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.'"
I don't believe Ballmer has the ballmers to move the whole company out of the U.S., much less trade his life in the Emerald City for the Emerald Isle.
But I do believe he has a point about seeking out the lowest cost of business, and if it comes down to it, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft move all accounts receivabo to a tax haven and just keep cost centers in the U.S.
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.
We're facing a 16 year educational depression as the currently undereducated kids gets graduates and makes way for a new generation educated satisfactorily. Naturally, this begs the question, but I think Obama is the guy to make the right changes to the DOE.
While it is a requirement of a corporation to maximize the shareholders' value, Ballmer is simply grandstanding and expecting the government to roll over for MS' benefit. The current administration is much less submissive to corporate political desires.
The Administration should VERY publicly call them out and recommend government offices immediately develop a schedule for converting as much of the IT infrastructure as possible away from MS software.
Or, how will US government (e.g. its military) view the idea of using a 'foreign' OS?
It would not surprise me if such a move would hasten a 'turning away from windows' trend in US government.
And if the US government is anything like the EU on this, the consequence would be that other businesses would start migrating away from windows as well...
I am no consultant with Mircrosoft, but if I were, I would advise against it... The strength of the Microsoft brandname is largely due to its US connection. Cut it, and it might very well dwindle overnight?
Or, how will US government (e.g. its military) view the idea of using a 'foreign' OS?
Well I know that the Norwegian Military (particularly parts of the intelligence operations) decided that they would no longer trust or use Windows some years back.
The Long Now Foundation
First off, it just isn't a very good idea to start going tit-for-tat with the US government.
No duh. If it happened (or started to happen), I'd see three possibilities:
MS will never do it. American is their biggest friendliest market. Just look at the 360, outside of the US, it's pretty much a non-event and part of me think's America's love for MS has to do with patriotism.
MS does not have the balls to piss off their largest group of consumers and if they did, the government and turn around and start using a Linux distro developed by Americans (they should be doing this anyway) and MS will not go for that. They'd lose far more than they would by Obama fixing the tax loopholes.
So he can make empty threats all he wants. The gov should just tell him to fuck off to Ireland.
Sounds familiar. Nokia threatened to leave Finland unless they get the right to spy on their employees. The law (named "Lex Nokia" by the media) was passed on March 11th and became effective beginning this month.
Far more sensible for MS to move to Mumbai for most of their operations and keep the Dublin setup as it is. Staffing is cheap in Mumbai and there is a fast-growing computer/IT industry there and to top it all off a government that is willing to bend over backwards - for a small fee.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
You know, cause the Republicans and George W Bush are evil.
Or it might be because 30 years of supply-side greedfest has destroyed our economy... One of the two. Yeah, it's probably because they're evil though, because slashdotters are too stupid to notice something like economics but we all consult our priests and/or crystal balls daily.
Nid ad hominem though, I really felt part of a group there for a second.
Well I know that the Norwegian Military (particularly parts of the intelligence operations) decided that they would no longer trust or use Windows some years back.
That's likely because they either were not bribed or simply did not accept said bribe. Remember, in the US, MS' OS were put in place despite explicit regulations disallowing its use. Which is to say, it was not on the approve OS list for use which means it should have never been deployed. Yet somehow it magically happened. Endless factual accounts consistently proved every time this type thing happens, its because large bribes have been paid. If it were not for such bribery, its very unlikely MS would ever be in any system other than desktop and unclassified server systems.
One could even argue MS has taken the first step is destroying national security in the US. Hell, they've managed to take destroyers out of commission.
I replied to the top post explaining that you can have your cake and eat it too :
You want a VAT (sales tax) with a rate determined logarithmically based upon gross corporate income. An "income adjusted VAT" will massively benefit free market competition and discourage monopoly.
You'd also move anti-trust law into tax courts, giving judges the power to penalize companies by increasing their VAT rate for future years or charging backed taxes for past periods of violations. So if your company get fines 5% for 10 years because you spent 10 years destroying your competitors, well that's some hefty fine.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Please, please, won't people on Slashdot please stop repeating this tripe?
Man, I've been trying forever. Unfortunately, the people with rolled-up sleeves on CNBC tell them that they're right, several times a day.
It's not likely to stop, either. It's a very convenient idea for officers who would like to act badly, for one thing. Second, nearly all of the people on Slashdot who talk about financial news get it from places like CNBC, which is not only run by officers who enjoy this misapprehension of the law, but whose programming consists of mostly brown-nosing officers who were, or are currently, running companies in this way.
On the bright side, I have seen a new meme rise up; Free marketeers are starting to realize that their purer market will require strong tort... They're starting to accept the reality that "tort reform" and an efficient market are incompatible. It's not worth accepting the rest of dogma, but at least the drive to disable lawsuits has been weakened.
Back on topic: As Obama said at the outset, corporate tax reform is on the table, but only if every closed loophole is not portrayed as a tax increase. For one thing, reform is impossible without knowing what the current tax burden is precisely (i.e. figures for the top corporate rate are a lie). It's a subtle thing with what Ballmer and others are saying; they're not protesting a statutory tax increase, they're protesting increased difficulty in being a scofflaw.
And I'm threatening to move to Linux.
Oh man... do you have any idea how outsourced/globalized the Linux market is? Linux as a commercial software product is almost entirely third world off-shored. Microsoft was sort of an outlier in doing so much development here in America.
Do you really think companies like Lynx or Motorola or Red Hat are doing their work here with American developers? They're not nearly profitable enough. If you want to be principled and supportive of the American business framework, then Linux is basically raping our software economy. Hell, even Solaris is more of an American product, and Sun is pretty globalized, as well.
I am fairly certain BSD is, as well.
All I am saying is that the Linux v. Microsoft argument is really really inappropriate here. It doesn't apply on any front. The American Linux development companies did this years ago. It's just a bigger deal when Microsoft does it.
If you are pro American industry and development that employs Americans and doesn't subvert out tax structure, you should be using Windows or Mac OS X. Seriously.
Uuuhhhhh....what in the heck do you think we smokers are ALREADY paying taxes out the ass for now? It ain't our fault if the states take that money and piss it down a rat hole. We are ALREADY paying $4+ a pack here and a good 75% of that is taxes that were supposed to take care of our "burden", which is BS anyway since many smokers don't live to an old enough age to suck down the medical care like the non smokers do in the last years of their lives anyway.
And don't think they will stop with smokers. We have already heard rumblings about "soda taxes" and "fat taxes" and just about any other tax you can think of. If the US government didn't piss money down a rat hole and spend Lord knows how much propping up third world dictators and actually spent those taxes on their citizens we wouldn't need the amount of taxes we got now, much less more to deal with us "burdens".
Tell you what, I'll be happy to sign a 'leave me the hell alone mama government" document, where I agree not to get any treatment other than pain killers if I get cancer, and they get rid of the insane taxes on me. That would be fair, wouldn't it? After all I wouldn't be a "burden" if I didn't actually have any money spent on me, right? What do you think the odds the nanny government would agree to that, knowing it meant they'd have to quit blowing that "burden" money like a crack whore in Vegas. Yeah, me neither.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
That's exactly what some people said to folks like Alec Baldwin eight years ago when they threatened to leave the country because they didn't agree with the politics of new leadership (iow, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out").
But then those comments were accompanied by accusations of treason and worse... now that it's a corporation instead of a liberal, let's see if Ballmer receives the same treatment as Baldwin.
I can see the fnords!
In the United States, government does NOT grant rights. Rights are inherent, and the structure of government is such that government has limited powers. Basically, by default everything is permitted. The only way things are prohibited is if they're specifically restricted. It's the complete opposite of many other governmental structures where 'rights' are granted by a traditional monarchy or other hierarchy.
You must not be an American. Which is okay, but you're talking outside your area of expertise.