single optimised set of laws is hopeful at best. Most Americans would even argue that such a concept is "bad" as the present system gives individuals the ability to "customize" where they live, to a degree.

      That's why AG's for the states get together in order to draft legislation that will create some consistency in the laws across the country. I would agree with the second statement. Many people choose to establish residency in Florida before declaring bankruptcy because of the laws put into place to protect the individual declaring bankruptcy.

      Probably a more realistic system would be to require a corporation to state its "home turf" (much as a ship states its home nationality). The corporation would then have to obey the laws (including tax laws) of its home turf AS WELL AS the laws of wherever any outposts were.

      Before putting forth this analogy go see where the majority of ships nationalities are registered. It isn't here in the US its actually Panama and the Bahamas because once again they are avoiding tax liability.

      Unfortunately you are correct many companies are moving off-shore, Tyco and Dewalt come to mind off the top of my head as two recent examples, but the only way to prevent those things from happening (and retain our jobs here at home) is to become consistent and competitive.

      Taking your argument to the extreme is very Kant'ish of you but in no way resolves the issue at hand. Not everyone can skip the country and if everyone did the laws would be changed. BTW, according to the Congressional Budget Office the top 20% of all taxpayers shoulder 82%~ of the tax burden of the country. The minimum wage worker does not even contribute to the tax burden because they receive payments back from the government.

  24. But there is, there is a loophole by DavidBrown · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure. Maybe they owe the use tax, if Washington has a use tax, but quite frankly, how can it be enforced? I can imagine Washington being able to successfully collect use tax on new automobiles, which have to be registered with the state, but there's no way they can determine what a Washington resident bought in another state without a full-on anal probe audit. Does the California Franchise Tax Board know about the brand new Ecco europeon-size 46 boots I bought for 35 bucks on eBay from a seller back east? Nope. Maybe John Ashcroft does, but he's not telling.

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    1. Re:But there is, there is a loophole by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's enforced on businesses by a draconian policy of auditing every business regularly. When I had a business in WA, my accountant told me you always pay use tax because they will audit you.

      For individuals, the only item I am aware of that they can enforce it on is a car. When you register your car you have to demonstrate that you paid sales tax on it wherever you bought it. If you can't, you pay use tax in WA. You are still required to pay use tax on everything else, but it's difficult to enforce, so there's naturally lots of sales tax revenue the state isn't getting. Expect them to cry RIAA-style about it, it'll happen.

      As far as I know, though, WA is the only weird state with that sort of law. I wouldn't be surprised if several other states around Oregon have similar laws, though, just because of Oregon. In all the years I've lived in various states in this country, WA is the only state where I encountered "use tax". So I conclude that the GP (or whoever was talking about use tax) lives in WA, and like all people who live in WA, thinks that the way it is in WA is the way it is everywhere.

      Gawd I can't stand that place, I'm so happy I don't lvie there anymore.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  25. Not Rocket Science by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 4, Funny


    To keep Mircosoft happy, you give them a big blue button that says "SCREW SOMEONE OVER" in big bold letters. As long as they can keep pressing it, they'll never lose their errections.

    1. Re:Not Rocket Science by BlueLightning · · Score: 2, Funny

      The button you are referring to actually has "Start" written on it.

      Seriously though, I had to re-read your comment several times before I realised you weren't referring to IBM at all. It should be a "big red" button, not a "big blue" one. :)

  26. Microsoft: The Epitome of Corporate Pathology by javacowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft represents the very worst, most pathological elements of corporations in general.

    Microsoft takes standard coporate psychopathy, and amplifies it.

    This situation is a perfect case in point. They ask for more from more from governments, pay less, and rationalize this greedy behaviour by arguing they "create jobs".

    This is the same kind of arrogance demonstrated by companies that outsource IT jobs. Corporations are mere guests of the jurisdictions in which they operate. If they no longer make their fair contribution to society, then they should be forced to pony up their share.

    We have to pay our share of taxes, despite the skills and labour we offer society. Why shouldn't corporations be held to the same standards and given the same societal responsibilities as individuals?

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  27. How to regulate by randall_burns · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a serious question of how to regulate companies like Microsoft when they have such concentration of wealth they can basically afford to buy congress and the leadership of major political parties. It really does sound like these companies are destroying the very people and institutions that allowed them to become successful.

  28. It's an interesting point by ebuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've a father that is a CPA, but don't take tax advise from me, hire a CPA.

    Tax law isn't something that is consistent and fair. It's a hodgepodge of well meaning laws all intended to do various things which will provide the goverment funding while not trying to destroy the economy at the same time.

    That means a person may legally owe (depending on how he files) a whole range of taxes. If you choose to pay more, you're not a single bit more "legal" than if you pay the minimum. Add a few states into the mix, and some off-shore holdings, and I can mentally visualize the complexity of the problem growing.

    As for the poor not paying enough taxes, well that's an opinion. But the lower taxing of the poor is a philosophical argument encoded in tax law. The argument is something along the lines of, well, if we tax them, then they'll never make it to middle class which is where we really make our money. Other arguements like, "big business is really what drives the economy, so they should get a tax break so they can do more business" are also philosophical in nature, but people tend to forget this.

    As a result, you've got a lot of conflicting ideas on what is taxable, what is not, and how much. Just look at the relatively simple tax laws for food. There's literally cases where you can't know if an item is taxable until you lay down some sort of priority on which way you're going to interpert the laws.

    Food is not taxable. Some snacks and candies are. Prepackaged food being consumed on the premises is. Beef jerky is a snack, yet it has a history of being a real food staple. Chewbacca lives on Endor. That means if the stop-and-go has a food court, then the beef jerky should be taxed, but if it lacks one, then no. It's not confusing because of political kick-backs, but because of political do-gooders who really tried to fix it on a case-by-case basis over the last 200 years.

  29. Wake up and smell the capitalism by vulcan_pupil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO, Microsoft is doing exactly what they are supposed to do as a corporation: limit costs, and increase profit. That's what capitalism is all about. Unless I misunderstood that part of economics.

    Hmm, maybe that's why their software sucks so bad. They don't care about making good software, they only care about making good money.

    1. Re:Wake up and smell the capitalism by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmm, maybe that's why their software sucks so bad. They don't care about making good software, they only care about making good money.
      I see that as the whole plan from day one. MS software appears to be designed to be just good enough to do the job and run on machines just good enough to keep ticking over while running the software. Historically, if you wanted something good you would get something from IBM, Sun, SGI, Apple, DEC, Honeywell or a dozen others who are not around anymore. For years PCs have been cheap unreliable crap compared with the horrificly expensive alternatives, but they do the job. You can still find an old sparc10 doing something useful, but a PC of the same vintage is landfill.

      I've never used a piece of MS software without knowing there is something better out there - even using Microsofts Applesoft BASIC I wanted to use integer BASIC instead, since it had a compiler that came with it. After the teacher threw out my pirate copy of integer BASIC, I was reduced to using the built in Microsoft version, since it was good enough (peek and poke could do the job) and within my financial resources (ie. sitting on the school computer).

    2. Re:Wake up and smell the capitalism by DeepDarkSky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But as you say, they are doing what a corporation is supposed to do - make money. Any company's ultimate goal is making money. After all, the company is not any good when it stops doing that (something akin to stopping eating). A company that stops focusing on making money will cease to be a company pretty soon.

    3. Re:Wake up and smell the capitalism by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why does that fucking surprise you? This part:

      I see that as the whole plan from day one. MS software appears to be designed to be just good enough to do the job and run on machines just good enough to keep ticking over while running the software.

      How many companies whose entire focus is on making good software survive? NaN is gone. Um, let's see. SCO (the old one) is gone. Hmmmm, so many, I don't even know where to begin. Loki? Who else.....

      The fact is, if you want to make money, you have to focus on making money. The other things you do need to be consistent with the goal of making money. Anything not consistent with that goal is going to be an expenditure of resources that will hurt your ability to make money.

      Microsoft has many faults, and the fact that they've built such a shitty product is one of them, but the fact that they've focused on making money is *not* one of them. There are many ways to accomplish the goal of making money, some of them are "good" and some of them are "bad" and some are pure unadulterated evil.

      As people who spend money in this economy and who theoretically elect our government we should be focused on guiding companies to making money by doing "good" things and punishing or obliterating them for doing "bad" things. But we should never, ever try to stop them from making money, because making money is critical to our economy. It's what defines capitalism.

      You don't want capitalism? I'm willing to entertain alternatives that aren't totalitarian in nature.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  30. Re:Of all the things to knock MS for... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why should the *government* build roads?

    So I don't have to sign an EULA and a two-year service agreement to use a road to drive the store.

    Why should the *government* hire teachers?

    To keep everone else's kids out of trouble and off my lawn.

    Why should the *government* hire firefighters?

    So I don't have to find my credit card before I can get somebody to rescue my family from a burning building.

    Why should the *government* give disabled people money?

    So I don't have to trip over them on the sidewalk and in stairwells as if I was Charlton Heston in Soylent Green.

    Since you're the one who doesn't seem to need anybody else, why don't you head for the border.

  31. Cry Me a River of Millions. please. by Mulletproof · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's time to point out Super Obvious Tax Fact #1-- 99% of tax loopholes AREN'T. They are specifically written into law in order to promote free enterprise health, the backbone of this country lest everybody have a lobotomy at the mention of Microsoft. I find it amazing how the submitter portrays this story as MS being above the law and commiting tax evasion when they are doing no such thing. Infact, the submitter (and half yas out there) should be looking at Nevada, who specifically wrote their tax code to encourage companies to set up shop in their state. Companies like -gasp- Mircrosoft. I'm sure you'll be seeing huge crocodile tears shed by the Nevada state government for having to host one of the richest companies in the world.

    Looks like those 'loopholes' worked out pretty well for them.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Cry Me a River of Millions. please. by kayen_telva · · Score: 2

      bullshit. there are ways to reduce the tax you pay...legally. you have not researched it. by the way, no one says that MS pays NO taxes, only that they are trying to REDUCE the taxes they pay...legally. in fact, they pay more taxes per year than you will pay in your entire life. kinda makes sense now why they would want to reduce those a little huh ? the spoiled baby attitude in this thread is disgusting. you dont pay shit for taxes compared to huge corporations or even rich people. yet you would want to increase their burden and reduce yours. thats just great Karl. BTW, my income is pathetic, but I dont whine about rich people or businesses doing what they are supposed to do...make money !!! crazy concept. keeps society going and all that. try it out. so, I ask, how is reducing your tax obligation legally getting away with murder ??

  32. Other corporations? by DavidBrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having dug up some info on the California Secretary of State's website at http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/, I discovered the following:

    1. Apple Computer is incorporated in California, but owns subsidiaries, such as "Apple Computer Peripherals, Inc." that are incorporated in Delaware. Apple even owned "Apple Computer Domestic Subsidiary No. 4", incorporated in Delaware - I guess that ACDS No's 1-3 were too old to be on the Sec. of State's online records.

    2. Sun Microsystems: Almost entirely Californian, but there was a Delaware corporation, Sun Microsystems, Inc. that was created in 1987.

    3. HP? Well, there is a Hewlett Packard Retiree's Club incorporated in California. Agilent? Delaware. The old HP was in California. The new one? I couldn't find it.

    4. Novell? Incorporated in Delaware.

    5. eMachines? Delaware.

    6. IBM? Seems to be in Delaware, but there's a "IBM Global Services India Private Limited" in India. Wonder how much IBM phone support comes from there? (Seriously - I don't know).

    I'm tired and I'm going to sleep, so I leave additional research as an exercise for the interested. The point here is that most of the big corporations seem to be incorporated in "friendly" states like Delaware, or at least have subsidiaries in Delaware the way Apple Computer seems to have, apparently for the purpose of minimizing tax liability and taking advantage of other laws benefiting corporations.

    So is MS ripping off the good people of the State of Washington? Sure. But it's only par for the course, and it's what the other corporations are doing and will keep doing until we amend the constitution, repeal dual soverignty, and eliminate the states as entities with the power to legislate (ie, it ain't going to happen). It's the same thing as "forum shopping" (filing lawsuits in the jurisdiction with the most favorable law, if you can), or even some advanced estate planning techinques (some states have completely repealed the Rule Against Perpetutities, which allows people to create trusts domiciled in those states that can, literally, last forever).

    Hell, want to know the biggest corporate scam?

    1. Buy an asset owned by a municipality - a bus, subway car, sewer system, for an example.
    2. Lease it back to the municipality for an amount roughly equivalent for what you paid for it amortized over a few years.
    3. Depreciate the hell out of it and pay little or no corporate taxes, ever.
    4. Once you've milked the depreciation, sell the asset back to the municipality for a nominal value.
    5. Lather, rinse, and repeat.
    6. ??? (couldn't resist)
    7. Profit.

    The loopholes exist, and corporations (and people) take advantage of them. And when they don't exist, lobbyists convince legislatures to create them. Are we doomed? Not really. Washington may be whining over a few hundred million bucks, but it's not as if the state government has collapsed. Yet...

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  33. Since when...? by comwiz56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since when has it been illegal to legally make money?

    1. Re:Since when...? by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the problem with Americans though. We seem to think that if something isn't codified as being wrong, it must be right.
      I call shenannigans. Too many people no longer even CARE what's right, just what they can get away with, legally, or sometimes in the grey area. As long as you don't get caught, it's ok, right? I mean, if it was legal to kill someone (to take this to it's absurd extreme. Or not so absurd, if you take into account side-effects of unemployment, outsourcing and loss of resources), I may as well do it, right?
      This malaise has transferred to our corporations as well. Not all of them, as mentioned in the article, corps like DuPont try to be good citizens. But they're unfortunately a minority. Don't you ever question why America has by orders of magnitude the largest per capita population of lawyers? Because we want to squeak through any crack we can, and take what we can by threading the needle through complicated legalese. Not because it's right, but because we want to outwit the system and get something. Whether it'll hurt others or not.
      Gah. Anyway, I'm tired, and slightly tipsy. I hope this rant made sense.

  34. Nevada makes sense by AaronW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was recently involved in setting up a corporation and rather than set it up in my own state, there were advantages, other than taxes, for setting it up in Nevada. You will notice, for example, that many companies are incorporated in Deleware or elsewhere, often for the better legal protection provided by that state's laws. For example, trying to sue a Nevada corporation may be more difficult than many other states.

    In our case, taxes were not the intent at all. We still pay local state taxes as well, so the savings are not that significant. There is some tax savings since some of the taxes are paid to Nevada instead, but nothing significant.

    Now what I do feel bad about is how some companies set up their offices offshore in places like the Caymen islands to avoid federal income taxes or other federal laws. If a US based company does this, then they should not get the benefits of being a US company. I also feel that the federal government should not be allowed to sign contracts with companies that do this. I.e. why should my tax dollars go to Haliburton when the company sets up offices (usually just a mail stop) in places like the Caymen islands or elsewhere to not only avoid paying US taxes, but to also circumvent US laws and do business in places like Iran.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    1. Re:Nevada makes sense by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I also feel that the federal government should not be allowed to sign contracts with companies that do this. "

      This needs to be carried further. In this example if MS is setting up shop in Arizona because they want to pay less taxes and shirk more responsibility then the state of WA should not do business with them.

      The same concept just one little step further.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  35. common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because, in the opinions of other /. posters, every other corporation is slanted and corrupt does not make the crimes of Microsoft any more legal.

  36. Re:Microsoft: The Epitome of Corporate Pathology by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
    Microsoft represents the very worst, most pathological elements of corporations in general.
    They don't kill anybody by ommission or commission.

    There are much worse companies out there.

    A software company that plays comtemptuous games with the court system which does nasty takeovers and may or may not have stolen its flagship product from a dentist and bought him out afterwards doesn't rate on the scale of international corporate nastyness.

  37. Read the Paper Article, got the t-shirt by AnalogDog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yep, for this Linux home user only 15 miles from Redmond, the writer is sure right on. MS and BillyG sure are 800 pound gorillas, not only in Washington State, but all world wide. Rob

  38. M$ Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For all you brainless posters who are sarcastically dismissing M$'s actions as acceptable corporate strategy - you are missing the whole *POINT* of the article!

    The problem is not ONLY with M$ avoiding taxes, but their HYPOCRISY, since at the same time they are spouting out of their backend about how the residents are not paying enough and trying to get the people to pay even MORE taxes.

    What a bunch of BS! If I were a resident of WA, I'd want to kick them out.

  39. seattle a shit hole not becouse of MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok MS is evil but to blame them on seattle's ills is obsured...you should know that the head of boing has been quoted as saying that it was easier to design and build a new boing 777 then it is to get a permit to build a house in seattle...also you should know that the seattle city commision once cast a vote to remove the dams in eastern washington...the vote passed then in relpy eastern washington counties and cities made similar resolutions to remove tha ballard locks...needless to say the locks and the dams still remain, but what this does show is the complete lack of resposibility king county and the city seattle has demonstraited in the afairs of running thier city...oh yeah did i mention the mariners stadium mess in which the mariners threated to leave unles they got a new stadium, it went to a public ballet twice which was struck down twice then going past the voters the city made it anyway but it doesn't stop there they wrote the contract so badly and ineptly that they ended up being sued by the mariners....so much for the democrates who run seattle being democratic.

    this new article by the seattle weekly is just another atempt by the inept local media to blame the city's problems on outside forces instead of its inept government.

    Seattle's problems are becouse of its government who choose to focus on dams, baseball stadiums, and MS rather then cutting waste and taxes, fixing pot holes and implementing sane land planning that encurages development rather then scares it away.

    I left seattle 4 years ago becouse it was unlivable...and i see no reason to move back.

    stendec@gmail.com

    1. Re:seattle a shit hole not becouse of MS by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hehm, and here I thought Seattle's problems were a combination of rain, fat women, and bleeding-heart sickos.

      I, too, am glad to be out of Seattle. I don't know what ever possessed me in the first place to live there. Dumbest thing I've ever done, moving there was.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  40. PLUG! by Malicious · · Score: 2, Funny

    1. Write inflamitory story
    2. Put picture of Gates in gorilla suit
    3. Advertise to flamers on slashdot
    4. Profit!

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
  41. Re: Why?? The Demise of Microsoft by samvo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Demise of Microsoft

    In the long saga of the battle between the world and its detested adversary,
    the Microsoft corporation, everybody is dying to see how the movie end.
    Everybody also knows that in the movie the antagonist always dies at the end,
    but the question is how? To most who detest Microsoft vehemently they would
    like to see a quick and horrid death and those who detest even more so would
    only find a sadistic pleasure in seeing nothing less than having Microsoft being
    slowly skinned alive on a burning stake.

    An IT Fairy Tale

    Once upon the time, there was a computer software company named Microsoft,
    whose craftiness in marketing made it become one of the most popular software company
    on the planet. However, once that company attained its dominant position
    in the marketplace, greed and fear filled the unsettled soul of Microsoft.
    The company then aggressively pursued and eliminated almost all of its contenders,
    names that once were legends one by one fell to Microsoft's sword, WordPerfect,
    Borland, Novell, Netscape, Corel and more. Soon, people saw Microsoft for what
    it was, a cunning roguish company that had no conscience to stop itself doing whatever
    it needs to achieve its ambitions. All the other software companies
    realized that there will be no end to Microsoft's unquenchable thirst for power but
    none dared to challenge Microsoft until one day a young knight developed an operating
    system called Linux. Linux came with a license called Open Source, which represented
    to all the other companies a platform from which they can rally together in a
    silent treaty to overthrow the software tyrant. One day, Microsoft woke up
    and saw a huge army amassed upon the hills, companies that once were shot, wounded,
    cheated and humiliated now all carry the same banner, the flag of Linux. Amongst
    the valiant warriors, were IBM, Novell, Sun, Oracle, Sony, Fujitsu, Red Hat and CA and
    amongst the catapults and shields they used were forged from the power of Open Source,
    Apache, OpenOffice, Mozilla, PosgreSQL, MySql, Python, PHP, Samba and much
    more. What Microsoft saw shook its heart, however its power to control the market
    is still immense and with 56 billion dollars in the vault, its going to put up a very
    good fight. This is the year 2004 and the battle has just begun.

    The Crystal Ball

    So my young seer, you wish to see how this battle unfold? First, you have to understand
    how unlike previous battles where the companies were easily and ruthlessly cut down
    by Microsoft, this time the catapults and shields that the Allies formed from Open Source
    were impenetrable, in fact, the more Microsoft attacked the slowly advancing catapults and

    shields,
    the stronger the catapults and shields became. How can that be? The magic of Open Source.
    All artifacts created from Open Source do not obey the laws of the jungle, first of all
    artifacts are immortalized by having the source code freely distributed across the
    earth, as Microsoft attacks one point more heads would sprout from different places.
    Another power of Open Source is leverage, in the old times when a developer was to
    write a software, he practically has to write most of the libraries himself/herself or
    purchase or license expensive code sets from other companies like Microsoft. Nowadays,
    these libraries are all available freely from Open Source, graphics libraries,
    network libraries, XML libraries, parsers, compilers, were all there for all to share.
    This is the leverage that hasn't been available to developers before, now all the
    Davids have slingshots.

    Rebellion of the Serfs

    Back to that same once ancient period, almost all developers lived under the direction and
    command of Microsoft. Their blind obedience contributed immensely to
    the growth of Microsoft. They created applications of all sorts of shapes
    and sizes which made the Microsoft platform very popular. All these t

  42. Obl. Star Trek quote by zonix · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The clown can stay, but the Ferengi in the gorilla suit has to leave!" :-)

    z
    --
    What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
  43. Zero-sum thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To even out, there has to be a job somewhere that causes -1.5 people to be hired.

    Wrong! Wrong! WRONG!

    That's zero-sum thinking, and life isn't really a zero-sum game. If Bill Gates gets richer, that doesn't actually mean that poor people get poorer. If you are well-fed, that doesn't actually mean that someone else has to be hungry.

    Microsoft is claiming that for each person they hire in Washington state, the state gets extra jobs. This is because that extra MS employee gets paid, and spends money in the state (at Starbucks, for example, as some other posters said). The money can come from all over.

    And guess what -- we are all richer than anyone was 50 years ago. What do I mean? For $200 I can buy a cool pocket computer on eBay, with colour display and everything. How much would that cost 50 years ago? Oh, they didn't have colour pocket computers, or eBay for that matter. Our health care is better, so our life expectancy is higher. And while pop music sucks now, the cool music from then is still available now, and we can buy cool TV shows on DVD.

    What is the point of the above ramble? It's just this: when someone discovers something cool or invents something cool, the whole world gets a bit richer (at least if that person shares the discovery or the world at least finds out). There is no part of the world that has to get poorer when the rest of the world gets richer. We use money to keep score, sort of, but don't forget that even a billionaire 50 years ago couldn't buy an iPod, or modern health care.

    People think there is a finite amount of good stuff, and the rich people hoard it somehow. That's not how it works.

    If you are writing new tax laws, write them to maximize the benefit to society, not to punish the richest guys. If cutting the tax rate would encourage more spending and make more tax revenues, then do that. But some people will cry that it's unfair because it lets the rich keep more of their money. Because they are using zero-sum thinking to look at the world.

    I really HATE zero-sum thinking.

  44. Re:unsubstantiated garbage by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Funny

    Acutally, that looks suspiciously like RIAA's new math.

    Oh my god! They didn't give me money, that means it costed me money!

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  45. My $.02: I hate MS's products, too, but... by mjh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...why is this op/ed piece in a section titled "News"?

    Here are some excerpts from the piece:

    But it's about time we started asking hard questions about where our competitiveness is taking us and who is pushing the agenda. How is it that with one of the richest corporations in the world in our backyard, our state has become less livable?
    ...
    These aren't improvements with which Microsoft wishes to help. These are areas of concern the company wants remedied at taxpayer expense.
    ...
    Ballmer had to know, however, that Microsoft wouldn't be footing much of the bill if taxpayers increased education funding.
    ...
    Microsoft has been hypocritical about taxes and education.

    How can anyone call those things "facts"? Their opinion. Now, I don't mind op/ed pieces. But this is reported under the title of "News". If you want to express your opinions, that's fine. Just don't tell me you're trying to express fact when you're expressing opinions.

    If we in the OSS world, want to beat Microsoft, we can't accuse them of FUD at the same time that we're practicing it.

    $.02

    --
    Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  46. What MS will do to seattle... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Informative
    The article was about what MS will do to seattle when profits actually start to dip. They pay less than a 10th of what their balance sheet indicates they should be paying to the state. What happens when they start demanding handouts for jobs? I.e. look what happened to manufacturing states like michigan when the auto industry went south chasing tax credits....and figure MS is 10x bigger than all those jobs put together...

    the article is saying seattle has been screwed over already...what happens when MS actually has to COMPETE to make a profit?

  47. Re:A note on avoiding state taxes by Hassman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Education. I personally would rather be educated than have a job. I would rather have my kids (I don't have any yet) be able to get the best education available than me having a job.

    I can always eventually find a job. Times might suck for a while, but I'll get through it. But I cannot get through it without knowledge. I would be disgusted if I saw someone screw over my kid's education just to get some money.

    At the end of the day knowledge is the most important thing. If you have a good education, you can go out and do just about anything you want.

    Ultimatly that is why I'm not concerned about my job. If I lose it for whatever reason, I know that I won't be too hard pressed to find a new one. Yes, I might be unemployed for a while. Yes times might get a little tough. But I know that it will only be temperary.

    Knowledge IS indeed power. And with that power, you can lift yourself above and accomplish anything...assuming you have the determination to do so. And to a point, I think those two things go hand in hand.

    --
    -Mark
    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  48. We'd be happy yo have Microsoft move here. by OreoCookie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the fine citizens of Washington state don't want evil ol' Microsoft around anymore, we'd be happy to have them move here. Of course so would 48 other states.

  49. Re:Wake up... Your example is flawed. by Faldgan · · Score: 2

    Your example has one huge misleading item in it.
    The percentage of their income that 'Rich Boy' and 'Poor Boy' pay for their cars.
    In your example, 'Rich Boy' pays $60k for the car and $3k for tax, which you say is 1%. That means that he earns $300k/yr, and just spent 20% of his annual income on a vehicle. So he pays 20% on the vehicle and 1% in taxes.
    For 'Poor Boy', he's paying $20k on his car and $1k in taxes, which you say is 5% of his income. That means he earns $20k/yr, and just spent 100% of his annual income on a vehicle. No wonder he's poor.
    If he spent the same percentage of his income on his vehicle (20%) that 'Rich Boy' did (which would be $4k) he'd be paying the same 1% of his income to taxes that 'Rich Boy' did.

    --
    Nathan Brazil?
  50. Gorilla logic flawed by SysKoll · · Score: 2, Informative
    Says the article: Gates said, "If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source," according to Asia Computer Weekly. Gates knows that competitors are taking in billions of dollars in open-source-related revenue.

    IBM is creating almost 20,000 jobs this year and has a booming intellectual property business, fuelled by the record 3000 patents granted yearly to Bug Blue.Yet, IBM is developping a large number of open source projects.

    So the gorilla's logic is flawed.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  51. Re:HEADS UP by r2q2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It must be that balmer patch that automagically recognises the little numbers on his face and uses the angles to disallow viewing of the video.

    --
    My UID is prime is yours?