Microsoft To Get $100M Annual Tax Cut and Amnesty

reifman writes "Despite a $2.8 billion deficit, Washington State's House Bill 3176 would provide Microsoft with an effective $100 million tax cut annually and possible amnesty on its $1.27 billion Nevada tax maneuverings. Under current law, all of Microsoft's worldwide licensing revenues of approximately $20.7 billion annually are taxable at .484 percent. Under the new law, only the portion of software licenses sold to Washington state customers would be taxable. Ironically, after slashing Microsoft's tax burden, HB3176 directs the Department of Revenue to crack down on 'abusive tax transactions' like those in Nevada — except for a loophole that may provide Microsoft amnesty on its twelve year practice. The bill's lead sponsor is Ross Hunter of Medina, home to Bill Gates and a number of current and former Microsoft billionaires and multi-millionaires, and other areas around Microsoft's corporate campus."

Comments

Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[eldavojohn]

The bill's lead sponsor is Ross Hunter of Medina ...

The article's update notes:

Update: Rep. Hunter is a former Microsoft general manager.

As does his bio:

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
I retired from Microsoft in 2000 after 17 years of service ranging from program manager for Microsoft Access to general manager of the Microsoft Commercial Internet System.

At this point apathy consumes the rage that would normally well up inside me ... Halliburten got contract after contract with a former employee as vice president of the United States ... should this sponsorship surprise me? I guess it doesn't fall under conflict of interest though a large part of me feels it should ...

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Washington state resident who also considers the amount of the state's budget deficit, I can't figure out how even a representative with MS ties could figure that this move should be viewed favorably. Let's shoot this down folks.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Cryacin]

There's so much back scratching going on here that these guys must sleep on their stomach. I'm sick to mine.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Attila Dimedici]

Halliburten got contract after contract with a former employee as vice president of the United States

Of course, it got the same sorts of contracts when Bill Clinton was President.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[rtfa-troll]

X: They are shooting little children.
Y: So what? Under the last administration they shot little children too.
X: oh; that's okay then. Sorry I mentioned it.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[maxume]

Are you a resident of Washington? If not, why worry about it?

If they were really clever, they would cut all corporate income taxes (and maybe make up for it with slight increases in personal income taxes). Imagine the outrage from neighboring states!!

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

slight increase from 0% would outrage the citizens not the neighboring states.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Attila Dimedici]

The poster I replied to was clearly implying that Haliburton got their contracts during the Bush Administration because Dick Cheney used to work for them. However, Haliburton was getting the same type of contracts before Dick Cheney was Vice President, so I was pointing out that his case was not made.
It is important when trying to fight government corruption (or other wrong doing by the powerful) to clearly make one's case and to not get sucked into edge cases that have an appearance of serving a partisan agenda. This is because there are many who will use corruption fighters for partisan advantage and then promptly abandon the cause when their group is in power.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why people don't understand that corporations don't pay taxes. Taxes are just another expense that gets added into the final price of the product. It doesn't matter that they actually write the check, you pay Microsoft's corporate taxes every time you buy one of their products. We should eliminate them entirely. Nearly every company in the world would want to be headquartered in the US if we had no corporate taxes, imagine how many jobs that would create. The end result would be a wash for the average United States citizen, prices would drop across the board, but we could add in a federal sales tax to make up for the revenue shortfall and our goods would be competitive in the world market again.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Nadaka]

No it didn't. It got contracts alright, but it had to bid on them like everyone else. With old Dick, they did away with that pesky issue of bidding and selecting the lowest cost, best value. They just gave it to Halliburten.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[h4rr4r]

More like the outrage from the citizens.

Repeat after me: Businesses do not just pass on all costs to consumers.

If they could increase their prices they already would have. Of course MS being a monopoly makes this not 100% true.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[stephanruby]

However, Haliburton was getting the same type of contracts before Dick Cheney was Vice President, so I was pointing out that his case was not made.

Yes, but they were not getting no-bid contracts under Clinton. In my opinion, that's a huge significant difference.

Not that Clinton doesn't help his own friends out, he does too. Cronyism does run rampant in both parties.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Alex Belits]

I don't get why people don't understand that corporations don't pay taxes. Taxes are just another expense that gets added into the final price of the product. It doesn't matter that they actually write the check, you pay Microsoft's corporate taxes every time you buy one of their products.

Product prices will be the highest the market can bear, regardless of expenses. Software already has massive profit margins, so taxes merely eat into those profits, thus depriving the company from money they can use to buy other companies, run ad campaigns, pay bribes and manipulate market in other ways.

We should eliminate them entirely. Nearly every company in the world would want to be headquartered in the US if we had no corporate taxes, imagine how many jobs that would create.

Corporate headquarters are only considered useful for locals because THEY PAY TAXES. The local employment they provide mostly consists of secretaries and janitors.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's simple, really: Corporations pay taxes because, legally, they are distinct entities carrying on whatever their business is. That is the basis on which the "limited liability" thing hangs.

If corporate taxes were such a crushing burden, you'd see a lot fewer LLCs. Apparently, though, limited liability is quite valuable.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Duradin]

X:How can you shoot women and children?
AM:It's easy. You just don't lead them as much.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sylvandb]

Repeat after me: Businesses do not just pass on all costs to consumers.

Ask yourself...

*) Does a business have expenses?

*) Does a business have sources of income?

*) Does a business make a profit?

If the answer to all three questions is yes, then you can be 100% certain that all costs are paid by those sources of income.

In the case of a business where you call the source of income "consumers" then yes, all costs are paid by the consumers. Trying to claim anything else is delusional.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[lwsimon]

If the government was properly limited to its moral role, and using the tax code to generate revenue instead of a means to modify behavior, this wouldn't be a problem, now would it?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[jfern]

This kind of corruption is quite common in American politics. For example, Senator Evan Bayh's wife Susan works for the health insurance companies. Quite naturally Evan insisted on a health care bill that was a total giveaway to the health insurance companies. Now that everyone hates his guts for pushing for such a crappy bill, he's taking his ball and going home.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[h4rr4r]

Sometimes business do not get that last one, and sometimes the profit just goes down when costs go up.

Prices are held in check by the perceived value in the market not by the MSRP. If they could have raised their prices to cover these costs, why not just raise the price now and get more profit?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[longfalcon]

don't you see though? its a way to stealthily raise taxes on everyone, and still say you are "sticking to the evil corporations" and appear as a populist. its all a money grab for ${insert_favorite_program_here}

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[iluvcapra]

Regardless of how you may feel about taxes, it really isn't at issue. Here we have a company breaking the law, and using its influence to avoid the consequences, and to seek special treatment under the law.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical liberal. Can't support your own needs. Need someone who knows how to handle their own money to pay for you.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[maxume]

I never asserted that businesses pass all expenses on to consumers, but all you did was make an assertion, you didn't discuss why you think the various components would fall in favor of your assertion.

(For instance, they may, after a tax cut, choose to cut prices...)

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ozmanjusri]

I don't get why people don't understand that corporations don't pay taxes. Taxes are just another expense that gets added into the final price of the product.

Microsoft makes 85%+ profit margins on their OS and Office lines.

They're already gouging.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical centrist. Prefers the feel of a fencepost up his arse than actually believing in anything.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[iccaros]

ahhh.. no Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo. “Halliburton has also gotten some no-bid jobs in Iraq, just as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and for the same reason: Not a lot of other firms have similar expertise in supplying the U.S. military, and with a war on there’s no time to stage a lengthy bidding process.” (Max Boot, Op-Ed, “Don’t Blame Halliburton,” Los Angeles Times, 4/22/04) During Clinton Administration, Halliburton Received $2.2 Billion From US Government For Work In Kosovo. “Between 1995 and 2000, while Democrat Bill Clinton ran the country and Republican Dick Cheney ran Halliburton, there was no talk of favoritism or political ties as the Houston-based company billed the government $2.2 billion for its work in Kosovo.” (James Rosen, “Is Iraq’s Reconstruction Rigged?” The [Raleigh] News & Observer, 10/5/03) Halliburton’s Performance Praised By Former Vice President Al Gore’s “National Performance Review.” “[V]ice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review mentioned Halliburton’s performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section titled ‘Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics,’ Gore’s reinventing-government team favorably mentioned LOGCAP, the cost-plus-award system, and Brown & Root, which the report said provided ‘basic life support services – food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services – transportation, electrical, hazardous materials collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance.’” (Byron York, “All Smoke, No Fire: The Administration’s Critics Are Wrong,” National Review, 7/14/03)

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[NotBornYesterday]

Many businesses do not operate on a cost-plus basis. Supply and demand generally dictate that a given business will charge whatever they can for an item. In a monopoly, they can pretty much set the price where they want it. For example, if a piece of software retails for $99.99, and corporate tax rates go up on that revenue by $0.50, the software company will likely keep their retail price at $99.99 instead of raising it to $100.49. They might raise their wholesale distribution price slightly to make up some of it though - they love milking the distribution channel for all they can get.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[c6gunner]

Yes, but they were not getting no-bid contracts under Clinton. In my opinion, that's a huge significant difference.

The military didn't have the same requirements under Clinton.

Here in Canada, the military has been seeking multiple bids on every contract for decades. After becoming involved in Afghanistan, however, some purchases were made without bothering to accept bids. If Haliburton had started getting no-bid contracts during a time of normal operational tempo, then you'd have a valid point to make - as it is, you're going to have a hell of a time trying to prove that these contracts had anything to do with Cheney.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

> Typical liberal. Can't support your own needs. Need someone who knows how to handle their own money to pay for you.

So, what is social security again?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[wintercolby]

And here I thought that this article was supposed to be a joke!

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[orient]

Isn't that a conflict of interest? Isn't some institution (DA, IRS, FSF) supposed to point a finger and do something about it?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jim_Maryland]

Might want to read a little on No Bid Contracts. I'm not saying they are a good thing but there are times where it is necessary. Do you have any specifics to back up your claim that they could have found a lower cost provider in the time frame?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

As a Washington state resident who also considers the amount of the state's budget deficit, I can't figure out how even a representative with MS ties could figure that this move should be viewed favorably. Let's shoot this down folks.

As an outsider who knows enough about tax laws, I can probably guess to the reasoning you are at a loss with.

There are two simple things abound here. One is the fact that Washington cannot really tax an entity based on business practices outside the state. The constitution forbids it unless congress agrees to allow it. MS's Nevada corps and hiding profits there are technical legal within the strictest legal sense of the law even if they are morally shady at best. If Washington goes after MS with a 2.8 billion dollar deficit, they are likely to be seeing close to that spent on legal fees between the two with MS taking it to federal courts (outside the scope of Washington State because the federal government has jurisdiction between the states) and appeals after appeals with Washington State likely losing.

The second part might be an additional potential loss of revenue for the state if MS becomes angered and responds by moving a significant portion of it's operation outside of the state to coincide within the new laws. That might mean that all of the MS sales within the state could be conducted outside the state and the only thing that could be collected is sales tax instead of an income tax on the profits. Technically, in states with income taxes, only the portion of income created from activities within the state are taxable to that state. If MS moves all of their in state licensing to Nevada, then it's possible that Washington State would miss out on all the new tax revenue they think they will be getting.

It's sad when government is in a weak bargaining position against a gigantic corporation, but I think that some in government are attempting to correct that instead of making it worse by this move with it's protections. It should guarantee that the state receives some funding from MS in addition to what it already has without making things worse for them. Further more, after the state is solvent again, it would be free to pursue any claims on the Nevada profits before the law granted the break. The only claims of (ex) post facto would be while the law was in place and the activity was permissive. Anything before or after the law being in place would be fair game if the law changed.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[AvitarX]

Wouldn't it be great for residents of WA state, if they could stealthily raise taxes on the entire world though?

Also, I don't entirely buy that a tax increase on a monopoly would inherently increase the price of their product correspondingly.

And MS has a monopoly (protected and enforced with tax money) on selling MS software. That monopoly is was keeps the price over a few USD a copy.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[longfalcon]

so microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems?

microsoft is a business, not a charity. the cost of doing business, be it taxes, labor costs and even lawsuits, is passed on to the consumer.

(i think it is worthy to note that microsoft counts most of the worlds corporations as customers in some capacity)

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Attila Dimedici]

As another poster pointed out already. Haliburton get no bid contracts under Clinton. So, try again.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Your.Master]

Because it's a dynamic equilibrium. There are fixed costs and there are variable costs, and the variable costs themselves tend to be non-linear.

Raising the price lowers the number of buyers. You want to maximize the total profit. When you change the costs, you change the marginal profit, and therefore you alter the equilibrium. This is nearly always altered to higher prices and fewer units.

A $10 increase in costs could lead to a 10 cent increase in price, or to a $100 increase in price, depending on the circumstances.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Attila Dimedici]

Once again, Halliburton got no bid contracts under Clinton.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations don't pay taxes, we do. Because we pay for it in product prices.

...

So, I don't pay taxes. My employer, a Corporation, does. It's included in my paycheck. And logic prevails.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[b4upoo]

A rope, a tree, burning torches and hot tar in the night are a fair remedy. After all the same bribes can be paid to judges and juries so side stepping the process may be justified.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Demonspawn]

> Typical liberal. Can't support your own needs. Need someone who knows how to handle their own money to pay for you.

So, what is social security again?

A horrible system instituted by a democrat congress/president.

I could get a better return and more security by taking the money I am forced to send to SS and investing it in government bonds instead.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ElectricTurtle]

That explains why MS software is so sub-par and MS advertising is so laughably terrible... it's all being written and designed by secretaries and janitors...

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Profit over what? Cost of box + cd, or including R&D, developers, testers, et cetera?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[h4rr4r]

No way, a tax cut would be 100% pure profit.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they were not getting no-bid contracts under Clinton.

True, except for the fact that they were.

Oh wait...

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[gethoht]

Clinton also didn't start a war in Iraq making for oodles more (bid or no-bid) contracts. So you sir... Try again

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

If the tax rate on their revenue is 0.484%, as OP states, that is hardly an amount that will affect Microsoft very much, or increase their prices very much. Figure it out yourself: what is 0.484% of the price of any Microsoft product you bought lately?

Any tax breaks for large corporations at a time when they are proposing to increase taxes on citizens is unconscionable. Hunter should be ashamed.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[hedwards]

One of our chief problems here in Washington is that we don't have any personal income tax at all. Meaning that right now to make up our budget deficit we're left with far less appetizing choices. We can increase sales tax, B&O tax, property tax, gas tax and that's about it. All of those are more damaging to the state economy in the current recession than a minor bump to the income tax would be. But the residents of that state, myself included, are very much concerned that we'll end up with our current tax burden plus an income tax. Trying to figure out how to give us an income tax to replace some of the other taxes is a really tough problem as people on both sides of the aisle are pretty skeptical that it would be a replacement rather than add on tax.

An increase to income tax is dollar for dollar more effective at raising revenue than raising the taxes that we have available. Plus you get a subsidy from the federal government that we don't really get. Technically we do often get a sales tax write off, but it sucks and is a serious pain in the ass to actually get back as you have to do a lot of paper work to substantiate for it.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

"One is the fact that Washington cannot really tax an entity based on business practices outside the state."

That is complete nonsense. If their primary base is in Washington State (it is), the state has every legal right to tax them on their total revenue (known in Washington as the "B&O tax"). This tax has been active in Washington for many years now. If it were illegal, someone would have challenged it long since. (Actually it has been challenged, and it's still there.) If you think they "cannot really" do that, I suggest you talk with a Washington State tax attorney and find out why you are wrong. Here are some hints:

"The constitution forbids it unless congress agrees to allow it."

Again, complete nonsense. What is prohibited by the Constitution is charging sales tax for sales in other states. The B&O tax is neither a sales tax or an income tax.

Also, Washington State probably would NOT lose if that were taken to court, because again B&O is not a sales tax, and Microsoft's primary base of operations is in Washington State, regardless of where they are incorporated. The B&O tax is not an income tax either. You are mixing apples and oranges.

"It's sad when government is in a weak bargaining position against a gigantic corporation..."

That may be so, but that is not the case here. Corporations (including some large corporations) have already challenged in courts, and the B&O tax has been upheld. It is not bound by the laws regarding either income or sales taxes, since it is neither. I strongly suggest you do a little research about the subject before expounding on it so "authoritatively". It is obvious that you know very little about the real situation.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation needed]

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[OrwellianLurker]

> Typical liberal. Can't support your own needs. Need someone who knows how to handle their own money to pay for you.

So, what is social security again?

That thing that won't be around in a few years.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

Why do you think an income tax would be better than a sales tax? I mean, on what basis? Even without an income tax, Washington has (or at least had very recently) the 2nd highest state taxes in the nation! So how would an income tax solve anything?

Keep in mind that with the economy the way it has been the last couple of years, an income tax would probably have resulted in lower revenue for the state, because income has been down but some spending has to remain fairly constant regardless of economy or income. So your argument doesn't seem to hold a lot of water.

"An increase to income tax is dollar for dollar more effective at raising revenue than raising the taxes that we have available."

Perhaps... when income is up, or at least steady. But it hasn't been! It's been significantly down.

There are an awful lot of downsides to income taxes that you are not considering here. Simply raising taxes for the state is only one issue out of a great many. Further, the problem is not lack of revenue for the state, but too much spending by the state! Otherwise, how do you reconcile the fact of #2 per capita taxes in the nation, but still a budget shortfall?

Don't raise taxes...lower spending! You can't spend yourself out of a recession.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ClosedSource]

"I don't get why people don't understand that corporations don't pay taxes."

That's why corporations never lobby against corporate tax increases .. oh wait.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[RobertLTux]

not that im a tax type but
if im not very mistaken while "consumers" may be a source of income they are also a big source of "expenses"

One of the fun games that a company does is find out how to pull as much money off the tax debt as possible

(hint here "hollywood accounting" is used on tax amounts also)
if you as a business can show losses greater than whats real you can increase your profit without raising prices on your products.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[bondsbw]

Product prices will be the highest the market can bear, regardless of expenses. Software already has massive profit margins, so taxes merely eat into those profits, thus depriving the company from money they can use to buy other companies, run ad campaigns, pay bribes and manipulate market in other ways.

Which costs more, $9.99 worth of gas, or a video game priced at $9.99 on the shelf? The video game, of course, because tax is included in the price of gas but not the price of software. You're not wrong, but perception is key. There's a reason that game doesn't cost $10.00; it's the same reason that $999 is a magical price point for many desktop/notebook makers.

Let's go to a different world for a minute, where all sales prices include tax... do you think a laptop would still go for $1078? Probably not. Maybe $1049, but $999 would draw enough attention to be worth the loss of some per-unit profit. In either case, there is an overall loss of some profit.

So, taxes really don't eat into profits as much as you seem to suggest by asserting that the corporations directly pay them. In other words, the market can "bear" the taxes a little more simply because perception of the pricing structure tends to pass more of that burden on to the naive consumer.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[mysidia]

Your argument is basically a fallacy. Without any basis whatsoever, you've magically created some sort of line between a software company's tax rate, and the consumer price of goods.

The consumer price of goods isn't based directly on taxes MS pays though, it's based on what the consumer is willing to pay, and what the demand is for the product. Software publishers charge the highest price the market will bear within their desired sales volume (i.e. number units available) in order to maximize their profit.

The great thing about software is the costs to produce are very very low (on average) per unit, and the profits are extremely high. But to get those extreme profits, they are already charging as much for it as they felt they could charge, and increased costs do not change the retail price. Only changes in pricing pressure do that.

Here's the thing... since they are taxes they haven't already paid.. charging them now doesn't retroactively increase the price of already-purchased copies of Windows.

Also, due to competitive pressures in the marketplace, Microsoft can't simply raise the prices of their existing products. They would kill Windows 7 if they decided to raise the OEM price to $300 for Home Premium.

They can't increase the price in the past, so there's only one thing that can give their past profits get reduced.

This reduces the value of their company, and works against developing new products in as cost-effective a way, but it doesn't make the old products more expensive in practice.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[mysidia]

Actually.. I think it's being designed by secretaries, and written by armies of trained monkeys.

Which explains the bugs.

The janitorial work was outsourced to a contracter that is (secretly) owned by a competitor, a long time ago.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

"A horrible system instituted by a democrat congress/president"

For fuck's sake, it's the "DemocratIC" party, not the "Democrat" party. Please can the 5th grade antics if you want to be taken seriously.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called business. Washington is offering an attractive deal to capture more of the taxes to its state. Every state does the similar things for their companies, and it's good that they do. Competition is good, both between companies and between states.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[demonlapin]

limited liability is quite valuable.

Er, you know what LLC stands for, right? They have limited liability; what they don't have is the ability to sell stock to raise money.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you silly billy if high tech corporations moved to where taxes are lower Apple would be in Mississippi and Google would be in New Hampshire. Instead these companies need intellectual talent which is drawn by the availability of educational, cultural, medical, etc. infrastructure supported by high taxes. This is yet another case of the law of unexpected consequences, lower taxes saps the infrastructure which ultimately decreases the quality of the available labor pool.
In my view corporations have a duty to maximize profits for their owners but governments have a duty of build a civilization. Too often politicians forget this.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[demonlapin]

Even at Microsoft, do you think $100 million/year goes unnoticed? It's easy to look at your own life, realize that an additional 0.5% tax would be almost negligible (about the cost of a 20 oz drink a day for someone making $100k/yr), and assume that the same thing holds true for major corporations, but it's not so.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[demonlapin]

It's a pretty ridiculous tax that claims that all income that Microsoft earns is Washington income. (It's on par with the US government's claim that all money earned by US citizen is taxable, no matter where earned.) But yeah, other than that, you're right.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[demonlapin]

There's no reason that Microsoft has to have its headquarters in Washington, and I imagine that they have enough money to fund a bevy of extraordinarily intelligent lawyers for an indefinitely long period of time. Therefore, they do have the option of moving the corporate operations elsewhere while keeping development in WA, and expending a great deal of court time to make sure that the income doesn't occur anywhere in WA. This is not without cost, but corporations can do extremely expensive things when doing so will save truly staggering amounts of money.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Kyusaku Natsume]

Aside from that, it kills the internal market. If I were an american citizen, I would request that this guy will be sent has soon has possible to the front in Afghanistan. Any of the kids fighting there is a better representative than this as**ole.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Toonol]

Troll? That's correct.

For the cost of the stimulus package, personal and corporate income tax could have been HALVED for three years. That would have actually worked to help the economy; but it doesn't give the state power, so it wasn't an option.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ahabswhale]

Actually, SS could give a much better return if congress didn't raid its coffers every time it built up some cash. But they do, so it can't. I do find it hilarious that you offered being dependent on the government for bonds as being ok. Anyway, the system exists because people were going to overthrow the government if the government didn't do something to help "Average Joe" instead of the rich for once. Sound like a familiar scenario?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ahabswhale]

Ffs, they are paying pennies on the dollar for the taxes that ANYONE else would be paying. Cry me a fucking river. They'll get my sympathy when the government offers me the same deal.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Attila Dimedici]

No, Clinton got involved in a war in former Yugoslavia, so nobody would pay attention to the fact that he was a serial sexual abuser of women subordinates.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ahabswhale]

ROFL...2.2 billion? are you fucking kidding me? That's chicken feed compared to what they got under Bush. Oh, and thanks for all the helpful references from conservative sources. Very unbiased, I'm sure.

Anyway, why don't you post some articles about how they moved their headquarters to Dubai after fucking the country over with all the taxpayer money they waste?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[that this is not und]

Haliburton hating is a growth industry (or it was, during the Bush era) so I am sure that no matter what anybody here says you can rattle off another bromide about them.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[that this is not und]

Now, where did you get the idea that the issue was sexual harassment. I thought the Media had done a good enough job of making the whole case into a friendly blow job or two from someone slightly over the age of consent?

Do we need to go over it all again, to make it clear that Bill Clinton, and the Feminists who supported him throughout the whole ordeal, had the best interests of the country at heart? Sexual harassment is good, and needs to be covered up, whenever it's someone 'friendly to the movement' (Bob Packwood comes to mind, also) who is engaging in it.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Demonspawn]

Actually, SS could give a much better return if congress didn't raid its coffers every time it built up some cash.

Actually, the SS program is _not allowed_ to build up coffers... by design (IIRC). It is entirely a ponzi scheme.

I do find it hilarious that you offered being dependent on the government for bonds as being ok.

Well, if it was my money I could put it anywhere. But the biggest complaints I've seen against going away from SS seem to focus on "Well SS is safe! You can't lose your retirement in the stock market when your retirement is SS!" So that's why I give the example of me investing my own money in government bonds: More return AND more security.

if the government didn't do something to help "Average Joe" instead of the rich for once.

Please.. Come up with a real argument based on fact rather than partisan buzzwords.

But, honestly, the role of government is not to take care of you (other than for thing such as the common defense). The best government is one that gets the hell out of your way and lets you take care of yourself... or fall on your ass if you fail to do so.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[AvitarX]

No, it has a monopoly on MS windows.

The profit margins of MS are not a natural occurrence, they are so high in a large part due to the fact that they have governmental protections that allow them to thrive.

Do you really think that without the treaties enforcing international copyright laws MS would make so much money?

Operating systems are still not entirely replaceable, and MS has a monopoly on its own one. The assumption that taxes are immediately passed to the consumer requires one to first assume that prices are at their lowest profitable amount (with some allowance for the risk factor). MS Windows and MS Office are not in this situation, they can charge the most people are willing to pay. I would say that the fact that the Home version is less than the Office version proves this even.

The fact that the price is set to the highest possible amount would mean taxes would not be passed along at all.

A company with a 25% profit margin is not pricing it's products based on cost of business.

MS products are priced to maximize revenue within each segment of customer. If software was a true commodity, the situation would be somewhat different, but it isn't. You can't go buy an OS that will run 90+% of the software in the local electronics store from any other source.

Your treating software as a commodity, but it isn't, and the government helps keep things that way.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[iccaros]

I worked for the Clinton White House dumb ass. but believe what you want.. its simple to say.. the sources I do not agree with are all conservative. the quotes come from the LA times for one.. but can't teach stupid..

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

That is complete nonsense. If their primary base is in Washington State (it is), the state has every legal right to tax them on their total revenue (known in Washington as the "B&O tax"). This tax has been active in Washington for many years now. If it were illegal, someone would have challenged it long since. (Actually it has been challenged, and it's still there.) If you think they "cannot really" do that, I suggest you talk with a Washington State tax attorney and find out why you are wrong. Here are some hints:

This is complete nonsense. The state of Washington only has jurisdiction within the state of Washington. It cannot tax money that was earned and stays in another state. Their jurisdiction only applies to income activities inside the state of Washington and to income created outside the state and brought back in. This is true for a business or individual. If you move to Oregon, Washington has no legitimate right to tax you unless you enter Washington for work or move back. This is true for every state. The only time it comes into question is when someone or some company physically moves to another state while still claiming residency within the original state, then their income is still taxable to a certain extent.

Where MS is legal in this issue is that it's licensing division is a completely separate incorporation operating in a completely separate state under the laws of incorporation for that state. The fact that they are a subsidiary of Microsoft is irrelevant as the current law creates a separation.

Again, complete nonsense. What is prohibited by the Constitution is charging sales tax for sales in other states. The B&O tax is neither a sales tax or an income tax.

The constitution sets the limits of the powers of jurisdiction of the states to within their own borders. It doesn't allow taxes or imposts of any kind to be levied against people and companies operating within another state unless they do business within the state itself. And to that point, it is limited to the amount of business done within the state unless congress agrees to some sort of agreement or compact with the other state. The limit is not on sales tax at all, it's on the sovereignty of the states. If Other states, decided to tax all activity committed in other states by companies with a presence in their own state, it would be impossible for any company to operate within more then one state and make a profit.

Also, Washington State probably would NOT lose if that were taken to court, because again B&O is not a sales tax, and Microsoft's primary base of operations is in Washington State, regardless of where they are incorporated. The B&O tax is not an income tax either. You are mixing apples and oranges.

I do not know why you are concentrating on a sales tax, the issue isn't taxes in general, it's jurisdiction. The State of Washington has no legal authority over a Nevada corporation operating in subsidiary to Microsoft. The B&O tax is only aplicable to activities outside the state if it was committed by the same company as which is located within the state. This means if you stated "Jane Q. Public software sales" in Washington and did work in California, you would be taxed in Washington on the B&O rate. However, if you created a separate company in California and incorporated it under their laws, lets call it "Jane Q. Public software sales of California", your activities in the state of California wouldn't be subject to the Washington State B&O tax. It would be subject to any California taxes but that's another story.

Like it or not, a subsidiary entity incorporated and legal in another state is for all intents and purposed an separate company operating within that other state. It doesn't matter who owns what or who the parent company/entity is, it's completely separate and within the sole jurisdiction of the other state except whe

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[zippthorne]

Product prices will be the highest the market can bear

That's really only part of the story, though. It depends in part on the elasticity of demand and supply.

In say, the oil industry, where margins are already razor thin (7% last time I saw it mentioned), and where demand is fairly inelastic and slow to respond (I need to commute to work, I rather like having produce and finished goods to consume and improve my life with, etc, and I don't see trucker's all switching to some other fuel overnight), the customers could very well see any fees or taxes passed on pretty directly.

In the software industry, where the marginal cost of a cardboard box with enough polycarbonate in it to make half a pair of sun glasses is very low, and the product itself isn't consumed and doesn't really even degrade ("I could make due with this older version for a few more months"), You might see extra burdens simply being absorbed.

But in the latter case, it's not the executives who feel that pinch, but the investors. And who are the investors? In a publicly traded company, it's odds on that a significant fraction are "institutiona.l" i.e. retirement funds. e.g. your retirement fund.

What's wrong with secretarial and janitorial work, btw? It's menial and boring, but nevertheless necessary to a well-functioning company, and provides jobs that require little training. Furthermore, a company has to be headquartered somewhere, and will therefore need secretaries there. Why not "here?"

But you're right that we want more than just the corporate headquarters. We want the facilities as well. And one of the reasons we want them here is so that they'll be subject to our laws. If we've got restrictive laws and high taxes, they're just going to go somewhere else that has neither and put kids to work in the mines or something.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ahabswhale]

Listen dipshit, I'm from LA so providing Max Boot as a liberal LA time source shows how fucking stupid you are. Maybe you should research who you are sourcing so you don't look like such a fucking idiot.

"the sources I do not agree with are all conservative", yet you provide almost exclusively conservative sources to back your argument. Try studying logic and then come back for more.

"but believe what you want"
Did I say that I didn't believe the Clinton Administration gave no-bids to Haliburton? Please show in my post where I did that.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Because half of the stimulus package was tax cuts.

Incidentally, even many conservative economists generally agree that tax cuts have less of a stimulative effect than government spending, because consumers generally save tax cuts during a recession.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ahabswhale]

"Actually, the SS program is _not allowed_ to build up coffers... by design (IIRC)."
Actually, that's incorrect. Although I will agree with you that its coffers are barren "by design". :)

"So that's why I give the example of me investing my own money in government bonds: More return AND more security."

I can assure you that if they can't afford to pay SS, they won't pay your bonds either. You might get more return on your bonds but US government bonds have a very, very low return. The ONLY reason people buy them is that they are safe -- never for their return.

"Come up with a real argument based on fact rather than partisan buzzwords."
I wasn't trying to hit you with "partisan buzzwords". Most people don't realize the state of things at the time. It's a fact. Research it because it's a very interesting period in history.

"But, honestly, the role of government is not to take care of you (other than for thing such as the common defense). The best government is one that gets the hell out of your way and lets you take care of yourself... or fall on your ass if you fail to do so."

I use to believe as you do. Truely. In a perfect world, that's how it should go but unfortunately most people are too fucking stupid to take proper care of themselves or their finances. Without SS, you would have shitloads of old homeless people all over the fucking place (like we did in the 30's) and people live to a very old age these days so it would be even worse. People don't like to see homeless all over their neighborhoods. SS is a reasonable compromise between homeless everywhere and a total nanny state. Ideal worlds just don't exist my friend. You have to forget ideologies and do what's practical.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ahabswhale]

Oh, are you saying they didn't move to Dubai to dodge taxes after we gave them their highest profits ever? I just want to be sure I'm tossing out facts rather than little "bromides".

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[iccaros]

hmmm.. you have not proven any sources.. except .. well your mouth.. (or typing.. ) halaberton made 3.7 billion off the Iraq contract and 2.2 off Bosnia. Bosnia lasted 8 months.. with support for two years. Iraq has lasted over 7 years.. which one did they make more profit off of?? Simple math. Who did they pay... oh US citizens.. booting the local economy of the people working for them. Any one who has done Government contracting would be able to let you know that no bid contracts by them selves is not a bad thing. Contracts are regulated by the amount of profit a company can make and what fees can be charged. While civilian contract have no such limitation. my who point was that the Clinton administration did approve no bid contracts.. as the response I was responding to stated "Yes, but they were not getting no-bid contracts under Clinton" so stay with the conversation Troll..(karma to burn)

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a secretary or janitor, you insenitiv

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

The state of Washington only has jurisdiction within the state of Washington. It cannot tax money that was earned and stays in another state.

Man, you must've hit the mother lode of LSD if you believe that. Or you're 12 years old and posting this from your parent's basement.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sonicmerlin]

Oh please. The vast majority of investors don't care about what dividends their company hands out, as they don't even pay attention to their stock/retirement portfolios. In the long run everyone benefits from the increased output in common societal goods when taxes levied upon a corporation are used to build infrastructure and pay for appropriate social nets. Corporate profits simply end up in a corporation's bank account, where they can stockpile enough to merge with other giant corporations and bribe politicians, ever degrading the overall output and quality of the capitalist market.

Whether or not we have high taxes, a company that can will always take their manufacturing business elsewhere and supply it with child/slave wage labor in undeveloped countries. A developed country simply can't compete in the pure manufacturing industry. That is why developed countries must constantly innovate new industries by investing in R&D. Investment into long-term, basic research is absolutely critical to this, and this is where corporate taxes and government spending comes into play.

High tech companies can't offshore their bases, simply because the infrastructure and education does not exist in those countries. Why do you think companies like NanoSolar are not basing their operations in China?

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sonicmerlin]

Product prices will be the highest the market can bear, regardless of expenses. Software already has massive profit margins, so taxes merely eat into those profits, thus depriving the company from money they can use to buy other companies, run ad campaigns, pay bribes and manipulate market in other ways. That's ridiculous. The optimal pricing in the market most certainly is influenced by the price of operation... particularly in tax, which are across the board, and influence ALL competitors in a market. Besides, your comment is irrelevant anyway, because you miss how GOOD it is for all of us to have profitable companies. Do you think corporate profits go into a large vault where the money is held for years? No, it is spent; spent on things and people, in the most rewarding and efficient way that the company and/or its shareholders can imagine. This is generally MUCH more efficient than money the government taxes, because the government needn't worry about competition.

Is that so? So then why has Comcast pooled their massive profits over the last several years in order to buy NBC?

Why has funding for Bell Labs decreased to the point of it simply being an also-ran?

Corporate profits are stockpiled by companies and handed to CEOs. They do *not* stimulate the economy.

Economists noted how Bush's massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich failed to stimulate the US economy, resulting in the slowest decade-long GDP growth rate since the 1930s. Unfortunately, our tax rates actually stimulated France's economy due to the increase in foreign goods purchased.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sonicmerlin]

Product prices will be the highest the market can bear, regardless of expenses. Software already has massive profit margins, so taxes merely eat into those profits, thus depriving the company from money they can use to buy other companies, run ad campaigns, pay bribes and manipulate market in other ways.

Which costs more, $9.99 worth of gas, or a video game priced at $9.99 on the shelf? The video game, of course, because tax is included in the price of gas but not the price of software. You're not wrong, but perception is key. There's a reason that game doesn't cost $10.00; it's the same reason that $999 is a magical price point for many desktop/notebook makers.

Let's go to a different world for a minute, where all sales prices include tax... do you think a laptop would still go for $1078? Probably not. Maybe $1049, but $999 would draw enough attention to be worth the loss of some per-unit profit. In either case, there is an overall loss of some profit.

So, taxes really don't eat into profits as much as you seem to suggest by asserting that the corporations directly pay them. In other words, the market can "bear" the taxes a little more simply because perception of the pricing structure tends to pass more of that burden on to the naive consumer.

What exactly are you trying to say? That every market is driven by perception of price and value? Are you nutty? Consumers value lower prices more than anything else.

There is a point on a supply-demand curve where supply meets demand, and the price that leads to maximum profit is determined. Taxes do nothing to change this curve other than eat into corporate profits. This idea that corporations pass on taxes to the consumer is just a stupid Republican talking point that is provably false, along with almost every other talking point Republicans make.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sonicmerlin]

I don't get why people don't understand that corporations don't pay taxes. Taxes are just another expense that gets added into the final price of the product. It doesn't matter that they actually write the check, you pay Microsoft's corporate taxes every time you buy one of their products. We should eliminate them entirely. Nearly every company in the world would want to be headquartered in the US if we had no corporate taxes, imagine how many jobs that would create. The end result would be a wash for the average United States citizen, prices would drop across the board, but we could add in a federal sales tax to make up for the revenue shortfall and our goods would be competitive in the world market again.

It's a shame that you were modded insightful. If you "don't understand", Google it. It takes all of 5 seconds to Google "corporate taxes passed on to consumer, true, false". You obviously demonstrate a lack of understanding of how a supply and demand model works.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sonicmerlin]

Also, the nature of energy companies selling large volumes of a commodity will tend to keep the price/revenue ratio down even in a high profit/high cost environment because the total revenues in the denominator get so big. It would be interesting to see data on the return on total assets or some similar factor.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[boxwood]

Remember when the government had to spend a trillion dollars bailing out corporations because they completely screwed up the financial sector?

Here's a tip for you: There are only so many good investments out there. When there is too much money in the hands of the corporations they run out of good things to invest in. But they have all this money laying around so they start investing in things they shouldn't. And when those investments fail, what inevitably happens? See 1929 and 2009.

Learn some basic economics, son. Cutting taxes in a bad economy doesn't help. Wow I paid less taxes this year, what do I do with it? The economy is bad right now so I better not spend it, I'll save it just in case. So you've just given more money to the bankers who have already proven themselves to be completely incompetent. Good job there buddy.

Stimulus is required because the government is the only player that is willing to spend as opposed to saving money in a bad economy. Corporations don't spend in a bad economy. Individuals don't spend in a bad economy. Only government is above the individual microeconomic decisions and is capable of making decisions on a macroeconomic level. More spending improves the economy. When the economy is good everyone is willing to spend, so the government can cut taxes, pay off debt, or whatever it wants. But when the economy is bad no one except the government is willing to spend.

Think of it like building a fire. Cutting taxes is like putting more wood on the fire. Stimulus is like throwing on some kerosene and lighting a match. When the fire is going good, throwing a couple of more logs on it helps. When the fire is out throwing more logs on it doesn't help. It just makes a higher log pile, and if yo keep throwing more logs onto it, it gets too high it falls over.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[JackieBrown]

According to webster, Democrat is the term of someone who belongs to the democratic party. Since his post was about "a" democrat president and "a" democrat congress, he is correct.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democrat

Heck, their url uses democrats instead of democratics. http://www.democrats.org/

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[tyrione]

Thank You. It's nice to see a grown up cutting down these fallacious claims that most certainly stem from some adolescent ideal of conservatism or libertarianism that somehow they think the Founders embraced. It's amazing how many quotes attributed to the past ignore the context of the past in which they were applied.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

For how it really goes:

X: They are shooting little children.
Y: So what? Under the last administration they shot little children too.
X: But you were against it during the election!
Y: But I'm elected now so stfu.
X: oh; that's okay then. Sorry I mentioned it.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

That wasn't my point. Of course it adds up, or it wouldn't be under contention. There is nothing "easy" about it. I think the B&O tax is an abomination. But again, that wasn't the point.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

sumdumass, you can make as many arguments as you want about this. But the REALITY is that this is a real tax, it has been in place many years, it has been challenged many times in court... and it's still there.

Complain, argue about it, say it's illegal or unconstitutional or whatever you want. Those arguments have all been heard before, many times.

But that doesn't change the fact that the tax is a reality. Your arguments do no good whatever.

Tell you what. If you really believe in all your legal theories about this tax, why don't you go to Washington and make many millions of dollars for the corporations there that have tried to fight it before and lost, by taking it to court and actually winning this time? Put your money where your mouth is. You would stand to make a genuine fortune.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what is social security again?

I could get a better return and..

Seems like you've missed the entire point about social security. It is not a profit centre of an investement for your future, it is security for the society, which includes the downtrodden poor who do need help as well as the rich like you who clearly don't. Having it enriches your society in ways that are not apparent if you only look at the dollar values.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[mpe]

Regardless of how you may feel about taxes, it really isn't at issue. Here we have a company breaking the law, and using its influence to avoid the consequences, and to seek special treatment under the law.

In which case they should get "special treatment". Just not the kind the asked for instead they have the FBI and IRS come visit.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[mpe]

Er, you know what LLC stands for, right? They have limited liability; what they don't have is the ability to sell stock to raise money.

The original meaning on "limited liability" is that the liability of investors is limited to their investment in the company. (Which need not equate to however much they paid through a stock market.) It has (or at least had) nothing to do with the actions of the company or it's officers.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

And just to clarify this, let me give you some more specific answers:

The constitution sets the limits of the powers of jurisdiction of the states to within their own borders. It doesn't allow taxes or imposts of any kind to be levied against people and companies operating within another state unless they do business within the state itself.

Since the corporate headquarters are in Washington State, Washington State takes the view that the corporation IS operating entirely within the state. You can argue with them about that all you want, but you probably won't get anywhere. Nobody else has. Also, you should know that is the same reason Boeing moved their corporate headquarters OUT of Washington, but their main manufacturing facilities are still there. If Boeing couldn't beat the tax (and they tried), there's not much chance Microsoft will, either. If registering the corporation in Nevada or Delaware instead would have beaten the tax, don't you think they would have done that? Boeing has lawyers, too, and they aren't stupid.

I do not know why you are concentrating on a sales tax, the issue isn't taxes in general, it's jurisdiction.

I was not "concentrating on a sales tax". Twice each I stated that it was neither a sales or income tax. And see just above about jurisdiction.

Like it or not, a subsidiary entity incorporated and legal in another state is for all intents and purposed an separate company operating within that other state. It doesn't matter who owns what or who the parent company/entity is, it's completely separate and within the sole jurisdiction of the other state except where it's business activities interact within the state of Washington.

Go to Washington and prove it in the courts, man. The corporations would pay you many millions of dollars to do so. So far nobody else has managed to do it.

Why don't you name some cases and we will see if there is a problem with the facts being different.

Why don't you just ask any corporate officer in Washington State? And the case law is not exactly hidden, I am sure you can find it on the internet. But I am not going to go out of my way to provide it for you; I already know this to be fact. You can waste as much time as you like on it. But just for some basics, I spent about 10 seconds to Google "washington state B&O tax", and HERE is the first returned entry. It doesn't cover the legal cases but it does tell you something about the tax. And HERE is the fourth entry, about SCOTUS refusing to hear an appeal from Ford Motor Co.

Ford couldn't beat it. Boeing couldn't beat it. But you think you can? (BTW, the Ford case was about dealers in WA state, not the whole corp.)

Now, maybe you should do a little research on the subject.

Been there, done that. You are the one who needs to do the research. Like I mentioned before, if you can get them out of it, I am sure they will literally heap money all over you.

Hint: It ain't gonna happen.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[1s44c]

Regardless of how you may feel about taxes, it really isn't at issue. Here we have a company breaking the law, and using its influence to avoid the consequences, and to seek special treatment under the law.

More importantly they are getting away with it and we are not. Why? Because they are rich enough to have influence but we are not so I'm paying around 35%.

That's the way taxes always work. Find someone who can't fight back and steal as much as you can.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[citizenr]

Let's shoot this down folks.

Surely you meant "lets shoot this bastard"

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

Oh, hell. Just because I am such a nice guy, I did about 30 more seconds of research for you. From that Ford decision:

A state tax on interstate commerce does not violate the commerce clause so long as the tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the State. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.

That "substantial nexus" is the corporate headquarters, not to mention the majority of the physical operating structure of their corporation.

I should have bet you. You would have lost. But I already knew that. :0)

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually. For the cost of the stimulus package, we could have mostly balanced the budget.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[bondsbw]

You missed the point entirely. I never said that corporations pass on taxes by raising costs. My point was about shelf price perception, not about actual cost passing.

But let's turn to your point. Since gas includes tax, it is a good model to discuss (because it is not affected by the perception factor I described above). Let's assume that a ten-cent additional tax on gas was passed today. Are you saying, all other market factors aside, that the price of gas would not go up by ten cents?

Frankly, that's absurd, and mostly incorrect. Check out at the graphic here... it shows that taxes did not eat into profits, but rather added to the price. In other words, passed on to the consumer.

What about off-road diesel? The tax decrease is passed on to consumers as a direct decrease in sales price per gallon... they don't pad corporate profits.

Fuel aside, look at other items... does Walmart charge a different sticker price for a DVD player in two different cities that have different taxes? Does a Wii cost more (pre-tax) in one city than another? No.

I'd like to see how these talking points are "provably false" as you claim. I don't think you have any general proof... there may be one-off situations you can find, but I want to see something general.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen dipshit, I'm from LA...

Well, there's your problem! LA is the home to the shittiest people humanity has to offer. This actually explains why you are such an angry little twat. Go kill yourself now. Seriously. You are a completely worthless waste of life who doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as a maggot growing in a piece of shit. Make sure it takes a long time and is as painful as possible in order to help counteract all the fuck-baggery you have brought into this world.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Demonspawn]

I can assure you that if they can't afford to pay SS, they won't pay your bonds either.

We'll have to disagree here. SS will go away long before government bonds. And by that i mean either the program will be removed or the "retirement" age raised drastically to the point where 60+% of workers will die before ever seeing a dime on their investments. Government bonds, on the other hand, can be cashed in at 62 (or 50 if you want to retire early).

You might get more return on your bonds but US government bonds have a very, very low return.

Yes, but even with that very very low return, I get a better return than with SS. And more safety (in my eye at least). The safety is more of the argument than the return.

Most people don't realize the state of things at the time. It's a fact. Research it because it's a very interesting period in history.

So you are going to tell me that the government did nothing for "joe average" before 1929-ish? I just don't buy that. That's why I felt it was "partisan buzzwords" rather than a real argument.

SS is a reasonable compromise between homeless everywhere and a total nanny state. Ideal worlds just don't exist my friend. You have to forget ideologies and do what's practical.

For me, it has to do with what works vs what doesn't. Government "charity" doesn't work because it's no longer a charity and instead an entitlement. It is robing from the rich to pay for the poor. SS should have been a temporary thing (even FDR said so) but the nature of our government is that once it's started it isn't going away.

Now, I'm not against everything FDR did. In fact, I think the TVA was a wonderful idea to stimulate the economy and get people working again. Even if it was piddle-work, it gave people jobs to work at and job skills to grow with. It was also an investment in infrastructure. This is double good because 1) it enhances our industry by having the infrastructure available and 2) it has an end point and cannot become a perpetual government program.

And trust me that I know utopias can't exist. That's my big problem with a lot of groups and ideologies that they are attempting to sell a utopia. A utopia to work would require perfect people. If we had perfect people, then we would already be in a utopia. We are not in a utopia. Ergo, people are not perfect. Ergo, we cannot have a utopia.

So for what's practical: the government is not here to "take care of us (on the rich man's dime)". The more the government buys the poor's vote with such practices, the less the poor are motivated to learn to take care of themselves (there is no stick) and the less the rich are motivated to make more and advance us (the carrot gets smaller and smaller). Now, I am a strong believer in charity, but government handouts are not charity... they are thievery.

I understand that there will be cases where a large portion of our population needs help. I am not against government providing some level of help. But I am against creating a perpetual government program to remove sticks and carrots. Temporary is one thing, perpetuity is a society destroyer as it obliterates the natural laws that made civilization work in the first place.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ahabswhale]

"For me, it has to do with what works vs what doesn't. Government "charity" doesn't work because it's no longer a charity and instead an entitlement. It is robing from the rich to pay for the poor. SS should have been a temporary thing (even FDR said so) but the nature of our government is that once it's started it isn't going away."

SS is NOT an entitlement. You pay for it. As for robing the rich to pay for the poor, wrong again. The burden of SS sits squarely on the middle class since any earnings over 106k are not subject to SS taxation.

"So you are going to tell me that the government did nothing for "joe average" before 1929-ish?"
You're talking about the era of robber barons and absolutely abysmal working conditions in factories (including child labor). Most people in the US industrial revolution were really just indentured servants to their bosses.

"the government is not here to "take care of us (on the rich man's dime)"
I might agree with you but the rich pay less in taxes than the middle class (as a percentage of income -- not gross). Once again, it's on the backs of the middle class. I don't know where people got this idea that the rich are getting fucked and carryng an undue burden but it's all a bunch of horseshit. The rich of today pay less in taxes than they ever have in the last 100 years while also having massive influence in Congress. Quite simply, it's a damn good time to be rich in the US.

"The more the government buys the poor's vote with such practices, the less the poor are motivated to learn to take care of themselves (there is no stick) and the less the rich are motivated to make more and advance us (the carrot gets smaller and smaller). Now, I am a strong believer in charity, but government handouts are not charity... they are thievery."
There's obviously a balance required here. Too much in either direction is simply impractical. Unfortunately, in today's environment partisanship prevents any meaningful discussion or practical solutions. Either way, the US is hardly a nanny state and I can assure you that the rich have plenty of motivation to make money in this country. As for the poor, most Repubs treat all poor as the same and it's a crying shame. Consequently, they are all demonized as being a bunch of lazy fucks. The truth is that poor people are poor for a wide variety of reasons. Only a small portion are poor because they simply don't give a shit and are unmotivated. Even in those cases you can probably chalk it up to either depression, drug abuse, or a lack of opportunity in the area they live (or some combination thereof). This is stuff that's hard to understand for people who never had to deal with that kind of environment or upbringing.

That said, I'm not for just continual handouts. I would prefer the government get good at transforming these people into productive workers regardless of how they got into the situation they are in. The only exception to this is for the mentally or physically disabled.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn’t you get the memo?
Corporations are people now. They have the right to unfettered speech as well as many other rights.
Are you saying that a PERSON should not have to pay their fair share of taxes?

No taxation without representation?
No representation without taxation!

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Microsoft is the second largest employer in this state.... Who is number 1 Well for now that's Boeing .... but due to the legislative atmosphere its not going to be for long. Apparently Boeing has not been able to reconcile with the massive unions here .... so they are leaving. BTW MS doesn't employee receptionist and janitors they are contracted services. MS ONLY employees folks above the 60k mark. So there goes your reasoning. Considering that 2 cities have been built on the backs of MS.... I am very happy to see this tax break. When MS had to cut back headcount they went after the contractors first .... unlike most corps they treat their employees with a great amount of kindness

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why people don't understand that workers don't pay taxes. Taxes are just another expense that gets added into the final wages of the worker which is then added into the final price of the product. It doesn't matter that they actually write the check, you pay Microsoft employee taxes every time you buy one of their products.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[im_thatoneguy]

I don't know that it would make that much of a difference after all we internally handle values logarithmically. So I'm not certain $999 to $1020 actually does make much of a difference.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[ozmanjusri]

The whole divisions regularly report margins in that range, so it means earnings in excess of all costs.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[stephanruby]

I stand myself corrected.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[toddestan]

Well, the answer is that it depends on the good. If it's an inelastic good, like gasoline, then the tax can be passed onto the consumer and the consumer really has no choice but to pay it (well, in the short term - in the long term the consumer may adapt by buying a more fuel efficient car or similar if the tax is offensive enough).

For an elastic good, this is not true. Take for example video games. Entertainment goods tend to be fairly elastic. Say a video game will sell 1 million units at $50, and 750,000 units at $60. Assuming that the cost to produce each additional copy of the the video game is fairly low, then the company will make more money if the game is priced at $50. So it's priced at $50, and suddenly a $10 tax is added. This does not change the demand curve, therefore the new optimum price is not going to be $60, but somewhere between $50 and $60. Or in other words, the tax will eat into the company's profits.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

sumdumass, you can make as many arguments as you want about this. But the REALITY is that this is a real tax, it has been in place many years, it has been challenged many times in court... and it's still there.

Lol.. I never said the tax isn't real or isn't applied. I said it has jurisdictional boundaries and wouldn't apply to a separate corporation operating in another state no matter what ties to a parent corporation it has. Like I said, name some of those cases and we will quickly see that the facts within them are different from this.

Complain, argue about it, say it's illegal or unconstitutional or whatever you want. Those arguments have all been heard before, many times.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. Those arguments have been made and supported many times over. In fact, they have probably been upheld more then they have been overturned. The problem here is that you are not recognizing the corporate structure of the separation of companies that the law allows.

But that doesn't change the fact that the tax is a reality. Your arguments do no good whatever.

I never said the tax is not a reality, I said it doesn't apply because of the circumstances surrounding the two entities. The only way you can think my arguments aren't worthy is if you are willingly skipping over relevant facts or are completely clueless about the corporate structure and the separate of states.

Tell you what. If you really believe in all your legal theories about this tax, why don't you go to Washington and make many millions of dollars for the corporations there that have tried to fight it before and lost, by taking it to court and actually winning this time? Put your money where your mouth is. You would stand to make a genuine fortune.

Like I said before, show me the cases you talk about where the circumstances are substantially the same. You cannot and instead of me going to Washington, why don't you just look at MS who has been using this legal maneuver since 1997 without any objections until Washington state started spending more then it took in. And those objections are not even legal objections or Washington State would have already taken them to court. No state will allow any company or person to skip out on paying taxes when they know they are in the right to collect them. There is a reason why you are here 13 years later complaining about the situation and the state has done nothing about it. 13 years in state legislature and nothing at all has been done about it, and to further the issue at hand, the new law purposed would only tax MS for the business done within the state which is in line with what I have said.

You can blame it on greed or corruption within the state, but the bottom line is that if there was a legal footing, then MS would be paying the tax right now or in court defending against it. I'm sorry that you are confused and ignorant of the way subsidy corporations operate but your ignorance does not make you correct.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

Since the corporate headquarters are in Washington State, Washington State takes the view that the corporation IS operating entirely within the state. You can argue with them about that all you want, but you probably won't get anywhere. Nobody else has. Also, you should know that is the same reason Boeing moved their corporate headquarters OUT of Washington, but their main manufacturing facilities are still there. If Boeing couldn't beat the tax (and they tried), there's not much chance Microsoft will, either. If registering the corporation in Nevada or Delaware instead would have beaten the tax, don't you think they would have done that? Boeing has lawyers, too, and they aren't stupid.

And that view has been struck down by several courts. And the only way the view could be held in court is if they adopted a "throw back rule" (yes, do some research on it) which states that only tangible goods ships from within the state can be taxed as if the sale was made within the state. OF course this is not the case as the software installation media is not always shipped from within Washington and the volume licensing requirements do no require a CD (read tangible good) for each install.

I'm also still waiting for you to list a court case the state won where the circumstances are the same. You haven't done it yet, and you will not be able to. The two links you mention in the next paragraph don't even come close either.

Why don't you just ask any corporate officer in Washington State? And the case law is not exactly hidden, I am sure you can find it on the internet. But I am not going to go out of my way to provide it for you; I already know this to be fact. You can waste as much time as you like on it. But just for some basics, I spent about 10 seconds to Google "washington state B&O tax", and HERE is the first returned entry. It doesn't cover the legal cases but it does tell you something about the tax. And HERE is the fourth entry, about SCOTUS refusing to hear an appeal from Ford Motor Co.

Ford couldn't beat it. Boeing couldn't beat it. But you think you can? (BTW, the Ford case was about dealers in WA state, not the whole corp.)

And here is where you are wrong. In both of those cases, the activities in question which the state made the B&O tax applicable was over goods shiped or delivered from within the state by companies operating outside the state but with a presence in the state. With the MSLI situation, nothing is shipped from the state and MS doesn't sell the media directly itself, it only sells the tangible goods through authorized resellers which escape MS selling within the state. Nothing gives the state of Washington the jurisdiction of the state that they held in the Boeing or or ford motor company cases you mention. You lawyer will probably tell you this, but attention to details is a requirement of understanding laws. You are extremely confused and ignorant on this and should shut up before making yourself look even worse.

Here is a break down in a more easily understandable method. Lets say you have two separate companies, Company A and Company B. Lets say each company owns a subsidiary company Aa and Bb. Lets also say that both subsidiary companies are located in Nevada and both parent companies are located in the same state (Washington). Now both companies conduct business with their subsidiary companies but with a minor difference in their mode of operation. Company Aa sells products and ships them from company A's warehouse. Company Bb sells the same products but ships them from a clearing house in China and only sells to resellers except with bulk licensing to companies through what would fall under "federal Mail order" laws. Under Washington's B&O law, or any state laws for the matter, only company Aa and company A can both be within the Jurisdiction of the state (Washington) because their activities are not sufficiently separate. With company B and Bb, the acti

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

Perhaps you should reexamine what a "substantial nexus" is and how it is applied within the law.

Anyways, here are a few supreme court cases involving the exact same thing we are talking about.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/386/753/case.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quill.html

You should note that ion both cases, the substantial nexus is cited but you are wrong in the Corporate headquarters. MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because MSLI is owned by MSTF is non-important in this distinction because under current law, federal, state, and yes, even Washington State laws, ownership of a corporation does not directly imply operation of the corporation and they are viewed as two completely separate entities. This is evident from bankruptcy laws in which MSTF or MSLI could go bankrupt without imposing any liabilities on the other. This is even true within the state of Washington.

I got to admit, you have heart, you just do not have all the information or the ability to competently process it.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

Jesus Christ, you are dense. If you want to prove it to yourself, all you have to do is GO TO WASHINGTON and see for yourself!

You could also look it up for yourself, if you wanted. But no, you would rather spend an hour typing about your pet legal theories.

I am done here. I have already indulged your lazy ass long enough. If you can't get it through your head that this tax is a FACT, and that lots better (and more) lawyers than you have not managed to beat it, then I guess you are just going to have to remain ignorant the rest of your life.

I will say this one more time (that makes at least three): If you think you are so goddamned smart, then put your money where your mouth is, and go to Washington and win a case. All it would take is one. The corporations there would shower you with money.

But you won't, of course, for at least two reasons: (1) you don't have the balls to have any courage of your convictions, and (2) because (argue all you like, it doesn't matter): you are dead wrong.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

And you don't have the sense (or maybe the guts) to simply look it up yourself and find out that you are wrong.

One more time, not because I think it will get through this time but just to make sure you didn't miss this somehow:

The tax is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. The law behind the tax is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. Large corporations with their batteries of lawyers (yes, including Boeing and Ford Motor Co.) have tried to beat the tax in court, and failed. That is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. (I gave you a link to the decision in the Ford case. That was the Washington Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court would not hear their appeal. So the decision stands.) But even with that evidence in front of you, you still say I am wrong. The state is considering taking Microsoft to the cleaners for their past failure to pay the tax... and if the state can nail Boeing and Ford for it (fact), then they can very probably get Microsoft, too.

I am aware that Microsoft is incorporated in Nevada! I already stated that! I am beginning to think your Slashdot handle is an actual description of you. What YOU do not seem to get is that in this case, it doesn't matter.

I explained to you before that this is not a sales tax (or its proxy, a use tax), nor is it an income tax. In the first case you cited, it was a mail order house selling in a different state. Quote: "The Commerce Clause prohibits a State from imposing the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or by mail." That is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION. You really aren't a lawyer, are you? Because you sure are fucking up what you seem to think are examples.

The second "example" you link to above is ALSO about a mail-order house. Again, a completely different situation. In NEITHER case, did the company have a "substantial nexus" in the state in question. Both of your "examples" had to do with charging a sales or use tax in a different state. The Supreme Court can rule about how the sales and use taxes apply under the Commerce Clause until the cows come home, and that would have no bearing on this tax, which is neither.

However, Microsoft does, in fact, have a "substantial nexus" in Washington! Not only are its corporate headquarters in Washington (regardless of what state the incorporation papers are in, the HEADQUARTERS are in Washington!), but also the majority of its physical manufacturing and other business facilities. To say that it has a "substantial nexus" of its business in Washington is about the understatement of the century!

I don't recall whether you claimed to actually be a lawyer, but if you are, you seriously need to go back to school, dude.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

Oh... and just so we are clear on something: Boeing also does business in many states. So, pray tell me how Washington could tax them on their corporate gross revenue? No matter where the planes were sold? Please... explain that one to me. In the process of finding out, you might actually learn something.

Here is some historical background: Washington gave Boeing a special tax break consisting of a limited-time discounted percentage of the B&O tax, just for them, for locating in the State. (Such deals are not uncommon but they usually involve income tax or the like.) But some years ago, the tax break was due to expire. Boeing pressed for it to be extended, but the state refused. That meant that Boeing would be paying the full percentage that everyone else did, on their total gross revenue. Boeing decided it would be cheaper to move to Chicago or wherever it was. Now, because the only "substantial nexus" they have in Washington is manufacturing facilities, and not their corporate headquarters, Washington can no longer tax them on all their gross revenue... only such as applies to their manufacturing within the state.

Believe me, I understand your arguments. But I am trying to convince you that you are wrong, because you are. Microsoft might be exempt from some kinds of taxes because it is incorporated in another state... but not the B&O tax, which has nothing to do with where the business is incorporated, because of its "substantial nexus" in Washington State.

I am going to repeat this again, quoted from the Ford decision. Please read it, and look up the relevant case if you still have some kind of doubts. The meaning is quite clear: A state tax on interstate commerce does not violate the commerce clause so long as the tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the State. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, 8, cl. 3.

It doesn't get much more straightforward than that. Despite your claim that Washington only has jurisdiction in Washington, this very clearly says otherwise: "A state tax on interstate commerce does not violate the commerce clause so long as the tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State..." Note that phrase: "A state tax on interstate commerce..." Interstate. Get it? Commerce outside of Washington! In other words, for this kind of tax Washington does have jurisdiction.

If that doesn't get through to you, I doubt anything ever will.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

And you don't have the sense (or maybe the guts) to simply look it up yourself and find out that you are wrong.

One more time, not because I think it will get through this time but just to make sure you didn't miss this somehow:

I think we are about done here. You have shut your ears and are just repeating the same incorrect dribble and not even remotely understanding what I said. I'm not sure if that is because I'm not a good teacher or if your just that incompetent. Lets just assume the fault is mine for now but pay close attention to what I mention in the following reply.

The tax is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. The law behind the tax is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. Large corporations with their batteries of lawyers (yes, including Boeing and Ford Motor Co.) have tried to beat the tax in court, and failed. That is fact. All your legal theories won't change that. (I gave you a link to the decision in the Ford case. That was the Washington Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court would not hear their appeal. So the decision stands.) But even with that evidence in front of you, you still say I am wrong. The state is considering taking Microsoft to the cleaners for their past failure to pay the tax... and if the state can nail Boeing and Ford for it (fact), then they can very probably get Microsoft, too.

There are all sorts of real laws on the books that cannot be enforce in every situation. That is fact. Lets take murder for instance, very few states have laws saying when it's ok to kill someone but most of them have laws saying it's illegal to do so. However, when someone attacks you screaming they are going to kill you and in the course of you struggling to save your life you end up killing the attacker, they cannot convict you of murder (well, they can but federal tort will turn it over on appeal so it's pointless for them to try). Most municipalities have laws forbidding jaywalking (crossing the street against a signal or outside of a marked cross walk). However, they cannot convict you of jaywalking if you did it because a todler was walking into traffic on the other side of the street and you jaywalked in order to save him from danger and harm. This is well established within our legal system as doctrine called necessity. This means that the circumstances made violating the law necessary because the alternative would have been worse. In some cases, escaping from prison has been held as necessary and the escape charges were dropped against prisoners who broke out of jail. What differentiates the allowed from the not allowed is the specific circumstances surrounding the violation. If you were to walk up and kill someone, you would be charged with and convicted of murder, if you jaywalk, you can be charged with and convicted with jaywalking, if the situation was different, the law wouldn't have applied.

So, hopefully, now you can understand that the circumstances and specifics of a case means certain laws can apply and sometimes they can't. In fact, the entire principle of law is this way where certain facts surrounding something can make something legal, illegal and something illegal legal. The facts surrounding the situation can make a law apply or excuse the law from applying. That's a simple fact of our legal system no matter how hard you want to ignore it.

The two cases you mentioned, Boeing and Ford, both have circumstances significantly different then MSLI and MSTF. As I have mentioned in each other thread/post, this is a very real fact that you cannot ignore. It's probably the very real fact to why Washington state has allowed MS to operate without paying the tax since 1997 and no one complained until 2006 or so when their government spending started out performing gross receipts. Now if things were the way you think they are and everything is the same color of fruit and all fruit tastes like an apple, then why has MS been allowed to get aw

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

Jesus Christ, you are dense. If you want to prove it to yourself, all you have to do is GO TO WASHINGTON and see for yourself!

You could also look it up for yourself, if you wanted. But no, you would rather spend an hour typing about your pet legal theories.

Your calling me dense, I already looked it up and told you that things are not how you think they are. You are ignoring the differences like the fact that MSTF and MSLI are completely separate companies and one of them does not even have a presence in Washington or operate within it and yet you are completely ignoring that. Like I said before, look at the facts, not what you want to think but look at what is actually going on.

I am done here. I have already indulged your lazy ass long enough. If you can't get it through your head that this tax is a FACT, and that lots better (and more) lawyers than you have not managed to beat it, then I guess you are just going to have to remain ignorant the rest of your life.

Again, pay attention to the detailed, I never said the tax wasn't real, I said it doesn't apply and that the circumstances involving Microsoft and Microsoft licensing are different then those in Boeing and Ford Motor comp. That's not a hard concept for anyone half way competent to apprehend. I even attempt to spell out the differences and you are still ignoring it. I guess all I can say is that you are going to be completely disappointed when things do not work out like you think they are.

I will say this one more time (that makes at least three): If you think you are so goddamned smart, then put your money where your mouth is, and go to Washington and win a case. All it would take is one. The corporations there would shower you with money.

And I will say it one more time, find me a court case where the facts are the same and your position was upheld. So far you have not, you cannot, and yes, I have looked and attempted to find them myself, they simply do not exist. I do not need to go to Washington and try anything, we have MSTF and MSLI already doing it and guess what, your claim is not working out. It hasn't worked for over 13 years and they are attempting to change the law in the state to include sales within the state but seem to be struggling at best with that.

So show me the cases in which the facts are all the same. Do not sit there and call me lazy for not being able to find anything that backs up your assertion, you made the assertion, so you back it up. And before you do that, educate yourself on a few key things like MSTF and MSLI being completely separate companies and how MSLI does not operate within the state of Washington.

But you won't, of course, for at least two reasons: (1) you don't have the balls to have any courage of your convictions, and (2) because (argue all you like, it doesn't matter): you are dead wrong.

I think it's sort of telling when you have failed to back up your assertion and yet you want to criticize me in less then polite means. Well, I'm calling you on the table here, put up or shut up. Find out the fact surrounding MS and MSLI, find a case that is similar or the same, and present it here. And no, Boeing and Ford are not similar or the same. The facts are completely difference.

You might want to ask yourself something though, if things are the way you think they are, then why has MS been allowed to operate this way for more then 13 years while you continue to cry and scream about their wrong doing with neither the state or any municipality taking legal action against them? I'll give you a hint, it's because you are wrong.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

Oh... and just so we are clear on something: Boeing also does business in many states. So, pray tell me how Washington could tax them on their corporate gross revenue? No matter where the planes were sold? Please... explain that one to me. In the process of finding out, you might actually learn something.

OMG, are you that stupid? Boeing doesn't have subsidiary corporations operating solely in different states. And for the ones they do have, only the amount of business conducted within the state is taxed. Now think about this. Suppose Boeing operated in all 50 states and all 50 states have a 3% gross receipts tax and a B&O tax just like Washington does. Seriously, think about that, now at 3% (I know Washington may be a different number but your same principle applies and 3% is just illustrative) times 50 states, then 150% or gross revenue would be needed to satisfy their B&O tax obligation. How in the fuck would any company supposed to be able to do that? They can't take in more money because it's subject to the same taxes. 150% of $10 would have the same effect as 150% of $20, that is to say that no matter how much they brought in, they would be 33% short in meeting their tax obligations. And this is without even mentioning costs and so on.

Do you really think things work the way you think they do, or do you think you should take this as an opportunity to find out a little more about the situation? In your next paragraph, you do admit that it's limited to the activities within the state as with the background of the Boeing case. However, Boeing did not incorporate into a separate company when it left the state, it's the same company which is different from the MS situation.

Believe me, I understand your arguments. But I am trying to convince you that you are wrong, because you are. Microsoft might be exempt from some kinds of taxes because it is incorporated in another state... but not the B&O tax, which has nothing to do with where the business is incorporated, because of its "substantial nexus" in Washington State.

You are missing a key point here. MS is incorporated and operates in Washington, MS licensing is incorporated and operates in Nevada. They are in fact, for all legal purposed, two completely separate companies. This makes it significantly different then Boeing because Boeing remained the same entity and kept a portion of the entity within the state. MS is not the same entity as MSLI and MSLI does not operate in Washington State.

It doesn't get much more straightforward than that. Despite your claim that Washington only has jurisdiction in Washington, this very clearly says otherwise: "A state tax on interstate commerce does not violate the commerce clause so long as the tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State..." Note that phrase: "A state tax on interstate commerce..." Interstate. Get it? Commerce outside of Washington! In other words, for this kind of tax Washington does have jurisdiction.

The problem here is that you are looking at the word Microsoft in the name and assuming they are the same legal companies. They are not, they are completely separate entities and the extent of MSLI's presence in Washington equates the the equivalent of a mail order house even though Microsoft corp operates within Washington. This is further obfuscated because the product that MS sells is basically a copyrighted set of code. Now MS can sell the rights to reproduce and distribute the code to MSLI for basically nothing (Even less then the cost of producing the code because MSLI is owned by MSTF and profits from MSLI would be deposited with MSTF as a share dividend) and MSLI can in turn license the code for whatever it wants- independent of operations going on in Washington. This further decreases Washington State's jurisdiction because these abilities are granted within federal law as well as backed by the US constitution giving congress the power to make laws governing copyright.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

Do you really think things work the way you think they do, or do you think you should take this as an opportunity to find out a little more about the situation? In your next paragraph, you do admit that it's limited to the activities within the state as with the background of the Boeing case. However, Boeing did not incorporate into a separate company when it left the state, it's the same company which is different from the MS situation.

I didn't "admit" anything. I was trying to explain to you that with the corporate headquarters gone, the only "significant nexus" Boeing had left with the state was their manufacturing. I have been trying to explain to YOU that the incorporation thing is a red herring.

You are missing a key point here. MS is incorporated and operates in Washington, MS licensing is incorporated and operates in Nevada. They are in fact, for all legal purposed, two completely separate companies. This makes it significantly different then Boeing because Boeing remained the same entity and kept a portion of the entity within the state. MS is not the same entity as MSLI and MSLI does not operate in Washington State.

I was unaware that MS Licensing is a separate corporation actually operating out of Nevada. That does in fact change the situation. (Again, I want to stress that the incorporation is irrelevant. It is where the "significant nexus" is that relates to WA's B&O tax. And only that.) Up to this point I was led to believe that MS (not the licensing corporation but just MS) was incorporated in Nevada but operating in Washington.

So yes, in that respect I was ignorant of the true situation. But it doesn't change the essence of my point: Washington state can and does tax corporations for their operations out of state. IF they meet the necessary criteria.

The problem here is that you are looking at the word Microsoft in the name and assuming they are the same legal companies.

No, I did not "assume" anything. I was misinformed. That is not the same thing.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

There are all sorts of real laws on the books that cannot be enforce in every situation.

No shit, Sherlock? Wow. What a revelation. But obviously you do not know what THIS tax law can do, in WHAT situations. I don't need your explanations of totally different situations to know what you mean.

The two cases you mentioned, Boeing and Ford, both have circumstances significantly different then MSLI and MSTF. As I have mentioned in each other thread/post, this is a very real fact that you cannot ignore. It's probably the very real fact to why Washington state has allowed MS to operate without paying the tax since 1997 and no one complained until 2006 or so when their government spending started out performing gross receipts. Now if things were the way you think they are and everything is the same color of fruit and all fruit tastes like an apple, then why has MS been allowed to get away with this for so long? There has been at least 4 years that people have been crying about it.-

Yes! I agree. But since you mention situations, here is the real situation: up until now I did not know that MSLI and MSFT were different corporations, operating in different states. I had been misinformed and told that MSFT was incorporated in Nevada and operating in Washington, and that it was MSFT that had been trying to avoid paying B&O tax.

The fact that the situation is different than I had been told is not an indication that I do not understand the tax and how it works. Up until now you have been trying to tell me that Washington state has no jurisdiction to tax outside its borders. I hope you understand now that you were wrong.

See above, reread above, read it again, then repeat after me, MSLI is not MSTF, MSLI is a separate company that is incorporated in a separate state and does not do business in Washington outside of the equivalent of a mail order business.

Treating me like an infant does not make you look any better. As I mentioned, I did not know that MSLI was a separate corporation, or that it operated out of Nevada. I was led to believe that the situation was much different. But this situation still does not contradict what I was saying about the B&O tax, which you claimed was nonsense. So while I appreciate being corrected if that is the true situation, you still aren't going to talk your way out of the fact that you were wrong about that.

Microsoft does, however Microsoft licensing inc does not. I do not understand why this is so hard for you to grasp, MSTF and MSLI _are_not_ the same companies! Just because they have the same words in their names means nothing at all.

It is not difficult for me to grasp at all, and I very much resent the insinuation. Until a few minutes ago I did not know that there even was an MSLI.

I think all of our differences would be completely solved if you would just pay attention and educate yourself a little more. You are confused and ignorant of the fact and have little understanding of corporate law as well as constitutional law.

And THAT was a real dipshit, asshole thing to write, considering that in fact I was correct about the legal points that we actually discussed before. So, since I was right and you were wrong about the actual tax, I suggest that maybe you are the one who needs the education. And in fact, until I get around to looking it up for myself, I am only taking your word that MSFT is in fact incorporated in Washington. So I have been relatively easy on you.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

You are ignoring the differences like the fact that MSTF and MSLI are completely separate companies...

Complete bullshit. I was not ignoring it at all, because I was not aware of it. In fact, I was previously informed otherwise. Apparently incorrectly... but I neither ignored or assumed anything. Also, you never saw fit to mention it before (and I suspect you did not know yourself), so bringing it up now as though it had been a point of contention all along is not fooling anybody.

Since that appears to be the case, of course the situation is different. But that has no bearing whatever on how the B&O tax in Washington works, which (as I clearly demonstrated to you) can in fact reach outside the borders of the state. I won that argument, not you.

I said it doesn't apply and that the circumstances involving Microsoft and Microsoft licensing are different then those in Boeing and Ford Motor comp. ...

No, you didn't. You claimed that it didn't apply, but this is the first time you brought up the notion that they are two separate companies. Repeat: I bet you did not know yourself. And you still aren't fooling anybody. Your argument prior to this was that it couldn't apply because a corporation based in Washington was incorporated in Nevada. And I showed you that wasn't true.

... we have MSTF and MSLI already doing it and guess what, your claim is not working out. ...

Absolute balderdash. I made no claim that it applyied to a completely separate corporation operating in another state, as you well know. Don't put words in my mouth or I will make you eat them yourself.

And before you do that, educate yourself on a few key things like MSTF and MSLI being completely separate companies and how MSLI does not operate within the state of Washington.

See? You knew very well that I was unaware of that fact. Otherwise you would not have worded it that way. (That isn't proof, of course, but the fact that you NEVER brought it up until now, and now hold it up like a shield, is very telling. But of course all one would have to do is read the prior posts to see that this had never been mentioned before.)

I think it's sort of telling when you have failed to back up your assertion and yet you want to criticize me in less then polite means

I did back up my assertion. My main assertion all along that is, which was that Washington B&O tax can reach outside the state. Oh, how you floundered and flailed and argued your irrelevant arguments, denying that was possible! :0) But you were wrong.

And no, Boeing and Ford are not similar or the same. The facts are completely difference.

Similar enough. The Ford case clearly demonstrated that a corporation that is incorporated outside of Washington can still be taxed by Washington state (as long as it has a "substantial nexus" with the state), and the Boeing situation illustrates that if that "substantial nexus" is the corporate headquarters, Washington can tax the corporation on its full gross revenue, even if that revenue was derived from sales or other transactions out of the state.

Those are the two primary things I claimed, and you have two situations that clearly demonstrate those two things. I have no need to prove anything more. (And, I might add, those are two SPECIFIC things that you were vehemently denying were legally possible.)

I am done here too, and with a smile on my face, because I demonstrated what I set out to demonstrate... and you did not. Have a nice day. :0)

(I should note that I did also reply to your later comments, but I did that before replying to this one. Goodbye.)

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

No shit, Sherlock? Wow. What a revelation. But obviously you do not know what THIS tax law can do, in WHAT situations. I don't need your explanations of totally different situations to know what you mean.

Actually, it's you that does not know what this law can and cannot do. The problem which you are completely ignoring is that Washington state only has a set limit of jurisdiction in which is can pass laws that effect entities outside their control. MSLI is one of those entities outside of their jurisdiction and no matter how much ignoring that fact you want to do, it doesn't make you right.

Yes! I agree. But since you mention situations, here is the real situation: up until now I did not know that MSLI and MSFT were different corporations, operating in different states. I had been misinformed and told that MSFT was incorporated in Nevada and operating in Washington, and that it was MSFT that had been trying to avoid paying B&O tax.

The fact that the situation is different than I had been told is not an indication that I do not understand the tax and how it works. Up until now you have been trying to tell me that Washington state has no jurisdiction to tax outside its borders. I hope you understand now that you were wrong.

Actually, up until now, I have been telling you that Washington state has no jurisdiction to tax a "company" that is outside it's borders and doesn't operate in the state. I was not wrong, you were just refusing to listen to what was being said. Either way, now you know that MSLI and MSTF are separate companies and one doesn't operate within Washington state.

Treating me like an infant does not make you look any better. As I mentioned, I did not know that MSLI was a separate corporation, or that it operated out of Nevada. I was led to believe that the situation was much different. But this situation still does not contradict what I was saying about the B&O tax, which you claimed was nonsense. So while I appreciate being corrected if that is the true situation, you still aren't going to talk your way out of the fact that you were wrong about that.

I have tried and tried to tell you that they were separate companies and you were ignoring that while yelling Boeing and Ford. I know you were led to believe the situation was different, that is why I have been futilely attempting to explain to you that they are different and telling you to pay attention to the fact and cite me a court case with similar circumstances instead of the ford or beoing. OF course it doesn't help that we are in three threads now so one reply to all that was said is more or less 6 message between the two of us.

As for your position on the B&O tax, what I claimed was nonesense was the premise you were pushing in that Washington could tax a company that was incorporated and operated in another state without operating inside of Washington. B&O taxes are very real in many states, their connections to companies operating in other states too is very real. In fact, most states with an income tax will apply the very same principles. It wasn't the B&O tax I objected to, it was how you were claiming it would apply when you were mistaken on the facts even though I attempted multiple times to explain them to you.

It is not difficult for me to grasp at all, and I very much resent the insinuation. Until a few minutes ago I did not know that there even was an MSLI.

Then you simply were not paying attention. I explained this a long time ago. It is here with "MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

Complete bullshit. I was not ignoring it at all, because I was not aware of it. In fact, I was previously informed otherwise. Apparently incorrectly... but I neither ignored or assumed anything. Also, you never saw fit to mention it before (and I suspect you did not know yourself), so bringing it up now as though it had been a point of contention all along is not fooling anybody.

Since that appears to be the case, of course the situation is different. But that has no bearing whatever on how the B&O tax in Washington works, which (as I clearly demonstrated to you) can in fact reach outside the borders of the state. I won that argument, not you.

Yawn, you were ignoring it because I was telling you this all along. And no, I wasn't arguing that the B&O tax couldn't reach outside the borders of Washington state, I said specifically "Their jurisdiction only applies to income activities inside the state of Washington and to income created outside the state and brought back in."

No, you didn't. You claimed that it didn't apply, but this is the first time you brought up the notion that they are two separate companies. Repeat: I bet you did not know yourself. And you still aren't fooling anybody. Your argument prior to this was that it couldn't apply because a corporation based in Washington was incorporated in Nevada. And I showed you that wasn't true.

Dude, It's not like the record has disappeared or something. I would go through the trouble and link to all that I have said but fuck, just hit the parent button and reread what you failed to read previously.

Do not sit there and attempt to claim I said something that the record clearly reflects wasn't said. I understand, someone gave you wrong information and this is a topic you are passionate about. Just admit you were wrong, you understand the real facts now, and lets move on. You are not going to save any face by claiming I did something totally different then what happened. Unlike a he said she said argument and third party renditions, we have a record that can be accessed right in front of us.

See? You knew very well that I was unaware of that fact. Otherwise you would not have worded it that way. (That isn't proof, of course, but the fact that you NEVER brought it up until now, and now hold it up like a shield, is very telling. But of course all one would have to do is read the prior posts to see that this had never been mentioned before.)

Read the above, reread the above, and do not bitch about me being an ass this time. I have attempted to explain that several times over since my first reply to your first reply and you have ignored the fact that they were separate companies. Whenever you would mention Boeing or Ford, I have made the case that they aren't the same because MS and MSLI aren't the same. Hell, I even asked you several times to explain why Washington has not went after them if you were correct. If you would have done a little research into that, I wouldn't have had to tell you 7 or more times that they are separate companies.

Similar enough. The Ford case clearly demonstrated that a corporation that is incorporated outside of Washington can still be taxed by Washington state (as long as it has a "substantial nexus" with the state), and the Boeing situation illustrates that if that "substantial nexus" is the corporate headquarters, Washington can tax the corporation on its full gross revenue, even if that revenue was derived from sales or other transactions out of the state.

And I never said that wasn't the case, I said, and you are acknowledging this with your statement here, that the MS case is different and they will not apply.

Those are the two primary things

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

I think we have become a little more heated then a civil discussion should go. I replied to your other threads and took the time to point out where I still think you were wrong. You were mislead by information gathered somewhere else, and I failed to properly correct your understanding of that information. I think we should just leave it at that before it turns into a hate fest for no real reason. You were correct in your understanding of the B&O tax, however, as I attempted to state, the situation is very different that that understanding doesn't apply here. I think we were arguing two very separate issues without fully understanding what the other was attempting to say which made things -not so productive.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

Yawn, you were ignoring it because I was telling you this all along. ...

"Their jurisdiction only applies to income activities inside the state of Washington and to income created outside the state and brought back in."

You know what? You got me. I went back and looked, and sure enough, you did mention those things on Wednesday, but somehow I completely missed them. I am really not sure how.

For what it is worth, I apologize. I sincerely thought you were refusing to see those points and that you were being deliberately obtuse, but it was all because I had somehow missed those comments.

Just for the record, though, I want it to be clear that the tax can also apply to business that out-of-state corporations do within the state (the Ford case). I am not saying you did not understand that, I just wanted to make sure it was spelled out.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[Jane Q. Public]

Corrected version:

Yawn, you were ignoring it because I was telling you this all along. ...

"Their jurisdiction only applies to income activities inside the state of Washington and to income created outside the state and brought back in."

You know what? You got me. I went back and looked, and sure enough, you did mention those things on Wednesday, but somehow I completely missed them. I am really not sure how.

For what it is worth, I apologize. I sincerely thought you were refusing to see those points and that you were being deliberately obtuse, but it was all because I had somehow missed those comments. I really wasn't trying to be an ass. I thought you were.

Just for the record, though, I want it to be clear that the tax can also apply to business that out-of-state corporations do within the state (the Ford case). I am not saying you did not understand that, I just wanted to make sure it was spelled out.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

Just for the record, though, I want it to be clear that the tax can also apply to business that out-of-state corporations do within the state (the Ford case). I am not saying you did not understand that, I just wanted to make sure it was spelled out.

Yes, I understand that. But the out of state business must have more of a presences then what would be similar to a typical mail order house as the two cases I pointed out explain.

I also want to apologize for the name calling and measures I took to get your attention. I sort of felt like it was reciprocal in nature but I should have been able to make my case clear without resorting to that. It didn't really add anything to the discussions even though my failed attempt was to get you to notice what was being missed.

Best wishes,
Sumdumass

The best government

[Anonymous Coward]

Our system of government may not be the best, but it's the best that money can buy!

Re:The best government

[Hurricane78]

I wonder what would happen, if I created a website, where people could propose things the government should to, and then everybody could throw his cash in for it, so that someone would buy the government with that money.

Oh wait, that’s called “campaign sponsoring“ in an “election”.

Votes? What’s that?

Re:The best government

[tburkhol]

I wonder what would happen, if I created a website, where people could propose things the government should to, and then everybody could throw his cash in for it, so that someone would buy the government with that money.

Cute idea; extremely inefficient. 1: People don't care 2: This would require a single-mindedness that is completely inconsistent with popular opinion 3: No continuity In view of these flaws, a single lobbyist, working for a company whose annual profits equal the combined income of more than 900,000 families (MS gross profit $46b; median US household income $50k) will wield much greater influence than your web site

Votes? What’s that?

When's the last time you voted for a candidate that you thought was really outstanding? Someone who you felt really had your personal and community interests foremost in his mind? Did he stick to those principles after his election, or did he become just another go-with-the-flow legislative rubber stamp?

I can understand these being sponsored but..

[Maxo-Texas]

the obscene things is that the reason these get passed is that every other member of congress gets the same or better for their wealthy constituents.

Re:I can understand these being sponsored but..

[hedwards]

Not quite, those things get passed because wealthy constituents want it and stupid morons will vote for anything that the Republicans tell them to because voting against ones own self interest is the best way to get back at those damned liberal elites. Never mind that there's been a huge wealth redistribution in the last couple decades from the poor to the wealthy.

Re:I can understand these being sponsored but..

[demonlapin]

If it's in the interests of the common people, then why is it also in the interests of the liberal elite? Does it ever make you wonder, when people with net worths over $10M are advocating socialism and redistribution, just who it is that they expect the redistribution to come from?

Re:I can understand these being sponsored but..

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree. It used to be but now the wealthy and the corporations have gotten so large and powerful that they have bought both political parties.

However, 15 or so years ago, it was the unholy wedding of corporations + socially right wing (via abortion) that started this ball rolling.

I'm not sure how it ends peacefully at this point. The wealthy and the corporations seem to have lost all patriotism and sense of shame.

every state does this?

[alen]

every state does this to lure companies and jobs to their states. every company including Google, Apple and all the slashdot favorites take advantage of this. one reason why Silicon Valley and the movie industry are in California and don't move their industries elsewhere is because California gives out big tax breaks to tech and the movie industries. in the last few years they talked about taking them away and everyone involved told the idiot legislators that it would result in an exodus out of the state. just like the home contractors left after the idiotic workman's comp rules went into effect a few years ago.

Re:every state does this?

[Rich0]

Ok, I can get how tech companies can relocate if they don't like your local taxes, but home contractors?

If you want a home built in California, you're going to have to have somebody do the work under California law. So, how would home contractors have any leverage, unless CA wanted to impose regulations on their activities out-of-state?

Sure, maybe some would choose not to do business there any longer, but I doubt that in a recession that anybody is going to have trouble finding somebody to take their money to build a house.

Re:every state does this?

[Concerned Onlooker]

"Ok, I can get how tech companies can relocate if they don't like your local taxes, but home contractors?"

Absolutely this can happen. I contracted to have a house built for me on the west side of Los Angeles and in the middle of it all my contractor just up and moved out of the state. But really, it hasn't been a problem. Except that my house ended up in Iowa.

Re:every state does this?

[Just Some Guy]

every state does this to lure companies and jobs to their states.

Well, exactly. Claiming that WA is losing $X or that Microsoft is getting $X in subsidies is no different from the RIAA claiming that a pirated song is the same as a lost sale. The actual cost to WA is the amount of money spent providing services to the Microsoft campus, not how much they would be paying if some tax or another were invoked. I dare say they get a lot more money from taxing Microsoft's employees than they they'd collect between the day they began taxing Microsoft directly and the day that Microsoft completed its move to another state.

I can't stand MSFT or their practices, but still think this arrangements benefits all involved, from MSFT to its employees to the state of Washington to its other residents.

Re:every state does this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for pointing this out instead of echoing the knee-jerk reactions of other posters. We lost the Boeing corporate office when we failed to make a deal exactly like this. I for one would prefer not to to lose Microsoft as well, and anyone who thinks they wont leave our state and move to Nevada over 1.27 BILLION dollars is kidding themselves.

just a proposal

[SoupGuru]

Has this been voted into law as the summary and title suggests?

Or is this a proposal that us Washingtonians get a chance to contact our representatives about and make sure they understand how important it is to us?

I like representative democracy. It sometimes works.

Re:just a proposal

[Jeng]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=3176&year=2009

Doesn't look like its passed yet.

Re:just a proposal

[Spewns]

I like representative democracy. It sometimes works.

It's working perfectly fine right now. Giant corporations are the constituents. Ross Hunter is at the forefront of representing Microsoft. This is representative democracy in action.

I don't see what the trouble is...

[calmofthestorm]

I have no objection to the government taxing my income at 0.484%

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[thatseattleguy]

True...but just to be clear (and I speak as someone who owns a business in Washington), the specific tax in question is the state "Business and Occupation" tax, which (for manufacturing activities, at least) is a tax levied at .484% of the gross revenue of the business - not the net income, not the net profit, but the gross total of checks that came in the door . Yes, it's pretty bizarro, but then without a state personal or corporate income tax, they do what they can to keep the lights on in the Capital Building.

All by way of saying that .484% adds up to a pretty tidy sum when levied on Microsoft's gross licensing revenue, worldwide.

/tsg/

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[sanosuke001]

So? Why does it matter that it's on gross income and not net income? The government taxes me based on gross income, why shouldn't it tax corporations the same way? Corporations fight for their rights as "individuals" under the law, they use utilities just like everyone else. Frankly, I'm sick of corps getting special treatment just because they have tons of money. I know why it happens; jobs in a state are important and politicians will do anything to keep them there but it's a bit frustrating when a state is bankrupt itself and has to throw more money down the drain to do something like this.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[russotto]

True...but just to be clear (and I speak as someone who owns a business in Washington), the specific tax in question is the state "Business and Occupation" tax, which (for manufacturing activities, at least) is a tax levied at .484% of the gross revenue of the business - not the net income, not the net profit, but the gross total of checks that came in the door .

My state personal income tax is based on the gross as well. So is the federal personal income tax, with some exceptions. If they only taxed me on the money I managed to keep, I'd be a lot better off.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[wizardforce]

Individuals get taxed on their gross income so why is it so absurd that the poor starving corporations be taxed the same way? As things are now, individuals don't get to deduct anywhere near what corporations do.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[oatworm]

To put that into perspective, if you look at their SEC filings, that would mean 0.484% of, worst case, a little over $19 billion, or $92 million for the 2nd quarter of 2010. Of their net income (i.e. profit), that would account for 1.4% of their total profit; needless to say, MS can probably absorb that. Of course, that $19 billion was their gross revenue, of which a good chunk of that probably isn't taxed per Washington's corporate tax law (IANAA) and certainly doesn't apply as licensing revenue (gross revenue would also include XBoxen, Zunes, and other hardware, among other things). That said, I will point out that most businesses don't operate at a 33-50% profit margin or somewhere thereabouts; I would have to imagine that a 0.484% on gross retail would be particularly painful, since most retail establishments are lucky if they can break 5%.

I will, however, point out that I live about five minutes away from MS Licensing's office in Reno, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[internettoughguy]

it's a bit frustrating when a state is bankrupt itself and has to throw more money down the drain to do something like this.

I agree, they should spend no money on well established megacorps, if they have to spend it, instead use it as venture capital for small startups in the area.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Maxo-Texas]

Most businesses make a total net profit of about 3% to 7%. So a .5% gross tax would take 1/6th to 1/14th of their profit.
I.e. you buy 1,000 dollars worth of wood and build a piano that you sell for 1,100 dollars. You are not getting taxed on the 100 dollars left over after costs- you are getting taxed on the 1,100 dollars. The lower the companies net profits, the more likely a tax like this is to take their entire net profit.

It would be sort of like if the government took .5% of your gross income from your savings account each year (on top of any other income tax or sales taxes).

I'm very sick of the abuses being allowed. I feel we are very close to some kind of major breakdown. Folks tried to vote for change with Obama and all we got was another corporate stooge.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Grishnakh]

You obviously know nothing about business. Taxing revenue instead of profit is idiotic; this means that a company that has a very high profit margin because their operating expenses are low has a big advantage over a company that has high operating expenses.

For instance, look at Boeing, a big WA state employer. They build big, expensive planes. These planes aren't expensive just because Boeing decides to set the price on them at $250 million. They're expensive because it costs a lot to build a big plane: parts, materials, labor, safety testing, etc. That plane might cost a quarter-billion dollars, but only a small portion of that is profit, the rest is money they have to pay out for labor expenses, for raw materials costs, for parts from their suppliers, etc. Why should they pay taxes on all of that? You get to deduct your student loan and home loan interest from your taxes, as well as other things like medical expenses, and other unavoidable things.

Whereas some company that just does, for instance, motivational speeches, is almost pure profit (except for the rent for conference rooms or wherever).

Only a moron would think it's OK to tax companies on gross income. The effect of this is that companies will do whatever they can to reduce operational expenses, including cutting labor costs, outsourcing, cheapening their parts and materials (leading to poor quality), eliminating testing (leading to people dying when airplanes crash), etc. Every decent governmental entity does not tax on expenses; in fact, companies don't even normally pay sales tax for anything which will be used for resale.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Grishnakh]

You get a "standard deduction" to take care of things like essential food, and you get to deduct student loan and mortgage interest. No, it's still not quite enough (since it penalizes renters, doesn't really account for the true cost of food and medical care, etc.), but it's something.

Yes, businesses have too many loopholes, and pay too little tax.

However, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Taxing companies on gross revenue is just plain idiotic, and penalizes manufacturing companies that have to buy raw materials and parts to create finished products. Your mentality is EXACTLY what has caused corporations to move all manufacturing offshore.

The only thing which should ever be taxed is profit. The lawmakers simply need to work to close loopholes so corporations can't shelter their profits from taxation. Ideally, corporations should be able to operate as non-profits if they want, as long as they really don't have any profits, and all money is used for expenses (including salaries; any leftover profits can be given out as bonuses at the end-of-year). The government will still get its money from the employees' income taxes.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Dachannien]

Individuals get taxed on their gross income so why is it so absurd that the poor starving corporations be taxed the same way?

Because those individuals really would be poor and starving, were it not for the corporations that hire them.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Anonymous Coward]

because corporations don't pay taxes. The people who actually pay the taxes are the employees and the consumers. To a corporation, taxes are just another expense that gets factored into the price of the product. There are so many reasons why corporate taxes are bad for everyone, just do a little research.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Late Adopter]

Because corporations don't get wages or salary. Their income is derived from cash outlays, which is much more analogous to capital gains at the individual level, for which we DO tax the net income.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's really what people are objecting to. It's not that Microsoft is having less of its money stolen, it's that we are still having the same amount of our money stolen. Since we dare not confront the robbers, we do the second-best thing: ensure that everyone is robbed, and go after anyone who finds ways to avoid it.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Adaeniel]

... [C]ompanies will do whatever they can to reduce operational expenses, including cutting labor costs, outsourcing, cheapening their parts and materials (leading to poor quality), eliminating testing (leading to people dying when airplanes crash), etc. ...

Wait, how is this different from the standard operating procedure of larger companies?

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[wizardforce]

That is a good argument for fixing the income tax system as it applies to individuals but a very poor one for giving corporations tax advantages over individuals.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a distinction. Corporations should have to pay federal and state income tax just like real people. 33% should be good. Call it the price of this farcical legal fiction. "They" wanted the rights, well along with the rights should come responsibility.

  Companies without the fiction of being incorporate should get the tax breaks.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[wizardforce]

At no point should a corporation hold an advantage in tax law compared to individuals. The deductions and various complications of tax law in corporation's favor should not exist.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[McGiraf]

You got it backward.

The corporation would not go far if it was not for the people doing work for them.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[colinrichardday]

Does that mean that corporations don't pay rent, or salaries? After all, aren't those just expenses that get factored into the price of production?

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[QuantumRiff]

Um, the parent was asking why its okay to tax people on gross income, but not companies? Either I should be taxed on Profit too, Or a company should be taxed on Gross income. Cause its just as easy to invent all sorts of crap to never have a profit. Go Google Hollywood accounting.

I mean with my income, I have to purchase a ton of expenses that eat at the total too. I have rent, food, medical care, etc. Just like Boeing has to pay for expenses to assemble their big shiny planes! And you can't get away with the "Well, they hire people and then they pay taxes" argument, cause I give income to the Landlord. I give income to Blue Cross, I provide income to farmers, sales clerks, hell, even the lady that cuts my hair. The economy is a network of economic networks..

but I guess its easier to insult their (the GP's) intelligence in the matter. Hooray, you took basic Economics in High School

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Grishnakh]

It changes the equations. A company might be willing for instance to spend a little more on some things to improve quality, which leads to fewer customer returns, fewer lawsuits, etc., if these increased expenses can be written off. If they have to pay extra taxes on these expenses however, then they're much less likely to do them. The increased taxes may make it worth it to deal with more returns, more lawsuits, etc., if those things cost less than the taxes.

Similarly, there's advantages to having local employees: easier management, fewer cultural problems, etc. However, if a company is going to get slapped with extra taxes for hiring more employees in the USA, and gets a tax break for hiring employees offshore, then they'll hire more offshore employees instead and minimize the number of local ones.

Seriously: what kind of moron would think it's a good idea to TAX a company for hiring employees? Only someone who doesn't want people to be employed.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are taxed on profit, numbnuts. You rabble rousers crack me up.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[RightSaidFred99]

Jesus Christ. Where does a "corporation's" money go? Where does your money go?

All money is taxed before it goes to a real person. Corporate "profit" goes to reinvestment or paying off debt.

Corporations aren't people. They have some of the same rights as people, but pretending they earn money and spend it the same way as people is just sophistry.

Profits go to people. Those people pay taxes. Whining about "corporate fat cats" not paying taxes is just something stupid people do.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Grishnakh]

I mean with my income, I have to purchase a ton of expenses that eat at the total too. I have rent, food, medical care, etc. Just like Boeing has to pay for expenses to assemble their big shiny planes! And you can't get away with the "Well, they hire people and then they pay taxes" argument, cause I give income to the Landlord. I give income to Blue Cross, I provide income to farmers, sales clerks, hell, even the lady that cuts my hair. The economy is a network of economic networks..

I never said the system was perfect. However, you do get to deduct the interest paid on your primary home mortgage (sorry, but renters are screwed). You do get do deduct your medical expenses over 7.5% of your AGI. Moreover, if you work for a corporation, they usually provide healthcare as part of your benefits, and you're also allowed to contribute part of your pre-tax earnings to a health savings account (HSA). (Yes, obviously the system is set up to promote working for corporations and to screw self-employed people.) You also get a standard deduction per person in your household, which is to account for regular medical expenses, food, etc. (No, it's not enough.)

Yes, you can invent a lot of crap to not show a profit, but 1) that's not going to work with companies whose shareholders expect to pay them dividends, which is a lot of older blue-chip companies, and 2) that's a failing of politicians, and needs to be fixed with better legislation. As I said, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Taxing companies on gross earnings means they're just going to cut expenses, such as employee salaries, by hiring less employees or moving more operations offshore to low-tax jurisdictions.

Sure, we could get the government to tax the corporations to death, and give individuals the ability to write-off all their expenses. This will have a couple of results: people who aren't good at accounting will be royally screwed (look at how many people have to go to H&R Block to do their 1040EZ forms), and companies will close up, move offshore, go out of business, and the economy will collapse as unemployment rockets over 50%.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[RightSaidFred99]

A corporation does not realize profit. Its shareholders realize profits. Those shareholders pay taxes. By all means we should crack down on fraud (people using corporate funds to effectively buy themselves shit like jets and houses), but otherwise a corporation's money goes to either shareholders (taxed) or back into hiring people and buying items necessary for the corporation to exist.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[RightSaidFred99]

A corporation is not an individual. Not even legally. Comparing the two is nonsensical.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you buy something that you need for work, you can write it off on your taxes. Same with charitable donations and a number of other things. Thus, you ARE taxed on your net income, not your gross. Gross - Work Expenses = Net Revenue.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[wizardforce]

corporations have free speech and can as of the latest retarded court decision, donate to parties without limit. With the fraked up legal system we have, in some cases corporations appear to have rights above individuals.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[RightSaidFred99]

Nonsense. A corporation derives its "free speech" rights because it is _composed_ of a _group of people_, not because of its fictional pseudo-personhood. Me and two of my buddies can go and buy a commercial or post a billboard saying anything we like. So can me and 50 of my buddies. In fact, I can find a group of 50,000 people (let's call it.. IdeaCo Corp.) and go buy a billboard.

I know the crybaby anti-corporate crowd loves to make a big deal about how terrible that SC decision was, but it was fundamentally impossible for them to come to another decision. Entirely apart for the fictional personhood of a corporation, a corporation consists of a group of people who each (and in aggregate) have a right to speech.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[wizardforce]

I know the crybaby anti-corporate crowd loves to make a big deal about how terrible that SC decision was, but it was fundamentally impossible for them to come to another decision.

You are correct about that. The two issues that lead to the decision were 1) do corps/people in groups have free speech rights? answer: yes. 2) is donation of money a form of speech? answer: Yes it is. It is correct but at the same time unfortunate. Money does influence what politicians do. Politicians work for their own interests and act toward those ends. Of course the corporations weren't terribly restricted in their proxy givings to various parties anyway. Now in so far as corporations being treated as persons, let me ask you this: when is the last time you blew a few hundred billion dollars on some get rich sceme just to be bailed out for being "too big to fail?" Right to life is apparently another pseudo-right some corporations now possess.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Jane Q. Public]

You think the poster is wrong because the idea is idiotic. Unfortunately, while the idea IS idiotic, the poster is quite right. Washington's B&O tax is on gross revenue.

These issues have been debated in Washington for many years now, and even taken to court, more than once, but the fact is that the B&O tax is still here, and still operates just as that other poster stated: it is on total gross revenue, not on net profits or any other figure.

No matter how idiotic it may be, it is very real.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Jane Q. Public]

No, your personal income tax is based on your income minus deductions. Those deductions may be many or few, but you do have them, just like businesses do. In that sense (and in that sense only), your income tax is based on your NET, AFTER DEDUCTIONS.

I say "in that sense only", because historically individuals did not have "income". Income was strictly a business concept and did not include what a person took home to live on.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Anonymous Struct]

Not to mention buying their goods. Very, very often I run into the argument that corporations deserve a break because they are the ones putting bread on our tables. There seems to be very little recognition that people do the work and people buy the products. The relationship is mutual, but workers and consumers can actually exist without corporations, and the reverse isn't true.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[jwhitener]

"You obviously know nothing about business."

You obviously do not know how corporations abuse this.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Grishnakh]

I agree, corporations definitely abuse the laws as much as they can. Again, I never said the current system was perfect, or even good. I just said that taxing gross revenue, instead of profit, is idiotic, and a good way to scare businesses away. It's a big disincentive to operate high-revenue, low-profit businesses (e.g. manufacturing) which employ lots of people.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Grishnakh]

Yes, I realize that. That was in the discussion further up, and I was responding to someone who apparently thinks taxing on gross revenue is a good idea, because he wants to stick it to corporations and doesn't care about side-effects.

It's very stupid that WA does this, and it's a good way to drive any kind of manufacturing operations out of the state. I wonder why Boeing still bothers to operate there (it's probably why Boeing has moved a lot of manufacturing to other locations).

I guess the Washington legislature thinks they don't need any manufacturing businesses, and that everyone in the state can just work as a barista. Starbuck's, after all, is a high-profit-margin business; that coffee mix that their baristas skillfully burn doesn't cost a lot.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[JustAClam]

Grishnakh, I know something about business. I worked for Boeing for 11 years. And I had software development and contracting businesses in Washington for 6 years. You would think that what you're saying would be true, but it didn't seem like it in Washington. You see, Washington doesn't have an income tax on corporations OR individuals. They have sales taxes, but not that much more than Oregon and certainly less than California. They have property taxes too, but lots less than in Texas or California. The thing you didn't mention about profit taxes is what a windfalll it is for accountants who get to classify this or that boondoggle as "expenses". A gross revenue tax at a reasonable rate is simple (although there are some deductions) and it works for Washington. Are you really arguing for more dependence on the U.S. Federal Tax Code? Most states piggyback of the feds and then make their own modifications. Have you ever (if you had a business, owned business property or sold investments) been absolutely positive that your federal income tax return was absolutely correct? If so, you're in the minority. Look at the size of the section for accountants in the Yellow Pages for proof.

You obviously know nothing about Washington's B&O Tax. The rate is different BY INDUSTRY. You pay a different rate if you create software than if you build airplanes and yet another rate if you grow lentils or make wine. And if you don't think Boeing has influence on the rate it pays, you're smoking something. Here is a list of the rates: http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/BAndOTax/BandOrates.aspx. Please notice the manufacturing rate of .00484 and the "Manufacturing of Commercial Airplanes, Components, or Aerospace Tooling" rate of .002904. In the list, I count 4 classifications specific to Boeing business and 1 specific to PACCAR (Kenworth, Peterbuilt, etc).

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[jwhitener]

The only way to prevent the abuse, short of taxing gross, would be to regulate at a very minute level, what can be spent on infrastructure, upgrades, etc.. that effectively makes many corporations profit zero each year.

Make 200 million in profit but invest it back into the business and it no longer is considered profit, but yet another cost of the business.

Even if that 'investment' is a big corporate jet for the execs.

I can't see any way to curtail that abuse except by taxing the gross and not the net. Can you?

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[boxwood]

Its hard to tax profit. Profit is so easy to hide that putting a tax on it is pointless.

Ok you put a 1% tax on my profit. I just form a dummy corporation somewhere that doesn't tax profit and have the real corporation sell stuff to them at cost. The real corporation makes no profit while the dummy corporation makes gobs of profit.

Revenue is harder to hide. You have to buy materials, pay workers, etc. so there has to be revenue.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Jane Q. Public]

I see. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying (as someone else has) that the tax could not be that way because it's idiotic, or because "they don't have the authority to do that". The former is true in my opinion. The latter may be true, but if so nobody has managed to prove it in court.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Jane Q. Public]

It certainly has kept some operations out of the state, and others have moved. Boeing moved their headquarters elsewhere -- Chicago or some place -- for that reason.

Despite the fact that Washington has some good, and some large, and even some good and large tech and even manufacturing businesses in Washington, it is generally accepted that the tax structure is not as friendly to business as many other states' taxes are.

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Grishnakh]

Again, I don't see the problem.

First of all, if the company makes zero profit, it better be a "growth" company and not an "income" company, because zero profit means zero dividends.

If the company spends it on infrastructure and upgrades, that's a good thing. That's money that goes right back into the economy, creating employment.

If the company buys a corporate jet, that again is money going back into the economy. Jets are expensive, require lots of highly specialized labor to build, and they need highly-paid pilots and maintenance crews to keep them running. However, lots of companies have their own jets because it's actually cheaper than dealing with commercial air travel when you have enough employees using the service. Intel, for instance, has 3 jets I think, that constantly fly between their western US locations, and regular Intel employees can book flights on them. Intel isn't a company that spends money on crap (they're famous for their office buildings being very ugly and cheap to build), but they have the jets because it's cheaper, and more cost-effective (esp. when you consider all the time it takes to take commercial flights) to send employees by their own jets when possible.

And finally, all this money going back into the economy, with jets, pilot salaries, etc., results in more taxes paid by all these people. This is called a "network effect".

So again, I don't see the problem. Taxing companies on the gross will just result in them not spending as much on upgrades, employee salaries, etc.

Finally, even if the company tries to reduce profit by handing it all to the CEO as a bonus, the CEO still has to pay personal income taxes on it. Why is it not enough for you people for the government to get taxes once from money as it moves through a company? Why do you insist on double- and triple-dipping?

Re:I don't see what the trouble is...

[Late Adopter]

You raise a good point, people *should* only be taxed on profits. But the current system for individual incomes is not entirely dissimilar in result, and it's a heck of a lot simpler. The income tax rate is a function of how much you make, and there's deductions for a few large ticket items (mortgage payments, children) in addition to catch-all "standard deduction" and the option of just itemizing everything. I think this system is vastly preferable to requiring a nation to keep their receipts for all their cost-of-living purchases.

"To get"?

[sys.stdout.write]

I see the authors are using the phrase "Microsoft to get" to mean the less-common "Microsoft may get if a bill proposed by one Representative is passed by both Congressional bodies in its current form which is not going to happen."

Scintillating!

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Phrogman]

Politicians get into power by getting corporate sponsorship, once they are there they quite naturally pay back the favour. Really, the Politicians are not much more than Corporate Representatives in Government. There is the minor formality of convincing the public to vote for the company candidate but you just throw money at that and hire good advertising companies.

The US has the best politicians the corporations can buy.

Sadly up here in Canada, its no different as far as I can see. I still believe in democracy, but I am no longer sure we still have it :(

Hasn't passed yet

[Jeng]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=3176&year=2009

Alot of stupid bills get submitted, luckily most don't get passed.

If this one gets enough notice perhaps the bill will be killed.

Re:Hasn't passed yet

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother lives in WA and emailed her rep about an hour ago inquiring about HB3176 giving MS this giant tax break. Her rep responded that she was under the impression that the bill was designed to do the opposite of what the article claims and that she will look into it immediately. Let's hope it sheds light on the issue for those who can knock this thing down.

Makes sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofcource Washington state is going to do all it can to please the biggest and most successful software company in the world. When you have a company that employs tens of thousands of higly paid engineers, you'll get special favors too. This isn't specific to MS (well only on slashdot) every large company enjoys this advantage.

Even Mozilla dodges taxes because they are a "non profit" and get PAID millions of dollars from google as part of a business deal. But I guess if you pay a tiny percentage of that money to pay for nerds to work on open source, you're immune from criticism on Slashdot.

Re:Makes sense.

[earlymon]

Even Mozilla dodges taxes because they are a "non profit" and get PAID millions of dollars from google as part of a business deal. But I guess if you pay a tiny percentage of that money to pay for nerds to work on open source, you're immune from criticism on Slashdot.

Right. Because the income dealings of a non-profit corporation are really just so shrouded in secrecy, loopholes and backroom deals.

In the time it took me to respond, Microsoft just wrote off more in taxes than the Mozilla Foundation is worth.

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2008-audited-financial-statement.pdf

Blow me.

Re:Makes sense.

[david_thornley]

There are legal distinctions between for-profit and non-profit companies that have nothing to do with software licensing. If Mozilla is a non-profit, it operates under a different set of restrictions than Microsoft, but these restrictions do permit business deals. Why do you think the Salvation Army operated a store in our neighborhood, if selling stuff would make them lose non-profit status?

Re:Makes sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point.

They specifically take money to promote/advertise Google. And then turning around and claiming tax exemption because they are a "non-profit for public benefit" is just plain ludicrous.

But its OK. I don't expect to convince anti-ms people on Slashdot.

Re:Makes sense.

[earlymon]

No, I didn't miss the point at all, I simply understand that it's perfectly legal and ok for non-profits to promote and advertise, and even to accept advertising.

I'm not anti-MS, I'm just anti-stupidity.

But that's ok. I don't expect to convince clueless AC shills of anything.

Re:Makes sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

The salvation army isnt looking to get rich by selling those wares. Mozilla foundation gets paid millions of dollars to advertise and promote a for-profit company and claim exemptions on *THOSE* funds because they are doing a service of "public benefit" and that is bullshit. Mozilla Foundation is a for-profit business, plain and simple.

Re:Makes sense.

[boxwood]

The National Football League is a non-profit organisation too. They make all kinds of deals with advertising, exclusive broadcast rights, etc.

I think Mozilla has a much better case for being a non-profit than the NFL. Their goals are to improve the internet by making standards compliant open source products. And since most borowsers, not just their own, are becoming more standards compliant, I'd say they have improved things for all users of the internet.

And since their products open sourced there is nothing stopping you from taking any of their software, and compete with them using the code they wrote themselves. In fact ubuntu has made a deal with MS to make bing the default search engine on firefox on ubuntu systems. This makes a pretty good case that mozilla isn't motivated by profit but is actually motivated by a desire to make code that is of a public benefit.

The NFL on the other hand doesn't have such a strong case.

Re:Makes sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their goals are to improve the internet by making standards compliant open source products. And since most borowsers, not just their own, are becoming more standards compliant, I'd say they have improved things for all users of the internet.

So does Opera, Apple, Microsoft. I guess all of them should become non-profits. What a fucking joke. I'd be impressed if they gave those millions *BACK* to the OSS community instead of just paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Mozilla CEO and other already rich fucks.

Public Benefit.. heh, funny how any retarded argument manages to appeal to oss lemmings.

Re:Makes sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla foundation gets paid millions of dollars to advertise and promote a for-profit company and claim exemptions on *THOSE* funds because they are doing a service of "public benefit" and that is bullshit.

So, I guess by your logic, museum snack shops shouldn't be allowed to sell Coke? A Coke machine advertises and promotes a for-profit company, doesn't it? Or maybe you think museums are different because none of their employees get paid.

Mozilla Foundation is a for-profit business, plain and simple.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a for-profit business is. Who, exactly, profits from Mozilla? Can I get a piece of that action somehow? For founders and officers of the Foundation to get a salary, or even a bonus, does not make the organization "for profit." If it did, then none of the Red Cross, which pays its CEO more than $500k, or the United way ($375k), or the Salvation Army ($160k), would be "non profit."

Its welfare

[ldconfig]

I can not goto a store like best buy and buy a PC without paying the microsoft tax yet microsoft gets out of paying their fair share. (Before anyone wants to accuse me of running a stolen copy of windows we are a 110% Linux household)

Re:Its welfare

[wizardforce]

System76 and Dell offer Linux pre-loaded PCs. But I agree, MS does everything it can to milk cash out of people through whatever means are at its disposal and they ought to have their arse handed to them.

Re:Its welfare

[themightythor]

we are a 110% Linux household

You can't do more than 100%. To say that you do makes you a tool.

Re:Its welfare

[Anonymous Coward]

I can not goto a store like best buy and buy a PC without paying the microsoft tax yet microsoft gets out of paying their fair share.
(Before anyone wants to accuse me of running a stolen copy of windows we are a 110% Linux household)

So, you put Linux on every computer in your house - that brings you up to 100%. the 10%.....you put Linux on your vacuum cleaner? You what, taped the DVD to its handle?

Re:Its welfare

[ldconfig]

Name calling how cute lol

Re:Its welfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtual machines

Re:Its welfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, uber-dork, we all know that. In your ignorant rush to pedantry, you missed his joke.

Re:Its welfare

[david_thornley]

Get ten computers and run Linux on them. Then, run Linux in a VM on one of them. Ten computers, eleven Linux systems. 110%.

Re:Its welfare

[cynyr]

is it cheaper(however slightly) than the same machine with windows? if it's higher i'm betting that they had to pay for a full copy of windows, never got it, passed that cost onto me.

Re:Its welfare

[NotBornYesterday]

He hacked his Roomba.

Re:Its welfare

[wizardforce]

These systems are often 50+ dollars cheaper than the Windows equivalent. Dell tried to pull a fast one on people that bought their Linux pre-loaded systems which is why I wouldn't recommend them. (of course if you're a geek you'd know they and Best buy were crap anyways)

Re:Its welfare

[McGiraf]

Don't know if it's still like this, but the original deal for Windows licenses that Dell had was per computer sold, not per computer sold with Windows installed.

That's why it's called the "Microsoft tax".

Re:Its welfare

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get systems without Windows. Just because it's not at the store you want to buy it from or you don't like what's being offered doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Once again a slashtard has shown how they easily confuse inconvenience for oppression. Someday maybe you'll taste real oppression and you'll come to face how petty you are.

Re:Its welfare

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy a PC at Best Buy, you are giving Best Buy more Profit than Microsoft.

Re:Its welfare

[wizardforce]

That may be a large part of why Dell kept trying to screw people who were trying to buy their Linux pre-loaded PCs. As far as I know, they straightened up their act to a degree resulting in a modest cost savings.

Re:The other side

[prakslash]

To play devil's advocate, giving tax breaks to attract/keep major businesses is a normal thing for state governments. After all, these businesses bring in major direct (income taxes) and indrect revenue (local employees' property taxes, sales taxes etc) to the state. Nine years ago, Boeing ditched Seattle and moved to Chicago partly because of tax breaks offered by Chicago.

Corporations are people

[earlymon]

I can't help but notice that this article comes on the heels of the OK of corporate personhood status.

I can't find the words that compares the figures from TFA to those on everyone's recently received W2s.

Re:Corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

Soylent Green is corporations.

i dont see any problem

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, this is just how politics in this country is. there are certain drawbacks to have a free-market system, if you don't like capitalism and the way politics work in america, then take your bloody liberal ass somewhere else and stop bitching.

Now my serious response is below:

This is just another example of what's wrong with our country today, its corporatism. Business and government in bed together... its kinda what Obama likes to call "free-market" economics. Really what it amounts to is two-fold: A.) Business is allowed all the benefits of success while being permitted by peddling influence in washington to escape all culpability for its failures (i.e. AIG). B.) A misappropriation of the burden of funding the federal government towards the poor/middle class through both inflation, and what essentially amounts to legal tax evasion by way of again... peddling influence in washington.

But hey, the people have spoken, and basically they're all pussies that just want the government to take care of them... forget about personal responsibility, i'll give my uncle sam all the money and power needed to just keep terrorism out, and the welfare checks rolling in and i'm content.

Re:i dont see any problem

[Nadaka]

You do remember that the AIG bailout happened way back in 2008... right? Obama wasn't on watch at the time, that was all Bush Jr (and the congress, mostly democrats).

Re:i dont see any problem

[Grishnakh]

Bush and Obama are exactly the same. Why people keep trying to bash the other when someone bashes one is beyond me; it's the stupid two-party mentality at work, and what's keeping any real positive change from happening. Point out how bad the current party is, and get everyone to vote for the other party, which is in reality exactly the same.

As you pointed out, the Democrats were in control of Congress during the AIG bailout. Then Obama took over, and what changed? Nothing. Continuing bailouts, continued wars, etc.

Re:i dont see any problem

[Nadaka]

I generally agree with you. Though I have seen some "change" on behalf of Obama and the current congress. Previously, Bush and Co were capable of achieving horrifically destructive and unconstitutional abominations of law. Obama can't even manage to do that despite his best efforts.

The differences between Republicans and Democrats exist almost exclusively to marginalize any external political competition. America is a one party fascist police state. And yes, I am using the correct definition of fascist.

How do you choose between the lesser of two evils when your options on the ticket are Cthulhu and Azathoth?

Re:i dont see any problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"if you don't like capitalism and the way politics work in america, then take your bloody liberal ass somewhere else and stop bitching."

"The people have spoken, and basically they're all pussies that just want the government to take care of them."

Putting those 2 together it sounds like *you* should be the one leaving.

asshole

Re:i dont see any problem

[chowdahhead]

You do remember that Obama supported the bailout. His statement to the press was somewhat ambiguous (which he received criticism for): "The fact that we have reached a point where the Federal Reserve felt it had to take this unprecedented step with the American International Group is the final verdict on the failed economic philosophy of the last eight years. While we do not know all the details of this arrangement, the Fed must ensure that the plan protects the families that count on insurance. It should bolster our economy's ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills and save their money. It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG." His arguement was along the same tone as Bush's: to protect the American people from the fallout of a default of AIG. He went on to criticize McCain for opposing the bailout, which running mate Joe Biden actually opposed as well.

Re:i dont see any problem

[JDmetro]

How do you choose between the lesser of two evils when your options on the ticket are Cthulhu and Azathoth?
You have to vote otherwise your a commie. Vote or die bitch.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[maxume]

Democracy is a compromise, not something that requires or benefits from belief.

"I used to believe in forcing my neighbors to do things, but then they started forcing me to do things."

No Income taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no Income Taxes in Washington State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_highlighting_states_with_no_income_tax_on_wages.svg

$100 million? Shit, The Fed Doesnt need my TAXES

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I think I'll contact my congressman so that perhaps he could sponsor a bill that would give me a $20,000 tax break.... Just in case I find a job this year.

America is fucked in the head.

Microsoft has a say

[twistedcubic]

The representatives are afraid Microsoft will leave Washington if it doesn't have its way. They probably assume the tax revenue from MS employees is better than nothing.

Re:Microsoft has a say

[Kostya]

Except that this is WA--where there is no state income tax. So WA state isn't getting all that much from MS employees (who probably buy quite a bit online and dodge the local sales tax too).

Re:Microsoft has a say

[oatworm]

There's always property taxes. Bill Gates has to live somewhere.

Re:Microsoft has a say

[JustNilt]

You forget the sales tax all those well paid employees spend when they buy all their toys. That's a non-trivial amount, I assure you.

This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[Mongoose Disciple]

I mean, if the summary is right that this dude's district is chock full of Microsoft people, isn't it basically his job to propose legislation that his constituents favor?

Now, if the rest of the state's representatives actually go along with it, you have a different story.

Re:This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[daseinw]

At the risk of getting lost in hyperbole (sorry), consider your viewpoint if he came from a district full of rapists and wanted to reduce the penalty for rape to a $50 fine:

"I mean, if the summary is right that this dude's district is chock full of rape suspects, isn't it basically his job to propose legislation that his constituents favor? Now, if the rest of the state's representatives actually go along with it, you have a different story."

On one hand, you're right. But many people smarter than myself would argue that it's not just his job to propose legislation that his constituents would favor but to also use his reason and operate with a sense of ethics that aren't seated in taking advantage of power for the powerful minority.

Re:This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[Locke2005]

Right... and if his district was chock full of pedophiles, then it would basically be his job to propose legislation lowering the age of consent to 2, right? Yes, if the system works, the rest of Washington state's congresscritters SHOULD tell him to see figure 1

Re:This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[cynyr]

you might be correct if you could find a whole district that wasn't a correctional facility that was >75% violent criminals.

Re:This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[McGiraf]

Felons can't vote in the USA.

Re:This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[scotch]

Not quite, try again.

Re:This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[Mongoose Disciple]

I realize you're intentionally picking something out there, but... yeah, if the system works, it should withstand even that successfully, whether at the legislative, executive, or judicial level. If it doesn't, then we have bigger problems than an age of consent law.

(This also holds for the district of felons problem elsewhere in the thread.)

It's part of the genius of democracy, such as it is, that it works (for some value of works relative to other systems of government) even if some people want some pretty terrible things.

Re:This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[McGiraf]

they can?

Re:This really doesn't horrify me that much.

[Locke2005]

Even communism works on a small enough scale (e.g. a small private commune with very selective membership). The problem is, as scale increases, the advantage to be gained by corruption also increases, so at some arbitrarily large scale corruption is virtually guaranteed... even in a true democracy. The only solution I can think of to the scaling problem is to push as much control as possible down to as local a level as possible. This not only makes being a corrupt official less lucrative, but it also gives those that are harmed by corruption an easy fix -- moving to another locality.

Maybe Toyota should take a cue

[eparker05]

Back in the 90's when MS was in trouble with the DOJ they had an epiphany. Hire lobbyists and donate to campaigns to get the feds off your back. It hasn't failed them since.

Perhaps if Toyota could field some candidates, or buy a few, they would get rid of their latest headache.

Re:Maybe Toyota should take a cue

[that this is not und]

If there is no viable third party alternative soon then there will be no way to get back.

That's pretty much a complete load of nonsense. Study your American Political History. Business interests have had greater and lesser influence on politics forever in history. Some times they have incredible 'pull.' Other times that pull is reduced. We are not 'on the edge of a precipice' and about to tumble down a cliff. It's just going back to the way it used to be, before the whole 'Campaign Finance Reform' bill was passed. Oh, and Obama declined his public funding during the recent Presidential election and went all on contributions. If that wasn't 'thumbing the nose' at Campaign Finance Reform Laws, what could be??

Corporate Welfare

[wintercolby]

The most interesting part of this amazing corporate welfare is that Microsoft has to offer no concessions for it. Usually I read about corporations getting offered tax incentives for moving into a state, or building a new facility in one. This is more of a pat on the back and a thank you. This sure reminds me of Leona Helmsley.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Phrogman]

I am not talking religious belief there. I meant that if I didn't still think that democracy was a worthwhile process to participate in, then I wouldn't continue to participate in it. I am also concerned that the current system as present in Canada (and likely in the US) is too compromised by the power of corporations to influence elections, and that the candidates who do get elected have to make some compromises to their ideals, and end up helping out the companies that supported them as a means of payback. Thats a bit pedantic as an explanation but its what I meant when using "believe".

Free market? Democracy?

[RobVB]

Where are your ideals now, America?

Re:Free market? Democracy?

[exi1ed0ne]

What? Sorry, I was too busy watching Jack Bauer kick the crap out of terrorists on TV.

Ooooh, IDeals. Is Apple going into the coupon business?

Geese and golden eggs

[5KVGhost]

I have no problem with this. The state of Washington is not $2.8 billion in debt because corporate taxes are too low or because Microsoft makes too much money. The state government is in debt because they insist on spending vastly more money than they actually have available. The state could take every single penny MS owns and they'd soon find themselves back in the exactly the same situation, looking for someone else's money to take.

Creating a hostile environment for employers only encourages them to leave your state and set up shop somewhere else. Like another state where they're not punished for being successful.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

I have no problem with this.

OK - so Microsoft employs how many people in Washington?

Around 40,000, as I recall. Let's give about 30,000 as the number of children and another 20,000 for spouses and significant others. Let's devote around 1300 teachers for those kids, and about 400 administrators for those teachers (up to the state level, and I think I'm being conservative). Let's factor in the infrastructure businesses that exist in Washington whose entire existence is centered around Microsoft.

So, between the load on the roads, the educational system, firefighters, police and other essential services, you're entirely satisfied that Microsoft is giving at least as much as it takes from your state? And that the rank and file employee state taxes fairly offset those for the MS cream of the crop?

You live in Washington, have considered these factors, and still believe that Microsoft is a good corporate neighbor?

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[Dunbal]

giving at least as much as it takes from your state?

      Oh I see. Government financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude is actually the CITIZEN's fault, not the fault of the people actually doing the financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude. I get it now.

      Please remove yourself from the population so that you can do your part to help curb the deficit!

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

Oh I see. Government financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude is actually the CITIZEN's fault, not the fault of the people actually doing the financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude. I get it now.

I'm happy to have given this simple civics lesson - when citizens don't vote, they get what's coming to them.

Please remove yourself from the population so that you can do your part to help curb the deficit!

The times I consider removing myself from the population is more centered around having to live in a world with assholes like you.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[internettoughguy]

No, they need to be setting up a hostile environ for unproductive, rent-seeking monopolists like Microsoft. If they decide they have enough money left over in the budget, all of it should be spent on venture capital.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[internettoughguy]

Oh I see. Government financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude is actually the CITIZEN's fault

Wait, so, first off, you believe a multinational corporation is a "CITIZEN", and you also believe that funding fire, police and education services are government ineptitude. riiight.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[sparky555]

I have no problem with this.

OK - so Microsoft employs how many people in Washington?

Around 40,000, as I recall. Let's give about 30,000 as the number of children and another 20,000 for spouses and significant others. Let's devote around 1300 teachers for those kids, and about 400 administrators for those teachers (up to the state level, and I think I'm being conservative). Let's factor in the infrastructure businesses that exist in Washington whose entire existence is centered around Microsoft.

So, between the load on the roads, the educational system, firefighters, police and other essential services, you're entirely satisfied that Microsoft is giving at least as much as it takes from your state? And that the rank and file employee state taxes fairly offset those for the MS cream of the crop?

You live in Washington, have considered these factors, and still believe that Microsoft is a good corporate neighbor?

Okay, so I'm a Microsoft employee, so factor that in however you want. I'm also a citizen of Washington, and it seems like your argument ignores that. I pay 9.5% sales tax on everything I buy, I sort of pay property taxes (I pay apartment rent, but the landlord takes some of my money and pays property taxes). I pay gas taxes, I pay to register my car, I pay stupidly high liquor taxes. There's no state income tax, so I don't pay that, but a lot of Microsoft employees have pretty expensive houses, so they pay a ton in property tax. Sure, there are more/bigger roads in Redmond than would exist without Microsoft, but as a citizen those are the roads that are most useful to me - isn't that why I pay my gas & vehicle registration taxes?

I don't know anything about this specific tax, and don't want to comment on it. But I'm always confused when I see the argument that Microsoft takes from the state, and that we'd be better off without it. I spend a lot of money in the local economy, pay quite a bit in taxes, etc. If Microsoft left, it'd be a disaster for the economy on the Eastside, and probably all of Seattle.

Your argument about the roads, schools, firefights, police, etc. just doesn't make much sense to me. Microsoft employees are citizens like any other (but since they tend to be pretty well paid, they're going to pay more in taxes), so of course they're going to use state/local resources. I am going to live somewhere, and I'll need roads, firefighters, police, etc, so some state and local government is going to tax me and be responsible for providing those services - because Microsoft employs me here, it's Washington/King Co./Redmond. I don't use the schools, I don't cause a burden to the police, I don't get any assistance from the state. I use the roads, parks and libraries. Like a lot of Microsoft employees, I'm young and have no kids, so I'm not using the schools, but I'm paying for them. I have to think that I pay way more into the system than I get out of it. That's fine, but if Microsoft left I'd probably leave too (I'm not a native Washingtonian, and can't imagine I would have moved to Seattle if not for this job), and from the perspective of state finances I think that'd be a loss for Washington.

Maybe we should kick all employers out of the state. If no one lived here, we wouldn't need any schools/police/firefighters/roads at all. The state budget problems would be solved!

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

My question - that you live in Washington and considered MS a good corporate neighbor, was most sincere and not at all sarcastic in intent.

Even better that you're a Microsoft employee as you're answers could be more to the heart of the matter.

Yes - as in the state in which I reside, I use those roads and services *regardless* of my employer.

But in *almost* every state, *a personal income tax* is one of a puzzle that includes federal revenue, *taxes from state corporations*, sales taxes and so forth.

I admit my ignorance that Washington was a state not collecting income taxes - I thought that was only Alaska, Texas, Florida, Nevada and South Dakota - I see now that should also include Washington and Wyoming.

My bad.

I was honestly asking if you'd felt the balance between corporate and personal income taxes were fair. Not paying income taxes, my question made little sense to you.

I never said that Microsoft didn't contribute to the state nor to the economy.

Personally - I think the whole proposal's whacked, but that's just me. It won't do a lot of good to that 9.5% you're used to, I would guess.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[sparky555]

My question - that you live in Washington and considered MS a good corporate neighbor, was most sincere and not at all sarcastic in intent.

Even better that you're a Microsoft employee as you're answers could be more to the heart of the matter.

Yes - as in the state in which I reside, I use those roads and services *regardless* of my employer.

But in *almost* every state, *a personal income tax* is one of a puzzle that includes federal revenue, *taxes from state corporations*, sales taxes and so forth.

I admit my ignorance that Washington was a state not collecting income taxes - I thought that was only Alaska, Texas, Florida, Nevada and South Dakota - I see now that should also include Washington and Wyoming.

My bad.

I was honestly asking if you'd felt the balance between corporate and personal income taxes were fair. Not paying income taxes, my question made little sense to you.

I never said that Microsoft didn't contribute to the state nor to the economy.

Personally - I think the whole proposal's whacked, but that's just me. It won't do a lot of good to that 9.5% you're used to, I would guess.

I don't really want to start commenting on taxes that my employer does/doesn't/should/shouldn't pay, but to sort of answer your question...If Microsoft was taxed at 100%, they'd move out of the state, and either lay me off or relocate me. In either case, my loss of employment is a loss of a revenue stream to the state. If they're taxed at 0%, my burden of the state budget is higher, but they're more likely to keep employing me, and thus I'm more likely to keep paying. As part of their analysis of cost of living for competetive salaries, Microsoft must factor in how much tax I pay living here (since it impacts the cost of living, which is really high here), so presumably they pay me more than they would if I paid 0% tax to the state, so I'd consider that a somewhat hidden tax. I'm sure there's some tipping point where the state is attractive enough to employ a bunch of people, below which a company would be willing to pay more tax, and above which they'd want to move away.

It's just sort of a gut feeling, but I simply don't imagine raising corporate taxes necessarily impacts the budget situation at a 1:1 ratio. Either my employer pays it (and probably pays me less) or I pay it directly. In any case, it seems like it's in Washington's best interest to keep the state attractive to the high tech companies (Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, Nintendo, Valve, Expedia, etc.) so that they keep all of the tech workers around, who pay way more into the system than a median wage earner.

Things like restaurants, gas stations, etc., would mostly stay around no matter what the tax structure looks like, but for big companies that attract people from all over the world, the barrier to moving seems a lot lower, since their employee pool is global anyway. While it might seem good on the surface to take money from the mega corp, it seems to me like it might be a better idea to tax the crap out of their employees while making it cheap for them to do business. That hurts me, but the state tax rate is unlikely to make me leave since I'm otherwise happy with my situation, and if it keeps a bunch of people like me in the state, it'd probably be a win for state finances.

In any case, the real part that bugged me about your original post was the implication that I'm a drain on the state. I don't know how best to tax corporations, but I know that I'm paying a lot for the services that the state provides.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[10101001 10101001]

The state of Washington is not $2.8 billion in debt because corporate taxes are too low or because Microsoft makes too much money. The state government is in debt because they insist on spending vastly more money than they actually have available.

No one has claimed Microsoft makes too much money. Corporate taxes should not be raised currently because that's bad for the recession. The state government is in debt in part because of the recession, in part because virtually no state is well structured to continue taking in sufficient taxes for programs during a recession, in part because tax payers are unwilling to create a "recession fund" in the event of a recession, and in part because politicians are unwilling to leave alone a "recession fund" seeing as it'd amount to a large amount of money that could be abused for their own political objectives.

Acknowledging all the that, the seeming best course of action would seem to be to cut spending in the short term, have the federal government borrow money to pay for the budget short falls in the short term (they already did that for last year, although it didn't cover all of the budget short falls), having the federal government pay off the effective loan to the states with higher taxes after the recession, and for people to acknowledge that the federal governments powerful ability to borrow money for the whole of the United States is a valuable asset and not simply a huge deficit crisis* (although there is one already, but then that's based heavily on absurd federal level politicians (Democrats and Republicans) who were unwilling to raise taxes in good economic times to actually start paying off the national debt and significantly cut spending (both entitlements and military spending)).

In short, it's been a cluster fuck of tax payers unwilling to pay higher taxes and their elected representatives who will keep raising their spending anyways. All-in-all, I'd say the problem is the citizens.

*This is something Alexander Hamilton (and presumably others before him) realized. For all the complaints about China owning so much of the US's debt, they're clearly now even more committed in the United States succeeding so the US may pay off that debt in the future.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[introspekt.i]

Let's devote around 1300 teachers for those kids, and about 400 administrators

Covered largely by local property taxes.

So, between the load on the roads

User fees.

the educational system

Local taxes and federal taxes also fund this endeavor, can't just blame lack of state funding.

firefighters, police and other essential services

Local taxes fund most of this, again.

you're entirely satisfied that Microsoft is giving at least as much as it takes from your state?

This is a loaded question. If someone were to answer "yes", it would open them up to (intended) ridicule.
I'd have to be with GP. A 2.8 billion dollar state deficit in Washington shows that there's a systemic fiscal responsibility problem with the state's legislation. If tax laws are so easily avoided, or so open to interpretation, then they should be fixed to reflect what the legislature wants. However, going around and saying that Microsoft is on the hook for paying for all of these things that are also largely underwritten by local taxes, well, that doesn't really fly. Even if the state were to get everything it wanted from Microsoft, which may be up for legal debate anyway, it would still be in the hole by billions.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

In any case, the real part that bugged me about your original post was the implication that I'm a drain on the state.

I'm not sure how you inferred that when it wasn't in my heart or psyche to imply it.

Maybe you're a little too thin-skinned and are reading every question as anti-Microsoft. Personally, I found the tax bill proposal to be chock-full of corporate evil - and very typical - and simply asked some cold questions. But it was the representative that put it on the table - not you.

I ran some rough numbers and asked a question about the proportions of taxes. If asking the question is the same as inferring an answer, I can't really be responsible for that. I'm not passive aggressive - when I have a bitch, I come right out with it.

I live within 3 miles of an Intel fab and work in the semiconductor industry myself. If you think I'm clueless about state economies, or that I'm just some tree-hugging corporate hater, you're wrong.

But - I'm not a big corporate lover, either. And I'm way unhappy that we all take that our governments have been bought completely for granted. Because, yes, had not Washington been buyable, they *could* move to a state that was. And that's part of the problem. When you turn a financial model on its ear, you have to turn it all of the way - right down to the point that it's the common voters comprising the work force that influences the local representatives the most. And no more people vote in your state than mine - the original home of Microsoft, where the financial community was very unfriendly to a young Bill Gates because he didn't make old-school sense (in fact - from stories I've heard, he was evidently un-crooked at the time and no one could see how to make money off of him, and therefore found no motivation to help him).

Hope this squares us for you. Seriously - what kind of stress are you under to have that kind of hair trigger?

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[bmajik]

Well, Microsoft bought at least one of the firetrucks in their area -- they were required to in order to get "permission" to build 6 story buildings [bldg 40 and 41, on main campus].

You're also assuming that all of those kids of Microsoft families are going to public schools. Some of them aren't. Or that they're all using roads in their personal cars [many of them aren't -- Microsoft is VERY gung ho about non-single-rider transit and funds a fair bit of it]

I used to live in Redmond. Microsoft money is _everywhere_. Your distaste for corporations and Microsoft in particular have blinded you to the reality of the situation: Microsoft is the economic engine of the entire Redmond econony. Also a sizable share of the greater King county economy.

When I lived there for just 3 short years, I saw brand new libraries, churches, schools, going up all the time, not to mention other for-profit businesses [which btw, create jobs]. I lived on "Education Hill", so named for all of the schools there. That money is coming from somewhere.

Basically, all of the arguments that people _try_ to use for getting pro sports teams to be paid for with public money apply to something like MS, except all of the arguments are true. Unlike a pro sports team, all those zillions of MS employees go to work every day, and are in town 95% of more of the year, and are spending their money in the local economy. Those service and maintenance people that would clean the stadium after "game night" do so multiple times a day 5 days a week eveyr week of the year... and not just for 1 stadium.. but something like 50 office buildings.

And Microsoft isn't using ANY public money or subsidy for this stuff.

[fwiw, i'm against public funding of sports stadiums / teams / etc].

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[Demonspawn]

Oh I see. Government financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude is actually the CITIZEN's fault, not the fault of the people actually doing the financial mismanagement, corruption and ineptitude. I get it now.

They voted for it, didn't they?

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

This is a loaded question. If someone were to answer "yes", it would open them up to (intended) ridicule.

OK - that was beyond my conception. Intel lives within 3 miles of me and I consider them, by their tax breaks, taxes paid, and all other factors, to be giving back as least as much as it takes from our state, New Mexico.

Ridicule away - but seriously, I was shooting more for an even analytical response than as flame-bait, and would have been just as satisfied with a yes answer, or if nothing else, some compelling information that I was missing.

I did NOT know if the OP was a Washington resident in first place (so I asked that), and did not know if my factors had been considered (so I asked that next), and if he was a resident, and if he had considered those options, what the answer would be to: is Microsoft a good corporate neighbor?

Unlike you, I think questions are often just questions.

I didn't say that Microsoft was responsible for everything - and I'm not going to defend against things inferred that I did not imply.

Financial models are non-trivial, but in the end, an economy is simple.

My question was honest - kindly quote it in its full context:

You live in Washington, have considered these factors, and still believe that Microsoft is a good corporate neighbor?

If you want to attack me, why not attack me for the ignorance I was guilty of - that Washington residents don't pay state income taxes - THAT was the (erroneous) basis of my question, and that's what the OP has held me accountable for.

Had I known that, I *still* might have asked a similar question. Or - I might not. Personally, I don't know what I might have done in the past.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

Your distaste for corporations and Microsoft in particular have blinded you...

Fuck off.

You've clearly read nothing of the rest of this exchange. Nowhere did I accuse of Microsoft of not contributing, I simply asked if Microsoft had sufficiently.

My distaste for corporations and Microsoft - especially as an economic powerhouse - is entirely non-existent.

You want a soft target to peddle your superiority, pick somewhere else.

Did I mention: fuck off.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[MaJeStu]

If Microsoft is to be an "incorporated person" then it should pay taxes at the same rate you do. 9.5%, right?

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that Microsoft and its shareholders should profit from their employees use of the public infrastructure (not to mention the direct business uses of the roads; shipping CDs, etc.) without paying for it's upkeep.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[MaJeStu]

And for that matter, do you really have a problem paying for the schools? You really want all the children around you to be both uneducated and completely idle? You want how many otherwise productive people to have to spend all day at home engaged in child care?

Are you nuts?

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

I'm hoping that like myself, you get email notice on replies - I'd like you to note this reply to another part of the exchange:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1550892&cid=31150518

Actually, I know when I'm writing lazy, and I know when I'm writing mad - I tried hard to make my first post to as level and even as I knew how.

Given the poor response, I failed. I'd fail if I'd tried again - I did do my best, that's all I can offer.

But never did I attempt to bait you. If I failed so poorly with my writing skills, then I apologize.

And just to be clear, that I'm not passive aggressive in a way that would bait you:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1550892&cid=31150548

Your original post was one of cynicism - to paraphrase, that even if Washington state politicians could get their mitts on all of MS's money, they'd still need more. I wasn't questioning that - it's too sadly true for every one of the few states I'm familiar with. I wasn't even taking the hard line - I was simply asking if with this proposal if you'd really felt that they'd be paying enough.

I'm branded as being a corporate-hater now. (Fine - life is short and this is just slashdot.) I'm not, though.

I was asking whether your cynicism was just that or if you're a corporate-lover. You're evidently not.

And for what it's worth, Michigan's failed economy came - in my opinion - from over-doing it between corporations and government.

I don't know how best to tax corporations...

If I ever figure that out, I'll write a book, get rich, look you up and cut you in for 15%.

...but I know that I'm paying a lot for the services that the state provides.

Aren't we all, brother, aren't we all!?!

Exactly the point of my question - how much of that is waste, how much is graft, how much is bad legislation, how well does this bill serve you?

If Microsoft is giving enough, they should get more of a break - if not, then not.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[Anonymous Coward]

MS all those employees and all those dependants all pay taxes just like everyone else in the state for those services. Now in addition to that MS will also be paying a fraction of their licensing revenue in tax. Argue all you like that they should pay more, but to claim they don't already pay their share is garbage, they pay more than most companies and provide more benefits to the state than most as well.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[Dunbal]

you believe a multinational corporation is a "CITIZEN"

      Yes, I do.

you also believe that funding fire, police and education services are government ineptitude.

      (Shaking head) OK, every penny spent by your government is spent in the most efficient manner. Government is wiser than all of us.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[Dunbal]

when citizens don't vote, they get what's coming to them.

      Please explain your rationale? Considering the sample size of a vote, it's fair to say that the proportion of votes is going to be similar no matter how many voters you pull at random out of the total. If there were more voters, the election result would probably be the same to within a few decimal places. It's rare that elections are won by a handful of votes - a recent example being George W Bush the first time. But since he won a second term...

      No, it's not voter abstinence that's the problem. Voter abstinence is the SYMPTOM. The problem is that every candidate is as crooked as his opponent. It doesn't matter WHO you vote for. This problem has been known as far back as ancient Greece, and Plato touched on it. Anyone who wants to seek public office de facto is someone who thinks they have something to gain by being elected. It's democracy that's broken at its very core. Then add to this the fact that a great number of people vote for a candidate because of "looks", or "he has a cute wife", or "I'm with party X because my family have always been with party X" or "This candidate's dad was a previous incumbent", etc.

      But sure, be short-sighted and continue to think that you are the ONE TRUE VOTER, and everyone else is against you voting for the "wrong" people all the time. But the real problem lies elsewhere. The real solution is bloodshed. It happens from time to time, and then the game begins again.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[Falconhell]

Surely if the taxes you mention did fund the things you say there would be no deficit?

"A 2.8 billion dollar state deficit in Washington shows that there's a systemic fiscal responsibility problem with the state's legislation"

NO it shows a prblem with their tax rates.

You can either cut services or increase taxes.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

Please explain your rationale? Considering the sample size of a vote, it's fair to say that the proportion of votes is going to be similar no matter how many voters you pull at random out of the total. If there were more voters, the election result would probably be the same to within a few decimal places.

Rationale is simple - voter abstinence is a symptom of voter apathy and apathy is a symptom of political ignorance.

Your argument is cogent and correct if the assumption holds true that with higher voter turnout, there would be no change in that ignorance.

I would argue that higher turnout would be a symptom contrary to apathy.

Today, people look at shenanigans and say, in essence, "See? That's why I don't vote!" - or- the ones that do vote can't get anywhere with a representative because the representative knows that apathy rules; you can't threaten to not vote for a politician when his going in position is that you might not vote next time anyway.

Were there a high turnout, that situation would necessarily change. Instead of "that's why I don't vote" politicians might then care if votes were threatened.

You may go back to Plato for supporting examples of human nature, but more telling is the early American history - or the early history of any country adopting representative government. People jealously guarded and protected the franchise they fought for. It's not straightforward enough to explain by simple example alone.

Bloodshed is almost never the answer to anything except to answer if you want more bloodshed.

Recalling Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Anything further would entail hypotheticals of utopianism, on both our parts.

But sure, be short-sighted and continue to think that you are the ONE TRUE VOTER, and everyone else is against you voting for the "wrong" people all the time.

I could not follow your point there, neither taking it personally, nor rhetorically. Kindly clarify, and if personal, OK, but thanks in advance for telling me how that applied to me or what I said.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[introspekt.i]

I totally agree with correcting tax rates, however I also think that local governments should move to pick up more of the slack. I don't see how it's the state's business to pay for things like firetrucks, municipal police cruisers, or schools (on a day to day basis). So yes, there is a problem with fiscal responsibility, the state is just confused with how much it's supposed to be taking IMO. I think we're arguing the same point, anyway.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[introspekt.i]

Unlike you, I think questions are often just questions.

Ouch that hurts. You don't even know me. I was really just moving to dismiss the question because I thought it was unfair. You clarified your point, and it's a good one.

If you want to attack me, why not attack me for the ignorance I was guilty of

No need to get testy. I only attack points, not people. Judging by the quality of your other comments, I take you for a pretty cool dude.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[JustAClam]

But Sparky, the restaurants, theaters and shops you patronize ALL pay a portion of their gross revenue to the state to support highways, education, courts and prisons, state parks, etc. Microsoft has basically claimed that all that software you build is being manufactured and sold from Nevada because Nevada's tax structure is more advantageous than Washington's for this particular activity. Living in western Washington is part of the Microsoft employment package - how would you feel if everything at work was the same, but you were located in Elko or Tonopah, Nevada? No ocean, no rainforest, mostly no trees, hardly any water, no skiing, and very sparse entertainment possibilities (besides possibly gambling away your salary). Oh, and legalized prostitution....

Microsoft is gaming the rules in a way very similar those who move their investment money to Switzerland in order to avoid paying income taxes. It's dishonest. Microsoft has this wonderful Windows Genuine Advantage (sic) program to keep me playing by their rules, but they don't want to play by mine (I WAS a Washington resident)? I don't think so. How can a business legitimately argue against software piracy when it cheats on it's taxes.

Oh, and to provide full disclosure, I've been a Microsoft stockholder for 20+ years. How much longer is questionable....

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

Fangs back - sincere apologies.

Not a good day - we all have them - please forgive.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[Dunbal]

I could not follow your point there, neither taking it personally, nor rhetorically. Kindly clarify,

      I meant that you obviously hold the view that a democratic system is the best system for you, yet you acknowledge that it has shortcomings. Therefore my assumption is that you believe yourself to be voting "correctly", yet since political corruption exists, the "majority" must be voting different from you and thus "incorrectly". Not a personal attack. I don't do those. However I tend to make points passionately.

Bloodshed is almost never the answer to anything except to answer if you want more bloodshed.

Since we're into clichés and quotes: "The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums." - Koestler

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

I meant that you obviously hold the view that a democratic system is the best system for you, yet you acknowledge that it has shortcomings. Therefore my assumption is that you believe yourself to be voting "correctly", yet since political corruption exists, the "majority" must be voting different from you and thus "incorrectly".

Epic fail that I believe that I'm voting correctly.

I'm merely voting within my best judgement at the moment.

In a democracy, one must exercise the franchise knowing that the majority may not be right, but has the right to rule.

Time is as likely to prove me right as as it is to prove me wrong on any issue or candidate for whom I vote.

If results prove untenable, then civil activism, followed by civil protest, followed by civil disobedience, followed ultimately by vacation or revolution are all political options.

Since we're into clichés...

You started it. In the words of another famous American: neener neener neener.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[sparky555]

I'm hoping that like myself, you get email notice on replies - I'd like you to note this reply to another part of the exchange:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1550892&cid=31150518

Actually, I know when I'm writing lazy, and I know when I'm writing mad - I tried hard to make my first post to as level and even as I knew how.

Given the poor response, I failed. I'd fail if I'd tried again - I did do my best, that's all I can offer.

But never did I attempt to bait you. If I failed so poorly with my writing skills, then I apologize.

And just to be clear, that I'm not passive aggressive in a way that would bait you:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1550892&cid=31150548

Your original post was one of cynicism - to paraphrase, that even if Washington state politicians could get their mitts on all of MS's money, they'd still need more. I wasn't questioning that - it's too sadly true for every one of the few states I'm familiar with. I wasn't even taking the hard line - I was simply asking if with this proposal if you'd really felt that they'd be paying enough.

I'm branded as being a corporate-hater now. (Fine - life is short and this is just slashdot.) I'm not, though.

I was asking whether your cynicism was just that or if you're a corporate-lover. You're evidently not.

And for what it's worth, Michigan's failed economy came - in my opinion - from over-doing it between corporations and government.

I don't know how best to tax corporations...

If I ever figure that out, I'll write a book, get rich, look you up and cut you in for 15%.

...but I know that I'm paying a lot for the services that the state provides.

Aren't we all, brother, aren't we all!?!

Exactly the point of my question - how much of that is waste, how much is graft, how much is bad legislation, how well does this bill serve you?

If Microsoft is giving enough, they should get more of a break - if not, then not.

Eh, I'm not upset - and I really haven't put much thought into how fair or not fair whatever tax Microsoft might or might not pay is.

Around 40,000, as I recall. Let's give about 30,000 as the number of children and another 20,000 for spouses and significant others. Let's devote around 1300 teachers for those kids, and about 400 administrators for those teachers (up to the state level, and I think I'm being conservative)...

So, between the load on the roads, the educational system, firefighters, police and other essential services, you're entirely satisfied that Microsoft is giving at least as much as it takes from your state? And that the rank and file employee state taxes fairly offset those for the MS cream of the crop?

You described the load being created by the 40,000 employees, 30,000 children and 20,000 spouses. The way I read that (whether or not it was what you intended) was that there were 90,000 people who are a drain on the state and local economies. I don't really know how much Microsoft pays to the state in corporate taxes, but I'm pretty certain that those 90,000 (I really have no idea what the actual number is) put a lot of money into the state, and having them there is a net win.

I'm still not going to touch the "do they pay enough" question. I don't really know, and wouldn't normally write online at all about my employer - nothing specific about them, just don't really mix work and personal stuff like that. In any case, I don't really know how well this bill serves me, personally.

My impression of Washington has been that the state has way overextended itself. Maybe its cynical, but I do believe that the state government would take whatever they could get, and then want more from somewhere else. With seemingly no eye towards

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[sparky555]

And for that matter, do you really have a problem paying for the schools? You really want all the children around you to be both uneducated and completely idle? You want how many otherwise productive people to have to spend all day at home engaged in child care? Are you nuts?

No, I don't have a problem paying for the schools. I just don't personally use them (as in, I don't have kids that are being educated by them). I'm pretty happy about my tax dollars going to schools, libraries, parks, universities, the NSF, etc.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[sparky555]

If Microsoft is to be an "incorporated person" then it should pay taxes at the same rate you do. 9.5%, right? It is absolutely absurd to suggest that Microsoft and its shareholders should profit from their employees use of the public infrastructure (not to mention the direct business uses of the roads; shipping CDs, etc.) without paying for it's upkeep.

Well, the 9.5% is a sales tax. They pay property tax. I don't pay any income tax, which seems like what a tax on the revenue is, anyway... I don't know where CDs are manufactured and shipped from, but it's not Redmond. Most of the direct business uses of the roads should just be moving employees around...In any case, isn't that what gas and vehicle registration taxes should be covering?

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[earlymon]

You described the load being created by the 40,000 employees, 30,000 children and 20,000 spouses. The way I read that (whether or not it was what you intended) was that there were 90,000 people who are a drain on the state and local economies.

Ah. Drain not intended. Just a statement of the population size of the dynamics involved, merely one dimension.

With all the problems in the world right now, this one just seems pretty inconsequential.

Perhaps.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[JustNilt]

I totally agree with correcting tax rates, however I also think that local governments should move to pick up more of the slack. I don't see how it's the state's business to pay for things like firetrucks, municipal police cruisers, or schools (on a day to day basis). So yes, there is a problem with fiscal responsibility, the state is just confused with how much it's supposed to be taking IMO. I think we're arguing the same point, anyway.

You might want to read the WA State Constitution.
=====
ARTICLE IX
EDUCATION

SECTION 1 PREAMBLE. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.
=====
While I agree municipalities should kick in enough, the state does have a duty to fund education.

Re:Geese and golden eggs

[introspekt.i]

Done. Happens to me, too. Better days are always ahead.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that money, power or "chosen few" influencing or even controlling government is something new?

Re:The other side

[tsm_sf]

The problem isn't whether companies will make smart business decisions (e.g. moving to friendlier tax areas), it's that this is a highly visible example of "he who has the gold makes the rules".

Everybody knows that wealthy people receive preferential treatment in our society, but nobody likes having their nose rubbed in it. A situation like this one with MS, coming at tax time, just feels like a big middle finger.

Is this a great country or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why intelligent, progressive people all over the world are not thrilled we're trying to convert them to our democratic ways.

Re:$100 million? Shit, The Fed Doesnt need my TAXE

[sanosuke001]

I would love to see the fed allow everyone to write off any necessities (living expenses, school expenses, necessary food purchases) as tax free payments instead of having to pay taxes BEFORE necessary payments are made. Then, I wouldn't mind so much about things like this happening.

Or, get rid of the income tax, increase sales tax, and add a fed sales tax. Necessities wouldn't be taxes, as they are now, so for those of you who say a sales tax-only system would hurt the poor too much, tell them to stop buying things they don't need and they wouldn't have to pay any taxes.

Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[haruchai]

Here's something that must be killed off in every democracy - embedded clauses that have nothing to do with the main bill or its stated purpose.
I've heard that the Credit Card bill that Obama passed contained a clause permitting carrying loaded weapons in national parks.
How does shit like this get justified? Can you even do this with a straight face without being a psychopath?

Several years ago, an attempt was made in the EU to pass legislation that would curb or prohibit the sale of natural health products.
It didn't get through thanks to the veto of the Polish representative - he struck it down because he felt such a provision had no place
in a bill on FISHERIES!!

His is an example that all politicians should follow and those that try the above-mentioned practice should be made a felony with a mandatory
minimum sentence of at least a year with no good behavior or other time credits - you do the full year, no exceptions. If you're sick, too bad - I fully support
you get the necessary healthcare but no matter what, you MUST do 365 days in jail.

If the author of said provision can't be identified, then 5 members of the party that tables the bill will be chosen by straw ballot to do a full year each.

It's well past time to stop the pigs at the trough from fucking with the system.

Re:Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept you are talking about are called 'Riders' and a few places - Minnesota - has amendments to their state constitutions that specifically prohibit 'riders' that don't tie into the main bill in a logical fashion. This is to prevent self-pay raises and other acts of toadyisms attached to 'Mom, Dad, America, and Apple Pie' bills that no one would ever vote against.

Re:Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[haruchai]

Appreciate the info. What protection exists at the federal level?

Re:Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[colinrichardday]

AFAICT, none.

Re:Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[Shimbo]

Here's something that must be killed off in every democracy - embedded clauses that have nothing to do with the main bill or its stated purpose.

It does happen at the EU level, but not so much in the UK, I think. Could someone explain to me why the offending clauses don't just get struck out when the detail of the bill is discussed? Most bills end up significantly different from the original draft - is that not the case in the US?

Re:Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[haruchai]

After the previous post, I looked it up on Wikipedia and it seems that the President can exercise a line-item veto.
Of course that means that someone has to scan the bill to point out the offending riders, which, I imagine, is the job of Congress.
What isn't clear is if the Presidential veto is exercised after the bill is approved.
If it's exercised beforehand, can the submitters attach further riders to a bill that's under review?

Also, I'd heard that the Bush administration had bills where provisions were attached in backroom deals AFTER the bills were passed.
What kind of fucked-up process is that?

Re:Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[colinrichardday]

Are you sure that the US President has a line-item veto? I was pretty sure he didn't.

Re:Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[haruchai]

Don't quote me on this but I vaguely recall that it had been used by Bill Clinton.

Re:Another corrupt practice - does it have a name?

[colinrichardday]

Congress passed such a law in 1996, but it was later ruled unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

Campaign contributions ruling

[plopez]

Now that the US SCOTUS has removed all barriers to corporate campaign contributions, kiss what few rights you had left goodbye. Look for huge amounts of funds funneled into campaigns in the next few months.

There is a move to limit contributions by:
1) Gov't contractors including military contractors,
2) TARP recipients,
3) Corporations with foreign money invested in them,
TARP and other gov't bailout recipients.

But we need to hurry.

Re:Campaign contributions ruling

[Straif]

The recent ruling by SCOTUS (US SCOTUS is a bit redundant isn't it) had NOTHING to do with campaign contributions. All contributors to a campaign are still restricted to the same limits as they were before. For good or bad the ruling simply removed the unconstitutional restrictions on a companies ability to voice their opinions. Meaning if they want, Microsoft can now make an ad directly for Mr. Hunter's re-election bid but they cannot actually give him any more dollars.

And you can debate whether a company has constitutional rights all you want but existing precedent (I believe as far back as the 1800's or further) already gave them the same rights as citizens except for rights that are specifically granted to individuals (the 2nd being a good example of an individual right).

Re:Campaign contributions ruling

[plopez]

If you read up about the precedent, you'll find questions as to whether the actual judgment ever existed. http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2010/01/26/court-ignores-precedent-creates-corporate-monster

scroll down a little. The precedent *never* existed.

BTW, isn't the first amendment a right for an individual?

If corporations have the same rights as individuals, they can now make as many ads as they want in as many venues as they want in direct support of candidates. Fox broadcasting, as an example, owns radio stations, newspapers and TV stations. They can now directly support their candidates. The person with the loudest megaphone wins.

And the old straw man argument "well wouldn't limiting free speech of corporations limit the speech of their stockholders free speech?"

No, there are these things called "political parties". Individuals are free to join them to voice their opinion and support candidates. In fact, the way CEOs and boards of directors run roughshod over the will of the stockholders I would say the stockholders have been stripped of rights.

Re:Campaign contributions ruling

[Straif]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The only mention of individual rights is the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. The restrictions placed on the government about religion, free speech and the press make no mention of individuals and are blanket restrictions placed on congress.

And if you want to complain about how CEO's spend company money you might want to consider that stockholders are voluntary members of the company. The stockholders can exercise their rights by complaining to the board or if that fails, making the choice to either continuing to invest in the company or selling their stocks and investing elsewhere. If they continue to invest then they are in affect condoning the actions of the CEO and the board.

Your description of a loss of rights seems more fitting with Unions than corporations. Unions, who were free from many of the political restrictions placed on companies prior to this ruling, usually have membership as a requirement for working at a unionized workplace. In that regard Unions are not truly voluntary. Most workers have little or no choice than to actually fund, through their dues, the political activities the union board decides upon with no ability to prevent it. In that case their only way out is to quit their job as opposed to sell off a few stocks.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Maxo-Texas]

If enough people do not believe the system is fair, it will end violently.

It absolutely depends on belief-- partially belief that was brainwashed into us from the time we were in 1st grade and partially belief from propaganda constantly delivered by all the media sources ( "liberal", "conservative" -- no real difference- all are owned by extremely wealthy individuals and corporations and serve the same brainwashing crap).

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Alex Belits]

No, but pretending that "chosen few" are not really in power is something relatively recent (18 century recent, to be exact).

Power corrupts

[HikingStick]

Power corrupts.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Big money translates to big power.

Billions and billions of dollars of influence will make any politician paint on a smile, disrobe, bend over, keep smiling, and say "Is there anything else I can do for y'all?"

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy doesn't benefit from belief? What about all the people who don't think their vote counts and don't vote, or perhaps even worse, just vote for someone whose ad they saw on TV?

Not to mention the need for government that the people can believe in. If enough people think that the government is not representing us, well you don't need to look farther than our own founding for what happens then.

Re:The other side

[0100010001010011]

Illinois is set to become the next California. This post points out that Cali gave huge breaks to tech companies.

Giving 'tax breaks' doesn't seem to be sustainable long term for states.

Seriously, this entire state is one huge cluster fuck dictated by a single geographical area. It needs to be roped off, along with Gary, and made its own state.

Amnesty??

[CrimsonAvenger]

possible amnesty on its $1.27 billion Nevada tax maneuverings.

So, Washington is proposing that Microsoft get amnesty on a completely legal activity (yes, the Nevada activities are completely legal)? And here I thought we usually gave amnesties for criminal acts, not legal acts.

Note, by the way, that NOT giving them amnesty on their perfectly legal past activities amounts to an ex post facto law - which is perfectly unconstitutional....

Re:Hardly Surprising

[lord_rotorooter]

They should then be required to where corporate logos on their suits just like they do in NASCAR...

Ummm.. No.

[way2trivial]

except for certain large capital purchases that must be depreciated over a number of years

expenses made in the course of business are fully deductible in tax calculation

if you buy 1000 worth of wood, and sell the item for 1100, you are taxed on the 100.

you are just wrong.

http://www.business.gov/finance/taxes/business-income/tax-deductions.html

Business expenses are the cost of conducting a trade or business. These expenses are common costs of doing business, and are usually tax deductible if your business is for profit. For example, costs of renting a storefront, business travel, and paying employees are all deductible business expenses.

Re:Ummm.. No.

[Maxo-Texas]

Okay... it sounds like you are saying gross income and net income are the same then?

So what are some ways that gross income and net income differ if not due to costs (as in my simplistic example)?

Re:Ummm.. No.

[Maxo-Texas]

Okay, so I dug here and got these definitions...

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netincome.asp

What Does Net Income - NI Mean?
1. A company's total earnings (or profit). Net income is calculated by taking revenues and adjusting for the cost of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses. This number is found on a company's income statement and is an important measure of how profitable the company is over a period of time. The measure is also used to calculate earnings per share.

Often referred to as "the bottom line" since net income is listed at the bottom of the income statement. In the U.K., net income is known as "profit attributable to shareholders".

What Does Gross Income Mean?
2. A company's revenue minus cost of goods sold. Also called "gross margin" and "gross profit".

---

I find these two definitions a bit confusing. However, it looks like it is :

Gross Sales
Less Material Costs =
Gross Profits
Less all other costs =
Net Profits

---
So using my incorrect example above...
Gross profits of $100 ($1100 gross sales - $1000 material costs)
Gross profits less all other costs (rent? wages? interest, taxes, etc.) = Net profits. (so say $90 of non material costs = $10 net profits)

Here the tax on gross profits of .5% would be 5% of the net profits.

(If there were no costs except material costs, it would be .5%).

Re:Ummm.. No.

[way2trivial]

I'll go with #1, but that definition of gross income (#2) is by my opinion very flawed as well
gross income is everything that comes in- with no deductions
in checking,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_income

IRS rules exclude a very few items from their narrow definition of gross income.
see the wikipedia link for more

Re:Ummm.. No.

[Jane Q. Public]

if you buy 1000 worth of wood, and sell the item for 1100, you are taxed on the 100.

you are just wrong.

No, YOU are the one who is wrong. Go read that again. This is NOT an income tax! It's called a B&O tax, and it is on gross revenue, not on net profit. So your expenses are not deductible, nor depreciated assets, etc. It is a tax on the money coming in the door. Period.

The advantages of a B&O tax for the state is that it is not subject to the restrictions (including Federal) that are placed on either sales taxes or income taxes. And yes, it has been challenged in court, more than once, and it's still there.

Re:Ummm.. No.

[boskone]

No. You are discusing a normal corporate income tax which taxes PROFIT (Sale Price - Cost). This is how federal and most state corporate income taxes work.

Washington's B&O Tax is on total sales. So if you sell $1000 worht of stuff, even if you paid $2000 for it, you owe them 0.484% of $1000.

It actually is harder on low margin businesses than high margin businesses.

Re:Ummm.. No.

[Maxo-Texas]

I don't know... reading the wiki article you linked it seems very similar:
The example in the wiki seems to support the #2 above.

An undeniable accession to wealth requires an inflow of cash, noncash property, services, or other satisfaction in excess of the initial capital invested. For example, if David purchases a suitcase for $300 in October and sells it in November for $400, he has gross income of $100 (the $400 received minus his $300 basis).

It gets goofy when labor is involved tho (if you help me build a fence and you are a fence builder and I help you with your taxes and I'm an accountant, the IRS counts that as gross income for both of us at the bottom of the article).

They (thank god) at least do not seem to be saying David had 30 days use of the suitcase so he also profited from that. It calls to mind the old joke "how much did you make... send it in."

Re:Ummm.. No.

[Maxo-Texas]

To be fair, I probably misled him by using the wrong word (gross tax).

I didn't know it was called a B&O tax but had picked up it was on gross sales (not gross income).

It sounds really heinous. It sounds like it could take all of your profits if your margins were low enough and your gross sales were high enough.

Re:Ummm.. No.

[JustNilt]

Sorry but you are absolutely WRONG on this. B&O tax allows no deductions of any kind for expenses. See Washington State's DoR FAQ on this.

Re:Ummm.. No.

[Jane Q. Public]

That is one of the best arguments against it: different businesses with the same revenue but different profit margins might pay vastly different amounts of tax.

But again, the courts have heard all these arguments before, and it hasn't budged the tax. I, personally, do not think it's fair, but what I think wasn't an issue I suppose when they made the tax.

Re:The other side

[MarcQuadra]

That practice needs to stop!

It's a race to the bottom, with states bidding against each other. If your state isn't business-friendly, making a tax-exception for a single business -seems- like a good idea, but your neighbors just end up doing the same. The answer isn't to hand out band-aid exemptions to certain businesses, but to not cut them in the first place.

Revolution

[Cornwallis]

This is the kind of shit that is going to be responsible for blood in the streets. Like this year.

After reading about the crap that Goldman-Sachs pulled in Greece I'm all in favor now of violent overthrow of the gubmint.

Re:Revolution

[Leebert]

This is the kind of shit that is going to be responsible for blood in the streets. Like this year.

Oh, give me a break. The same people who can't be bothered to vote intelligently, which would immediately fix most every problem in our country, are suddenly going to rise up in arms against the very government they just elected, and which they could remove non-violently by simply electing someone else?

Nonsense.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[maxume]

Why are we electing people who bother paying back the people that supposedly paid to put them in office?

There aren't any legal consequences if you take some election funds and then screw those people over, you just don't get reelected (or maybe you do...).

Banks: too big to fail

[NotBornYesterday]

Microsoft: too big to tax?

Being Punished for Being Successful!!!

[mpapet]

Parent marries two flawed ideas that don't belong together and then somehow calls this a justification.

1. Local Government is somehow a spendthrift. This is a Sarah Palin explanation. The people with little comprehension of what their government does whip this explanation out to beat down their enemies. My civics class from grammar school taught me that local government provides public services and infrastructure. You know those awful spendthrifts just wasting our taxes on roads, and sewage systems... Let's do away with law enforcement. Courts too. People that use this kind of thinking have one goal, a return of the truck system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_system

2. Parent makes the leap that a high-tax environment is somehow hostile to business. The goal of the comment is to make the Corporate Welfare State as big as possible. Shift the entire tax burden away from the corporation to the employee. (not the Owner of the business, the employee)

It is much more expensive, and almost impossible for Microsoft to leave. This is true with any giant-sized super-mega corp. facility. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying it happens nowhere near the level of fear the remark generates. The goal behind the fear mongering is to complete the Corporate Welfare State.

Re:Being Punished for Being Successful!!!

[LynnwoodRooster]

Parent marries two flawed ideas that don't belong together and then somehow calls this a justification.

1. Local Government is somehow a spendthrift. This is a Sarah Palin explanation. The people with little comprehension of what their government does whip this explanation out to beat down their enemies. My civics class from grammar school taught me that local government provides public services and infrastructure. You know those awful spendthrifts just wasting our taxes on roads, and sewage systems... Let's do away with law enforcement. Courts too. People that use this kind of thinking have one goal, a return of the truck system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_system

In the last 5 years, the State budget has exploded by 40%. Governor Christine Gregoire expanded the budget by 33% in her first 4 year term, and has kept on this pace for her current term (re-elected for her second term in November 2008).

As the grandparent posted, in this case it IS the State living way outside their means, exploding spending completely out-of-whack with the economy and people of the State of Washington. We've blown through a billion dollar rainy-day fund, raided State pension funds for several billion dollars, spent every penny of the $4 billion tobacco settlement, and it's still not enough. It IS the spending, not the tax breaks to Microsoft...

Re:Hardly Surprising

[orient]

Up here it still is a lillte bit better. But, not for long, if Harper stays in power.

See this?

[Korrente]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:See this?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is why Washington is hunting tax exiles and anyone who has the nerve to protect their money by storing it where the currency remains strong and stable (it's a myth that every dollar held abroad is undeclared from taxation).

By going after some people they will get the voter sympathy, without fixing the problem that allows party funding to continue.

If the government would go for real after companies like Microsoft, Oracle et al, every SINGLE company paying the tax it should pay would probably fund healthcare for all with money to spare. It would be particularly interesting to tax those companies that got fat off the various wars. One of the best military forces in the world has been misused (and good soldiers killed) to make a few very, very rich, and I think that money should be clawed back. It is, after all, TAX money.

But hey, that would be honest. Ain't gonna happen..

Not taxed on gross income

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, first you compute an Adjusted Gross Income, which is your gross income less a number of adjustments such as moving expenses, employee business expenses, payments to an individual retirement account (IRA) or Keogh plan, penalties on early withdrawal of savings, alimony paid, certain student loan interest. There's a standard personal exemption, which further reduces taxable income. Then you take deductions, either a standard deductions or itemized, where itemized deductions allow you to avoid paying some or all tax for expenses related to medical expenses, state and local taxes paid, mortgage interest, investment interest, charitable contributions, casualty and theft losses, gambling losses, job-related clothing or equipment, union dues, unreimbursed work-related expenses, fees paid to tax preparers, subscriptions to newspapers or other periodicals directly relating to your job.

So to say you're taxed on gross income is gross misstatement, excepting perhaps FICA taxes.

Re:The other side

[MrHanky]

Great idea. You may want to take a look at the economy of The Republic of Ireland, Iceland, Romania and a few others before considering it. (Spoiler: it tends to fail spectacularly.)

Re:The other side

[im_thatoneguy]

That would make more sense if Washington actually had income taxes.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Demonspawn]

Democracy is really just a "pretty" form of anarchy.

Anarchy is mob rule on a local level.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.

In either case, the ones with the biggest sticks (violence, money, whatever) get what they want.

Queue: "But we're a representative republic!" No, we aren't. Universal suffrage = democracy.

microsofttaxdodge.com?

[harlows_monkeys]

No way a site called microsofttaxdodge.com would be biased, right?

It's quite common for companies to structure transactions so that they are taxed in a jurisdiction with a low tax rate. Just as Microsoft is doing with Nevada, Google does with Ireland to save on UK taxes. Microsoft also uses Ireland for European stuff, as does, I believe Apple. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

There's nothing shady about it. All of those companies are international companies with a presence in many different jurisdictions.

Re:The other side

[westlake]

After all, these businesses bring in major direct (income taxes) and indrect revenue (local employees' property taxes, sales taxes etc) to the state. Nine years ago, Boeing ditched Seattle and moved to Chicago partly because of tax breaks offered by Chicago.

40,000 employees.

15 million square feet of office space - 133 sites - owned or leased in the Puget Sound area. Fun Facts About Microsoft

The median family income in Redmond itself? $97,000.

There isn't a city in the world that wouldn't like to land a prize like this.

Re:The other side

[Demonspawn]

Giving 'tax breaks' doesn't seem to be sustainable long term for states.

It's sustainable as long as the voters don't vote themselves enough "gifts" from other people's money to the point where the state can no longer afford to give tax breaks to attract business/wealthy individuals.

Unfortunately, "Take some damn responsibility for yourself" buys less votes than "I'll give you more gifts from the public treasury!"

The Tea Party should adopt a new slogan: "No representation without taxation" Honestly, if you're not paying for the government you vote for, do you deserve to influence it's direction?

It's called standard exemptions

[Anonymous Coward]

and standard deductions.

So sayeth wikipedia:

When Congress enacted Section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code, it did so believing that a certain level of income, “personal exemptions”, should not be subject to the federal income tax. Congress reasoned that the level of income insulated from taxation under 151 should roughly correspond to the minimal amount of money someone would need to get by at a subsistence level (i.e., enough money for food, clothes, shelter, etc.).

The amount listed in 151 (see below), even adjusted for inflation, may seem inadequate for a taxpayer to subsist on. It is important to remember however, that in addition to personal exemptions, taxpayers may claim other deductions that further reduce the level of gross income subject to taxation.

Generally speaking, taxpayers may claim a personal exemption for themselves, 151(b), and their qualifying dependents, 151(c). A personal exemption may also be claimed for a spouse if (1) the couple files separately, (2) the spouse has no gross income, and (3) the spouse is not the dependent of another, 151(b). For taxpayers filing a joint return with their spouse, the IRS Regulations allow two personal exemptions as well, 1.151-1(b).

In computing their taxable income, taxpayers may claim all personal exemptions they are eligible for under 151, and deduct that amount from their adjusted gross income. The size of the personal exemption a taxpayer may take each year is adjusted for inflation.

Re:It's called standard exemptions

[sanosuke001]

So the $5700 I can deduct is supposed to cover all necessary expenses I incur? I don't see how that could cover living expenses anywhere in the United States.

Also, shouldn't student loans be deductible (I know the interest you pay is)? I might be a bit biased since I have student loans, but I do feel helping current and future generations to afford a decent education should be a higher priority than giving multinational corporations tax breaks.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough people do not believe the system is fair enough, it may end violently if the powers that be cannot convince a sizable proportion of the people that any any action against said powers is the act of terrorists and another sizable proportion of the people don't remain apathetic.

The real world and welcome to it.

[westlake]

Right. Because the income dealings of a non-profit corporation are really just so shrouded in secrecy, loopholes and backroom deals.

It happens.

New York has its own brand of mischief that's more lethal than other states," says Ken Boehm of the National Legal and Policy Center. "When millions of dollars are being sent to non-existent organizations, clearly there's a problem."

Unlike every other state, New York allows legislators to set up their own non-profits and then steer taxpayer money to those same organizations. So, as will happen, many state and city lawmakers have done just that. "Like DC," Boehm says, "New York allows earmarks cloaked in secrecy."

As of 2008 -- the last year for which records are available -- each City Council member has been allocated about $340,000 per year to spend at their own discretion. Quite often, a lot of that money winds up at non-profit organizations run by people very close to the legislator who is dispensing those funds. And the dispersal is very hard to track; non-profit organizations file tax forms called 990s, which are self-reported. What New York's political scandals have in common [Feb 14]

Re:$100 million? Shit, The Fed Doesnt need my TAXE

[Anonymous Coward]

sales taxes are only fair if buying and selling interest bearing instruments are taxed as products

Re:The other side

[CodeBuster]

After all, these businesses bring in major direct (income taxes)

The State of Washington, where Microsoft headquarters is located in Redmond, has no state income tax

Re:$100 million? Shit, The Fed Doesnt need my TAXE

[bmk67]

This is completely idiotic. You do realize that if you put a 9.5% tax (for example) on an interest-bearing instrument that pays 2%, that only an imbecile would buy such a thing. Right?

red and blue

[zogger]

You are seeing the red state/blue state sort-of lie. We don't really have that division as much as we have red areas, primarily rural and suburban, and blue areas, primarily major metropolitan areas. You can see it on the larger election maps, most fixate on the entire statewide breakdown and how the vote went in total there, but if you look at it state by state by state, the same red/blue split shows up, and it is primarily urban versus "other".

    So what happens is the metro areas in most of the states dominate politics, they have the edge in population a little bit, in most states now, and institute policies and laws that never really fit their *entire* respective states. What you said about Illinois and Chicago is true facts, the same applies to like NYC and the rest of NY, or here where I am, Atlanta versus the rest of the state.

Here is an interesting site that breaks this political split down more with various maps and corrected projections. It is quite interesting and there are links to more detailed analysis. The gist of it is, in the big elections and the general political pull of the nation, it is urban versus everyone else all the time. It fluctuates a little bit, but not much really.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

The quickest way to see it on that page is first look at the normal state by state red/blue split (this is a look at the 2008 election), then scroll down to the first "Election results by county" map. The differences are very easy to see there and profoundly obvious.

Causes all sorts of problems all the time, and will continue to do so. And it isn't fair either way you look at it, from either perspective. There really needs to be a different political arrangement, so the major urban areas can have various laws that fit them much better, but without insisting on the same exact laws in the rural areas, and vice versa. As in maybe drop the notion of the political boundaries we have now and switch to what the boundaries really are, smallish city-states and huge "other than that" states as separate political entities.

    We have federal and state governments that keep trying to hammer square pegs into round holes and it just doesn't work very well, there is no real compromise even possible that would work and be more acceptable to all concerned.

    And it's not like this wasn't anticipated back at the beginning of our Union, this was the original idea with having both senators and representatives, instead of just representatives...That fix didn't last long, primarily I think because they didn't think it through far enough ahead in time to the point where there would be so many multi million person large cities, inside virtually every state in the nation. They thought it would remain like less populated states versus more populated, not realizing the political split would fall inside every single state for the same reasons, that urban realities are just different from the rural and suburban.

Re:red and blue

[scotch]

There's this core assumption in your post that geographical areas are somehow important independent of the people that live there, that somehow a person occupying 100 square miles is more important that a person occupying 1/10th of an acre. Land without people is just land. People without land are still people.

Re:red and blue

[lewiscr]

One example of laws that do should be geographical is auto emissions.

I live in SoCal, and I love the strict emissions laws. The air quality gets better every year. But those strict emissions laws should not apply to the guy living out in the middle of the desert, or the Illinois farmer living in the middle of a field.

But because that farmer lives in the same state as Chicago, because that desert dweller lives in the same State as 3 of the top 10 largest cities in America, they both have to follow the higher emissions standards. Why should the farmer in southern Illinois (~200 miles away from Chicago) have to, when the farmer in Northern Indiana (~50 miles away from Chicago) doesn't?

Republicans?

[roc97007]

This story gets tagged "republicans"? Washington State is Democrat controlled.

Re:Republicans?

[nedlohs]

Because people can tag it however the hell they want.

Re:The other side

[Falconhell]

"if you're not paying for the government you vote for, do you deserve to influence it's direction?"

What a good idea, in fact you could set it up so the more tax you pay the more of a vote you have.

The rich deserve to rule us after all!

Who says the government can 't do things right?

[ClosedSource]

1. Accept money from MS competitors
2. Investigate MS
3. Take MS to court and win
4. MS has an epiphany
5. Accept money from MS
6. Profit!

Re:The other side

[Demonspawn]

What a good idea, in fact you could set it up so the more tax you pay the more of a vote you have.

That's not necessary. Just make it so if you don't pay a certain level of taxes, you don't get to vote. Or else institute a flat-tax so everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. Flat tax is fine with me, even if the poor will pay "less", because at least then when they vote for social programs it will hit their own pocketbooks as well.

The rich deserve to rule us after all!

The poor don't deserve to rob me at government's gunpoint. The bottom 50% don't pay any income taxes. The top 5% pay 30% of income taxes. The current progressive tax system is little more than legalized robbery where the poor get to turn the government into Robin Hood in order to fund programs to support them because they don't want to support themselves.

WA is screwed because of Olympia, NOT Microsoft...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Seriously, in the last 5 years State spending has grown by 40%. The State's shortfall isn't from giving Microsoft or other mega-employers (those who employ 100,000+ in the State) tax breaks; it's from growing spending at an insane rate way beyond inflation plus population growth PLUS state GDP growth.

.
But class warfare is always a good way for the politicians to shirk their responsibility for the financial meltdown of WA State... Blame the MegaCorps, not the budget-busting increases we've seen over the last 5 years...

What's surprising.

[Eskarel]

States do this all the time.

The long and the short of it is most likely a threat from Microsoft to move. They don't have to stay in Redmond, it would be expensive for them to move, and inconvenient, but not by any stretch of the imagination impossible. I mean half of 1% isn't exactly high, but on 70 billion dollars it's still 280 million a year, and it wouldn't take all that long for that to pay for the costs of relocation.

In all likelihood Microsoft went to the Washington State government and made the point that the tax benefits from Microsoft staying in Redmond were greater than the revenue generated from this tax, which they wouldn't have if Microsoft moved to a state which didn't have this royalties tax(of which there are plenty).

States quite often give tax breaks to large companies in order to have their corporate headquarters located in that state. Microsoft hires an awful lot of people on high salaries who then pay state income tax, buy products and pay state sales tax, buy homes and pay local property tax. Those purchases pay other peoples wages who also pay tax. Add in all the other kinds of tax Microsoft would pay(Washington is not a zero corporate tax state) and they bring in a lot more than 280 million dollars for the state.

Re:The other side

[b4dc0d3r]

Call their bluff. You'll lose a few, but most companies won't change headquarters too many times. What you're suggesting means everyone gives in when the company threatens to throw a temper tantrum. The logical end of that is zero corporate taxes, hoping to make revenue from the payroll taxes of the employees.

So you're going to have to pick a side, zero taxes or call their bluff. Otherwise you're giving in and hoping someone else doesn't, wind up being the only state with taxes.

Re:The other side

[pseudofrog]

Oh please. While the cost of living has been rising over the past five decades, real wages have been stagnant -- our middle class is dying because our government has neglected necessary social structures that don't build themselves outside of government control or encouragement.

The idea that the "poor" lobby has any power whatsoever is laughable. You Robin Hood scenario is as baseless as the existence of a vast class of "welfare queens".

Is United States of America, Mexico now?

[Kyusaku Natsume]

I wasn't aware that Mexico already annexed the United States of America.

Here this type of deals are very common. In fact, the majority of largest local and foreign corporations in Mexico pay after tax credits, tax cuts and deductions around USD$6.5 of income tax every year, I repeat: USD$6.5 of income tax every year. How much the working /.ter pays now?

Meanwhile, the shrinking middle class pays 28% income taxes, 16% VAT and, to add insult to injury, a 2% tax on bank deposits if they go over USD$1,100 monthly. This inequity is one of the main reasons that the country is currently a fucking hell hole that makes people prefer to die in Arizona's desert than to risk to spend the rest of their lives in this miserable place. If americans don't act now your country will become like ours really soon.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[demonlapin]

You're concerned about corporate influence in elections? What about unions, and nonprofits, and all the other groups out there? What about media companies, which always get to publish what they want?

Democracy has a lot of problems, especially with rent-seeking and regulatory capture. Keeping everything except media companies from making political commentary doesn't keep the money out of politics, it just grants extraordinary power to the media companies.

Re:The other side

[demonlapin]

While interesting for this specific case, does this really change the broader point? Parent didn't mention how MS pays property tax on all its corporate land and buildings.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[newcastlejon]

Don't worry, most people rebel against the man in college. Unfortunately only very few keep on doing it.

If you think this is bad...

[QuietLagoon]

just wait until you see how many politicians are purchased by corporations as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision that allows unlimited donations by corporations (US and global) to campaigns of politicians. The bidding for tax breaks starts at $10million per campaign contribution.

Getting taxed on profit

[HydroPhonic]

would result in "Hollywood accounting" taxation.

Re:$100 million? Shit, The Fed Doesnt need my TAXE

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see the fed allow everyone to write off any necessities (living expenses, school expenses, necessary food purchases) as tax free payments instead of having to pay taxes BEFORE necessary payments are made. Then, I wouldn't mind so much about things like this happening.

In theory, this is the purpose of the standard deduction. In practice, it hasn't kept pace with inflation, but that's another matter.

Re:The other side

[Anonymous Coward]

*Whoosh*- Sarcasm is wasted on those to stupid, or in your case self centred to notice.

Re:The other side

[that this is not und]

You can wave your hands around and chant all you like.

The bottom 50% of the population still don't pay any taxes at all.

I don't understand how you can make that claim about the reason 'our middle class is dying.' Seems like more hand waving to me. Oh, I'm sure there are 'cultural studies' 'scientists' somewhere who've published a study you can cite...

Re:The other side

[Falconhell]

*WHOOOSH*

I was logically extending your proposition, I am amazed that anyone would actually take that seriously.

I guess I should never underestimate just how naive and revolting libertarians atttiudes can be.

Re:The other side

[Demonspawn]

our middle class is dying because our government has neglected necessary social structures that don't build themselves outside of government control or encouragement.

Our middle class is dying because our government, measured as a percentage of GNP, has gone from 3% (1776 to 1920) to nearly 40% today. The middle class is being crushed by the amount of taxes they have to pay to support the government the poor have voted into place. Either they make it, and move up to the rich, or are crushed and fall into the poor.

The idea that the "poor" lobby has any power whatsoever is laughable.

The idea that a 50% voting block that votes as a block (More for me!) has no power is laughable.

You Robin Hood scenario is as baseless as the existence of a vast class of "welfare queens".

Strange that you would pick "welfare queens" because it IS the woman's vote that has turned our government from "We'll let you take care of yourself" to "We'll force you to take care of everyone!"

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html <---- the US example.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/ <----Swizerland (women's suffrage in 1971).

Want to increase your take-home pay by 35%? Repeal the 19th Amendment.

It's the jobs, stupid!

[dirkdodgers]

Microsoft is Washington's 3rd largest employer, behind only the university and the Seattle international.

Washington can:
a) take money from successful companies and redistributing it to less productive members of society
b) take and redistributing it according to the whims and interests of politicians who think they can make better investment decisions than a successful company like Microsoft
c) let Microsoft keep the money it earned to create jobs and increase wages,

I will take (c) every time. It's not a difficult decision if you aren't living on the government dole.

I doubt, however, that Washington will see it that way. There's a reason Washington's economy is in the crapper.

Re:$100 million? Shit, The Fed Doesnt need my TAXE

[sanosuke001]

Yes, when the standard deduction of $5700 I get is in line with actuality, it might be understandable. But it isn't.

Re:The other side

[pseudofrog]

The bottom fraction don't pay taxes because they make so little above what they _have_ to spend to survive. Wages simply haven't kept pace with the cost of living. You seem to imply that the poor have a lobby that has screwed over the higher classes. Absolutely absurd.

You can use 'air quotes' to discredit research since anti-intellectualism is rather popular these days, but data is useful in economics. Here's someone who found some very compelling evidence for the commonly accepted premise that the middle class is disappearing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Google it.

[zippthorne]

Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_building

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The other side

[mesterha]

The bottom 50% of the population still don't pay any taxes at all.

Any references for this? Make sure it includes payroll and sales taxes. Also remember that many payroll taxes are effectively doubled since the employer matches the amount.

Those jobs are not for Americans

[walterbyrd]

Just in the last year, Microsoft has laid off thousands of Americans, and hired thousands of Indian guest workers. Microsoft is also offshoring jobs to India as fast as they possibly can.

wait, what?

[Nyder]

Let me get this correct.

MS is a huge ass company, and it's making money, so it gets a tax break?

Oil companies, during a time with demand for oil was high, and it seem the oil in the market was low, breaks in record profits, and nothing happens.

Banks do bad, lose everyones money, and gets bailed out. (I like it this way: The banks parents said we are going out of town, don't have a party, and your watching yourself for the next 2 days. parents come home to a burnt down house, kids get a new car. Or my favorite: Junkie spends rent on drugs, and you give the junkie more rent money)

k, i'm not like an expert in most anything, but common sense tells me this is called our goverment is enabling corporations to be not responsible.

Granted I can't stand MS, so maybe everything i say about them is biased, but since I live in Washington State, and MS, who is based here, has their corporation out of arizona or somewhere too hot for me to like, so they don't even pay taxes to our state like they should.

The problem is, we have a very irresponsible government, and it's getting time that we, the people, punish it.

PSA

[Anonymous Coward]

We are the state of Washington and we would like all the tech companies to know this important fact:

We swallow.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough people do not believe the system is fair, it will end violently.

You remind me of my H.S. English teacher of leftist leanings. He said that if we didn't have welfare, the minorities that live in the city would riot, "and you don't want that do you?". Wish I was older then as the answer is, "The fuck if I care!". This conversation was an 'aside' as we had many minorities at the school. I don't believe bribing people into behavior works. Also, I doubt the thing avoiding violence is a belief the system is fair. Who the fuck is dumb enough to think that? You?

It reminds me of the fellow atheist who said people weren't ready for atheism. I was, she was. Who isn't ready and why should we care?

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

We in the U.S. are too fat to be violent.

Re:The other side

[tyrione]

Washington State is the 26th out of 50 states for business taxes. Bill Gates and his company can be my guest and get the hell out of Dodge. They don't contribute squat outside of a 50 mile radius to Washington state. They've skated out of paying for overpass projects and connecting paths to their main campus and branch campus to the tune of several hundred million. They can kiss my ass.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Genda]

Actually we (The United States) are not a Democracy (the closest thing we have, that comes close to it are New England Town-hall Meetings.) Instead we have a representative republic, whose underlying ideal is that everyone get's represented, and that representatives, (wo)men of education and wisdom, manage the gap between mob rule, and sane, prudent and morally just government. As well, our founding fathers in their great wisdom, built a form of government that should have been well hamstrung by checks and balances. The belief being, that this would keep power-hungry monomaniacs from attempting coups.

The problem is, that in the first half of the nineteenth century, a bunch of power hungry, greedy, industrialists, ramrodded laws through our government, creating a new entity, with for all intents and purposes, all the rights and powers of a human being (and our Supreme court just decided this entity has full first amendment rights including the unabridged right to give as much money to politician as sanity or the lack thereof will allow), however, this entity could live virtually forever, amass endless billions of dollars, use that money to fundamentally alter laws, governments, even the fundamental ways that people can raise their children, manage their lives and communicate with one another. That entity is "The Corporation".

Ever since that one decision, we've been struggling to manage the rights of human beings, vs. the rights of businesses to impact human beings. To date, we've done a pretty poor job creating a society that is conducive to the advancement of people. When the nerds among us are inspired by utopian societies portrayed by the likes of "StarTrek", what's present for us, is a society that ultimate put's people first, and human enterprise (pun intended) second. Until we do this, we cannot simply claim to be a civilized society.

A useful first step would be to separate Corporation and State in much the same way we should separate Church and State, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Government giving tax breaks to encourage business

[Anonymous Coward]

This has never happened before!

Microsoft is evil, etc.

Re:The other side

[gtall]

Uh, Gary's in Indiana, not Illinois. And Gary isn't dictating policy to Indiana. Gary is poor, they lost most of their industry when the steel mills shut down.

Roadmap to Failure - Microsoft a drop in the ocean

[Anonymous Coward]

This country better get it's head out of it's ass, and start deploying common sense.

While a lot of people reading will probably blame Microsoft, we should be shutting down DC in protest on other issues.
If you want to bitch at microsoft, try getting IE patched up or make it removable!
Microsoft's 100 billion tax loophole (hedge) ain't nothing compared to $65 Trillion damage these banks, mortgage people, and oath breaking termites in our Senate who are supposed to be regulating them have gotten away with and indeed are still getting away with.

The problem here is there's no COPS, and the laws change from day to day.
Microsoft's 100 billion tax loophole ain't nothing compared to 65 Trillion damage these banks, mortgage people, and oath breaking termites in our Senate have gotten away with, or pretend to exist in some secret vault which no citizen may check on. It's all classified it's so dangerous. It's no wonder the markets are unstable, trust is completely vaporized. What's next a false flag at the olympics or false flagged up with an underwear bomber who someone (sic) let on the plane (Oft called the "Christmas Day Bomber" (sic) by the fascist zero information spun corporate owned media--enjoy the body scanners though!) Meanwhile.. while the dow saws the market up with 500 potentially 5000 point daily (Okay I exaggerate) changes which wreak havoc (fact) on unsuspecting 401K's with the $USD / Treasury / Bond manipulation they ought be called a 201K's now like ticker-guy says anyway it'll be worse when it's cashed in, if there is even a monetary system left, and if that's the case it won't be long until our government fails.

- I lean on the side of it's "already failed now" myself
Na leave Microsoft alone.

Unless the next lawsuit is not about suing for money, but instead suing to force them to fix their os's, or make IE / AX removable or something damn it..Linux up the compatibility and these stupid proprietary frickin standard nonsense. OPEN FTP.MICROSOFT.COM AGAIN FOR UPDATES! no more "official" malware which cripples or spys the os. WAG/WAT

.484% & still dodging them?!

[AmonTheMetalhead]

"all of Microsoft's worldwide licensing revenues of approximately $20.7 billion annually are taxable at .484 percent"

My income taxes in Belgium are about 55% :(

Re:Hardly Surprising

[maxume]

A representative republic is widely considered to be a democratic form of government.

Sorry that the capital 'D' at the beginning of the sentence confused you (It probably didn't, but you sure chose to act like it had).

Re:The other side

[0100010001010011]

Um, Of course they are. Which is why they would be just as happy to get rid of them.

If there's anything Hoosiers and Illinoisans agree on is that we'd both be glad to be rid of the Lake Michigan region.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[komissar]

you (and we) do not have a democracy. never did. it's called a "republic."

Re:The other side

[komissar]

boeing moved to chicago because it wanted the best politicians money could buy after the death of scoop jackson and warren magnusun.

Re:The other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly "preferential treatment," and closer to simply protecting your treasure chest. Any one of us on here, if were owners of a company of similar state, would be trying to protect the profits just like MS is/has.
You are just letting your jealousy show and you aren't even aware of it. Stop being jealous/envious of your neighbors, and celebrate with them for how well they are doing. If it were your brother you would be, wouldn't you?

Re:Hardly Surprising

[BooRolla]

Mod parent up. That is the smartest thing I've heard all month. Frankly that would tell us more about the candidate than anything they would say.

think more about this please

[zogger]

And you have an irrational core assumption that people without land are even able to exist, let alone thrive or be "wealthy". That's scientifically impossible really. You have a lot of land per person, just it is removed a step. You don't have people existing totally on some teeny tiny piece of land, their "share" of the land is removed some geographical distance, but it is still necessary for them to exist. You aren't seeing the huge quantities of land that are necessary to keep big cities functional, and the people "out there" who need to do a lot of work out on that land to provide you with everything you need, nor attaching much importance to what those folks needs are.

  Those people out there and the land out there provide you with 100% of your tangible human needs, all of it, every single bit of it.

  If you keep politically marginalizing those people "out there", as I tried to point out with this red/blue conflict and split politically, eventually they are going to stop supplying you, either from desire to just stop, or because they won't be able to because of imposed political and economic realities. You can look in history books to see what this means exactly and here's a clue, it ain't pretty.

  And this is what is happening today with the political emphasis being counter weighted heavily towards concentrated population centers, and the political minimizing of what the "other" areas really represent in terms of day to day importance, and what the people "out there" think is important and need. You can ignore it or claim it doesn't exist or just isn't that important, etc, but I think that's just silly. And those maps prove this major split exists, it shouldn't be ignored.

    Go back again and read some more history, this problem, identified by some smart guys way way back, was addressed with the combination of both senators and representatives, but it isn't quite working any more, there's a *lot* of fail there and a lot of political disagreement and outright hostility that keeps growing.

  I'm just proposing we take a new and more logical look-see at the situation and try to fix some problems before they hit harder, that's all. We have a necessary social and economic symbiosis that is fractured today, and badly, and that split is widening, and the historical parallel eventual outcome falls into the "this just totally sucks" category. For all of the above, everyone.

Empirically Weak

[mpapet]

Governor Christine Gregoire expanded the budget by 33% in her first 4 year term, and has kept on this pace for her current term (re-elected for her second term in November 2008).

Governor gets re-elected. That means enough people thought favorably of her. A simple explanation is her budgeting wasn't an issue for those happy voters.

The truth is far more complicated than that though. What is the role Washington's congressional body plays in the budget busting?

The parent post (and the moderators) simply refuse to look at the issue with any logical discipline. They clearly favor a Corporate Welfare state and an impotent and impoverished working class. Whether you/they understand that's what they are endorsing is another question entirely.

It's obvious you don't have a clear understanding of typical Government financing works too.

Re:Empirically Weak

[LynnwoodRooster]

Governor Gregoire got re-elected by a much smaller majority than President Obama was elected; coat-tails carried her through. Not to mention her repeated campaigning on a platform of not raising taxes...

.
Previous Governors, including Gary Locke (current Secretary of Commerce) were able to address budget shortfalls by first cutting where possible, then sitting down with both parties and hammering out the plan. The last time we faced a big deficit then Senate minority leader Dino Rossi (Gregoire's opponent in 2004 and 2008) worked the plan with Governor Locke. And they also created the rainy day fund.

The responsible action would have been to do what Locke and his predecessors did - not allow spending to explode, not allow the Legislature to raid trust funds, to actually lead in a fiscal manner and use the power of the veto. Apparently Gregoire is incapable of saying no to spending bills...

As far as logical discipline, I guess in your book blowing your budget by 40% over 5 years - and financing that increase by willingly spending your savings, spending the pension trust funds, spending class action settlements on items they were not designated for - is fiscally sound. I guess it makes great class warfare which is what you explicitly are doing.

It's obvious you don't have a clear understanding of Washington State Government. And you really dig that class warfare thing, which is exactly what is happening in Washington. Except it's the upper class liberal spenders in King County that are responsible for the blown budget, not the poorer communities outside of Puget Sound (those communities that overwhelmingly voted against Governor Gregoire).

We're getting the budget and spending that the rich and affluent want; we're not getting what the vast majority of the "impoverished working class" want. There's nearly a 100% correlation between votes for Gregoire and wealth. Rich Seattle and the suburbs put her in office, poor SW and Eastern WA voted against her. They realize their jobs rely upon strong businesses and the money spent by those well-paid employees of those strong businesses.

They see what happens when Boeing moved out, it wasn't just the few thousand jobs that left it was the 10,000 jobs lost at the restaurants, oil change facilities, shopping malls, and such. We see it is going to happen again as WA puts the screws to Microsoft now, too... Microsoft will relocate its operations and its expansion outside of WA, and those new MS jobs will not be around to support the lower wage earners.

Your pre-conceived notion of the fat-cats and rich demanding we back off of MS is completely backwards; it's the rich coddled in King County that want to keep increasing spending on bike paths and green belts and light-rail through no-where and to no-where. The working class, blue-collar overwhelmingly oppose this, but in our State they simply don't carry enough votes.

But then that reality doesn't play well with your anti-corporate, class-warfare screed, does it?

Re:Empirically Weak

[mpapet]

Scenario 1: Let's say Microsoft leaves for greener pastures. The King County liberals will move onto other work. End of story.

Scenario 2: WA expands the Corporate Welfare system to pander to Microsoft's every whim, your lower wage earners will still get crushed by financing Microsoft's subsidies. Someone needs to pay for public services and it's not going to be Microsoft Corp. or its top-earners. It's going to be the working-class employee.

Pick either scenario and you've just destroyed the lower and middle class. Both cases harm the lowest wage earners.

You might want to examine the notion of a cyclical economy and its effect on government financing sometime too.

Re:Empirically Weak

[LynnwoodRooster]

Nice strawmen there...

.
Scenario 1: Microsoft leaves, we're left with an infrastructure and State system designed for 150,000 more people and billions more in revenue. The remaining people are crushed since the State - under Governor Gregoire's leadership - has shown an intense resistance to even slowing down its growth, let alone shrinking (as it should if those jobs and people leave).

2. This is a NEW TAX, the "break" is already there (for Microsoft and a host of other software companies here). There's nothing new that will come, there's no crushing subsidies because they already exist, and have existed for decades.

So your two scenarios are completely unrealistic, and don't apply at all. What would happen if Microsoft leaves is that the number of jobs - and that includes H1-Bs who all rent apartments - will dramatically shrink. Government will not shrink accordingly, meaning an ever-increasing tax burden on fewer people.

Washington is screwed not because of a decades-old tax break to software companies (and yes Google, Amazon, Nintendo, Adobe, and others all benefit from it as well); we're screwed because our current Governor was all-too-happy to pass exploding budgets over the last 5 years.

You might want to educate yourself about taxation attracting or driving businesses away, and how Government spending massively outstripping tax revenues, demand, inflation, and population growth (funding the spending by raiding your savings accounts) is a disasterous policy.

Microsoft isn't the problem - Olympia's insanity of spending is the problem. But then, you're probably not even from this State, are you? You don't understand what we had under the previous Governors, and what we now have under Gregoire, and the massive change in the size and scope of the State...

Re:The other side

[jollyreaper]

To play devil's advocate, giving tax breaks to attract/keep major businesses is a normal thing for state governments.

And stores will often have two-for-one sales. But I don't think they'd be too happy if they caught me shoplifting and I said "heeeey, buddy, how about we make this one of those deals you sometimes run?" They'd bust my balls before they called the cops.

But given Microsoft's size, this is just an illustration of that old saying: "You owe the bank a thousand bucks, that's your problem. You owe the bank a million bucks, that's their problem." Microsoft gets away with it because they're big enough to get away with it.

Re:Hardly Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

It's WEAR, not WHERE, for FUCK'S SAKE!!!!!