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.
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.
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.
Or, how will US government (e.g. its military) view the idea of using a 'foreign' OS?
It would not surprise me if such a move would hasten a 'turning away from windows' trend in US government.
And if the US government is anything like the EU on this, the consequence would be that other businesses would start migrating away from windows as well...
I am no consultant with Mircrosoft, but if I were, I would advise against it... The strength of the Microsoft brandname is largely due to its US connection. Cut it, and it might very well dwindle overnight?
And Dublin, what an excellent idea... just because they used to have good tax breaks for large relocating corporations doesn't mean that will continue. Not when the IMF steps in and tells them how to run their economy after their debts destroy it; even Dell has pulled out of Ireland and is moving from Limerick to Poland.
Perhaps if MS was under the jurisdiction of the EU, they'll do what the DoJ should have done and will break it up into several MiniSofts.
Depends on the market. In the case of Microsoft software, the consumers don't pay the tax. Microsoft's main titles (Windows & Office) are both mostly market monopolies, which means that the price is set based on how much people are willing to pay for the software. The price is set based only on the contrast between number of sales and price per sale to optimize for maximum product.
In cases like this, the industry ends up paying the taxes. While the monopoly company has less funds to develop improvement in the software, users of the software receive less functionality. Software developers and domestic employees are hurt the most, having less employer competition due to work being outsourced.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
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
Or, how will US government (e.g. its military) view the idea of using a 'foreign' OS?
Well I know that the Norwegian Military (particularly parts of the intelligence operations) decided that they would no longer trust or use Windows some years back.
The Long Now Foundation
Individuals don't pay tax. Not really. We pass that tax to our employers by charging higher salaries. Can I get a free ride now just like a corporation??
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
If they go out of US, to who M$ will complain to prevent unlicensed use of Windows?
It's SO unfair that people pirate our products! We made those products and we deserve our cut damn it!
It's SO unfair that we have to like obey our nations tax laws!
Yeah lets go after those that break the laws we like and lets use all our lawyers and accountants to avoid the laws we don't like.
The Long Now Foundation
Not true.
Companies are constrained from passing on the full value of their tax to their customers by the price elasticity of demand for their product. Which in turn depends on the how much their customers need their product (can they put off buying them or do without, do they yearn for it?) and the availability of substitute products and the degree to which those substitute products are suitable (Linux and Mac OS X are pretty good, as is OpenOffice).
If he could pass on the full cost to his customers Ballmer wouldn't care about a tax increase.
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.
Right; most taxes are based on transfers of capital. There's no fundamental difference between a tax on a corporation / income tax or sales tax. The money has moved from control of one (legal) person to another. Also the grandparent is assuming that companies charge for their products according to their costs which is garbage. They charge according to what they can charge. If MS starts paying fair taxes and increases product costs to cover it, that would give linux distribution builders who have to pay full income tax a more fair chance in the market.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Perhaps if MS was under the jurisdiction of the EU, they'll do what the DoJ should have done and will break it up into several MiniSofts.
Those would be "picosofts".
Do you have ESP?
In reality this doesn't work, the idea that "as the physical workforce is being reduced, re-school the freed up people into idea producers..."
The reasons are sad, but ultimately, my experience working with all manners of the mythical "poor people in America" (they actually do exist) shows them.
First, you can't just expect people to go from "physical workforce" to "idea producers" because you tell them to. Unfortunately, not everyone is creative. Not everyone is intelligent. Similarly, not everyone is strong or has manual dexterity. Some people are very well suited to chopping down trees, digging holes, and assembling circuit boards. Other people are very well suited to inventing things, drafting documents, making things pretty, and directing/managing. Some people are good at both categories, and choose the one that they prefer, in places where they have the choice. But it is not true that MOST people are well suited to idea work. Many, but not most.
Second, you can't assume that Americans naturally make for better "idea producers" than Chinese etc- if you try to set up America as a country of designers and managers, while having other portions of the world simply be the labor force, you (ie, corporate America) are attempting to set up a global caste system. Very dangerous. Yet, even then, there would remain jobs which must be performed physically and locally. Janitor. Pavement repairer. McDonalds cook. Chef. Doctor. If you set up an economy where "most people" are "supposed to be" concept workers, then you are conveying the social message that other work is inferior, and thus, other workers are inferior. Not a good message for a government, of all groups, to promulgate.
Additionally, consider that, even if they are capable of it, many people would despise office-type work. Myself, I am bound to it by ability (err, by lack of physical ability otherwise) but, especially working with the physically disabled, I meet people all the time who would rather starve to death than work in an office- they would rather build things or chop down trees. Many people feel that they haven't worked if their muscles don't feel it at the end of the day, and in fact, my father, being one of those people, actually looked down on people who worked with paper and computers.
Taxation is not patriotic. It is a necessary evil that keeps society functioning smoothly. And now, we get to spend our tax dollars buying up auto makers and financial institutions aside from all the colossal wastes that government can think up.
The purpose of business is to make money. Not to be a patriotic cash funnel that supports governmental pet programs. Keep viewing corporations as ATM machines and they *will* relocate to more desirable locations because there are a lot of countries out there that see the benefits of all the jobs that large companies bring. We seem to have lost sight of that fact. Now watch as companies relocate and the country loses ALL of that tax revenue and ALL of those jobs.
Those in charge in government like to think they "create jobs". No, a government job is not a "good" job, it is a drain on the tax base because it generates no wealth. It only helps the individual at the expense of the rest of us. But when the government makes the business climate desirable, businesses come and create good jobs that help both the individual and the nation by generating wealth that feeds back in the economy. Then the government benefits from that added taxation. Everyone wins.
- Raising corporat taxes doesn't affect the consumer as badly as you believe. Yes some prices get raised, but increased taxation also leads to more cuts internally like plastic desks instead of mahogany, fewer free trips to Vegas, snd so on.
Which in turn depresses the mahogany desk business and Vegas travel business, which causes them to close factories and lay off staff. There is no free lunch, there is no free tax. Right now Vegas is really hurting because people like you think it's really neat to punish businesses that have conventions in Vegas. In the same vein, people who buy heavily-taxed or -regulated goods are choosing not to buy these goods, instead opting to buy something without such hidden added costs -- or opting not to buy at all. If you want to see the results of this, just look at Detroit and how artificially inflated labor rates and benefits (thanks, unions) have made domestic cars expensive, inferior, and unprofitable.
He's turning his back on the country that gave Ballmer opportunity to be where he is today. Industrialist Carnegie came from Scotland and loved the U.S., and maintained loyalty until his death. He would have never entertained the idea of moving factories to China for cheap labor.
And what do you suppose will happen if MS doesn't move? Foreign competition that isn't subject to a crushing corporate tax will then have an advantage over MS. You don't move your labor base because you want to, you do it because if you don't, your competition will. It has nothing to do with greed (a favorite word of the class warfare monger) and everything to do with how the world works in a global labor market.
If California's standard of living drops, then wages will drop, and eventually the factories will move back here because WE will be the cheaper labor than the Chinese.
California's standard of living would have to drop below that of a peasant Chinese factory worker living in a hut with 20 other people before that would happen because that's what labor is like in China. Somehow I don't see that happening.
What could happen -- but won't because people like you refuse to understand basic economics -- is the U.S. government could drastically reduce corporate taxes. If you want see what kind of effects that can have on attracting and keeping new businesses to your country, try here. Corporate taxes were lowered. Businesses flocked to it. Tax reveneues increased because of a larger tax base despite a lower marginal rate. The general standard of living for everyone went up. And you're against this idea?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"If corporations don't pay tax as so many Internet corporate lick-spittles shriek, then they wouldn't need ridiculously twisted foreign tax accounts and be prancing around like sooks when someone comes along and tells them to meet their obligations in their home countries would they? They would just happily pass this tax burden it along."
Ok, smartass, WHY DO THEY AVOID TAXES?
And the answer is...
Because it increases profits. There, I said it.
Should we allow tax policy to encourage moving profits offshore to avoid taxes and increase profits? Does Microsoft have ANY responsibility to pay their fair (or legal) taxes in the U.S., the country that does, largely, make their success possible? Should we not perhaps have a tax policy that discourages moving jobs offshore merely to avoid taxation? Can we in fact craft a tax policy that does any of this?
Corporations are now pretty much driven by self-interest, in a shortsighted way. Quarterly results, dividends, thwarting competition instead of out-competing, I suppose it was inevitable, but Ballmer's threat to move offshore exposes the culture of 'profit first last and always' at Microsoft.
This culture has resulted in so many industries in the U.S. being moved offshore, most notably to China. Can you buy a single piece of PC hardware that isn't made in China? What does it take to avoid Chinese-manufactured products? Is it ok to send U.S. jobs overseas only to maximize profit?
Ballmer's threat should spur this debate.
Oh, and for what it's worth, if we DID reduce or eliminate corporate taxes, prices probably wouldn't go down - you're right. Greed dictates that corporations take that opportunity to increase profits. Unless one says there is enough price pressure to lower theirs. Then the market starts working again.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Dear Microsoft, You may move your business oversees and we may mandate a transition away from using Microsoft products in all governmental, educational, military and other facilities throughout the US. Thank you. --US Government
Why save your soul when you can sell it for a profit?
Please, please, won't people on Slashdot please stop repeating this tripe? Corporate leaders have a high degree of flexibility about how their companies are operated; it is not as simple as this stupid mantra that has cropped up here to explain away all misdeeds and bad decisions.
Anyone can be sued. For anything. Doesn't mean it has merit. And there are always countervailing forces to all business decisions - does a short-term move to avoid American taxes actually have hidden long-term costs? Are there ways of considering value beyond immediate quarterly costs vs. earnings? Did you know corporations frequently count "good will" as an asset? Did you know a smart leader can see how patriotism may, in fact, be an asset? Perhaps it means a better chance at contracts with the Federal government; perhaps it simply means helping to maintain the business environment in their single largest market.
Whenever I buy something in a store, there is very, very, very, little that the government did for me.
Other than provide the safety regulations to minimize the risk the product harms you, the advertising regulations to minimize the chance you are scammed, etc, etc. Your commercial transaction occurs in a complicated environment, much of which is government funded, much of which serves to protect you (nominally, obviously you can debate the efficacy).
In general, I don't think there are many government services that you can fund on a pay-per-use basis. Fire department? Are you kidding? Many places in the country, they have to put your fire out to keep it from spreading to your neighbors. Having a patchwork of private providers mixed in would be a nightmare. For police, similarly -- take all the issues we have with police brutality, privacy violation, etc, and now throw in groups who are not directly run by a group (nominally, at least) constrained by Constitutional limits? No thanks.
Throw in the fact that you're going to have to construct an enormous infrastructure to monitor who's paying for what, whether you get access to x y or z service, etc, and I think a lot of the purported benefit is going to go out the window. Also, for many of these (e.g., libraries), there is more benefit than simply "what do I get today?" Sure, you could allow for private libraries, but they would be driven solely by profit motive. Public libraries serve as important record-keepers and generally provide a service to society in a more general sense than just a pay-for-service sense. Look at the book selection in your typical bookstore and compare it to that in the library. In my experience, the library is a much better place for obscure or old books-- the purpose of the library is to preserve information. The purpose of the bookstore is to sell books. They're both valuable, but sometimes very different.
To be fair, the US labor market of Carnegie's day was on par with that of most other countries, his railroad empire was largely built on the back of indentured labor (a substantial portion of which had consisted of Chinese immigrants). He maintained a private army to hedge against an armed workforce uprising, which eventually happened -- and during which he retreated to the safety of his personal Scottish castle. Afterward said labor force was promptly replaced with a force entirely composed of desperate immigrants.
It is widely believed his later philanthropic activities were entirely motivated by his damaged reputation and desire to right a fortune built on questionable ethics and ruthless business practices. What do you buy someone who already has everything? Posterity.
corporations have to also be of the public benefit, ie, for the citizens inside the nation where they are GRANTED their incorporation charters.
No, they just have to comply with the letter of the laws that set the terms of their incorporation.
Corporations that threaten to pull out should have their charters instantly revoked.
Great. Capricious moves like that are a real incentive for investment.
You want all of the benefits, all the profits possible, but none of the *responsibilities*.
On the contrary. Corporations, just like individuals, should be held to whatever obligations they freely agree to.
traitorous scumbags.
Fuck you too, Adolph. People are not the property of the state, and neither are corporations.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The costs end up on the consumer either way. If you tax the corporations, then they raise the price of their goods, consumers pay more. If you don't tax the corporations, then the government will directly tax the people even more to make up for the income that they aren't getting from corporate taxes.
We pay either way. The government requires money to meet its many obligations, and it's going to collect that money through taxes of one sort or the other.
The corporation that I'm buying from is reliant on the highways and bridges that it has to truck its products across, and those highways and bridges need to get paid for. Either I pay the company which than pays the government, or I pay the government directly. If the company is paying, it factors that cost into its prices, and then as a consumer, I can see those extra costs and make a more informed purchasing decision. And a well designed corporate tax system would have the added benefit of compelling companies to use those public resources more efficiently, which would lower their tax burden, and then lower their prices.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Yeah, cause clearly the government has done nothing to help the companies within its borders. It certainly doesn't provide education for their workforce, roads for their commuters, patent/copyright/trademark protection, investment in pure research that forms the basis of private R&D, emergency personnel to save them from natural disasters, military protection, retirement and insurance benefits for their employees, regulation of the markets so their stock can't be manipulated, and so forth.
Yup, those greedy government bastards! Demanding we provide the money for the services they provide!
Heh.
I always enjoy watching somebody who has their head screwed on right destroying the phony arguments of right wing lunatics.
You couldn't have described the tax evasion crowd any better.
Leeches - they consume government services - military protection, social safety nets that keep the country stable, educated workforce, and everything else that comes with living in a modern country.
Then when the time comes to pay the bill for all these services, they can't stop making excuses.
And now what - threatening to move jobs oversees?
Microsoft has been moving jobs overseas as fast as they can for as long as I can remember. Luckily there are some things that Americans still do better than lower cost foreign workers. And now that asshat Ballmer wants to threaten to continue doing what he has been doing for years if Microsoft has to pay its taxes?
Screw Steve Ballmer, and all the other leeches that run and hide when it's time to pay the bill.
Horseshit.
The US is what it is because of the hard work, dedication, and innovation of its people, not some legal structure such as a corporation.
It was people who struggled to open the frontiers. It was people who invested/risked their hearts, souls, and fortunes to bring this country into existence. It was people who worked hard, sacrificed all they had to make this country strong. It's people who have innovated. It's people who have created and invented.
A corporation, in and of itself, can do absolutely nothing. It's the people that run the corporation who are responsible for its success or failure. Furthermore, this country was wildly successful long before multinational corporations began to get get laws passed that coddle them and punish individuals who are guilty of the same types of actions.
This country can survive without corrupt corporations. They do nothing but concentrate wealth in as few as hands as possible and make the citizens of this country into nothing more than nameless, faceless cogs in a machine whom the corporations consider to be nothing more than pawns.
That is the antithesis of what brought the US out of nothing more than wilderness to the point of being the most powerful nation on earth.
On the contrary, the USA has one of the higher corporate tax rates. It is minimized in peoples' minds by quoting percent of GDP, but a corporation doesn't care about GDP it cares about the tax rate.
UK: 21-28%
Spain: 25-30%
France: 33.3%
Germany: 29.8% (avg)
Italy: 31.4%
Canada: 29.5-35.5%
Australia: 30%
USA: 15-39% + 0-12% state -- 39.3 (avg)
Curiously it Barbados(40), Cameroon(38.5) and Guyana(35/45) were on the top of the list.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States
Your data does not include the fast that the USA also has a ridiculous number of corporate tax deductions.
Average company in S&P 500 had tax rate of 26% between 2002 and 2006, probably the lowest in developed world.
^^that.
The problem here is the difference between the theoretical and actual tax rates that corporations are affected by in the US. Closing tax loopholes will bring these closer in line, and then we can have a more reasonable discussion about the issue. As things stand, those in favor of lowering taxes just point to the stated rates, and those that want to raise them point to the effective ones, and everybody just talks past each other.
Obama has to realize, though, that if these loopholes are closed, the tax rates will have to come down a bit to compensate for that, or else we really will have a tax system that's too hostile to corporations. I'm not sure if he's come to terms with that reality yet.
Only one Senator on either side opposed the Patriot Act, the piece of legislation which semi-authorized the "executive trespasses." Pres. Obama has gone on record since his election for supporting warrantless wiretaps.
In short, OrangeTide isn't the only one who think that there would be only "superficial differences."
Put identity in the browser.