Will Amazon Get a Visit From the Tax Man?

theodp writes to tell us that according to the Wall Street Journal, Amazon.com has raised a few eyebrows with their strategy to avoid paying sales tax in eight states where they have warehouses or distribution centers. "As an online retailer, Amazon can avoid collecting sales tax in states where it has no presence, at least until Congress changes the law. But in states where a company has actual facilities, such as warehouses, states tax officials can require the company to collect sales tax. Despite operating hundreds of thousands of square feet of distribution facilities in the eight states, Amazon says it doesn't have any presence in them. The company argues that it doesn't operate the plants, its wholly owned subsidiaries do."

Comments

Re:hey, isn't today Gates' last day at Microsoft?

[heliocentric]

It was his last day, but then Lumberg asked him if he could just go ahead and come on in on Saturday then too, mmmm'kay?

Of course it will

[howardd21]

They have the same problem any distributor does, the relationship with the facilities they control. If they make income from the facility in a domain, then the domain will exercise a level of control over them.

Re:Of course it will

[ottothecow]

"Amazon is benefitting from police and fire protection, and other services in the states where it has facilities, it ought to be collecting sales tax just like any other local business." -FTA

I disagree, they should be paying property tax for these services (which I am sure they are). They should only be paying sales tax on retail sales not on products that are merely being distributed and since this is a warehouse not a storefront, state sales tax is not the answer.

Really though, sales tax is always a regressive tax and I don't think it is a great idea in general for that reason...

Re:Of course it will

[XanC]

Agreed about Amazon owing property tax and not sales tax.

But defining a tax as "progressive" or "regressive" carries the underlying assumption that every tax is an income tax. There's no particular reason to compare the amount paid via sales tax to a person's income; compare it to the amount he consumes. It's not regressive. It's perfectly flat.

Re:Of course it will

[jellomizer]

Sales Tax is a tax the consumer pays not the company... Amazon is already paying for property taxs, revenue tax, employee wage tax.... Paying sales tax is a tax that We pay as a consumer to the company who then resends it to the apporprate state/county/city on your behalf. So if they are based in Delaware but not in New Jersy they are not paying taxes for their services in Deleware they are paying New Jersey because they want the income from that person.

Re:Of course it will

[the eric conspiracy]

There's no particular reason to compare the amount paid via sales tax to a person's income; compare it to the amount he consumes. It's not regressive. It's perfectly flat.

Of course there is a reason, and it is that a person with a lot of income spends a lower percentage of that income on consumption.

The result: a sales tax is regressive.

Re:Of course it will

[ottothecow]

By definition (in the discussion of taxes, progressive and regressive are economic terms, not political, and are thus well defined) a sales tax is regressive. You are correct in your statement that it is perfectly flat--you just forget the step where a flat tax is regressive.

A regressive tax will take a larger proportion of a poor person's income than that of a rich person in any particular exchange. If you are buying a stick of butter for $1 and there is a 10% sales tax (hey...it is almost that high here in chicago on non-food items) then the rich person pays 10c in tax and the poor person pays 10c in tax. If the poor person is making chicago minimum wage, their tax rate works out to be about 1.3% of thier income. If the rich person is making $25 an hour, the effective tax rate is .4%. They are being taxed at about 1/3 the rate of the poor person relative to their ability to pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

Re:Of course it will

[sherriw]

So.. you're saying the rich should pay more? Why exactly?

With a sales tax, the rich tend to buy more non-necessities, and more expensive ones like cars and homes. So they naturally would pay more in sales tax than a lower income family.

True, they would only pay a smaller percent of their income if they tend to save and invest that income. Rather than spend it. But how many rich people do you know who don't go out and buy fancy cars and big homes?

Progressive taxes (income tax which increases in percent as the principal increases) are nonsense. Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized? It is not 'unfair' that some people have higher salaries than others.

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares if it should be encourages or discouraged, that's irrelevant to whether it is regressive or not.

You're the one who seems to be assuming that "regressive" is by definition a bad thing. Why?

Re:Of course it will

[Veretax]

Define Rich. Liberals running for office always talk about the rich, but what they call rich I don't see as being anything but upper middle class.

Re:Of course it will

[spun]

Socio-economic stability is a prerequisite for business success. The rich benefit more from programs that help create such stability. Therefore, they should pay more.

Re:Of course it will

[Retric]

Spending on maid/layers/accountants/travel are outside of the sales tax arena so it's still regressive when you look at in terms of total spending.

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized?

The greatest predictor of social class is the social class of your parents.

Almost all high income individuals became that way due to the social advantages of being born into high income families.

Why should someone be rewarded for their "choice" of parents?

The wealthy in American society "deserve" their wealth in the same way a feudal aristocracy "deserved" their wealth.

Quote:

A series of scrupulously bipartisan new studies by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts hints at an answer â" and the explanation is not a funk but a fact. Even in a growing economy, only about a third of Americans can be considered upwardly mobile â" meaning they will end up with more inflation-adjusted income and a higher relative economic standing than did their parents. The rest are maintaining their standing or falling behind; about one-third slip down the income scale over the course of a generation.

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/decline-of-upward-mobility/66431/

(yes I know it is the NY Sun reporting this. The original source is highly credible)

Societies with a high degree of income inequality tend to be corrupt dictatorships - and for a reason. Political power follows economic wealth, and where wealth is highly concentrated, power unabashedly supports the wealthy and needs to make no pretense to the common good.

Again quoting the source article:

When a society has neither equality nor mobility, it is an aristocracy. Conservatism accepts inequality as an economic fact of life â" but it cannot accept the existence of a class-ridden society where inequality is hereditary and permanent.

Though I suspect most American conservatives are just fine with a hereditary aristocracy, as long as they can delude themselves into believing they are a part of it.

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Define Rich.

That's easy. Someone who has a lot more money than you.

Re:Of course it will

[gurps_npc]

Because richer people BENEFIT more from the government, even if they buy NOTHING.

They get greater access to government members, why YES I will see the CEO of GM, even though he did not have an appointment.

They get greater benefits from the government (if you own bear stearns and go bankrupt, you get a bailout. If you own a deli, you get nothing)

You get more use of police and fire men - i.e. if someone robs you of /burns down 50% of your net worth and it is $100 the police say "We'll call you." If the same thing happens when you own $100 million they get RIGHT on it.

You get more us the roads etc and other services. If you own UPS, chances are you are responsible for say 1% of the damage to the roads, that our taxes pay to maintain but if you own a one man bicycle delivery company then you are responsible for a billionth of a percentage.

You get more protection via the military. If say China were to conquer the US, chances are they will leave most of the low end people alone. But they will confiscate huge amounts of wealth from the rich.

You get better government rules (mainly because of things like better acceess) the government protects the rich people hiring illegal aliens but not the poor people whose jobse they stole.

Due to economies of scale, it is REALLY easy for rich people to avoid paying their fair share. They can do things like invest in tax shelters, buy tax free bonds, etc. Poor people theoretically could do the same thing but the fees to do these kinds of things exceed their meager savings. I know people that move to Texas solely to take advantage of favorable tax laws, then take month long vacations in NYC.

You are very ignorant about the way the world works. You think it is simple, but it isn't. The world is a VERY complex place and if you have money you can take advantage of the various complexities. Poor peole usually are stuck with whatever hand they are dealt and don't have time, let alone the money to research how to deal with the various complexities.

Progressive taxes make a HUGE amount of sense because they recognize this fact. The rich benefit more so they should pay a higher percentage.

Re:Of course it will

[dreamchaser]

And they do pay more under a flat tax as well. In case you flunked math, 15% of $1,000,000 is a lot more than 15% of $20,000.

Re:Of course it will

[AK Marc]

So.. you're saying the rich should pay more? Why exactly?

Because they get more. Someone that's a minimum wage worker at two jobs barely supporting a family will be paying taxes. They support "social infrastructure" (I'll use that to describe stability added through welfare programs for the poor, handicapped, and elderly). They support the military. Those are the two largest expenses. As long as they manage to work two minimum wage jobs (pretty easy, since no one wants them McDonald's is always hiring), they get nothing from the government. The military support is useless. They own little, and if the government changed, someone would still need hamburgers. But Bill Gates would stand to lose massive amounts if a dictator came in and nationalized all industries and land. A standing army benefits Bill Gates greatly, and nearly all Americans gain nothing from a standing army. Many of the services are also designed to assist the rich more than the poor. Having a stable legal system lets the rich handle their disagreements with the government on their side. Places without a strong government you don't get to argue facts, but you use violence. Bankruptcy is a government protection on someone that owes more than they have. That does the most good for the rich who have something to lose than the poor who just let the repo man come in and then they start again.

So the rich should pay more to the government because they get much much more out of it. And not just more equal to their means, but a disproportionate amount more (progressive) because as wealth increases, the protections offered are more important.

Re:Of course it will

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized? It is not 'unfair' that some people have higher salaries than others.

It's a strawman (and not a clever or subtle one) to claim that advocating a progressive tax means that one thinks different salary levels are "unfair".

One can advocate a progressive tax based on the Rawlsian argument, namely, why should someone who is naturally smarter or stronger benefit over someone who, through no fault of their own, was born crippled. These arguments beg for a tax on natural gifts. Unfortunately, income tax is the best stand-in.

Alternatively, one can use two economics arguemnts. The first is that the rich consume more goods then the poor. They have more possessions that require protecting, make more use of air traffic controllers, recieve higher unemployment beenfits, etc. etc.

The second is that law and order are worth more to the rich. Someone $300,000 dollars in debt, about to lose their house, car and all worldly possesions, might value a continuing rule of law at a very low, or even negative rate. They have little to lose, and can probably gain if they are limited to whatever they can hold in their hand. The rich on the otherhand have vacation homes, yahcts, etc. They have a lot more to lose.

Progressive taxes also result in higher salaries for those at the bottom, as the allure of the future raise is lessened, making it cheaper to give people at the bottom each a smaller raise. That, combined with the lower tax burden, increase the freedom to attempt to become an entrepuner. Progressive taxes increase the number of people who will attempt it, while only hurting those who succeed.

There's a practical argument. If you insist that everyone pay the same amount, people would quickly become bankrupt with their 1/300,000,000th of the national budget. The rich have to pay more taxes because, well, the top 1% owns 98% of the country.

There is also a question of original aquisition. The original obtainment of any good is never fair. The first farmer gets the best land. The strongest evil warlord stole the diamond mine. The money that you get paid with was never entirely yours, because the person who paid you never entirely owned it, etc. etc. back to when it was originally aquired. Hence, redistribution attempts to correct that in an ongoing fashion.

Re:Of course it will

[catmistake]

Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized? It is not 'unfair' that some people have higher salaries than others.

This is total bull. You think Bill Gates works harder than a factory worker or construction worker? Had Bill Gates been born to a poor slum family, he'd just as likely be a petty criminal. Its asinine how the rich think they work harder, and thus their rewards are greater. Its all luck, as far as I'm concerned. The rich no more deserve their wealth than the poor deserve poverty.

Re:Of course it will

[Wandering Wombat]

And why should the rich pay more simply because they benefit more? Shouldn't it be the people who *cost* more that should have to pay more?

You figured out how to get blood from a stone? Sweet! Can you show me how?

Re:Of course it will

[initdeep]

Most states do not tax food.

they do tax non food and sometimes this means paying tax on your soda.

but most FOOD isnt taxed

Re:Of course it will

[Anonymous Coward]

-Because richer people BENEFIT more from the government, even if they buy NOTHING.
They get greater access to government members, why YES I will see the CEO of GM, even though he did not have an appointment.
They greater access to the government because its in the best interest of the government to be in communication with the people who have the most assets in the country.

-They get greater benefits from the government (if you own bear stearns and go bankrupt, you get a bailout. If you own a deli, you get nothing)

If Bear Stearns goes bankrupt, the ripple effect on the market would be devastating. If you own a deli and go bankrupt the effect is only felt by you.

You get more use of police and fire men - i.e. if someone robs you of /burns down 50% of your net worth and it is $100 the police say "We'll call you." If the same thing happens when you own $100 million they get RIGHT on it.

-And you also pay a greater total tax. If youre net worth is 200$ you're not paying taxes.

You get more us the roads etc and other services. If you own UPS, chances are you are responsible for say 1% of the damage to the roads, that our taxes pay to maintain but if you own a one man bicycle delivery company then you are responsible for a billionth of a percentage.

-The rich probably use the roads less. Seeing as they generally aren't forced to commute as much as your average worker. And UPS is taxed by for every delivery truck it owns to make up for that increased usage.

-You get more protection via the military. If say China were to conquer the US, chances are they will leave most of the low end people alone. But they will confiscate huge amounts of wealth from the rich.
Um... sure?

-You are very ignorant about the way the world works. You think it is simple, but it isn't.
While I agree that the world is a complicatde place, it seems like its you who fails to grasp the problem.

-Progressive taxes make a HUGE amount of sense because they recognize this fact. The rich benefit more so they should pay a higher percentage.
Nope, read above.

Re:Of course it will

[dreamchaser]

No, I think that everyone should be taxed at the same rate. I never said anyone should pay less or more than anyone else; that's your arguement. You make more, you pay more because x% of a larger pie means more taxes. The overall rate should be flat. Progressive tax rates are regressive.

On more thing, back to the issue of sales tax. It also manages to collect from underground economies that pay no income taxes at all(under the table workers, illegals, drug dealers, prostitutes, etc.).

Re:Of course it will

[ottothecow]

And before you go accusing people of flunking math, you should make sure you didn't flunk economics.

In order to have any sensible discussion of tax systems with regard to income, you need to learn to think at the margins (especially considering that US income tax is actually calculated at the margins). For those who don't know, the marginal value of a good is the value of one more of those goods. For instance, if you are hungry, the marginal value of a pizza is pretty high but after you have had 9 pizzas, the value of pizza number 10 is very low (maybe you would even pay NOT to eat it).

How does this apply to taxation? For the lower income person (we don't need to turn this into a rich/poor discussion as it applies just as well to middle vs upper-middle or rich vs ultra-rich) with an income of say $50k, the marginal value of their last dollar earned is going to be less than that of the higher income person's last dollar when they make $1million. The marginal tax rate can be higher at this level and the higher income person will only feel the same cost as the lower income person (their marginal tax rate is higher but they value that money less) and this is the reasoning behind why it is considered a fair system. Of course the opinion of the system will depend on how the government sets the rates--they could easily set rates that make the marginal cost at one income level significantly outweigh the marginal costs at another level.

The flat tax that you refer to (really a flat rate tax as opposed to a lump sum-style flat tax) is said to be fair since everyone pays the same percentage. This reasoning discounts the idea of marginal values which is acceptable as a policy decision (since fairness is very subjective) although I would personally not see it as being optimal. The big benefit of a flat rate tax is the simplification of taxes which proponents say might save enough money throughout the system to allow redistribution in a way that would have the same social effects of our current tax code without the pain of taxes.

Of course the simplification argument can be taken a step further. Most economists will tell you that a lump-sum (e.g. everyone pays $4000) tax is the so called "best tax." This is a result of mass simplification of tax codes as well as the fact that lump-sum taxes are not distotionary (I'm not going to get into this other than to say that it means they do not have an effect on earning/spending choices made by the agent...a thorough discussion of this should be in any intermediate calc-based microeconomics textbook). These do already exist in the form of some licensing fees out there (for instance a flat charge you might pay for title transfer/license on a car no matter the price paid). For it to be used in an income tax setting, there would have be be post-facto redistribution by the government for it to make any sense (like how do you charge $4000 to a part-time worker with a total income of only $4000). I include this mostly as an example of a tax scheme that doesn't get a lot of coverage but that actually has its merits and has strong proponents out there. People need to better understand that the concept of fairness is not universal--equity means different things to different people. Any taxation scheme has some sort of inherent unfairness; either someone is going to pay more than someone else or someone is going to pay a greater proportion of their income and in every possible situation, someone will complain.

The loophole has to exist

[Gewalt]

Can you imagine every transaction paying sales tax to 8 states? Just because they have a distribution point?

Re:The loophole has to exist

[jwkfs]

I was under the impression you only had to pay sales tax if the sale was made in that state -- ie, the consumer resides in that state. Is this not true?

Re:The loophole has to exist

[Anonymous Coward]

They only have to pay one tax for each transaction in a state where the buyer is a resident. There are 8 different states. Each transaction involving a buyer and a seller in that same state is subject to the tax of that state.

Re:The loophole has to exist

[TooMuchToDo]

Typically, if you're a customer, you have to pay sales tax to the seller if they have a "business presence" in your state. Business presence, of course, is quite ambiguous. Several online retailers have simply rolled over instead of fighting against this (Crucial.com comes to mind; they charge sales tax even if they don't have a presence in the state, and remit the tax to the taxing body in your state). Amazon on the other hand doesn't have the luxury of rolling over. Part of their competitive edge is not having a sales tax, and frankly, they shouldn't have to pay one as someone else mentioned, as the services their distribution centers use should be covered by their property taxes.

Re:The loophole has to exist

[dgatwood]

This is why if you're a smart businessperson, you should avoid putting your headquarters and facilities in states that have both sales tax and large populations. The best way to keep costs to a minimum is to pick states with no sales tax, followed by states with low population. So Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon have no sales tax at last count, though not all of them are ideal location-wise. So here's what you do:

• Delaware covers the northeastern U.S. New Hampshire would work in a pinch.
• Oregon would take care of California and the western U.S.
• Billings, Montana area would take care of the midwest.
• Arkansas covers the southern U.S. while impacting the smallest number of people.
• Headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware (just outside Philadelphia) so you have ample qualified people willing to to work there.

By setting up a company in this way, you can basically cover the entire U.S. comfortably while charging sales tax for less than 1% of the population of the U.S.

Amazon for 1000

[mapsjanhere]

"what is Chutzpa"

That will close a distribution center...

[tjstork]

Let's see a state with an Amazon distribution center tax it, and then let's see Amazon.com close it down. That which happened to Ohio and Michigan, will happen again.

Re:That will close a distribution center...

[Raineer]

Same reason Walmart is moving some of its operations to SW Missouri, big companies get to make the laws, not necessarily follow them.

Re:That will close a distribution center...

[ivan256]

It's not that big companies get to make the laws... It's that governments need to realize that their decisions have consequences.

Why shouldn't a company move their operations to an area where the local authorities are going to take a smaller cut of their profits, or impose a lower overhead on their operations? Those other governments seem to do just fine without the additional revenue...

Re:That will close a distribution center...

[NMerriam]

It's that governments need to realize that their decisions have consequences.

But businesses have consequences to their decisions, as well. Amazon doesn't have those warehouses and distribution centers spread across several states just because they liked the scenery -- it offers a business advantage to them, in lower labor costs, faster shipping times, whatever. Sure, they could just shut them all down to "punish" the states, but they risk losing business if shipping takes longer or they have to raise prices to reflect higher local wages.

I'm already paying tax on Amazon purchases

[my $anity 0]

The full 8.75% sales tax rate. Not only that, but the price taxed also includes the shipping. Not that that should surprise me but it certainly does annoy me. Amazon is suddenly becoming much less of a good buy than it was. Thank you Albany.

Move at least one center to Oregon?

[Penguinisto]

...or any other state that has no sales tax.

(just random thoughts here.)

They could then threaten to move the distribution centers to other states, and fire everyone there unless they relocate. Yes it's cold-blooded and etc.

But, it would make most states (esp. states where jobs and money are tight) stand up and take notice that you're about to cut a chunk of jobs (and income tax revenue, property tax revenue, injection of money into the local and state economy, etc) out from under them. Call the state next door and say "I'd like to build a large distribution center and hire (n*1000) employees for it in your state... we'll pay all the other taxes, but please don't charge us for sales tax. If the benefits outweigh the loss of sales tax, I'm willing to bet the state (esp. hard-hit or not-so-large states like Mississippi and etc.) would happily take the deal.

IIRC, Wal-Mart does this all the time (at least with local governments) - getting sweetheart tax waivers in exchange for the locality getting jobs and other economic benefits.

Now sure, it wouldn't be easy to just pull up stakes and move, but distribution centers are warehouses, which means that it's not a very complex infrastructure to move... the hardest part would be shifting the logistics.

/P

How is Sales tax regressive?

[howardd21]

Really though, sales tax is always a regressive tax and I don't think it is a great idea in general for that reason...

Sales tax is flat, it is only implied to be regressive because we assume, for example, the first $50,000 a person spends must be on necessities, and since that was all they had to spend as a $50,000 earner it was regressive when compared to a person spending 50,000 from a 100,000 in earnings. If the person earning 100,000 spent other 50,000, they would pay twice as much in sales tax as the 50,000 earner. The fact is that they both spent the same amount in taxes at the same spending level. That is not regressive, that is flat.

The income system in the US regressive, the sales tax is flat.

Re:How is Sales tax regressive?

[ivan256]

It's actually progressive, since necessities are usually excluded from the sales tax. Thus people with more expended disposable income are taxed more.

Re:Oppsie for Amazon!

[jcr]

IANAL, *but* I know enough that you can't wiggle out of tax situations by simply creating new companies.

What you think you know, is flat-out wrong. One of the primary reasons for creating subsidiary corporations is precisely to deal with tax issues.

-jcr

Has Amazon expanded inventory, again?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Now, I like tax free(er, I mean, untaxed at time of sale, later calculated and payed by me, in accordance with the law) purchases from Amazon; but their logic seems, at best, deeply tortured.

In fact, my first thought on seeing that explanation was "Wait a second, Amazon has started up a defence contracting department?"

Re:The sure things in life...

[Torinaga-Sama]

In Colorado cities (if they choses to have a sales tax) can either have the State collect sales tax for them, or if they don't trust the state or think that they can collect tax more efficently they can collect it themselves. You can imagine the ensuing nightmare of figuring out who to pay what and when.

How long?

[JSBiff]

There's a joke about lawyers. . .

      A bad lawyer can let a case drag on for years. . . a good lawyer can make it last even longer.

Re:Nope

[tompaulco]

Buy from Microcenter.com and if they have a store in your state, they will charge you sales tax and shipping - even though there warehouse that they ship from is in Ohio, they charged my GA sales tax.
Why are you upset about that? If they hadn't charged you sales tax, then you would have been required to file use tax, which would have cost you the same amount and taken you a few extra minutes, whereas Microcenter saved you all the effort.
Let me guess, you don't file use tax and so you will single out and punish companies who don't aid you in your attempt to evade taxes.

Bezos and Taxes

[WolverineOfLove]

I was involved with a program through my University that put us in contact with engineers who were also entrepreneurs. We spent a week in the Silicon Valley area catch up with Alum who had gone on to become VPs of engineering at startups, or presidents of companies based on their work. One of them was a man who was Product Manager for the Kindle at Lab 126 in Cupertino.
He talked with us for a while, basically hinting at us very strongly at what the kindle was, and showing us some prototypes that eliminated any doubt as to the devices nature. He also had his staff talk to us. One man, who had worked closly with Bezos said this (paraphrased):

"Jeff HATES taxes. The reason that Amazon has made as much money as it has is because Jeff carefully played the game to avoid paying as many taxes as possible. Lab 126 is a wholly owned subsidiary, because if it wasn't, every California resident would have to pay sales tax on Amazon.com."

And that was for a research lab that was actively developing a new product for direct sales from Amazon.com. Somehow, avoiding sales tax for warehouses doesn't surprise me.

Subsistence crime

[tepples]

Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized?

It is in the interest of the people to provide a safety net for those who cannot earn enough to feed, clothe, house, and educate their families. A slight subsidy to lower-income families helps keep them out of subsistence crime.

Re:Nope

[JaffaKREE]

+4 for this, seriously ? If you're lashing out at people who buy goods over the internet and don't file use tax, you may want to start with "A" in the phone book and go from there.

Re:hey, isn't today Gates' last day at Microsoft?

[Sponge Bath]

Bill Gates is spineless

He prefers the term 'flexible'.

You cannot evade taxes so easily.

[sethstorm]

Then they just have that covered under another equivalent tax.

Re:Nope

[tompaulco]

I would think people on /. of all people would know that just because the majority believes or does something does not make it right.

Re:hey, isn't today Gates' last day at Microsoft?

[Gewalt]

Ballmer joined in 1980. That video of him pitching windows 1.0 on youtube is not fictional.

Re:Untamed Slashdot

[mcpkaaos]

You wanted an argument? Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse, you want room 12A, just along the corridor.