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."
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!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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?
"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!
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.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
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.
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.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?