Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
There's so much back scratching going on here that these guys must sleep on their stomach. I'm sick to mine.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
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.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
Microsoft: too big to tax?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
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.
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:
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.
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.