Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Threatens To Pull Out of the US
theodp writes "Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is threatening to move Microsoft employees offshore if Congress enacts President Obama's plans to curb tax avoidance by US corporations. 'It makes US jobs more expensive,' complained billionaire Ballmer. 'We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the US as opposed to keeping them inside the US.' According to 2006 reports, Microsoft transferred $16 billion in assets to secretive Dublin subsidiaries to shave billions off its US tax bill. 'Corporate tax is part of the overall advantage of doing business in Ireland,' acknowledged Ballmer in 2005. 'It would be disingenuous to say otherwise.'"
If they go out of US, to who M$ will complain to prevent unlicensed use of Windows?
EU is much more user oriented then US.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
First off, it just isn't a very good idea to start going tit-for-tat with the US government. That's especially true for a convicted monopolist, not to mention the fact that the previous administration essentially cancelled anything so severe as even a wrist-slap.
That judgement could be re-examined.
Second, that's just a really patriotic, really American thing to do. Or does it mean that patriotism is defined one way for corporations and their heads, and another way for "merely working Americans"? For one of the most profitable corporations in US history to in all essence say, "I don't want to pay my fair share, I'm taking the rest of the American jobs overseas," is a real slap in the face. It's also not as if this is meant to be a tax increase, it's meant to be eliminating a tax shelter. For you and me, using such a tax shelter would be cheating, avoiding doing our fair share.
Third, I'm sure "Vista for the US Army" isn't a done deal. Also don't forget, Linus Torvalds is a US resident, and I'm sure *he* pays his income taxes, as do the various US-residing RedHat, Novell, etc, employees.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I assume that you pay more in taxes than you have to, or else you are a criminal?
Moving operations to the lowest cost location is not illegal. Also, it is inevitable. Even if MS doesn't do it, someone will form a software company offshore that costs less to operate. Over the long term, this new company will take business from MS, making the end result the exact same.
Try as you and Lou Dobbs might, you can't stop the free market. Wealth and employment will eventually move to the most business friendly locations.
Microsoft: exploits loopholes in law to avoid paying corporate taxes.
People: exploit loopholes in Windows activation to avoid paying for a license.
The sad thing is that this is all Microsoft has become. Microsoft won't leave the US. For one thing there's a lot more to running a business than a freaking tax shelter. This is just another instance of Balmer blowing smoke. It's really a large portion of how he tries to exert influence.
I think Balmer is going to soon learn this is simply NOT the time to start drawing lines in the sand between greedy corporations and everyone else. Public opinion of Microsoft DOES matter, and painting your corporation as a bunch of dickweeds that'll just up and leave over some legislation is just idiotic.
AccountKiller
Individuals don't pay tax. Not really. We pass that tax to our employers by charging higher salaries. Can I get a free ride now just like a corporation??
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Steve, please do it. And better still, please keep telling everyone you're going to do it. You know what, how about starting a blog and telling everyone exactly how you think the American public and the world at large should make life better for the M$ shareholders.
Please, we want to know.
Not true.
Companies are constrained from passing on the full value of their tax to their customers by the price elasticity of demand for their product. Which in turn depends on the how much their customers need their product (can they put off buying them or do without, do they yearn for it?) and the availability of substitute products and the degree to which those substitute products are suitable (Linux and Mac OS X are pretty good, as is OpenOffice).
If he could pass on the full cost to his customers Ballmer wouldn't care about a tax increase.
Right; most taxes are based on transfers of capital. There's no fundamental difference between a tax on a corporation / income tax or sales tax. The money has moved from control of one (legal) person to another. Also the grandparent is assuming that companies charge for their products according to their costs which is garbage. They charge according to what they can charge. If MS starts paying fair taxes and increases product costs to cover it, that would give linux distribution builders who have to pay full income tax a more fair chance in the market.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
While I agree with the rest of this statement, the crap like "it is a requirement of a corporation to maximize the shareholders...." blah blah blah need to be RETIRED. Repeating this corporate dogma garbage just strengthens the hand of blowhards like Ballmer.
It is NOT HAPPENING in the U.S... it's all about doing what's best for the corporate elite at the very top. Even if you accept the "corporations work for the betterment of the shareholders" argument for a second you then need to take into account that the biggest shareholders by far are the Board members and CEOs at the top anyway and they are STILL just working in their own best interest.
To begin with, none of the executive team wants to live in any of those countries with super low labor availability. Sure, Western Europe, the UK -- you'll get lots of takers among management and plenty of good managers over there already. Try moving all those lifestyle employees living in the Seattle suburbs to India, Pakistan, Indonesia, or China, and you'll see a very different result.
So, now we're talking about really threatening to move the teams of "developers, developers, developers, developers" off shore. Companies that have tried this before have found that much to their shock, "developers, developers, developers, developers" are not bought and sold as commodities by the pound, but in fact are individuals who have creative ways to solve problems and work best when they can interact with the decision makers to improve the product.
The truth is, only the lowest tier of developer "meat" can be moved easily off-shore and away from the management and executive teams where decisions and management happen. If you ignore that, you get crappy product. You get crappy product because the offshore teams give you EXACTLY what you ask them for, instead of working with you to understand the goal and produce a result that makes more sense.
In summation: "FSCK-OFF" Balmer.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Seeing that the US is one of the few countries that have Software Patents, Ballmer might want to reconsider. Currently the EU does not have Software Patents, and hopefully never will. Seeing that Microsoft's strategy lately is to patent everything and spread FUD about Linux infringing on it's patent portfolio, threating to move the company outside of the US would mean there would be less of an incentive for the US to maintain it's position on Software Patents.
While making it VERY difficult on companies to hide tax money offshore, at the same time, why don't we cut corportate taxes severely. That way, you attract more businesses back to the US, and there is less reason to try to 'hide' the monies.
Besides, IMHO...corporate tax is useless, it is just a hidden tax on the consumer, since a corporation just passes this off onto the consumer as part of their cost of a product.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If you have held MSFT over the last 10 years you would have been better off with your money in a savings account.
June 11, 1999 @ $39 to
June 4, 2009 @ $22.14
Other than a little bump in early 2000 at the end of the tech bubble, there is not a year in the last 10 where you would have been better off holding your MSFT rather than selling.
Maybe they (and most corporations) should spend less time trying to game the tax system or the H1A system or screwing around with politics and spend a little more time trying to make a decent product. That is the ONLY thing that can increase shareholder value in the long term. And those greedy, greedy shareholders should demand it...
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Sveral comments:
- Ballmer sounds like an unpatriotic ass. Perhaps /I'm wrong and he's a really nice guy, but not in this article. He's turning his back on the country that gave Ballmer opportunity to be where he is today. Industrialist Carnegie came from Scotland and loved the U.S., and maintained loyalty until his death. He would have never entertained the idea of moving factories to China for cheap labor.
- Raising corporat taxes doesn't affect the consumer as badly as you believe. Yes some prices get raised, but increased taxation also leads to more cuts internally like plastic desks instead of mahogany, fewer free trips to Vegas, snd so on.
- If California's standard of living drops, then wages will drop, and eventually the factories will move back here because WE will be the cheaper labor than the Chinese.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The U.S. is becoming increasingly hostile toward business. I certainly wouldn't blame Microsoft, Google, Intel or any big company for leaving the U.S. if they can find a country that does not view them as a cash cow, does not attack them with anti-trust, and does not punish their energy-use with cap and trade.
A smart country could displace the U.S. as the economic leader in the world by recognizing and protecting the liberties required for individuals and companies to survive and prosper. If there were a country with minimal tax, strong protection from the government, freedom to think and act - I know I would move there.
Thank you! Why is it that corporations who want to keep the money they earned by selling products and services are evil and greedy, but the government wanting to take more and more of that money is perfectly fine? What makes government more entitled to that money than the person or entity that earned it? You can hate and bash MS or any company for thinking of offshoring jobs to save money, but what about rethinking our punitive tax policy?
I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
He has an obligation to the shareholders to not be "patriotic", but instead to maximise the value of the company. He could be sued in to the ground if he didn't.
Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
If MS feels that the taxes associated with doing business in the US are a hindrance, they have failed to consider that the US government might actually "value" those taxes.
That is to say, if MS becomes a foreign company whose retail products are being imported, expect the US government to set up tariffs on software imports. Expect those tariffs to draw substantially more revenue for the government than the present corporate income tax draws. Consequently, expect the net impact on the MS bottom line to go down, and go down further as the cost advantage they now enjoy over their principal competitor (Apple) evaporates, and as the security-minded DOD switches all of their computers to a US-made operating system such as Snow Leopard or a custom system from Sun, costing them an enormous contract.
I don't see how this would be a good move for Microsoft, but honestly, it would be exemplary of a larger trend: that short sighted "I only want to good parts" thinking is motivating US corporations to move most of their operations abroad to save money by avoiding US laws- such as, minimum wage and human rights standards, environmental standards, and taxation. For a few months or years, the profits of these companies SKYROCKET as their costs evaporate, but, keeping retail prices constant, they continue to sustain revenues. Until, that is, enough companies follow suit. When the US marketplace collapses due to the decimation of its labor (and thus, spending) base, there will be nobody left to sell products to- and the government begins to bleed out, as expenditures escalate on human services to mitigate unemployment, while revenues tank due to dropping taxes on all fronts.
In this move, Ballmer has stated his values. Specifically, he does not feel adequately patriotic to even want to pay his taxes, and he cares more for his stock value than for the value of the economy his products "serve".
If Microsoft leaves, let them. I will contentedly go on not buying their products, and smugly advise anyone (in the US) who cares about their country to buy an Apple product instead, which is at least designed in (and pays taxes to) America, or for that matter a product from an originally European or Asian company which at least has chosen to support its homeland.
By the way, if they were talking about "Moving to India so that we can save money on labor and taxes while simultaneously bettering the lives of our future employees there", which they are not, I would ironically be less opposed. But this is just about shouting a big "screw you" to the country that bred them.
Actually, put in the mouth in the Obama administration, that could be one hell of a threat.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
"Besides, IMHO...corporate tax is useless, it is just a hidden tax on the consumer, since a corporation just passes this off onto the consumer as part
of their cost of a product."
Why does this ridiculous soundbite keep getting regurgitated *every single time* this topic comes up?
If corporations don't pay tax as so many Internet corporate lick-spittles shriek, then they wouldn't need ridiculously twisted foreign tax accounts and be prancing around like sooks when someone comes along and tells them to meet their obligations in their home countries would they? They would just happily pass this tax burden it along.
That's right logic doesn't come into a discussion where fanatical ideologists are hopping up and down does it?
Second the same argument could be made for *anyone* who runs a business. "Small business owners don't pay personal income or sales tax, they just pass it along in the price of the goods & services their business sells, so they shouldn't be taxed".
The whole "argument" completely ignores competition, elasticity and old fashioned out of date sneered at "patriotism".
Good god.
The worst thing about it all, is you all point to Ireland as some sort of bastion of economic freedom and some sort of idol, completely ignoring the fact that Ireland has been hit harder than *any* other country since the depression due to it's low tax rates and lax corporate regulations and now has a debt of 800% of GDP and all the multinationals that used and abused her are now running back to their safe secure and regulated home countries post haste!
But yeah, the US should definitely aspire to be more like Ireland or Poland or fucking "Mumbai" as some tool below puts it. What a great idea.
"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak........."
I'll say...
The thing that makes him sound unpatriotic is the wording of the summary. They chose to make it about him avoiding efforts to "curb tax avoidance," instead of being about him "avoiding extremely high US taxes." I'm not saying he is patriotic, just to be aware that either viewpoint is just an opinion in disguise, not a fact.
Currently hooked on AMP
And, perhaps more serious, if those companies were to be protected and forced to do things by government production would become increasingly inefficient, since the incentive for efficiency would have been taken away. Inefficiency means that less money is available for the state/country/world as a whole.
The problem with that is what it leads to. Keeping a human alive is not free. Less efficiency means less money available as a whole, and as every developing country illustrates, politicians still steal enough money for 5 mercedesses and a private jet (you see sacrifices and policies only apply to others, don't they Nancy "less co2 ! everyone save ! where's my jet ?" Pelosi ?)
The end result of not letting companies move, not allowing for free trade, and "protecting" those poor (but eating) unemployed, is a whole lot more people starving to death.
In reality this doesn't work, the idea that "as the physical workforce is being reduced, re-school the freed up people into idea producers..."
The reasons are sad, but ultimately, my experience working with all manners of the mythical "poor people in America" (they actually do exist) shows them.
First, you can't just expect people to go from "physical workforce" to "idea producers" because you tell them to. Unfortunately, not everyone is creative. Not everyone is intelligent. Similarly, not everyone is strong or has manual dexterity. Some people are very well suited to chopping down trees, digging holes, and assembling circuit boards. Other people are very well suited to inventing things, drafting documents, making things pretty, and directing/managing. Some people are good at both categories, and choose the one that they prefer, in places where they have the choice. But it is not true that MOST people are well suited to idea work. Many, but not most.
Second, you can't assume that Americans naturally make for better "idea producers" than Chinese etc- if you try to set up America as a country of designers and managers, while having other portions of the world simply be the labor force, you (ie, corporate America) are attempting to set up a global caste system. Very dangerous. Yet, even then, there would remain jobs which must be performed physically and locally. Janitor. Pavement repairer. McDonalds cook. Chef. Doctor. If you set up an economy where "most people" are "supposed to be" concept workers, then you are conveying the social message that other work is inferior, and thus, other workers are inferior. Not a good message for a government, of all groups, to promulgate.
Additionally, consider that, even if they are capable of it, many people would despise office-type work. Myself, I am bound to it by ability (err, by lack of physical ability otherwise) but, especially working with the physically disabled, I meet people all the time who would rather starve to death than work in an office- they would rather build things or chop down trees. Many people feel that they haven't worked if their muscles don't feel it at the end of the day, and in fact, my father, being one of those people, actually looked down on people who worked with paper and computers.
Taxation is not patriotic. It is a necessary evil that keeps society functioning smoothly. And now, we get to spend our tax dollars buying up auto makers and financial institutions aside from all the colossal wastes that government can think up.
The purpose of business is to make money. Not to be a patriotic cash funnel that supports governmental pet programs. Keep viewing corporations as ATM machines and they *will* relocate to more desirable locations because there are a lot of countries out there that see the benefits of all the jobs that large companies bring. We seem to have lost sight of that fact. Now watch as companies relocate and the country loses ALL of that tax revenue and ALL of those jobs.
Those in charge in government like to think they "create jobs". No, a government job is not a "good" job, it is a drain on the tax base because it generates no wealth. It only helps the individual at the expense of the rest of us. But when the government makes the business climate desirable, businesses come and create good jobs that help both the individual and the nation by generating wealth that feeds back in the economy. Then the government benefits from that added taxation. Everyone wins.
- Raising corporat taxes doesn't affect the consumer as badly as you believe. Yes some prices get raised, but increased taxation also leads to more cuts internally like plastic desks instead of mahogany, fewer free trips to Vegas, snd so on.
Which in turn depresses the mahogany desk business and Vegas travel business, which causes them to close factories and lay off staff. There is no free lunch, there is no free tax. Right now Vegas is really hurting because people like you think it's really neat to punish businesses that have conventions in Vegas. In the same vein, people who buy heavily-taxed or -regulated goods are choosing not to buy these goods, instead opting to buy something without such hidden added costs -- or opting not to buy at all. If you want to see the results of this, just look at Detroit and how artificially inflated labor rates and benefits (thanks, unions) have made domestic cars expensive, inferior, and unprofitable.
He's turning his back on the country that gave Ballmer opportunity to be where he is today. Industrialist Carnegie came from Scotland and loved the U.S., and maintained loyalty until his death. He would have never entertained the idea of moving factories to China for cheap labor.
And what do you suppose will happen if MS doesn't move? Foreign competition that isn't subject to a crushing corporate tax will then have an advantage over MS. You don't move your labor base because you want to, you do it because if you don't, your competition will. It has nothing to do with greed (a favorite word of the class warfare monger) and everything to do with how the world works in a global labor market.
If California's standard of living drops, then wages will drop, and eventually the factories will move back here because WE will be the cheaper labor than the Chinese.
California's standard of living would have to drop below that of a peasant Chinese factory worker living in a hut with 20 other people before that would happen because that's what labor is like in China. Somehow I don't see that happening.
What could happen -- but won't because people like you refuse to understand basic economics -- is the U.S. government could drastically reduce corporate taxes. If you want see what kind of effects that can have on attracting and keeping new businesses to your country, try here. Corporate taxes were lowered. Businesses flocked to it. Tax reveneues increased because of a larger tax base despite a lower marginal rate. The general standard of living for everyone went up. And you're against this idea?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Take a look at what they've already done. They have already set up development centers in low labor cost countries like India and China. Moving more of those jobs out of the U.S. would just be a natural progression in the quest for lower costs. The worst part of this is that as time goes by the developers in those up and coming countries are getting just as good as their American counterparts. At some point we're looking at a hiring crisis here in America.
But that was under Bush's administration. Bush decided that no technology worker would be paid a fair salary (now competing with outsourced labor prices and illegal H1Bs) or receive overtime. Obama has said he will incur fees for outsourcing and tax breaks for those how don't. Should MS continue to do this, and Obama does anything he said he would (thus far he's mostly followed McCain's plan, or very closely so), MS will pay one way or another.
As a side note, has Obama actually done anything he said he would do? Has Obama done anything that McCain didn't say he would do? Has Obama given any speeches where he didn't steal from Bush?
"If corporations don't pay tax as so many Internet corporate lick-spittles shriek, then they wouldn't need ridiculously twisted foreign tax accounts and be prancing around like sooks when someone comes along and tells them to meet their obligations in their home countries would they? They would just happily pass this tax burden it along."
Ok, smartass, WHY DO THEY AVOID TAXES?
And the answer is...
Because it increases profits. There, I said it.
Should we allow tax policy to encourage moving profits offshore to avoid taxes and increase profits? Does Microsoft have ANY responsibility to pay their fair (or legal) taxes in the U.S., the country that does, largely, make their success possible? Should we not perhaps have a tax policy that discourages moving jobs offshore merely to avoid taxation? Can we in fact craft a tax policy that does any of this?
Corporations are now pretty much driven by self-interest, in a shortsighted way. Quarterly results, dividends, thwarting competition instead of out-competing, I suppose it was inevitable, but Ballmer's threat to move offshore exposes the culture of 'profit first last and always' at Microsoft.
This culture has resulted in so many industries in the U.S. being moved offshore, most notably to China. Can you buy a single piece of PC hardware that isn't made in China? What does it take to avoid Chinese-manufactured products? Is it ok to send U.S. jobs overseas only to maximize profit?
Ballmer's threat should spur this debate.
Oh, and for what it's worth, if we DID reduce or eliminate corporate taxes, prices probably wouldn't go down - you're right. Greed dictates that corporations take that opportunity to increase profits. Unless one says there is enough price pressure to lower theirs. Then the market starts working again.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I don't think Obama has anything to do with that. I doubt sane taxes will come about until we have some major catastrophe thats a result of our tax system. So microsoft moving over seas would be great, you get a couple hundred other heavy hitters leaving it might generate enough horror that some Change actually occurs.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
If corporations don't pay tax as so many Internet corporate lick-spittles shriek, then they wouldn't need ridiculously twisted foreign tax accounts and be prancing around like sooks when someone comes along and tells them to meet their obligations in their home countries would they? They would just happily pass this tax burden it along.
Why does this ridiculous soundbite keep getting regurgitated *every single time* this topic comes up? Because you fail to understand basic economics, that's why.
If the company didn't try to minimize its tax burden, it would have higher operating costs due to higher taxes. That would result in either (a) a lower profit margin or (b) a higher price for the end product or service.
You probably think (a) is a great idea. Hey, let's sock it to those fat, lazy, rich bastards, right? Cut their profits! Only it doesn't work that way. Businesses that make lower profits have less money not only for compensation but also for re-investment and expansion. So the business grows slower if it grows at all. It has less money in the bank to weather a recession. In general, it's always going to be in a worse position than another company with a higher margin, assuming the costs of the end product or service are relatively equal. So your brilliant idea is a recipe for hurting a company and potentially causing layoffs or the wholesale shutdown where tens of thousands of people could lose their jobs. Nice job!
But if we don't reduce profit margin, then the cost must be passed along to the consumer. Thus we get higher prices. If everyone were on the same tax playing field then this wouldn't be quite so detrimental (to the company, not the consumer, mind you), but international companies do not play on a level field. If the U.S. taxes MS more than India would tax an Indian company then the Indian company has a competitive advantage over MS. It could sell its products or services for less and still enjoy the same margin. Or it could sell it for the same price and have a higher margin. Either way, in the long run the Indian company can cause significant harm to the U.S. company, thus losing jobs, stock value, and so forth.
So I'm really, really sorry to have burst your Socialist Worker's Paradise Reality Distortion Field. Higher corporate taxes are an added hidden cost to consumers. Higher taxes are a detriment to domestic job creation due to depressed investment and re-investment. And if you know anything at all about how an economy works you'd know this already.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
What exactly is patriotic about running a corporation? The goal of a corporation should be to maximize shareholder profit, not to pledge blind allegiance to its country of origin. If the opportunity to accomplish this lies elsewhere, then a corporation should take advantage of it...
With that said, who would Microsoft threaten to move? More support operations (which are mostly in India now)? Other teams that are not too far in the hierarchy?
I doubt that this is a big deal.
No, like most on /. that post anti-MS crappola and claim they have been using Linux, most are still using XP, some can't unchain themselves from Vista, and some installed Windows 7 RC1 the second it came out. The closest they come to Linux is typing it and occasionally putting in the Ubuntu LiveCD so they can play LinCity or Same and be able to say they use Linux.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Whenever I buy something in a store, there is very, very, very, little that the government did for me.
Other than provide the safety regulations to minimize the risk the product harms you, the advertising regulations to minimize the chance you are scammed, etc, etc. Your commercial transaction occurs in a complicated environment, much of which is government funded, much of which serves to protect you (nominally, obviously you can debate the efficacy).
In general, I don't think there are many government services that you can fund on a pay-per-use basis. Fire department? Are you kidding? Many places in the country, they have to put your fire out to keep it from spreading to your neighbors. Having a patchwork of private providers mixed in would be a nightmare. For police, similarly -- take all the issues we have with police brutality, privacy violation, etc, and now throw in groups who are not directly run by a group (nominally, at least) constrained by Constitutional limits? No thanks.
Throw in the fact that you're going to have to construct an enormous infrastructure to monitor who's paying for what, whether you get access to x y or z service, etc, and I think a lot of the purported benefit is going to go out the window. Also, for many of these (e.g., libraries), there is more benefit than simply "what do I get today?" Sure, you could allow for private libraries, but they would be driven solely by profit motive. Public libraries serve as important record-keepers and generally provide a service to society in a more general sense than just a pay-for-service sense. Look at the book selection in your typical bookstore and compare it to that in the library. In my experience, the library is a much better place for obscure or old books-- the purpose of the library is to preserve information. The purpose of the bookstore is to sell books. They're both valuable, but sometimes very different.
Or... You know we could actually have sane tax reform where you simply pay for what you use and you don't have to pay if you don't want to use it.
How is that even remotely viable?
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
Internet "libertarians" seem to forget one imperative thing: Corporations are a 100% Government created *legal* entity. There is NO natural right to form a corporation, "God" or whoever must have forgotten to include that in the package and I'm sure he's very sorry Randians.
So without government power there's NO SUCH THING as a limited liability Corporation. All that exists are sole traders.
So if the government creates it, the government can tax it, destroy it or rule it as it sees fit. If the corp doesn't like it, it may disband at any time and the owners can become sole traders and not be liable under these regulations.
Pretty bloody simple isn't it?
Sometimes I think that many people here long for an aristocracy to rule them.
That's one way of looking at it.
- ...He's turning his back on the country that gave Ballmer opportunity to be where he is today.
If the country changes, then it is not the country that gave him any opportunity.
Industrialist Carnegie... would have never entertained the idea of moving factories to China for cheap labor.
If he was a smart businessman, he would have taken his business to the place that made the most sense. At the time, it was America.
Raising corporat taxes doesn't affect the consumer as badly as you believe. Yes some prices get raised, but increased taxation also leads to more cuts internally like plastic desks instead of mahogany, fewer free trips to Vegas, snd so on.
And you know this from... running a large corporation? I've never seen the internal operations of a large corporation first hand, so I'll have to take your word. I would think that office supplies are actually on the bottom of the list for cuts. When this economic crisis hit, I didn't hear a lot about companies selling their desks. I heard about job losses. Why would it be any different for a tax increase?
- If California's standard of living drops, then wages will drop, and eventually the factories will move back here because WE will be the cheaper labor than the Chinese.
Eventually they will come back? Why wait? Just cut to the chase and make it more enticing for businesses to operate in California from the get go?
He's alienating the business and personal user buyers ("Everyone's working together in these difficult economic times .... except Microsoft"), he's damaging future military sales ("If we continue committing stategically to this company's products, there's no guarantee that the support for these systems won't be under the jurisdiction of a foreign power in five years' time"), and he's also damaging Microsoft's influence over governmental sales and government legislation ("Now we're finally free to pass laws and directives that might hurt Microsoft sales (such as deciding to move to open-source), because if anyone complains that we're risking US jobs, we can now reply that Microsoft's CEO has suggested that those US jobs are liable to disappear anyway, at short notice").
Eric Baird
corporations have to also be of the public benefit, ie, for the citizens inside the nation where they are GRANTED their incorporation charters.
No, they just have to comply with the letter of the laws that set the terms of their incorporation.
Corporations that threaten to pull out should have their charters instantly revoked.
Great. Capricious moves like that are a real incentive for investment.
You want all of the benefits, all the profits possible, but none of the *responsibilities*.
On the contrary. Corporations, just like individuals, should be held to whatever obligations they freely agree to.
traitorous scumbags.
Fuck you too, Adolph. People are not the property of the state, and neither are corporations.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
There is absolutely nothing unpatriotic about speaking out against tyranny.
Additionally, if consumers don't pay the corporate tax, then who does? Even if it doesn't affect prices and only affects the profit margin, that is still bad because the company is not profiting as much as they would have been, thus an industry cannot satisfy demand as effectively, and consumers end up getting ripped off second hand. Cutting into profits is a very bad thing to do.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
The costs end up on the consumer either way. If you tax the corporations, then they raise the price of their goods, consumers pay more. If you don't tax the corporations, then the government will directly tax the people even more to make up for the income that they aren't getting from corporate taxes.
We pay either way. The government requires money to meet its many obligations, and it's going to collect that money through taxes of one sort or the other.
The corporation that I'm buying from is reliant on the highways and bridges that it has to truck its products across, and those highways and bridges need to get paid for. Either I pay the company which than pays the government, or I pay the government directly. If the company is paying, it factors that cost into its prices, and then as a consumer, I can see those extra costs and make a more informed purchasing decision. And a well designed corporate tax system would have the added benefit of compelling companies to use those public resources more efficiently, which would lower their tax burden, and then lower their prices.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
The problem with "pay only for what you use" is that there are many things that have substantial fixed costs (like roads, sewers, etc.). These goods give only a limited amount of direct benefit to each consumer, but, the positive externalities they justify the cost.
As a more concrete example, if we paid only for what we used, there would be no interstate highway systems.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Providing a product or services used by billions is not seen as a benefit?
Your pitiful reasoning would lead "instantly" to the USA being a 3rd world country. This country is only as powerful and advanced as it is *because* of the innovation, services and products created by these "evil" corporations.
The majority of the US income (taxes) *comes* from these "evil" corporations. How d you plan to support the welfare needs that are already over0burdening our tax system if these corporations no longer operate in the US?
Lastly, corporations are run by individuals. These individuals *do* have rights. One of those rights is to determine *where* and *how* they do business so long as their decisions do not present a clear an present danger to the rights of others. *You* do not have the right to tell them how to do business. You *do* have the right to start your own and run it how *you* see fit.
MS CEO Steve Ballmer lied about a false programmer shortage for decades. Republicans need for once to grow a pair and call his bluff. Quit coddling cronies.
Microsoft stifles innovation. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. He lied then. He is lying now.
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
Now, that figure has risen to around, or over 73%. This "obligation to the shareholders" baloney is a nifty neocon mindless chant, but since so many of the American laws have been written - in a concentrated fashion over the previous 20 years - giving special privileges to corporations - and making almost everything illegal now for the citizens - such crapola doesn't cut it. Legalizing fraud don't make it right, doodette.....
Yeah, cause clearly the government has done nothing to help the companies within its borders. It certainly doesn't provide education for their workforce, roads for their commuters, patent/copyright/trademark protection, investment in pure research that forms the basis of private R&D, emergency personnel to save them from natural disasters, military protection, retirement and insurance benefits for their employees, regulation of the markets so their stock can't be manipulated, and so forth.
Yup, those greedy government bastards! Demanding we provide the money for the services they provide!
"Because you fail to understand basic economics, that's why."
No no I don't. And you've set up one big fat straw man to knock down there in your long ideologically driven fairy tale.
I get it - you found religion in Randian free market economic theory. Very nice, the *real* world has what we call leeching bastards. People who will *live* in a country, use said countries resources as paid for by *everyone else* to make themselves billions of dollars and then work as hard as they can to pay NOTHING into the system that everyone else has worked towards setting up and maintaining that protects said leeching bastard to allow them to make that sort of money in the first place.
I suppose you think the old aristocracies deserved their position as well. Well I guess they had plenty of lick-spittles too!
"Socialist Worker's Paradise Reality" Lol ok what? That was a joke if you read my last post. I'm a contractor - self employed or in other words a small business. You know the real engine of every economy on earth. I'm about as far from "Socialist" as is *realistically* possible without becoming...well, like you.
I'm also allergic to religious fanatics.
"avoiding extremely high US taxes."
This I don't understand.
The US doesn't have "extremely high taxes." Compared to the third world it does I suppose but if that's the comparison that has to be made then that's pretty sad.
Compared to the first world it's in the lower end.
Heh.
I always enjoy watching somebody who has their head screwed on right destroying the phony arguments of right wing lunatics.
You couldn't have described the tax evasion crowd any better.
Leeches - they consume government services - military protection, social safety nets that keep the country stable, educated workforce, and everything else that comes with living in a modern country.
Then when the time comes to pay the bill for all these services, they can't stop making excuses.
And now what - threatening to move jobs oversees?
Microsoft has been moving jobs overseas as fast as they can for as long as I can remember. Luckily there are some things that Americans still do better than lower cost foreign workers. And now that asshat Ballmer wants to threaten to continue doing what he has been doing for years if Microsoft has to pay its taxes?
Screw Steve Ballmer, and all the other leeches that run and hide when it's time to pay the bill.
Correct. It's unlikely that Microsoft could be sued successfully in a US court for failing to evade US taxes. Corporate leadership has certain responsibilities, including remaining in compliance with the law. No judge is going to sanction a CEO for taking actions that keep the company in better compliance, even if it is possible to evade the laws legally.
a government job is not a "good" job, it is a drain on the tax base because it generates no wealth. It only helps the individual at the expense of the rest of us.
yeah, man. the military, police, firefighters, national park/forest system, local parks, judiciary, cia, roads, and schools are a real fuckin' drain. never did me any good; but goddamn, those bourgeois grunts and jarheads sure are living the high life (at the expense of the rest of us) in baghdad and kabul.
generating wealth isn't the only measure of usefulness. i agree with a lot of the other stuff you said, but the part i quoted is downright asinine.
the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
Then MS and any other supposed 'American' corporation should be charged an 'exit' fee equal to twenty times that too oppressive tax burden - and be barred from ever receiving any Federal contract or subcontract. In the case of MS leaving, the feds should immediately dump all Windows/Office installs for F/OSS. Of course, they should be doing that already just for the cost savings and quantum higher level of security.
Horseshit.
The US is what it is because of the hard work, dedication, and innovation of its people, not some legal structure such as a corporation.
It was people who struggled to open the frontiers. It was people who invested/risked their hearts, souls, and fortunes to bring this country into existence. It was people who worked hard, sacrificed all they had to make this country strong. It's people who have innovated. It's people who have created and invented.
A corporation, in and of itself, can do absolutely nothing. It's the people that run the corporation who are responsible for its success or failure. Furthermore, this country was wildly successful long before multinational corporations began to get get laws passed that coddle them and punish individuals who are guilty of the same types of actions.
This country can survive without corrupt corporations. They do nothing but concentrate wealth in as few as hands as possible and make the citizens of this country into nothing more than nameless, faceless cogs in a machine whom the corporations consider to be nothing more than pawns.
That is the antithesis of what brought the US out of nothing more than wilderness to the point of being the most powerful nation on earth.
One minute after Ballmer said that, MS should have ceased to be a legal operating US company. He can go try his luck someplace else
Actually, though they'd take a bit of a hit, Microsoft would probably survive just fine somewhere else - and they'd take 89000 jobs with them (and possibly millions of secondary jobs) too. You really think that's best for the US?
Why is this modded insightful? The government should have the right to terminate any company for what their CEO says. That is a terrible idea. Not only is it a bad idea in principle, as it would surely be abused, it also would harm a lot of innocent people like employees and stockholders. There's no way, even by your standard of morality that every person who worked for Microsoft, or owned stock are immoral.
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.