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 $16 billion in assets to secretive Dublin subsidiaries to shave billions off its US tax bill. 'Corporate tax is part of the overall advantage of doing business in Ireland,' acknowledged Ballmer in 2005. 'It would be disingenuous to say otherwise.'"
corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations...
this line added for postercomment compression filter
And I'm threatening to move to Linux.
If they go out of US, to who M$ 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.
He admits they transferred resources to Ireland to avoid taxes and then whines that if they go after that, he'll leave...WTF?!?!?
All I can say is 'so long Monkey Boy'
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
Too bad Ballmer's father didn't pull out.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Corporations don't pay tax. Not really. They pass on that tax to their customers. Ultimately, it is the consumer that pays the tax.
My blog
Don't tease me like that unless you really mean it.
If anything had us doubting they maintain their position with criminal means, this should remove the uncertainty.
I live in Ireland. Should I be worried about flying chairs now?
It's just like moving rack mounted servers offshore. Just box them, ship them, and install in the new offices.
It's my assumption that while making the threat he was sweating profusely.
F*** yeah.
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.
Looking for ways to make money for its greedy, greedy shareholders.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
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.
That sounds great. I suggest moving them about 100 miles offshore, and then dropping them. It should make a satisfying splash sound. Then comes the thrashing, and the drowning, and the bubbles.
On a more serious note, just how many employees do they think are going to pick up and leave Washington for Ireland? Was this their plan all along? I guess the climates are compatible...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Greed.....just as old as prostitution, war and slavery.
Personally, I'm surprised MS hasn't moved out already. Not to mention plenty of other greedy corporations like the one that I work for. More and more, I'm beginning to think that it's time to get out of IT. The "bottom line" is all these fuckers truly care about. All I know is that karma will eventually catch up to them.
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Microsoft: exploits loopholes in law to avoid paying corporate taxes.
People: exploit loopholes in Windows activation to avoid paying for a license.
The Monkey Man has spoken! You may have to duck for flying chairs.
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
They can build an island just offshore from WA in international waters, set up their own nation, declare financial independence from the U.S. and every other nation. They can then set up commuter ferries to make the trek to/from the "mainland" take an extra couple hours a day. Then a couple things can happen, either 1) We set up trade embargos and they still get the rear admiral from the Gov, or 2) the employees get sick of the shenanigans and move to another company (say, Apple? RedHat?).
do they make folding chairs that'll fit in a suitcase?
I say the US then goes after Microsoft and EULA that they put on their software declaring it illegal and that they must pay a fine as well as return $30 to every person who owns a copy of windows. I say that would make Ballmer shut his trap. Not to mention I would love to claim a few hundred for the copies of windows I was forced to own.
See ya. Send us a post card once you get settled down.
On the other hand, Steve himself is a good candidate for the title "America's Asshole". I'm all for anyone with financial clout standing up to Obama and congress, but the enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
The U.S. is becoming increasingly hostile toward business. I certainly wouldn't blame Microsoft, Google, Intel or any big company for leaving the U.S. if they can find a country that does not view them as a cash cow, does not attack them with anti-trust, and does not punish their energy-use with cap and trade.
A smart country could displace the U.S. as the economic leader in the world by recognizing and protecting the liberties required for individuals and companies to survive and prosper. If there were a country with minimal tax, strong protection from the government, freedom to think and act - I know I would move there.
Mine is Good
It makes you wonder if they are happy enough to pay their EU fines without to much fuss and threatening to move there EU based developments back to the US how much tax dodging are they doing?
Yeah, and then it goes right back out to the government to make up for the lost taxes from MS. Good thinking, son.
Steve, please do it. And better still, please keep telling everyone you're going to do it. You know what, how about starting a blog and telling everyone exactly how you think the American public and the world at large should make life better for the M$ shareholders.
Please, we want to know.
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.
Ballmer's statement is simply the truth for a whole lot of industries. Supposedly, the fabric for your Levi's jeans is shipped to China to be cut into parts and then shipped back to the USA for sewing together. The LCD TV you buy from Sharp isn't really a constructed TV until the plastic bezel is snapped on here in the USA. All of this is done so that companies can avoid taxes. Companies are in business to provide a return on their shareholders' investment. Wall Street doesn't care if the profit margin went down because the government changed the tax laws. Investors will find some other company to invest their money. Adapting to the rules governments' place on them is part of doing business. IMO, this really isn't any different than when we 'forget' to pay the sales tax on stuff we bought from out-of-state. We all work the system to the extent that we can. I think this is just another example of the disconnect between the government and the real world. Seems to me the optimal solution would be to change the tax law so that these companies tax burden matches what they are achieving using these offshore loopholes and then eliminate the loopholes. That might encourage the companies to bring the jobs and profit back the the USA. We certainly could use the jobs right now.
1. If they pull out them make them pay capital gains on all of their assets at the time they start to move out.
2. Point out that they are a convicted monopolist and the government will sic the anti-trust lawyers on them for years.
3. 'Thoroughly' inspect all of their packages coming in. If they can't import the software for sale they can't make a living.
4. Revoke the passports of all microsoft employees in the U.S. The braintrust can't leave the country!
5. Tell them that the government will be going open source and Linux over a transition period.
6. Remind them that their corporate charter is at the pleasure of the government and can be revoked.
7. Invite the execs to a hunt hosted by Cheney.
Panic now, beat the rush!
...here's a towel.
Capitalist flight is good for the POOR! Capitalist flight from California means other poor states and some countries will have jobs while California rots. We've seen several either move to other states or other countries. Capitalist flight from the US means more poor foreigners will have jobs while the US rots. Driving out businesses with confiscatory taxes is a good thing as it will teach US not to do that or we get to smell the rotting poorer. I suppose we can warehouse them again but I hope that the architecture won't be so vile.
I moved wholly to a Linux based operating system. Granted that has not been all sweetness and light with the current de-feature- it meme but it's been stable and I can watch movies mostly. No games though. I'd have to buy Win7 for games or actually go out somewhere and play a board or card game.
.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
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.
Ballmer is like a spoiled kid who whines because he didn't get a toy during the family trip to Walmart.
OK, not if you are one of the people losing your jobs due to this clown, but think of the public policy repercussions!
Finally, our Government will have no (political) reasons to prefer Microsoft software. If Microsoft's products are imported, then our Government might actually start evaluating software based on it's merits.
Next we need the pharmaceutical, music, and movie industries to move off-shore - then our politicians may actually want to fix copyright laws.
-ted
If Microsoft pulls another stunt, like this, to rape the American people for every last dime then Maybe our government will grow a sack and ban any software from Dublin. Or better yet put a tariff on software imported into the US to offset them using yet another loophole to avoid paying for the COB (Cost of doing business).
I hope I live long enough to visit Gate's grave. Even though I'm sure his evil empire will live well beyond him we have to live for the little things.
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
what a crook! Not paying taxes - how unpatriotic - or is it the rats leaving a sinking ship?
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
"...what's good for GM is good for America" and we know how that one turned out.
Microsoft has cast itself in GM-speak as TBTF (too big to fail)
Microsoft has just failed and completely in Mr. Ballmer's eloquent statement of patriotic honesty.
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.
try this shit...import tariffs and taxes.
less protection under ancient us copyright laws it thrives on to maintain closed source monopoly
.less relevance and access to the us legal courts to sue and harass competitors
buying your american competitors becomes difficult.
Good people go to bed earlier.
That was only the first of many companies that will vote with its feet. You can't propose enormous increases in taxation without consequences. Besides, businesses don't pay tax. Never have and never will, its just a pass through. Oh I know about all the demand curve arguments, quantity demanded is simply lower (because price is higher) and the tax companies actually pay is a function of how inelastic the demand curve is. The more inelastic the more of the tax they can pass through.
But think about it. 1) Every dollar in tax paid by a company came from a consumer ultimately. 2) If the company is unable to fully pass through the price increase necessary to compensate for the tax increase and quantity demand decreases, who takes it in the neck? That's right, costs must be cut and that usually means layoffs. So a large group of consumers are going to bear the tax in the form of price increases or a small group will bear the tax in the form of layoffs.
So to this case, either Ballmer finds a way to avoid what is effectively a tax increase, or his customers and employees will pay it.
Trying to live beyond our means (collectively via the federal debt and the congress/white house orgy of spending and individually with credit card debt, mortgage debt, house speculation, buying cheap chinese shit, etc) has destroyed our economy.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Why do I get the feeling that this statement is purely for the benefit of the cable, one cable 'news' channel in particular, news cycle.
Furthermore that any company, let alone a convicted monopolist, that thinks that not supporting the US via taxes should really get the hell out anyway. The idea that large corporations should be entitled to the benefits of the US infrastructure without having to support it is absurd.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Wish I had the money to rent a nice bigbillboard or twelve as close to Microsoft HQ as I could get. The message would read: Dear Steve, Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Good riddance. Kthxbai. No love, me.
It's the closest scam to hostage taking yet. MS threat is meaningless because,like many corporate IT company's, they have already moved most of their labor offshore. Which means MS is making an empty threat. So we'll just have to live without traitors like MS.
And the lesson is thus: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." The economy is rather like those torus/cylindrical water-filled balloon toys. If you squeeze one end (i.e. private corporations), the whole thing shoots out onto the floor (insert pre-teen sexual jokes all you want...heh heh heh he said 'insert'). Governments can never completely control businesses in the private sector because they usually have lots of money and are therefore mobile. If a state keeps jacking up its corporate income tax rates, eventually the company decides it's no longer worth doing business there. This is a large-scale example of that result. The FACT of the matter (and it is a FACT), is that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. It's no surprise that companies choose to do business elsewhere. Also, when you chart corporate tax rates with tax revenue, there is a direct correlation between lower rates and higher revenues. And don't give me that "correlation isn't causation" B.S. It happens every time.
It's a shame to have such a huge and expensive PR department, then not consult them
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
As a shareholder, this is a great move. If this saves MS money, it puts more money in my pocket.
Maybe calling yourself a shareholder makes you feel all warm inside, but unless you own gazillions of shares you still have no say whatsoever in the way the company is run -- not to mention the fact that with a dividend of $0.13/share, it'd make for a piss poor investment.
Come to think of it, the only way for you to really make money with Microsoft is to sell your shares or, in other words, NOT to be shareholder.
RT.
Dear Steve, please move your people posthaste. Your threats might have worked in the '70s, but now, thanks to companies like the one you now head, globalization has shown the folly of 'protectionism'. Give Dublin, and Mumbai my love.
The main beef I have with Microsoft is I don't like doing business with companies that commit crimes as part of their standard operating procedure, even if they can afford it.
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
..but it seems odd to me that 99% of the comments here are all anti-MS, pro-tax. What do corporations do with profits? They use them to PAY STAFF, GIVE RAISES, purchase companies, save for bad economies (like the current one??), and return money to investors. What.. the hell.. is wrong w/ doing this? Generally speaking, corporations operating in the US are not evil. There are no corporate slave camps, no corporate mass graves, nobody making two dollars a day, none of that. Here in the US, corporations provide cushy jobs to often times lazy Americans. You can get a job making 50-100k "managing" or generally doing other low effort things.
So, ya, let's be smart, tax giant organizations providing millions of cushy, well paid jobs! We've killed manufacturing in this country, now let's kill of white collar jobs too!! Soon we can all work at fscking Starbucks!!
Also, why the hell do we want to give more money to a government that does nothing but waste it? The government spends 1/2 it's time creating problems and the other 1/2 trying to solve them. Stop funding the idiots in DC!! Bring responsibility back to the individual and back to the community! Stop trying to offload your personal responsibilities on to your government... or don't.. but don't complain when you DO end up in shackles (few personal liberties, large tax burden, no input into the political process -- we're almost there!).
FFS!
With the money Microsoft has, they should buy their own country.
No matter how favorable a countries laws might be currently, there's no guarantee they'll stay that way.
We all love to hate Microsoft here, but this isn't as simple an issue as it might seem. The cost of doing business in the US is quite high compared to much of the world, but people still want to set up here because we're the world's biggest market, and there's value in being close to your market, and because the tax schemes are quite beneficial to businesses. I'm not going to miss Microsoft if they go, but the US already lost manufacturing to Southeast Asia and our financial industry's in disarray. If we lose our tech industry, I start to wonder just what it is this country will have left to export in 20 years; the trade deficit is already a serious problem. Of course, losing our tech industry to India may just be inevitable anyway, but we have to do something to attract and maintain industry.
That said, current tax laws are a mess. The base levels for taxes on corporations and the wealthy are far too high, and to solve that problem, legislators have put in so many loopholes that many corporations get away with paying almost nothing. Just closing the loopholes is no good, because the loopholes are the only things that make operating in the US economically viable for many companies. The tax system needs a large scale reorganization, but it's not going to happen, because there are too many vested interests. Something has to be done, and I'm glad Obama's trying to do something, but I worry that a real solution isn't politically possible.
If they don't pay taxes then please do leave. Nothing works if there is no funding ie taxes.
Then the MS workers can finally work from their own home country! And it would free up a large number of H1B visas for the rest of U.S..
. . . breed desperate bluster. Every mismanaged American industry since cotton has sought to play the "jobs" card in an attempt to manipulate legislation. This is a blatant attempt to bleed every last penny out of an obsolete business model. If Microsoft's shareholders are to have any hope, management must change.
Income tax is less fair not more. Taxing income and you tax work, tax sales and you only tax consumption. The less you consume the less your taxes are. Also not all sales need, or should, to be taxed. Stuff like clothes, food, and medicine should not be taxed. Instead tax that big screen TV, and those big speakers that can blast clothes off.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Microsoft shareholders would do well to tell Balmer to shut his fat hole before he ruins the company.
First of all, he doesn't GET to make these types of decisions that he is suggesting.
Second, it's his job to SELL, not to get involved with national politics... particularly since he has not even SEEN any proposal. All that has been talked about is closing loopholes. This administration is very pro-jobs and has some kick ass advisors, advisors that the president will actually LISTEN to (instead of just calling them calling disloyal).
Third, the world is moving to open standards the way it has moved to Metric. We can expect the US to CLING to Microsoft long after the world has moved on to Linux, or whatever replaces Linux. Microsoft is a very rich house of cards... they only really make a profit on the OS and Office, yet they have a very VERY large product line dragging on expenses. A lot of those products (Visual Studio, IIS, Exchange) come close to losing money, and only exist to make it uncomfortable for any enterprise to move AWAY from Microsoft services.
So if Microsoft thinks it can do better outside America, screw them... I hope it creates a backlash. Ask In-bev how their Budweiser sales are doing since they stopped being "America's beer".
Okay, you decide it's too expensive to continue to pay American taxes, that's fine.
BTW, we've decided it's too expensive to continue to enforce your copyright on Windows.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
FACT of the matter (and it is a FACT), is that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. It's no surprise that companies choose to do business elsewhere
Oh, i love guys like you.
The Fact is that while USA has the second highest corporate tax rates, an abolition of CIT (corporate income tax) and replacing it with VAT will increase additional investment only by 1.5% (source: NBER )
while it increases corporate cash flow by $5.2 Billion. And that is in 1969 dollars.
The FACT, as you love to put it is that Federal corporate tax has decreased steadily from 52% in 1955 to 30% in 1967 only to rise up to 33.8% in 1968 (in response to Vietnam) and dropped to 28% in 1977 and again to rise and fall to 16% in 1984 (the begining of the Reagan Era of freedom and corporate irresponsibility).
And no, am NOT quoting these stats from my a$$. You can check it up at NBER.
So you were sayin???
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
How prejudice. I would say the vast majority of college educated Americans (the kind that would be working for MS) have an interest in at least one other country/culture.
And when the new employees ask for a raise, you ask them "you ever heard what happened to the people that were here before you when they asked for a raise?"
And they answer "I never met any old employees".
And you answer: "exactly" and then laugh your evil laugh.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I think it's logical to assume if the situation were that simple, corporations wouldn't spend so much money and time fighting corporate taxes. They're just not that interested in the consumer's problems.
Specifically when it comes to MS, many Slashdotters claim they don't buy MS products, so they wouldn't pay any tax anyway.
This seems like Microsoft are running scared, that they don't understand how to continue robbing people blind in this economy.
1 - Vista bombed.
2 - Netbooks arrived so they had to take a huge profit hit per Windows license to keep Linux out.
3 - The economy went into recession so many of their customers are struggling to survive and expensive Microsoft upgrades which give very little ROI are not high on the agenda.
4 - Almost every department of Microsoft either loses money, barely breaks even or is facing being closed.
5 - Every new market Microsoft try to buy / bully their way into, the users don't want what Microsoft offer them.
6 - Both Microsoft's flagship earners are under threat, meaning everything else has a tightened budget.
7 - Microsoft's profits were down 32% last quarter (I think) with no realistic (from anyone other than the astroturfers) of it getting better anytime soon.
8 - The public have turned hostile towards greedy, rich CEOs / corporations who abuse the public for their own aims.
Given all these pressures is it any wonder that Microsoft want to try this tactic? They habitually lie, cheat, bully, bribe to get their way, why leave blackmail off the list? Either your policy is something we can live with or we move (more) US jobs overseas and leave you with a higher unemployment figure to deal with.
First, I think it's Ballmers usual used-car-salesman routine of bluffing to get his way rather than something Microsoft would actually carry out but then, they have been laying off a LOT of people in staggered announcements presumably so it don't sound that bad in the media. Or perhaps the rules for telling the stock exchange dictate the staggering of layoffs. Who knows, maybe Microsoft are paving the way for a full scale abandonment of the US. Maybe they've found a country more corruptible to set up base.
Second, if they did move out of the US at this time, I believe it would backfire big time on them. They'd be painted as unpatriotic, greedy bastards who bailed on the US as a major employer who wouldn't help play their part in rebuilding the US economy when it's struggling. Ordinary Americans would be hostile towards them, companies wouldn't want to be seen to be associated with them, so a program to switch everything away from Microsoft products would be in play in many corporations. Governments would be pressured to do the same.
This is why I believe Microsoft would never leave the US, certainly not when the economy is in the state it is and people are struggling financially. When times are better and the recession is over, people have money to spend on Microsoft products again, so it's not a good time to alienate them then either.
In short, it's the usual elite bluff to try and make the politicians blink and change policy. My response would be a full IRS tax inspection for the Microsoft board members personally, and Microsoft as a corporation since they seem to think THEY are in charge. Any money transferred overseas into a tax haven is seen as tax evasion and punished accordingly.
I can very much see while they're looking at doing exactly this.....hopefully Washington (both the state and the DC incarnation) will get its act together and stop leveraging so much nonsense on successful companies.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Threaten the US government, which has yet to take a stand on your monopolistic behavior... that should help them have a favorable stance for you.
Sounds to me like Microsoft is already planning to move these jobs to countries that have cheaper labor... as a matter of fact, a lot of jobs are already in other countries. He's just using the new tax as an excuse to do so... it's not my fault, they made me do it. As Warren Buffet said, "behind every business decision there is the good reason, the one that convinces people... and the real reason"... the hidden agenda
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
I would be seriously surprised if they actually pulled it off. Would Microsoft no longer be an "American Company" at that point? And what workers would be willing to do that? And do they really think they can take their ball with them while at the same time continue to sell to the other businesses, individuals and government in the U.S.? The very moment they try this, some serious effort in getting "Business Desktop Linux" defined, designed and deployed will start. And before you know it, Microsoft will become a lot less relevant. But before that sort of coalition project would come to fruition, some court cases will be heard preventing the BSA from doing their thing trying to squeeze and extort companies based on a click-through agreement that no one read.
I nearly never post here. But if MS wants to threaten the U.S., then they can go to hell. I am sick to death of their arrogance, and Ballmer is a stinking filthy piece of distended rectum. They can go to where ever they want, that's fine. Then we should put enormous import duties on commercial software from offshore companies and Federal/State/Local governments should change all their software purchasing standards to exclude MS products.
I used to like Lou Dobbs but he's becoming more and more anti-free market.
you can't stop the free market.
Ah but we don't have a free market.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Further evidence of the administration complete lack of understanding of capitalism and free enterprise - expect others to follow. People don't like their livelihood and bottom line being screwed with. Car makers, software developers, ... no economy can grow and flourish without CREATING things and these are the businesses and jobs that can be moved overseas - we aren't going to re-build our economy by paving roads and expanding the service industries
Balmer is just bluffing to see if he can stop the legislation.
I noticed the summary was not too subtle about its bias though since it threw in the word "billionaire". Would the issue by any different if Balmer was a mere millionaire?
Put a ban on future MS purchases except where absolutely necessary. Especially stop the US Army (I think) deployment of Vista. How stupid is that? Tell Steve to take a hike.
Yes, this is mildly insane knowing the government, hire up the dumped Microsofties (why pay them to do nothing) and retrain them in Linux and create a governmental OS with extremely high security. I'm pretty sure OpenOffice can handle most if not all the MS Office requirements. Strip out all the extraneous crap. Maybe a base version and a military version. Actually China is doing it with Red Flag Linux (don't know how successful though) so why can't we? Go US/OS !!!
That said, current tax laws are a mess.
True.
The base levels for taxes on corporations and the wealthy are far too high
Our corporate tax rates are not too different from other industrialized, first world countries, just more variable. We have the trained employees and locality to collect higher taxes even. As for individuals, the rate at which we tax the very wealth has been dropping for 20 years and most economists I know think it is far too low and should be brought back up to the levels from the 80's or 70's to stabilize the economy.
...and to solve that problem, legislators have put in so many loopholes that many corporations get away with paying almost nothing.
I see. Here I thought legislators put loopholes in because they were betraying our trust in exchange for large campaign donations from said corporations and because they and their friends own and run said corporations. I'm quite glad to learn they're really trying to do the right thing and solve our tax problem.
...I start to wonder just what it is this country will have left to export in 20 years; the trade deficit is already a serious problem. Of course, losing our tech industry to India may just be inevitable anyway, but we have to do something to attract and maintain industry.
We will never be able to compete with third world countries for being the cheapest place to operate and hire unless we're willing to drive the vast majority of our population into poverty and rescind all our human rights protections. Lowering our tax rates does little or nothing to change this equation. Companies do business in the US because we have a large number of educated well trained people, with cutting edge research in many fields, and because the people running the companies want to live here because of the quality of life. We should be playing to those strengths and focusing on fixing and expanding our educational system and research before we lose that advantage and maintaining the quality of life here so people who can live anywhere and hire workers anywhere prefer to do so here.
Enjoy the audit this year, Steve.
Steve Ballmer himself (and probably most of MS's shareholders) would never consider moving to Ireland.
Visit the
Raidbird sprinklers did this. They didn't move to another country, but moved their headquarters from California to Arizona. The reason was that California is very expensive, in all aspects. So they decided to move to a cheaper state. I don't know all the details of the move (my roommate worked for them, not me) but more or less it was a situation of "We'll pay the cost to help you move and though you don't get an actual raise, you effectively do since things are cheaper in Arizona." Apparently enough of their work force was interested to make it worth while because the move did happen. They still have a California office, but their big location is Arizona.
Makes sense too. You can buy a three bedroom house in much of Arizona for less than you'd rent a studio apartment in much of California. A salary that was meager in California can be just fine in Arizona.
Now while another country is a bigger move, that sort of thing is still doable. If the incentives the company offers are good and the employees like who they work for, such a thing can happen. Also it doesn't have to be an overnight transition. You set up a new office and move as many people as want to. Then you basically stop hiring at the old location. Slowly your workforce will shift locations.
.. have been warned to keep on the lookout for flying chairs?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Negativity towards Microsoft on Slashdot?! You've got to be kidding!
Anyway...
A few business principles are in order:
Business exists to satisfy a need in the market
Businesses exist to make money for its stakeholders
People work for businesses to make money
Microsoft, as a company, is expected to make more money year after year. Balmer, is tasked by the board to make sure this happens. It his responsibility to fight for Microsoft to make sure the percentage of growth exceeds inflation. If not, Balmer has not fulfilled his responsibility to the stakeholder.
So, why is it so surprising that Microsoft would "threaten" to move jobs outside of the US? Now, a few liberal government principles are in order:
Government exists to make money. It is incapable of producing for itself, therefore it must tax to satisfy this need.
Government is providing entitlement programs, including health, social security, disability, etc. New entitlements require funding, thus more taxes.
Anti-corporate sentiment from Democrats, leads them to believe that taxing the "rich" is appropriate. Microsoft and many other large businesses gross billions per year. The US Government believes its entitled to larger tax receipts from these businesses.
Microsoft can only pass the buck so far to the consumer, before they get pissed and switch to the competition. A stakeholder is leaving Microsoft (if this is the case) and Balmer must retain the consumer base.
Balmer is making the right call.
http://www.allometry.com
that Taxation is not the American Way. And the crowd jeering at the problems of corporations and the rich and praising wealth redistribution, will reap what it saws as this country becomes destitute. I grew up in the former Soviet Union where everyone was "equal" and companies were government's bitches. Most people were really equal back then - equally fucked that is.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
...but becoming more relevant to /. in general:
I've become more less familiar with the white-on-white titlebars for posts, but a new feature I seem to be getting is this sort of grey widget-like hoverbar that doesn't seem to do anything. Or is that just me?
Fortunately, it appears to be fixable in the same way, by clicking "change" at the top (without setting new thresholds), but perhaps it's a symptom of entropy setting in...
Ballmer Threatens To Pull Out of the US
Does this mean Ballmer admits hes been screwing the US for years?
First, this is bullshit. It's an idle threat.
Second, this is bullshit. MS has been hugely successful and will likely continue to be, even more so if they get their (his) head out of their ass. This would put a minor dent profits, and would be good for the rest of us. MS should pay their fair share.
... and it's NOT BS. The correlation simply doesn't say one way or the other what the cause is. If you want to support an assertion of cause, you cannot use correlation for that. It could be that higher revenues cause lower taxation rates, too. In fact, this also happens ... when a government has sufficient tax revenues, it lowers tax rates.
The real issue here is the tax pressure pushing corporations to go to other countries. The "multi-nationals" can do this easily. The tax system itself is where the fundamental flaw is. It wants to tax a corporation on its entire worldly profits just because of where it is headquartered, registered, etc. The tax structure needs to be based on the amount of business being done within the taxing country. One option is to drop corporate income tax entirely, and apply a form of VAT tax as the exclusive tax (applied equally to both imported and domestic products).
There is in fact much competition within the USA for corporate relocations based on various tax rates. Corporations shop for "desperate" jurisdictions willing to provide reduced tax rates for X years (where X might be as high as 99).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I hate the spin on this story. The word "billionaire" is thrown in to describe Ballmer for no reason other than wealth envy. Dublin subsidiaries aren't "secretive" unless you're trying to get us to dislike and distrust them. Microsoft isn't "threatening", they are announcing - unless you're trying to intentionally pick words with negative connotations. Whatever happened to news trying not to have a point of view?
Ireland attracts businesses through tax breaks. It's a fantastic idea. America punishes businesses through wealth envy tax-the-fat-cats policies because they cost little in votes. But it's a horrible idea for the country. It just has the effect of encouraging valuable billionaires to pack up and move and go generate wealth (and taxes) somewhere that is more friendly to them.
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
I think at some point, probably around the time the US gets around to adopting International Financial Reporting Standards, the major economies are going to start talking about harmonising tax rates to a certain extent. Many major governments are currently tackling transfer pricing and offshore tax havens, it is no coincidence that they are all doing it at the same time.
So
Cut the loopholes and you won't need to increase Tax, you might be able to reduce the tax burden on companies...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Absolutely.
If Microsoft moves their jobs out of the US, the US government and military should decide that there's no longer a good reason not to announce a new long-term strategy of migrating all new systems and system upgrades to open-source by default, whenever there's not a good reason to do otherwise. Microsoft will cease to be a strategic US company with the governmental&CIA support that goes with that status. Pres. Obama can announce the strategic move to open source as part of his cuts programme for eliminating wasteful government spending, and declare that part of the new US healthcare initiative is the condition that the main software that runs the system be open-source.
It sounds like a sensible populist move - an accountant can probably calculate how many copies of Windows there are in use in the US governement and military and estimate how much the US taxpayer spends per year on buying proprietary operating systems and office software ... and that big number (or a proportion of it) can be announced as an immediate saving for next year onwards, without the White House having to do a thing except issue a couple of federal directives and notifying state governments that they're expected to follow suit.
The only reason not to do that //now//, is that Microsoft would cry foul and complain that the decision would hurt a flagship US company and cost US jobs. But if the jobs have already been moved out of the US, and the company is currently so successful partly becuase they channel so much paperwork to a foreign tax haven to avoid paying US taxes, then really, who's really being protected other than the company's owners?
If MS move those jobs out of the US, then fuck them. Seriously. Fuck them. Default patriotic behaviour then switches from supporting them to making sure that they're penalised for trying to screw the society that made them successful. Eliminate all US government money that's going their way, as soon as possible, and divert it to people who actually need it, or who are actually trying to make a positive difference to the US economy.
Eric Baird
Tools like you, and you are obviously a tool, are forgetting that corporations have to also be of the public benefit, ie, for the citizens inside the nation where they are GRANTED their incorporation charters. You only parrot half the equation for corporations, the maximizing profits side, which is both disingenuous and also quite capricious and harmful to society.
Corporations are artificial organizational structures that have NO natural rights. They are not exactly the same as a live physical human. YOU as a live physical human have born with inalienable rights, corporations do not, and neglecting the "be of public benefit" side of the equation for their permission to even be a corporation is pretty bad behavior. I think "we the people" would be perfectly within our rights and duties as custodians of these incorporation charters to just cancel their permissions, revoke their charters, once they start to act in an inimical fashion to society. And at which point I think in this case Microsoft crossed that line years ago due to their obviously ongoing criminal and obnoxious behavior, here and around the world.
This should happen a lot more IMO. Corporations that threaten to pull out should have their charters instantly revoked. Instantly. 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, but his stock would have ceased being able to be traded on any US exchanges. What happens then to their stock price...tough shit. Their call. If they want to be a US company, play fair, if not, hit the road, leave, good bye, and in the meantime if your stock tanks, maybe the stockholders and their employees on the boards should have been a little less greedy and a little more patriotic if they wanted all the benefits of being in our national society.
You want all of the benefits, all the profits possible, but none of the *responsibilities*. Go to hades then, you and your stockholders greed obsession are a huge part of what is wrong with society today, traitorous scumbags.
Libertarian Paradise
"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."
To true,
I've worked on three projects in the last year alone that were initially outsourced to India then brought back because of the abysmal final product.
This is why I don't care one whit when companies outsource. We get to charge more when they inevitably bring it back and give it to us tail between the legs to get us to "fix" the problems. It'd be cheaper to start again but there's usually pride at stake so we let them do what they need to do to save face. Unfortunately others have gone broke instead of admitting that they fucked up trying to save a couple of dollars.
It's a bit of an inside joke in the industry here. A mate of mine working in another company and has had two major projects in the last six months for the same reason.
I don't know what goes on over there, but I've seen swaths of code that are worse than *anything* I've ever seen even from beginners. Lots of it seems like something a code generator would spit out, but it's all logic so who I don't see how. Unless they're super advanced genuiuses and are creating AI to auto write programs or something... geez that'd be a problem! Then again the AI is writing some pretty crap code so maybe not. :)
Taxing sales could be called a regressive tax since poorer people spend more on food relative to their income.
It encourages hard work. The government gets the same amount of money that they get today. Reuse is encouraged. The IRS is gone. Your spending determines you taxation, so saving is encouraged. Really wealthy people spend more, so they are taxed at a much higher rate.
So which is it ... do the poor pay more or do the rich pay more? The fact is, under this system, the RATE (percentage of sale value) is flat. What we would be replacing is a system which is NOT flat. The current system puts a greater burden on the rich with a higher percentage. While many of the rich do find ways to avoid the taxes and reduce their effective rate, many of these ways are methods by which the government can encourage desired behavior in the corporations. By not having any tax rate on income at all, this option is lost. The government would have to create a new method to encourage desired behavior, such as direct grants and subsidies.
To solve that issue, everyone who is a citizen and registers their family would get a "food tax rebate" monthly to cover the taxes on food. This is an estimated amount, not based on income or location. If you live where food is cheaper, then this rebate gives you more money, relatively. If you choose to live in more expensive food locations, it helps less.
Or just don't tax food? This would likely have to be a broader program covering more than just food.
Most importantly, with corporate taxation gone, many, many jobs would flock to the USA. Offshore work would still exist, but it would need to be even more competitive.
However, with the tax burden flowing through people, they will have a need for a higher pay rate. The jobs would not flock to the USA in any great numbers because of this. And the more the program is adjusted to become proportionally fair on the poor, increases the taxes on the rich and even middle class. Then you are back to where you started.
The fundamental problem is that the rich don't want to pay for the poor. The rich want to spread the income levels so they get a higher proportion. Any method that subsidizes the poor will tax the rich. Any method that fails to subsidize the poor will result in a voter rebellion.
What we ultimately need is a system that ensures a zero trade balance. That is, there must be as much product value sold (exported) as bought (imported). A tax to do this is too messy. A system of trade credits might work better. Those who export more than import get trade credits which can be sold on a market and bought by those who import more than export. With this system in place, then the shift from income tax to sales tax makes more sense.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I personally think we could run a constitutional sized government on a 3% sales tax.
I'm not sure how high a sales tax would need to be with a national sales tax and user fees I do believe the income tax could be eliminated. This year Tax Freedom Day was 13 April and taxes will eat up 28.20% of people's income. As president Abraham Lincoln instituted the first income tax, to pay for the Civil War. And when the war ended the tax was phased out. The tax wasn't even 10% though.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Microsoft won't move out of the US. Companies threaten to move if they don't get a tax break all the time, but few of them do.
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
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.
Perhaps you should consult the report on the federal budget created every year by the OMB, then. Because if you did, you'd see the fallacy of your statement. The economic crash happened because somebody in congress thought it would be a good idea (e.g. it'll get me re-elected!) to push through a bill forcing banks to make lots of loans to people with bad credit. It was called the Community Re-Investment Act. Go look it up (yeah, right, like you're actually interested in the truth instead of class warfare rhetoric).
The massive homebuying binge artificially raised real-estate prices to unheard of levels. People and businesses bought these mortgages as high-performance investments, doing so with the knowledge the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- both government-sponsored entities -- said the loans were safe. Only the loans weren't safe, and FM & FM went more or less bankrupt because of it. And all the people who invested in it got burned. And to bail out all the banks that were forced to make the loans, you and I are going to get burned by high taxes and even higher inflation in the next 5-15 years.
Now, if you have any shred of intellectual honesty in you, you've looked up who sponsored the Community Re-Investment Act. Now please tell me, did the bill's sponsor have a "D" or an "R" in front of their name?
Now please tell me again who you are blaming for this debacle?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Microsoft
Government didn't under Bush but it did under his predecessor and maybe under his replacement. Clinton's Justice Department had MS on the ropes but Bush's let them off. What I find ironic is that when he was governor of Texas, Texas was one of the first states to sue Microsoft.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Welcome to Switzerland.
We are very glad to see you here. I think we showed enough loyality during standardization of you Office Formats and by contract with you without public invitation to bid. Our goverment really rely on you.
Thank you
Your Swiss Goverment
From a immature child. " i'm special i want it my way. my way!! or ill take my toys away".
If he pulls out of the US he can deal with import taxes/restrictions that would hurt Microsoft much more.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Then why not just tax imports, and classify MS products as an import if their majority labor force is overseas? See how he likes it if his product costs shoot through the roof. America is a cash cow as most of the Chinese copies are pirated anyway. Let him move offshore and then penalize him for doing so. Nothing more patriotic than that...
You are correct. When viewed in terms of individuals, there is no such right.
But, a shift to this approach is fundamentally destructive. The national society suffers when this method is used. And, yes, fixing it IS socialism. Socialism is the direction we are ultimately headed in as the corrective measure to the economic destructiveness of pitting people against each other where there is no benefit to that competition. Some countries have less of that (e.g. USA) and some have more (e.g. Sweden).
BTW, Ballmer won't pay less by staying in the USA and hiring Americans under a plan to eliminate corporate taxes. If the tax structure is shifted so people pay all the taxes, then the cost of workers in the USA goes up. They won't be as competitive if they have the burden of being the exclusive tax base. To make workers more competitive, their tax burdens, both sales and income taxes, need to be removed. But that just shifts the burden over to corporations and there's still no real benefit.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Except that developers are really a cost centre. Sales are what actually gets taxed, and all you need is an off-shore company. Like Haliburton.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
it was founded on the principal of allowing slavery
Actually not all of the USA's Founding Fathers supported slavery, some opposed it. In his early drafts of the "Declaration of Independence" Thomas Jefferson wrote that everyone including slaves and women had the same rights. However because some of the Founders did support slavery, for women too, he had to remove those parts. If they were left in they would not have signed the declaration.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Microsoft's workforce is tiny, Windows licensing is a huge drain on the economy, they keep importing foreign workers, and they are very good at avoiding taxes. So, good riddance, the US economy would likely be better off without Microsoft.
Unfortunately, Ballmer knows full well that the regulatory climate in Europe is much less favorable to Microsoft than the US, so he won't follow through on his threat.
I am promising right here to pay directly to MS corp, $20,000 US dollars, cash, if they move OFF US soil entirely.
I'm calling your bluff. since I know you're a hothead asshole with a lot of talk but no real balls behind your moves.
put up or shut up. I'd LOVE to see you fuck your own company up. I'd PAY to help.
I'm in. are you?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Get real, dood!
Perhaps Mc$oft should move all there jobs to the SAME PLACE where they cause all those health and environmental problems, thus economically aiding those they are ALSO exploiting....
" If California's standard of living drops, then wages will drop,.."
HUH??? Cali is bankrupt, chump! Catch a clue --- those clowns keep voting the likes of Nixon, Reagan and now Schwarzenneger - vote the slime, catch the crime.....
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
In the name of share holders companies do many things. Enron and World Com are two companies that always acted in the best interest of shareholders - their stocks skyrocketed and exceeded numerous quarterly estimates. For an American company to complain about the taxes US corporations pay is outrageous. Companies in the U.S. do not pay as much as China, Japan, Britain, or Germany - in terms of taxes. Within the U.S. companies pit States against one another to see how much a State will cut funding to local schools most in order to "win" a new factory or office location. China does not allow majority ownership of any foreign investment in China - in addition these companies pay out a variety of social taxes to both the State and local community. The U.S. does not compete with Ireland & co. That would be a race to the lowest common denominator for any of the world's top ten economies. As for Microsoft - to state that they cannot keep US workers in the US because of a fiduciary duty to shareholders... Share Holder Interest has always been the last refuge of a scoundrel. If it was up to shareholders companies would only be around until the sold them or used a short sale and wanted them to fail. And for Microsoft to say this when the U.S. is at war in two different countries, when unemployment is reaching 10% nationally, when U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for almost two trillion dollars to the banks that provide the financial markets that Microsoft uses to raise billions and profit in the billions... Why does Microsoft hate American troops? Why does Microsoft hate American children? Why does Microsoft hate America? Because not shouldering their financial responsibility to the country that made them billionaires, provided the innovation, the markets, the engineers... the country that educated their children, the soldiers who died fighting for their freedom... Microsoft's comments are almost treasonous and certainly anti American.
Hasn't anyone RTF? These aren't profits from inside the US, they're international profits. Why should the American gov't be able to tax international revenue in the first place IF that revenue is kept and invested internationally? I hate Microsoft as much as the next man, but Balmer is actually making a lot of sense here.
'Impossible' is a word that humans use far too often. -- Seven of Nine
Most of the problems Linux has is due to it having such a small user base. Too many hardware manufacturers don't play well with Linux. Drivers tend to be the biggest problem. If Linux were to become the primary OS used by government, military, business, and people, manufacturers would have to work with it or die. Then those problems you have seen would disappear. Given the circumstances, it's actually quite amazing that Linux works as well as it does. I've used Linux from nearly its beginning, and Unix before that, right after using mainframes. Windows is around for the things that require it (some things do). For example, Visio still beats anything the open source community has come up with. I look forward to when that changes so I can do my diagrams on a machine that's also safely able to do other stuff like be connected to the internet. Right now, my Windows machine isn't even connected to my LAN and I transfer files via a USB memory stick.
I'm not one of those people that wants to destroy Microsoft or Windows. I just prefer to use Linux. But to the extent that problems exist because Windows is so dominant, then I'm happy to see it knocked off just so Linux will work better ... not because I want other people to use Linux (that's not a fundamental desire). I'd rather that everyone could just use what they want to use and all hardware works right with all operating systems (standard interfaces between hardware and drivers would help a lot).
But, given the current situations, if Microsoft wants to move to Dublin or Bengaluru, then I say good ridance.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
So long and thanks for all the fish...
Or it could be that our Senators and Congressman have used corporate taxes to impose a specific type of behavior onto the companies and people that are taxed. Thus, creating this specific type of behavior. Corporations and people naturally, follow this behavior because it benefits their bottom line. This is why the concept of a free market has become so convoluted.
If tax breaks where not imposed solar power, wind power, alternative fuels, hybrid cars, 401ks, iras, tuition costs, etc. would have a higher costs associated with them, thus jeopardizing portions (possibly all) of their exisitence. This means that alternatives become more attractive. I great example is the number of people going to college vs. entering a trade. The trades still exist, but the average tradesman has gotten older over the last 30 years.
Crap! I just kissed my karma good-bye.
Yeah, lets let Microsoft have a nice tax free environment, the US's part of the International Space Station. And make em use their own OS to run it. "OXYGEN GENERATORS OFFLINE, DO YOU WISH TO START THEM?"
by charging his ass with treason. He *HAS* to know doing such a dick move would HURT a lot of US citizens.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Please, Steve, seriously consider it...
Seastead this.
I know every country in the world would love to get 10% of what Microsoft pays in taxes right now, but they'd be doing with the risk that Microsoft would just swindle them more-so than the US. I don't know much about business but I do know from working with them for six months. The IRS is a really gung-ho type group when it comes to collecting taxes, I know M$ would run over any other country's tax collection agency, except maybe Russia's.
With that knowledge I think a country knows they'd have more trouble than it's worth with Microsoft. But, every (big) company in America does this**, not just Microsoft, and they're all saying the same thing. I attribute this as a withdrawal symptom for American companies, but I blame our congress (not the current one) for even starting this from the get-go.
--------
**I know that's a pretty subjective statement.
the US has a lot of street gangs dealing drugs (which is why Canada has guns, but less crime).
Gangs are growing in Canada. Here's an article in the "Economist" about street gangs in British Columbia. A number of other websites are carrying that article. Here's a discussion of gangs in the Montreal and Quebec areas. From what I understand though mostly they're made up of immigrants.
how exactly does Ballmer plan on moving Microsoft's employees? Moving a large IT business has got to be in the play book of "stupid things that will bankrupt your company".
I agree, it would be stupid if Ballmer tried to move a lot of employees, even if MS has to pay higher taxes. The move itself would probably cost a lot. Then there'd be the cost of bringing everyone up to speed. Now what I'd want to do, which would lower MS's costs, would be to eliminate personal income tax and have a sales tax. Lower costs because it costs more to deduct and remit income tax collected to the government. Notice I said personal income tax, if you work you shouldn't have to pay tax one what you earn. However corporations should pay because they enjoy limited liability and if they want that then they should pay for it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"There is the right of free association, and the right of contract."
One of the idea of corporations is to avoid personal liability. Without incorporation, the stockholders would be personally liable for the malfeasance of their agents, corporate board. Without this protection, the stockholders could loose ALL of their personal wealth not just their investments in the company. So there is an advantage to incorporate and it has nothing to do with free association.
Steve Balmer, I, as an American citizen who gives a damn about my fellow citizens, hereby take an oath to shoot and kill you, the traitor to this country, at my first possible opportunity. You do not deserve, nor are you entitled to, the protections of this society. Your corporate charter and citizenship are hereby revoked. You, and your corporation, are persona non grata! Fuck Off!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Yes, it'll suck for some people short term. But long term it'll suck more for Microsoft.
The rest of the world already is moving away from MS as quickly as they can. Its a slow process but its happening. America is not moving away at all, its one of 'our' companies that 'we support' and all that bullshit. So go ahead, move the jobs elsewhere, take away the home team support from your largest most profitable target market.
Go ahead and piss off the people who account for the majority of your income so that you can get cheaper taxes, see how useful that turns out to be in the long term dipshit.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'm in the US and a man suddenly jumps-out and demands all my money, or he'll shoot me. Am I allowed to carry a bomb belt set to detonate if my heart stops and kill the murderer?
You can or should be allowed to protect yourself. I have no problem with you pulling out your own gun to stop the robber. Private ownership of firearms actually lowers crime. Even concealed carry. After Florida made it easy to conceal carry crime went down in the state. Not up as many anti-firearm activists said would happen.
As for the belt bomb, you're not protecting yourself for one. Another thing is that you may also kill an innocent passerby.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
A highly regarded judge agrees with you...
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands." - Judge Learned Hand
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
By taxing the corporation, then passing the cost onto the consumer, the costs of governments services used in producing the product are built into the cost of the product; thereby, making sure that one company is not able to freeload off others. People, WAKE THE FUCK UP!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
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.
Why does the US government feel it has the right to a cut of the foreign earnings of a company doing business globally?
If a US citizen lives in France, works in France, does business in France, why does he need to file tax returns and (if his income exceeds a certain limit) pay taxes in the US, despite living in a foreign country, not using any of the facilities paid for by US taxes, and already having paid taxes in said foreign country. As far as I know this, the USA is the only country in the world that does this.
Why would a multinational company based in Taiwan have to pay corporate taxes over its earnings all over the world, not just its earnings inside the USA, if it also wants to do business in the USA? This is the gist of the proposed tax plan. As far as I know, the USA would be the only country in the world to try this. Of course the USA is powerful and influential enough to pull this off. A company like Microsoft earns such a large share of its earnings inside the USA, that pulling out would probably be impossible, but said hypothetical Taiwanese multinational might consider it. Good riddance, don't let the door hit you on the way out an all that, but if hundreds or thousands of companies draw the same conclusion, it might start to add up.
I couldn't have said it better myself. For Fuck's Sake, can't people realize their own stupidity?
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
"The US has one of the highest Corporate taxes in the world,"
I'm tired of hearing this quoted as if it was gospel. It tells only part of the story. The other part of the story is that there are so many loopholes that favor corporations that the actual tax rate is much lower. The effective tax rate for corporations collected in the US is among the lowest in the world.
Personally, it's this sort of rhetoric that makes me want to puke. For me, if he pulls such a s stunt, I will no longer purchase MS software. If enough people take this approach, MS will learn that their bottom line is dependent upon the people in THIS country. Screw our workers...we screw them.
Steve, don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. Bubye.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Corps. are chartered by the government that is of, by, and for THE PEOPLE! Corps. exist only to provide value to the citizens of this nation. When they cease to do so, they should be domolished. Those in charge should be executed!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
"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."
"Without curiosity and knowledge, the mind is a vast void. Without the mind, curiosity and knowledge are nonexistent."
How come everytime an American Citizen in a foreign country gets into trouble, the Embassy, Military, Justice Department gets involved? Because the are AN AMERICAN CITIZEN and under the protection of the government of, by, and for THE PEOPLE!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Or it might be because 30 years of supply-side greedfest has destroyed our economy...
"Destroyed" your economy? WTF? The US economy is still the largest and most powerful in the entire world. I wish my country's economy was that badly "destroyed"!
I'm genuinely befuddled as to how people can say such absurd things with a straight face ... do you really believe your economy has been "destroyed"? What's that based on, a media-hype frenzy? Or is government spreading propaganda that the economy is in tatters in order to justify grabbing ever more taxes for themselves in order to "fix" it?
That gets trotted out all the time. It IS NOT by any means, proven.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Lesson to you, sir (spelled with a C and U) is Don't Put Words In Other People's Mouths. I said NOTHING (read that again: NOTHING) about a VAT. Furthermore, all your so-called stats suggests is that a steady decrease in corporate taxes over the last 40 years is that THAT is the reason the U.S. standard of living and results of its ingenuity have been THE watershed for the way things get accomplished throughout the world. Name one thing that a socialist government has done to change the world for the better. Go ahead...I dare you. The point I was making is that whenever there is a rise in Federal corporate income taxes over a couple of years (not decades), there is a drop in tax revenue. This is more clear when you look at individual state corporate income taxes. If you were running a large business that files in one state and they jacked up your rate significantly say 25% in one year and a neighboring state didn't, what would you do especially when you have to answer to investors? You'd either A) raise your prices, B) cut overhead which usually means laying people off, or C) move to a more business-friendly environment.
Interesting how low we've come.
A Tax Cheat costs honest tax payers money.
SMALL BUSINESS POWERS MOST OF THE ECONOMY. THEY CAN'T CHEAT LIKE MS!
If I don't pay taxes than YOU end up paying the difference. That alone should upset tax payers. Instead we frame it in some warped way so many of us rejoice that somebody is screwing the system-- are we so daft that we can't see the next step anymore?
Then we have big tax cheats who BRIBE officials (using legal games - everybody knows its bribery) to continue to cheat and/or create more ways to cheat on their taxes! That should REALLY upset tax payers. Instead we get easily fooled with irrelevant distractions like the endless rhetorical debate over taxation itself and government services etc.
Fix the tax system. Make it fair. THEN spend eternity fussing over details and principles.
BTW, teach MATH. Too many people do not understand how percentage works and why it is equitable.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
they decided to move to a cheaper state.
It will only be cheaper in Arizona until the water runs out. AZ gets a lot of it's water from the Colorado River. However the water levels in the reservoirs created by the damming of the river such as Lake Powell and Lake Mead are dropping. Of course because southern CA also gets water from the Colorado River when water prices rise in AZ they will in Southern CA too. All of the water being withdrawn from the river by all 8 states making up the Colorado River Compact is unsustainable.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Bloody confusing, having two entirely different acts with the same name.
The one I read said:
"Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner."
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Corporations BENEFIT greatly by government services as well as deals they make with government on all levels.
Corporations USE the system and when they succeed they should pay relative to their success back into the system that allowed them to succeed. (Besides the obvious fact: corporations are not human but are just government legal construct and have no real rights beyond what the government chooses to define... leaving behind the other issue of the creation taking control of its master...)
SMALL BUSINESS! Everybody forgets them! They can't cheat like these crooks do. They won't betray people like crooks do (they might if they could but they are too small... and if they did, they are too small to do much damage.)
--
Microsoft needs to focus on its 2 monopolies instead of "innovating" in other areas at huge losses to harm almost every industry they enter into. They produce mostly SOFTWARE and have MASSIVE profit margins; so they can't bribe, steal, sue, buyout, FUD, and stifle competition in as many areas as they could previously. This is a Win Win situation.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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
I'm frankly tired of this strawman argument. What once again sounds like common sense coming from talking points memos falls apart at the slightest realistic glimpse.
Here.
I'll summarize because you're probably not going to read it.
3 main points:
1. The vast majority of subprime loans were originated by institutions not subject to CRA oversight.
2. If you add up to the total value of all subprime loans, not just those in default, but all of them, the figure you get is about $1.5 trillion, an insignificant portion of the current crash's losses. Remember, that's all the loans, not the bad ones.
3. (this is the point that shatters your argument) The rate of loan default in CRA-generated mortgages is much lower than the national average.
Frankly, main street didn't have either the money or influence to pull off the activities you're trying to credit them with.
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out Steve. Oh, and don't worry about the vacant buildings. We'll have them remodeled and populated with open source developers soon enough. Heck, maybe Google or Apple will buy them from you.
The U.S. is becoming increasingly hostile toward business.
After the US gives hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to businesses this must be a jest.
does not attack them with anti-trust
Guess who was the big Trust Buster in US history... Republican Theodore Roosevelt . And guess who gave trusts and monopolies a huge hand... Democrat FDR.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Like the taxes that paid for this bridge?
These days large corporations expect the government to pay for the land their buildings sit on, the buildings themselves, and an annual stipend to cover part of their operating costs. It's like the reverse of taxation.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If we didn't have an interstate highway system, we'd have better railroads.
Other nations like Germany use regulation to keep corporations from leaving but in the USA, we encourage it. Not for the benefit of the public, but because the weak government has fallen to the influence of the giant corporations WE THE PEOPLE allowed to become too big to limit and regulate-- and yes, even too big to allow to fail.
Even now, baring a bigger depression, the public thinks it is good to have no ceiling on the amount of power a corporation can amass.
We get upset at bigger government we have less control over but corporations-- they can do no wrong and their power doesn't corrupt it helps our economy... its a religion in the USA.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I did look up the CRA. It doesn't force banks to give loans to people with bad credit. In fact, it explicitly says that they shouldn't. What it does say is that they can't deny a loan to a person with good credit based on where they live. Stop drinking the kool-aid and learn to think for yourself.
It is impossible to say for certain who will pay a tax. All taxes are actually paid by individuals. "Business" taxes are simply a why to try to hit the pocket-book of a specific set of individuals more than others.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: "What does a business want to buy?". Nothing. A business is not a person. It does not have any motives or desires whatsoever. It is actually a collection of individuals, all of whom have come together with a common goal (writing software, or whatever). So when you say "I have to pay my taxes, businesses should too." All you're really saying is "I have to pay my taxes, other people should too."
So who pays business taxes? The shareholders (in reduced dividends), the employees (in reduced wages), the businesses with which the business does business (due to reduced spending power), and the customers (in increased prices). If you've taken an economics class, you've probably learned to compute the portion of tax paid by each party in a transaction based on the supply and demand curves. But in real life, this information is not known. So while it's actually impossible to say who pays how much in corporate taxes, it' safe to say that everyone pays a bit of it.
In reality, the people in power (business executives and shareholders) have a lot of say in who ends up paying. It has been generally shown that they will actually hold on to their money while the rest of the company collapses. So obviously, they don't pay the tax. In reality it all falls on the employees and the consumers. And once the business folds, but burden is shifted, ironically, to the taxpayer who initially opted for the corporate taxes as a way of avoiding higher personal taxes.
Corporate taxes are a joke. They are nothing more than a hidden tax. We should not support them.
Cut Corporate Tax,
Eliminate Tax on Outbound/Exported Items,
Tax crap out of imported Items, including software, call center/customer care services.
Tax's are done, problem solved man.....
How about we close the loopholes, then have a real discussion about what the taxes should really be.
A little of column A, a little of column B. For sure its not all rainbows and ponies right now, but its not as bad as the hyperbole suggests.
This is the unspoken agreement businesses have with our government.
;)
1. As a business, I will withhold taxes and submit those taxes from my employees before the money ever gets in their hands, therefore, I am the tax collector.
2. For collecting said taxes, you (the government) will provide me with many tax breaks. The larger I am, the less tax liability (in relation to my volume of business) I will provide.
3. If this agreement is broken, I will not do business with you and will enter into the same agreement elsewhere with others.
This unspoken agreement represents how class structure is divided amongst Americans into the following categories:
1. Welfare class, they are the tax eaters, these guys are your tax liabilities, but are not limited to dependence on welfare but also other tax funded programs without making up the difference in their expense (by generating taxable revenue) programs etc.
2. Working class, these are your part-time workers who hold multiple jobs but don't really have any real healthcare or other employer provided support.
3. Middle Class, this is the bulk of where the taxable revenue comes from. These people typically generate more in tax income than they dismiss.
4. Business class, these are your tax collectors for the middle class. For their collection services they have greater options in reducing their tax obligations.
5. Political Class, these are the people who have great political influence and can have even less tax obligations than the business class without the hassle of collection.
6. Oligarchy status, your probably a bank receiving a bail-out at this point.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Balmer (M$) & Thompson ($ymantec):
Goodbye and Good Riddance.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
When large portions of those subject to a law regard it with derision, then the law is stupid.
Take for instance alcohol prohibition, recreational drug prohibition, prostitution criminalization and abusive copyright. All widely ridiculed and flaunted.
Tax loopholes are just tax cuts disguised to preserve politicians' careers. Let's get rid of the loopholes, so that we can discuss what taxes really should be. Out in the light of day like this, taxes may even start to make sense.
Encouraged to be greedier? I wish my PERSONAL income tax rate would be lowered without my having to take a sizable drop in income, but we know that that won't happen.
Here is MY response to Ballmer:
"Boo hooo hoo msoft can't stand to pay taxes? It's called being the business end of the social safety net. If you so much hate paying taxes because you think the government is misusing money, condemn the government/DOR/IRS and stipulate ms will DIRECTLY apportion its portion of taxes TO SCHOOLS and health and charity. Yeh, you tried and failed, before, but old BG was being too selective. Just dole it out..."
Of course, that won't happen either. I think ballmer is just bluffing. After all, they could offer people performance-based retention of jobs but at lower pay, in exchange for a 2-year or 3-year guarantee of keeping jobs. Slackers would be on notice and so would the star performers. Ahh, but then ms would just suffere brain drain... Won't be a pretty situation...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Damn right, citizen! But when I say my taxes are excessive they throw me in jail as a tax evader. Don't they undeerstand I'm a patriot?
Until we can throw corporations in jail when they commit crimes, or execute them for murder, bullshit like this is just empty rhetoric.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Ballmer, like nearly every international corporation, is always waiting for an excuse to move to a more profitable headquarters. He's not stupid, nor are his financial planners. If you could make $16 billion with a similar executive decision, would you be tempted? Some of us have moved to India to make less money, offset by lower expenses; so making more money offset by lower expenses is a no-brainer, if money is your only guide, as it is in corporations.
Getting back to history, the landowners in the colonies resisted paying taxes that mostly only benefited the rich landowners in England, calling it taxation without representation. The rich colonialists wanted to keep the benefits from public resources (once a few dozens of millions of Indians were killed off) and cheap labor (including Scandinavians, Africans, and ironically in this case the Irish). And so set up a country where they controlled the laws and wealth (had to have land to vote). To the wealthy, the capitalists, taxes and public resources should benefit the wealthy, anything else is the ever-vague "bad for the country."
Anything that benefits the public has been a struggle and, even though there's much to be ashamed of and a long to-do list, is one of the reasons I remain proud of this country.
Seriously, for your own sake (you are genuinely embarrassing yourself as you keep using the terms completely incorrectly), I strongly suggest you "pause" on the anti-Libertarian and anti-Rand comments, calm down, go read up in detail on the huge difference between "Anarchism" and "Libertarianism", and then come back again. Somalia is not a libertarian system, it's an anarchy. If you understood what you were criticizing, you might also be shocked to realise how embarrassingly wrong it is to keep equating Libertarianism with Rand's Objectivism - Rand herself did not support Libertarianism (yup!).
DOES NOT result in a limited liability.
So associate away.
But if you want government protection from lawsuits and liability, you pay the government for the costs of governance.
In corporate taxes.
Sorry, made a mistake in the quoting: The bit ""God" or whoever must have forgotten to include that in the package and I'm sure he's very sorry Randians." was NOT written by me, but by GP.
"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.
Isn't this basically an admission that MS is Avoiding US taxes? If MS is paying their fair share, why would anything change anything for them financially if the government came down on companies that don't pay what they should?
'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.'
That's fine. Get the fuck out of out of the US then, you cheap bastard. Then you can pay import taxes to sell MS products in the US. Either you are a US corporation and you pay your taxes, or you aren't and you get treated like any other foreign company.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It's not like he's going to keep workers here if we continue to let his company avoid taxes using loopholes. As long as labor in foreign countries is significantly cheaper, they'll just keep moving jobs there.
Also, Microsoft is one of the largest consumers of H-1B visas. If they did decide to move their employees someplace else, they could probably just take them all to the country of origin of the majority of H-1B visa holders without any hassle. They might lose a lot of standard workers, because not many people would move to another country to keep a job, let alone with a pay cut, but do they really care about that?
So what's the difference? They're moving the job anyways. Don't make it easy for them either. Hit them with some anti-trust lawsuits and switch government systems from Windows to Linux; a little "don't let the door hit on you on the ass."
We see a lot of INAL here on Slashdot, which is usually a cover for BS but:
M$ is currently a US corporation and many of its Officers are US citizens or domeciled in the US,the US government has them by the short-and-curlies. They must first re-domecile, then get non-US citizenship and then stay out of the US for the rest of their lives else any scam to get round what Obama persuades the US congress to enact can be very painful.
Eg. Count all worldwide income as income in the US and make officers personally liable if tax isn't paid. This would at least require the Corporation and all its Officers to get behind a realistic foreign domecile. That will be hard, Eire isn't feasable, I doubt Switzerland, which is, would play for various reasons, which leaves only a very few, all rather unpleasant countries eg North Korea, Iran or Zimbabwe.
While I dont doubt Monkey Boy is stupid enough to try this, realistically there is NO CHANCE and neither stockholders or employees will go along
Yes, hiring Americans cost more.
Americans will NEVER be able to compete with the wages of poorer countries. Taxes have nothing to do with it. Its the high cost of living. Other countries have higher tax rates.
This is Balmer threatening America... as if his company is not rich enough already.
He wants to avoid giving back to the country he profits from. This is typical of most corporations today. They sell us foreign made products at American prices. They make these products overseas insanely cheap.
I'm sure the price of windows will become much cheaper if Balmer is moves Microsoft out of America (Rolls eyes)
Fuck you Balmer. You were always an ass
Truthfully I have much more faith that the current administrations folks will at least take a hard look at the tactics that Microsoft has used in the past and uses now.
This is not just a Microsoft issue. This is a serious consideration of any multinational corporation that has its worldwide headquarters located in the United States. The U.S. government taxes a U.S. corporation on its WORLDWIDE income, while almost all other countries tax only the income that is earned in the territory for which they are based. On top of that, most of those other countries have a substantially lower corporate tax rate. The current U.S. system allows corporations to defer some of the taxation on worldwide income. Read that... DEFER, not ultimately eliminate. The current administration wants to make changes that almost eliminate that deferral system - meaning that all U.S. corps will pay that rate regardless of the situation - even if they lack the wherewithal to pay in the current year.
This is not about corporations "hiding" money overseas. They use that money in financing structures to acquire or build out their worldwide operations. Politicians (both GOP and DEM) want people to believe that they are "hiding" money because the U.S. government is in a serious need for extra cash. The easiest way to do it is to adjust how they tax international income. I'll be honest with you, almost all multinational corporations are currently investigating a change in structure. Either spinning off their international operations into a new/separate company or finding a way to outbound the HQ (usually via a merger with a foreign entity).
Everyone can make uninformed statements bashing MS. But let's be honest, this affects every large company and ultimately may decide whether or not you are still employed. Many companies will only move management and key corporate groups like accounting, etc. But tech companies can move everything if they want... especially if web based. Obviously, each company will approach this differently... but the outcome will not be favorable to the private sector in America.
Very Sound. And a the very minimum, if properly legislated, "... if you conclude that you cannot undertake your duties without M$ software you must state IN DETAIL the reasons why not and what steps you are taking to enforce Open Formats and explore alternative solutions .."
Which will give M$ marketing a heart attack
and result in lower prices to the taxpayer.
For several (5 or 6) years, MS's stock was on a plateau (around $30). Then we hit these hard economic times and it dropped like all stocks did. But, even so, MS's stock performance hasn't been remarkable. But now, more analysts are starting to discourage buying MS.
Add to this that MS lacks focus. They act as if they can dive into any market that has the slightest detail in common with their product offerings and just take over. Here again, their performance has been weak. (Bada-bing. Bada-zune.)
And, again like so many other companies, due to the recession they've been forced to do layoffs. Now Ballmer is getting desperate.
So moving to another country (which eventually, in or near the EU, would be business-wise more hostile). Incurring additional expenses. Shaking the remaining confidence in the investors. Risking bad PR. Yeah. Brilliant!
And do you honestly think that their economic circumstances are any better than here?
And personally, I tend to think of a business' location in terms of where their support is located. And at least some of MS's support is out of India. So, as far as I am concerned, they've already started to moved away.
These business conditions are a relatively new experience to MS. They've been used to having more earnings just because of their market dominance and now they're forced to actually think creatively and innovate in both a business sense and a product design sense. Ballmer certainly doesn't have the skill to do this and neither does Gates. If the BoD was smart, they'd decide to split the company. Two or three smaller companies will allow for better focus, more efficiencies, and faster response and competitiveness. Hell, send one of the new companies over to the EU.
I see this as something like (you don't know) Jack Welch. While GE was profitable, many thought he was brilliant. He's not. He is, just like Bill Gates, an opportunist. These guys do well when the market opportunity is handed to them due to extenuating social, political, economic, and/or technological circumstances. If they ever have to think in a truly creative manner re business strategy, they are like an octopus out of water.
Welch's management philosophies and business strategies are finally being proven wrong; short-sighted and inept. (Note that Welch had started up a massive PR machine prior to his departure.) His constant attempts to improve the bottom line by acquisitions were foolish. And re his management philosophies; what an idiot!!! (I apologize. But it's appropriate to say having been exposed to his influence.) Immelt was stuck with cleaning up Welch's mess. (ie, tons of debt in GE Capital). But now Immelt is hard-pressed to think creatively to get the ship back on course. Nardelli (also GE) is another example with the remarkable job of screwing up Home Depot. And the bozos at GM another. (Although, in their defense, our culture conspired against them to some degree. How can you sell smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles to a country filled with Bubba's that just want bigger pickup trucks and SUVs with more power and towing capacity?)
Anyhow Ballmer is just one more in this series of loony toons.
So go ahead, Monkey Boy. Move. But first, do another little dance. I think I'll call it the "Desperation Dance."
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
You, American citizens, have a very strange view of the world since you are, by and large linguistically challenged and unitary taxed. The rest of us pay taxes __ONLY__ to the state we live and are domeciled in. You can get out of unitary taxes by resigning your citizenship, but it is a real pain
Microsoft can either pay their fair share or leave.
I love how the American corporations have no problem taking our money but if they are required to pay taxes, they threaten us by saying they will take jobs away from their 'fellow' Americans? Extortion is the nicest word I can think of. The word that comes up first in my mine is treasonous.
Corporate America's new slogan "America, worth f*cking!"
Fine Microsoft. Leave. Please, get the hell out. If America isn't worth paying for, then you aren't welcome.
Just another reason for people to stop using Microsoft products.
That Balmer feels comfortable saying that in public just shows how much he values his home nation. We are good enough to use, but not enough to pay for. Cheap F*ck.
Come on. Taxation is no more an "evil" than the electric bill. It's simply one of the costs of living in a modern society.
I might not enjoy paying taxes buy I don't enjoy going to the dentist either. That doesn't make either one of them an "evil".
Once again MS show how much it cares about this country and customers. All Ballmer and MS want is your money. The facts are that companies move work off shore for cheaper labor not taxes. Now that loss tax revenue need to be made up and its only fair that companies like MS who create the situation pay up.
Hey, at least he is being honest. Corporations by their nature are greedy, profit is what drives them at all costs...you just happened to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
Point One doesn't apply
Point Two applies only if the government compels Microsoft to continue operations in the US.
Point Three applies only if the government revokes Microsoft's patents and copyrights, and Rand herself might have taken a dim view of software patents, or else doesn't apply,
Points Four through Seven don't apply.
As for Point Eight, I don't believe that we have a Unification Board, and have the courts been unfair to Microsoft?
With the logic of Mr Ballmer and other leading CEO's of the industrial world basically no decent business should stay in the USA and in the G7 countries, because wages and the cost of living, including taxes will always be higher there than in some other countries.
But if you truly follow the logic, you have to realize that eventually only the sucker corporations would stay in any country, the real smart ones would move truly off-shore, somewhere to the space, beyond the boundaries of nations, regions and any authority which collects taxes on behalf of the public. Because clearly that would provide the best shareholder value.
Alternatively, all elected governments in all countries should and will agree and on the same, universal corporate tax, which would prevent corporations to shop around.
Universal world-wide corporate, income tax, etc. related to labour costs would not only stop the divide and conquer strategy for corporations to start bidding war in different countries for the lowest tax to attract corporations. It would eventually allow distribute wealth in a more even and maybe more "human" way.
It's impossible not to see the clear tendency that wealth is concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people (yes, shareholders are eventually people, not corporations). Part of the reason for the collapse of the American car industry is that moving decent paying jobs out of the US collapsed the consumer power to afford American cars.
Americans could not afford American cars because their average earnings have been shrinking and eventually insufficient to buy those cars. This has been fact for at least a decade, but different financial constructions, e.g. lease, loans, re-mortgaging the house did not make it obvious, until the financial system also collapsed.
The biggest issue is the steady and fatally shrinking buying power of the American (and most other) public. Some regions grab part of that income (like China, India lately) buy grabbing a piece of pie of corporate outsourcing, but the difference still stays in the pockets of corporate shareholders, which can lower not only wages but minimize corporate taxes by shifting to different regions, countries. Please don't argue that the "public" is the shareholder of corporations, etc. It is partially, but this is about the major economic tendency. Although there are large number of micro shareholders, there is little doubt that as a tendency, buying power for the masses is shrinking, which is eventually a huge problem for everyone.
Even for corporations, since they still make products, services for customers, who are still the same people, who loose their buying power. Population growth, shifting growth regions may offsets temporarily the shrinking income, just like car and home loans did in the US, but eventually entire industries can collapse very fast if the public does not have enough income to purchase. Again, look at the American car industry and real estate after revolving bridge loans can no longer offset the evaporating buying power.
American income now more suitable for a $20.000 Asian made car, than the $40.000 US made car. But if the buying power shrinks at the same rate and the available loan dries up, Americans might be eligible for Tata in the next decade.
Mr. Ballmer is yet to see similar collapse for the market for Microsoft products, but the writing is on the wall for every company.
The US and possibly other countries can be bankrupt one by one, but eventually there will be nowhere to go - the only alternative is more even sharing of wealth, just like at the time of Mr. Ford, who did not only introduce assembly line, but also introduced worker wages, which allowed to buy the cars they produced.
Why should we tax consumption as opposed to income or wealth? You claim it's more "fair," but I don't see any particular reason that's the case.
There are three issues here: first, how much does each person "cost" the government? Second, how much should each person pay for that unit of cost, and third, how should we scale that payment?
For the first question, I'd argue that there is a fixed per-person cost, which arises from administrative burden and protection of the body, as well as maintenance of most utilities that we all use roughly equally (roads, etc.). Beyond that, however, most functions of government serve to protect wealth. This includes things like providing a legal system to enforce contracts, prosecute robbery, etc, as well as the general governmental interest in making the economy robust. In real dollar terms, these services benefit those that have lots of wealth more than those with little (notice I say wealth, not income - even if Paris Hilton doesn't earn a dime over the next twenty years, she still benefits from the government's protection of her bank accounts).
This does not argue in favor of a consumption based cost function, but rather a wealth based one, at least once you've covered the "protect my body" utility that we all equally benefit from. An income based cost function gets closer to a wealth based one, but it's still biased quite a bit.
Then we come to the question of how to "charge" for the utility of services that a person receives. Some people think that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, whether it's taken from Bill Gates, the local fry cook, or the homeless guy that asks you for change; some argue that it's the relative utility of that dollar that should matter, and if we needed to collect a dollar from every person then we should make everyone "hurt" the same to collect that amount of money. That's up for debate, and really comes down to your personal definition of "fair."
But don't delude yourself into thinking that you can label one type of tax fairer than another without defining what you mean by "fair." It's a loaded word that can be interpreted in any of a million ways, many of which are reasonable and defensible but many of which are not. In my opinion, a consumption based flat tax doesn't accurately account for either the burden that each person places on the government, the value of the services they receive, or the personal pain they feel in having to part with a dollar. Feel free to disagree, but do it with a justification.
Unfortunately, Ballmer knows full well that the regulatory climate in Europe is much less favorable to Microsoft than the US, so he won't follow through on his threat.
That's only because Microsoft is an American company. When was the last time you heard European regulators worrying about how Airbus is a monopoly?
Here is the bottom line...
US corporate tax rate: 35%
Finland 26%
Canada 22 %
Ireland 12.5%
...just tax the corporations even more.
Call it a simplistic viewpoint but employing people in a country puts money back into that country whereas selling products or services in that country takes money out of it.
Therefore subtract the former from the latter and heavily tax the difference - thus making outsourcing far more expensive.
And no, not just because it's Microsoft, make it apply to everyone.
I'm sure it's the same in the USA and other parts of Europe, but here in the UK whole communities have been decimated because coal mines or industrial parks have shut down due to cheaper coal imports or jobs going overseas - corporations have got far too powerful and need to be forced to have a social conscience.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
And don't let the door ya on the arse on your way out.
That looks nice maybe as part of a Hollywood OS in a movie when you see it one or at MAXIMUM two times, but I would imagine anyone actually trying to work with that for more than few minutes will need a bucket to barf in, because he will start to feel queezy pretty soon.
Whoever came up with the idea of animating desktops should be shot.
as long as they don't cum all over the U.S. and superman that ho?
If they really wanted to discourage outsourcing of labor to avoid higher taxes, they could just try and have it import taxes relative to their countries of origin so their net taxation on the goods is equal regardless of where they came from.
Say we charge 15% taxes on the goods and they move to country "X" that charges 8% taxes on the goods. We could have our import tax from said country setup so they pay an extra 7% income tax on the goods so even if they left here and tried to avoid the taxes on it, they would still be stuck paying it on every item they shipped here.
I am sorry if I got this wrong as I am not exactly too knowledgeable on this area. But I figured I would just throw it out there.
I figure with an approach such as this moving out of the country would not make their in country prices any cheaper while the loss of faith from the countries government and people would be a big deal to lose.
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.
Ballmer wants to pull out and can't even give America the courtesy of a reacharound. How rude.
Forget Ireland or the off-shoring giants of India or China. MS could simply buy a small micro-nation and set its own taxation agenda.
Let's look at Microsoft:
Net income: 17.681 billion
Employees: 89,809
Now compare Andorra, an existing tax-haven country nestled in the Pyrenees, bordered by France and Spain:
GDP: $2.77 billion
Population: 88,700
Because Google just did it. Balmer got up and said if a law passes that he doesn't like, he will take his ball and go play somewhere else.
Both are ungrateful and greedy sh*ts, but one is the bad kid stealing the candy bar and not talking about it, while the other is the brat screaming about how if he doesn't get the candy bar he won't love you anymore. One is mature, the other is just a spoiled little crap that isn't smart enough to just do what they want and be brave enough to stand the heat that comes later.
Yeah it's unfashionable to reply to AC, but your point is valid and no-one will read it because it's AC.
Good riddance.
So your solutions is to not tax anyone?
Granted, multi-national corporations have been shifting funds to overseas subsidiaries as a tax dodge for years. The fact that they've gotten used to it doesn't hide the fact that it's a dodge, no different that me hiding my wages in the Caymans, but easier to hide from the tax authorities. If Ballmer and every last GD US-based company that's been leaning on this technique wants to blow out of town because they have to pay full freight, let 'em. If they'd actually pay based on their in-country net, the net result would be the same, the difference being the point of collection would shift over a few value-added steps from the employees.
Do it now, so someone who wants to do business in the US can take advantage of the market opening. If no one does, at least we can all be open and deal with the economy as it really is, rather than what we're pretending it to be.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Funny - if I pirated the RIAA's catalog, I think I would be taken to a US Court, not in front of the twelve apostles.
While it may be claimed that the government only codifies "inherent" rights, I see little inherent in copyright, voting, and all manner of other things the government... doesn't grant.
Copyright is obvious, but voting not so much. Not too long ago at all, women and blacks had no "inherent" right to vote. Recently, what is inherent seems to have changed. Or is it more likely that it was simply a change to which rights are granted?
Like it or not, the government has authority to tell you where to shove it. Any thoughts otherwise are ether wishful thinking, or an abuse of semantics to support your own preconceived opinions. The only time any right is "inherent" is when the government faces revolt if it is not granted. That is how it always has been, and always will be.
Great Intellect...
Translation: Ballmer wants to take advantage of his employees being able to get to work, and being educated through at least high school, but doesn't want to pay his share for that convenience. Hey, Ballmer: If you don't want to contribute to society, perhaps you should move to someplace that doesn't expect you to, like Somolia.
Help us build a better map!
At least with an electric bill you pay for what you use instead of what you make.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
That term is much used and abused, but with comments like that surely Ballmer qualifies for it.
And if he wants to cut back Piracy, what could be more American that pirating the software of an Unamerican company?
Cuba. Iran. North Korea. Microsoft.
If there were a country with minimal tax, strong protection from the government, freedom to think and act...
The fact that there isn't a (civilised) country like this should give you a clue. If you actually put your money where your mouth is, you'd be on the next flight to one of the collapsed states in Africa, where there is basically no government. No tax, absolute freedom... perfect! You'd probably even get a kick out of all the heavy weaponry you'd have to buy to protect yourself... for a while. But when you got ill, or old, I bet you'd come crawling right back.
Most of humanity has evolved past "brutal is best". Most of us have a deep-seated desire for justice, and have learned that co-operation is far preferable to conflict. We need to have a government to create laws, a credible police force to enforce them - and that costs money. Tax is an investment in civilisation, and when you consider what you get for it, it's a bargain.
Do as you would be done to.
Is Microsoft's corporate bully attitude obvious enough for Congress yet? Do you think it's time to force Microsoft to split into two or three smaller corporations?
I think that any corporation that feels that it is big enough to bully the United States Government is too big and a national security risk.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Since most people here seem to have forgotten....
A "tax loophole" is another term for "tax law." If you don't like the law, change it instead of bitching and moaning when someone follows the law.
Every one of you use "tax loopholes" when you take tax deductions, shelter money away in retirement accounts, etc. Using your logic, every one of you are "greedy bastards."
(Commence the -1's in 3... 2... 1...)
I don't understand.
In your first post you decry high taxes and state they are the reason that corporates move outside of the state or country (Halliburton, etc).
Then when i produce stats which say that Fed CIT is about 15% average and that EVEN replacing it with VAT wouldn't increase a company's investment, you go on to decry me for putting words in your mouth.
Furthermore you go on saying that whenever there was an increase in tax rates, there was a drop in revenue.
Again, am saying that increase in CIT results in short term increase of tax collection while long term is different and subject to environment. Taxes ALONE do not make a company move out of state or even country.
The 1950s had the highest, increasing tax rates.
Yet more companies grew and more companies paid more taxes.
What am trying to say is that taxes ALONE do not make a company move out of a state.
Yes, what you are saying is right: companies are responsible to their stakeholders and any reduction in profit due to management's stupidity will result in a lawsuit.
Agreed.
But taxes alone are not the reason.
Because the average Fed CIT has been 15% or less.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Just go, Steve, and when you there, watch how the US finally revives the anti-trust suit against MS and restores real competition and innovation in the software market. We've got a govt which is starting to act like it's "for the people" and not for the campaign contributors.
Well, I at least took the time to read many of the posts (though I hardly have time to read all of them). I will be calm and intelligent in my response. First off, if a company is truly evading taxes in an illegal way then they need to be visited by a court with judges who will apply the law accurately. You may interpret that anyway you want. Secondly, Even in my strategic management course in a reputable college of business we talk about corporate governance and corporate responsibility. From what I am reading in our text as well as the lectures from our professor I can tell you that mostly the idiots who watch the Faux news channel and who want the lowest possible taxes are the ones who (for the most part) are the fools. Every corporation has a responsibility to its stakeholders starting with 1) investors (who have questionable judgement though) 2) employees 3) customers and 4) communities (this includes citizens of a town or state and the government in said locations). So on this basis a company that simply avoids taxes and then threatens to move his operations overseas is no better than Kim Jong Il threatening with his finger on the button every time he wants to scare the west. IN this case, Ballmer may do it. But don't get any idea that he is anything more than an overgrown child. His behavior proves that. Additionally, this is the same man that is known for throwing chairs in his office when he gets mad and having temper tantrums when things don't go his way. It seems that he is a man child having a fit due to Microsoft's recently reported lower revenue. Like Detroit, they have no one to blame but themselves. Not unions, not government, none of that. It boils down to the executives and the board of directors and also a bunch of avarice filled myopic investors who care more about every penny they can get now rather than long term profitability. Additionally, it must be said that microsoft losing sales due to problems with Vista is additionally their own problem. They released an OS that later became acceptable but during the first year they expected customers to keep buying an OS that was not ready. Ballmer and M$ are not taking responsibility here. If Ballmer cannot adjust their business model to survive then perhaps the shareholders should vote him off the board and put someone in his seat less prone to temper tantrums and childish outbreaks of insanity. I think it is a common problem among corporate execs these days. They seem to feel entitled to private jets, $200,000 cars, etc. There are plenty of people who feel entitled to things including sometimes people in poverty. The difference here is that the impact of Microsoft's decisions are far greater reaching than those of someone in the middle of detroit, DC, Atlanta, LA, NYC, etc. Not that those individual decisions as a collective aren't a drag (they are). However, in this case Ballmer sets a bad example which is "I deserve and I will have" which are the hallmarks also of 3rd World Dictators and those who rob banks. Anyway, that is my patient rant for today. I am no idiot. You all need to stop watching faux news and believing the talking heads there. And additionally it would be advisable to shut off the afternoon AM talk radio while your at it. There is almost nothing in fact presented from these outlets. Have a nice day. Thank you. :)
'Closing tax loopholes will stifle job creation.'
(translated)
'I'd rather keep my billions and spend it on coke and whores than remit it to Uncle Sam.'
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
The problem with the Republican's advocating tax evasion in the name of "creating jobs" is how it reflects the party values. What has always made the Republican Party great was their emphasis on fiscal responsibility. Who can argue with "fiscal responsibility?" But in order to create "jobs" in America this way we are allowing corporations to get away with things actual human citizens can't (we're legally obligated to be responsible in some ways). If these "very important" companies threaten to leave and take their jobs with them, most people will do what they've always done- let smaller businesses do the work here. With the advances in communication (namely via the internet), small businesses can now work together in ways that are often more cost effective than a single large company could manage internally. This leads to higher earnings and (in the small business tradition) higher salaries and better jobs. I say let Microsoft go, there are better ways to work, and we can do it here ourselves without becoming reliant on a few exclusive corporations with "our best interests" in mind.
If a person expatriates from the US, they may have to pay taxes for up to 10 years after renouncing their citizenship if they continue to have many types business dealings / or visit the US for too long a time. I see no reason why each job that's outsourced by a corporation shouldn't be taxed similarly.
What's your point, jackoff? Nothing you said has any bearing on what he said.
True or false: If a corporation can make more money in Country B than Country A, would it not be wise for the company to move to country B?
All your boring socialist screed is trying to show is how those Big Bad corporations benefit from something, and you hate those Big Bad Corporations.
Socialist douche. Corporate taxation is a scam. Only people should be taxed, corporate "profit" is the most valuable money in an economy - it _all_ goes into reinvestment contrary to your easily disproved lies.
Your use of invectives proves you are an idiot and a moron in first place.
Capitalism as is well known and promoted by Ludwig Mises is NOT practised anywhere.
And FYI iam not calling corporations BAD or EVIL.
corporate "profit" is the most valuable money in an economy - it _all_ goes into reinvestment contrary to your easily disproved lies.
ROTFL.
Oh dude, you STILL believe in that horseshit that corporations spew to make you believe their way of running things?
You are unbelievably stupid and incredibly dumb.
Are you from Texas by any chance?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
What's Ballmer's problem? He and Microsoft donated to the Obama and Dem campaign and now as they deliver on their pre-election promises Ballmer is unhappy. Perhaps he did not believe Obama
In summation: "CHKDSK-OFF" Balmer.
There, fixed that for you.
What else is new?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It is funny (haha) to hear Steve Balmer using the word disingenuous. He might as well be in the Webster's definition of the word. Now that MS has stifled the computer industry, and made unimaginable amounts of money at the expense of a generation of domestic software engineers, it would be just like him (paranoid) to assume these news laws would actually hurt MS enough to warrant further outsourcing and relocation. If they won't spend the money producing quality software at a reasonable price, they should pay some taxes and be responsible corporate citizens and show some gratitude to the country that put personal computers on the map.
WA State is already heavily taxed, and Seattle is ridiculously expensive. If Ballmer were intelligent, he'd threaten to move to Raleigh, or Austin, or Boise, or Salt Lake, or Phoenix, or Denver, or any number of affordable cities with a decent tech culture.
Lets admit that if MS did leave the country, there would be a major impact on the amount of money spent on politicians by lobbyists promoting the MS monopoly. I am still amazed that with Windows being the ubiquitous OS, economy of scale has not occurred and Windows costs half the price of a whole computer system. EoS has brought us a 90% reduction in the price of computers since the inception of the PC, but the cost of Windows seems to increase. What is with that anyway?
Free trade is at the heart of wealth generation and economic efficiency. It also helps prevent wars (who is going to wage war on their neighbour if all of their tyres are produced in their neighbours country).
Besides, if MS did want to avoid tariffs it could do that too. It could simply technically produce the software in the US legally, but house their assets overseas (workers, buildings, IP etc...). There are ways around what you are proposing. There always have been and always will be.
Four years ago I had enough and wanted off the MS merrygoround. I bought several Apple Macs and have been very happy. Several years ago I thought to give MS another chance and bought equipment to develop for Vista. I got suckered in by the "Vista Capable" scam and wasted my money on machines that couldn't run the version of Vista I was targeting. Since then I have used my Mac every day and have not needed to reload it once. Of course I have a dust covered PC in case I must use it, but I don't seem to need it more than once a year. The MAC OS X is stable and efficient and I have been very happy. I am not a fanboi, just a satisfied user.
Point taken. I'll agree that tax increase are not the sole reason but they are the most obvious. It all boils down to the almighty dollar. If state-mandated health care costs suddenly shoot through the roof, that would raise a red flag too. So would dramatic increases in local energy costs. In addition, small increases in cost don't justify a major move. A company would have to look at just what it would cost to complete a move. In most cases, the company has been wooed by a prospective city and/or state with financial incentives. Case in point, Apple is building a major data center in North Carolina. Clearly they saw a major cost advantage to building it there instead of California and given that it's a data center, access to Research Triangle Park is probably not a factor.
What Ballmer is saying is that the billions in taxes they would have to pay by changing the rules and what they would get in return for it is more expensive than moved the entire company to Ireland or wherever. And you can bet that whatever country they're considering is going to bend over backwards to try to make it happen because they'll end up with more tax revenue either directly or indirectly due to a general increase in population and local spending by that new population.
reading this post just after one about media corporations complaining about lost income through piracy.
Why don't we have a global "Talk Like a Mogul Day"?
This is the first practical idea in this thread I have seen for many postings. :-)
If you can't or don't want to pay the taxes in the country you're doing business in you have a faulty business model, and while you're adjusting that you may need to find yourself a banana republic to ply your trade in tax-free. But Ballmer has a history of spouting a lot of hot air without ever following up on any of it.
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...
Well, supply-side economics was pretty much the baby of the Republican party for those 30 years (and still is, owing much to their current unpopularity).
However, as opposed as I am to the idea in general, it did seem to have helped end the stagflation crisis that Reagan faced when he took office, which was no small feat in and of itself.
However, it spun out of control from there out, and produced a very small number of very wealthy people, held the line for the majority of the population, and screwed the poor. Somehow, the majority of Americans were convinced that the policies directly helped them, despite the fact that this was clearly not the case.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
What do you say to an American who has made Billions from selling to the American People, and the American Government? Does the Board of Directors of Microsoft think that this posturing will in any way endear themselves to Americans? Does Microsoft think that openSource has so little appreciation that Microsoft products are not replaceable? Maybe the Board of Directors of Microsoft should look a little harder at America's border fence; where it exists. They'll notice something very unusual about this fence; it's not designed to keep you in. Microsoft's Board of Directors are not the first people that have left America, and so far the historical record has shown that these "Adam Henrys" have made America better by leaving it.
Or, no economic theory is going to save you if everyone pretends they have infinite money.
I'd suggest Balmer brush up on his Gaelic. After they helped elect Obama they have nothing to complain about. Of course, with their 'skills' they'd probably lose their way trying to leave America, then make it a required 'certification' for their 'partners'.
Microsoft can move anywhere they like. If Steve Ballmer moves out of country that's fine with me as long as they pass along the savings to loyal consumer in the US without import taxation. Mr. Ballmer can also relocate and relinquish his US citizenship among others of his staff and leadership, and MSFT can remove itself from the DOW and become listed on a foreign exchange. Why not? If that is how Microsoft must survive, then so be it. Looking back over a decade ago, In 1997, Microsoft moved OEM licensing from Washington State King County USA on a 4 billion dollar per year business to avoid 35% corporate tax per year. With just the move to Nevada where there is no corporate tax, they saved over 600 million with just an address change. Microsoft Puerto Rico manufacturing also had benefits to perform manufacturing in a US territory rather than on US soil in order to achieve tax breaks and cash back and a moratorium for a decade or so. Johnson and Johnson were among other Puerto Rico based US companies doing business there until the moratorium ended or was re-negotiated. Globalization does not mean US based companies must remain loyal to the US just like California based companies need to stay in California, but relocate to Nevada. Personally, I would love to see Microsoft give it a try and relocate from the US and give it a try in a foreign country; Ireland is nice. India is nice. The Philippines is nice. I would feel bad from Redmond and Bellevue and other areas, but I'm sure other companies would scoop up the buildings and land for 10Â on the dollar.
What you are saying is much more understandable to me now (am a bit dim witted, so unless things are told point-blank i don't get them, and yes that includes dry aussie sarcasm).
Energy and health care costs will definitely kill us if not taxes.
The supplementary employment and rise in incomes of a community due to arrival of a large corporate is more than enough to offset the direct tax benefits it gets. But then most short-sighted activists don't see that and shout themselves hoarse to get rid of Walmart or even Starbucks.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Why should we tax consumption as opposed to income or wealth? You claim it's more "fair," but I don't see any particular reason that's the case.
A sales tax is fairer than an income tax because you're taxing consumption not work. And the more you spend the more you pay in taxes. However not all spending should be taxed. Though I didn't say it in this thread before, though I have elsewhere, I would not tax all spending. I wouldn't tax food for instance, or clothes, or medicine. What I would tax is that big 50+inch TV. So those who spend more, usually those with higher income, who pay more in tax while lower income people won't pay as much. Then as I said elsewhere I'd also have use fees or taxes and a pollution tax. For instance the tax on fuel for transportation should pay for roads.
There are three issues here: first, how much does each person "cost" the government? Second, how much should each person pay for that unit of cost, and third, how should we scale that payment?
These may be issues for you but they aren't for me. As far as government is concerned the BIGGEST issue to me is whether or not the government operates within the limits put on it by the Constitution and that it respects Rights. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party would have the government stay within it's limits. Democrats would rob Peter to pay Paul, actually so would the Republicans. Democrats focus on social welfare though while Republicans focus on big military and law enforcement as well as telling people what they can do in private even though they aren't harming anyone.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If what comes after "because" is the same thing that comes before it rephrased, you haven't justified your point. I might also take issue with the implication that income is equivalent to work at all but the lowest ends of the pay scale.
That aside, you still have not explained why you think it's more fair to tax spending than wealth. It's not obvious, and it's a claim that needs separate justification.
But you're talking about fair taxation, and any discussion of what is fair must account for those issues. Even if you're absolutely opposed to any and all forms of taxation on limited government grounds, it doesn't immediately follow that a major shift of tax burden is justified. The two issues are completely and utterly separate.
Personally, my view is that government should be as small as is possible, limited to only the most essential services that the private sector fails (or must be expected to fail) to effectively provide. However, given that those things must be funded in some way and tax burden must be allocated one way or another, I'm in favor of a fairly progressive distribution of burden, probably fairly similar to what we have now.
But the two arguments are separate, and an anti-tax argument does not automatically support a more regressive allocation of what taxes necessarily remain; I'm not sure why the two seem to be bound together all the time.
Nowhere have you justified your point either.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
1 Invalidate all M$ patents They want to become a foreign company Let them reapply for these patents as a foreign company.
2 Invalidate all H1-B workers visas and make them reapply as h1-b workers for the new company.
3 Import tax levee's need i say more?
TSS
heh...funny you should mention Wal-mart. They announced last week that they're planning to hire 22,000 (yes, thousand) new people. Clearly they're seeing a pronounced increase in business or they wouldn't be doing that. People around here anyway are tightening their belts but they need staple goods. I get a chuckle from the stories of the U.N. Cafe in New York that lets customers decide what they're willing to pay for a meal. No surprise that the place is flat broke.
Not too long ago at all, women and blacks had no "inherent" right to vote.
Nobody has a right to vote. Voting is a term of the contract in which we delegate powers to elected leaders; voting is how we choose them. By voting, you agree to be governed by the winner.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."