Slashdot Mirror
Protesters Blockade Microsoft's Seattle Headquarters Over Tax Breaks
reifman (786887) writes "A thousand unionized healthcare workers protested outside Microsoft's Seattle offices over its Nevada tax dodge on Friday. Microsoft shareholders have pocketed more than $5.34 billion in tax savings as Washington State social services and schools have taken huge cuts. In a hearing Wednesday, the Supreme Court suggested it may hold the Legislature in contempt and order it to repeal all tax breaks to restore proper funding to K-12 schools and universities." I suspect Microsoft's lawyers are careful to engage in legal tax avoidance rather than illegal tax evasion. Geekwire notes "The South Lake Union satellite facility is not a major office for Microsoft, compared to its presence in Redmond. It’s not clear why the workers didn’t protest at Microsoft headquarters."
I suspect they protested at S. Lake Union because that is very close to downtown Seattle and an extremely visible location. Microsoft Campus in Redmond is in the in a much more suburban atmosphere, it would be much less of a visible protest there.
The difference between Microsoft-style tax avoidance and tax evasion is that MS just donate to politicians to reduce the amount of taxes they pay in the former while you don't pay politicians in the latter
The state chose not to pursue over a billion in unpaid taxes. That would put a nice dent in the amount the State owes to schools. The state just gave Boeing NINE BILLION in tax giveaways. It's disgusting. These corporations should pay their taxes.
Itâ(TM)s not clear why the workers didnâ(TM)t protest at Microsoft headquarters."
- this is not the question, and really, the answer is in TFA:
But Jeff Reifman, a technology consultant and writer who used to work for Microsoft, is pointing the finger at his former employer, saying that Microsoft has used a subsidiary in Nevada to avoid paying Washington taxes. Heâ(TM)s written numerous articles about this over the years, and now published a recent commentary on Crosscut.com linking Microsoftâ(TM)s tax policy with the stateâ(TM)s school funding shortfall
There you go, that's why they are in Nevada.
By the way, this is again compared to Burger King for all the wrong reasons:
In response, Hunter said that he and many other legislators tried for years to figure out whether they could tax the money Microsoft sends to Nevada. He said the answer from the stateâ(TM)s lawyers was always, âoeNo.â And he said itâ(TM)s similar to the recent move by Burger King to buy a Canadian company as a way to lower its U.S. tax bill.
âoeTo move that big chunk of revenue to Nevada â" itâ(TM)s legal,â Hunter said. âoeSo this is just like the Burger King thing. Itâ(TM)s frustrating, and youâ(TM)ve got lots of people in Congress who are frustrated about it, but itâ(TM)s legal.â
Burger King is a BRAZILIAN COMPANY, not American. Hasn't been American since about 1989. 70% of its stock is held by a Brazilian conglomerate. Fucking Americans are idiots, crying about a Brazilian company merging with a Canadian one, but what else is new?
However the point is that Microsoft is a victim of unconstitutional, illegal government system that usurped power and is stealing people's money. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally for a wide range of reasons.
Of-course the reality is that so are these government monopolies on education and health insurance and care. There should be no government at all in any of it, education and health insurance and care are just as much subject to free market rules as any other products, including food and shelter and clothing and energy and none of is any of government's business and the fact that government is in all of these things is the reason that these socialist / fascist economies are dying and good, the sooner the better. The sooner these socialist/fascist states disappear the sooner people can rebuild their individual freedoms and real economies.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Nobody should be paying any income related taxes, they are morally repugnant because they assume that all individuals are owned by the collective, as if people are slaves rather than free individuas and unconstitutional.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
The state chose not to pursue over a billion in unpaid taxes.
You also have to show that the business in question actually owed those taxes. We're not even yet to the moral statement where you state that corporations should pay their taxes. I don't see why that's supposed to be true. Sure, someone has to pay taxes for all the good things that government does for society. One also pays taxes for the bad things government does to society.
The companies *are* paying taxes. Through you. They hire thousands of people and those people, by law, have to pay x% of their wages in taxes. Government makes it as painless as possible (low corporate tax) to operate any business that employs large numbers of tax-paying worker bees. "Government", in this case, being people that you elected to look after these things for you.
I don't get this at all?
If a business has avoided paying some taxes *legally* and citizens are angry about it? The proper channel to go through is protesting the government that allowed it.
Any "for profit" business has the responsibility to maximize profits for the sake of its continued existence and growth, and as a duty to its stockholders if it was publicly held. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of it NOT to take advantage of legal tax loopholes or tactics to minimize costs.
It sounds like some people have the idea that they can "shame" businesses into volunteering to pay more tax than they're legally required to pay. I'm not saying that might not have a small measure of success in some situations -- but you'd probably achieve similar results by just randomly picketing ANY profitable business and demanding they give more to charity, or pay more of their profits to improve the local area, or ??
The crux of the problem here is the way the laws are written, so only your legislators can correct it.
I'm not defending them but this countries tax system is so screwed up that moving assets to another country makes sense. Even so our states fund crucial things and the funds need to come from somewhere. But a flat tax or a national sales tax would make things allot simpler.
Fuck Washington State and fuck Seattle. Tax law is the prerogative of the legislature, not a bunch of robed libtards, but that's the situation that these voters have created for themselves. That same pseudo-hippie statist middle-class mentality has precluded broadband deployment in the city as well.
Please, tax your golden geese out of Seattle and Washington. The sooner the better.
Well the problem is varying business interests essentially own a substantial portion of the legislative body, so reforming the tax law to be more fair to businesses (less breaks) will never, ever happen.
People don't bootstrap their earning potential or marketable skills from nothing, nor could they continue to prosper without social cooperation made possible by tax-supported infrastructure and institutions. If you want to be a completely unencumbered individual, find a deserted island.
Washington state is a state and hence, not subject to most of your arguments, even if we accept your claims at face value.
No, they are saying that the more you earn in this country, the more you have benefited from all of the things the taxes pay for: military, infrastructure, education, etc.
It is a flawed system, and there are better ones (I prefer everyone paying a flat income tax with no dedications), but saying that there should be only sales or use-based taxes is wrong.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
The prior governor gave back taxes to the Indian casinos. why not to business, too?
As far as i can see corporations will always go to the area with the lowest possible taxes. JUST LIKE ANY BUSINESS. Personalty i would rather have a corporation provide jobs for the local population rather then support bloated overpaid government workers and individuals who feel it is not their responsibility to provide a meaningful contribution to society. I would feel much better with a personal income tax to support critical government functions as at least this way when the populace is overtaxed they can at least vote out the bastards who are giving away individuals money. Jobs or bloated government the choice is yours.
Corporations are legally separate entities. They are to pay taxes. Then when they dividend their earnings, the shareholders pay taxes. Yes, the government may incentivize corporations to do all manner of social good through tax breaks but it has gone too far.
They produced the software in Washington, that's where they're supposed to pay taxes on it. This is settled case law. It's just that the state chose not to enforce the law and throw executives in prison for tax evasion. Which IMHO sets a bad precedent that you can just not pay your tax bill if you're rich enough.
They claim to sell the software from theri branch in Nevada. But, since the items were produced in WA, they're liable for tax there as well.
If corporations continue to do this, then the government should erect severe tariffs, exit fees, etc to discourage such behavior.
You can rationalize it all you want, but tax "avoidance" really is the same concept as tax evasion.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This is settled case law.
Heh, apparently not that settled.
It's just that the state chose not to enforce the law and throw executives in prison for tax evasion.
If it's not illegal, which is the case here, then it's not tax evasion (which is illegal by definition) and we wouldn't have cause to throw anyone in prison for tax evasion.
>As far as i can see corporations will always go to the area with the lowest possible taxes. JUST LIKE ANY BUSINESS.
This is nonsense. Taxes are only an element of what Corporations look at when locating. However, if the govt. looks at businesses as cow's to be milked at some point the business will say no more and move. The benefit of moving has to exceed the cost or it won't happen. The rest of it I more or less agree. But, taxes are not end all and be all to corps, just another expense to be managed.
A flat income tax with no deductions? Seriously? You know that'd benefit the rich. Right now, a lot of poor people pay no income tax. I pay no income tax. I just have to worry about self-employment tax (equivalent to FICA taxes for employed persons) and that's it. I don't earn enough to pay income tax, and I don't think I ever have. Came close while in college given my grants.
Just... close... tax loopholes. Simple enough.
I suspect they protested at S. Lake Union because that is very close to downtown Seattle and an extremely visible location.
You have that right on the money.
This year at WWDC there were Apple tax protestors out front before the keynote with the classic protestor drum circle and some kind of chant.
Well the moment the cameras outside are gone? So are they. I had some respect for them before that for at least making a stand, even if I disagree with the position. But they weren't making a stand - they were making a TV show.
Given the behavior it's hard to believe they were not all actors of one form or another. It certainly didn't seem like anyone had the kind of protesting spirit that really meant anything when they couldn't be arsed to protest longer than a few hours. I have to wonder if the Microsoft protest is of the same spiritless form.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why didn't you just jump straight to the "you didn't earn that"?
Sigh.. It is only made possible by tax-supported infrastructure and institutions because the government injected itself. Before the governments injected themselves, it was sustained by private industry or the people themselves. Those costs were either passed on to the consumers of simple born by the people involved.
You act as if no one could ever function without the government hand holding people through life. Some of the more prosperous years in our history were when the government was not in schools, limited themselves on the roads, did not deliver water and so on. And even to the schools issues, the feds were hands off it when we put man on the moon. It wasn't until years later that feds got involved and now not only do we have a department of education that cannot even do the math to account for their budget at times but we lack sufficient knowledge and resources to put a man on the moon again.
Washington has no personal income tax . It's one of the reasons economic downturns such hard up here. Sales and property taxes are less predictable.
If you want the perfect example of tax breaks run amok... visit Kansas. Huge deficits, no growth. Rich happy.
How about what VAT was originally intended for - to replace tax on income with tax on expenditure? Only, someone forgot to repeal income tax. Double whammy.
Tax on expenditure is fair because it does not discriminate. A flat 20% on everything *at the point of sale* would pay for ALL public services with no need for any other levies. Period.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Now what would happen if nobody could hide economic development decisions, such as the relocation of companies between states? That is, that any decision to move, no matter how small or early, had to be publicly disclosed - and that all existing records had to be made public? That would anger thieving states like Georgia, who have no qualms about removing history from Northern states, while providing a chance for states to make an agreement.
Or, you can have the status quo, which encourages blood-feud between states.
On some level this sounds like playing dirty pool but it's really not... it's the exact same thing you would do if you had your employer behind the eight ball in salary negotiations: "Other companies are willing to pay me X for my skills, so why don't you match it or I will leave?"
Statistically speaking, that's a rare enough position that it is an exception. Besides, employers can do more damage with the same position over multiple people and jurisdictions - as they are favored by government over workers.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Do you really want to send more money to Washington? I'd rather my state w/ 6.5 Million or my county w/ 75K people be affected by stupidity of its politicians, than the US at 311M+ people. As is happening in CA people can move w/ their feet. States need to work out 21st century realities as some are and others aren't. Quite simple you have a domicile you are subject as Amazon has learned. Look at FL TX and TN no state Income tax. TX none on Corps either. Why? Because its easy to game and hard to Admin. Sales/Use and property taxes. These seem to work. Look at the Fed. Gas Tax and how Congress uses it for everything but HIghways and Interstates.
The state chose not to pursue over a billion in unpaid taxes.
Until now I have chosen not to pursue billions in unpaid money you owe me that I've done absolutely nothing for.
The state just gave Boeing NINE BILLION in tax giveaways.
Until now you have enjoyed a free ride as I've chosen not to tax any of your earnings.
When you have paid this legally shaky debt then you will regain the right to complain about Microsoft.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And you think Corporations are going to just accept that? I am sure Legal can handle that. A simpler solution all levels of Govt. stop spending 45%+ of GDP every year and stop being the highest Corp Tax Rate in the world and that rate kicks in at $75K of net income ~profit.
Over one thousand union workers in the city have plenty of free time on a weekday to go protest instead of doing their jobs? That's a huge surprise.
greedy fucks all of them.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter."
That's a regressive tax. Poor people spend more of their income on "stuff", so end up paying more tax (proportionally) than the rich, who use tier money in other ways (stock, shares etc).
Companies are not "moving assets to another country" (by which you obviously mean earnings). They are earning money in other countries, on which BTW they pay tax in those countries, and then the profit they have opted not to move back to the U.S. because they face a monstrous tax (40%!!!!) on the amount the would bring back, which remember THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID TAXES ON WHERE INCOME WAS MADE.
Look at the chart of corporate tax rates around the world, the US rate is way higher than any other country.
Would you take a 40% pay cut on your earnings?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Do the WTO and NAFTA allow such behavior?
Seems like protectionism, to me.
I happily invite you to go back to the living standards of the time where the government was not in schools, limited themselves on the roads, did not deliver water and so on. I think you'll find that economic prosperity does not necessarily mean they were living the good life. I sure as hell would never trust a private corporation with my water supply or education, there are way too many juicy corners to cut.
Why waste your time parading to an empty street?
This is right in the middle of SF (4th & Howard). If nothing else there are a ton of cars going past all the time.
Then the whole week long there are thousands of Apple developers walking in and out and handing around outside enjoying the weather (yes, sometimes SF has nice weather in June and this was one of those years).
But basically if you are dedicated you are THERE. That's really the point. They were not there for anyone but the cameras, then it was off to Starbucks or wherever.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
they didn't protest @ the Redmond headquarters because most people in Redmond wouldn't care. Even if they did, few people would see the protests. the Microsoft headquarters is hugely supported by all their employees and after hours all you get are the black SUVs following you around if you venture too far around their boundaries. Besides, which building would you protest on the M.S.campus? It's nicely lit up, well groomed and clean (perfect skateboard tracks) but not a lot of public traffic. anyone in this area is either a M.S. employee or they are retired.
happy trials
Why would I need to go back to those living standards? Society would have progressed anyways. Some things may be a little different but many would be exactly the same.
You mean like it does now? Nothing has changed except technology has made things easier. Technology would have happened anyways.
Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but many water supplies are controlled by private corporations but I'm not entirely sure why you would have to trust them if government didn't get involved. You see, you could dig a well, build a cistern, tag onto someone else's well or purchase bottles of water. Three of those are still common to this date. As for education, many schools are private, some of the best and most notable colleges in the world are private. So I guess the question might be why are you so clueless about these things? Are you brainwashed and buffaloed by ideology or just ignorant of reality?
A flat income tax with no deductions? Seriously? You know that'd benefit the rich. Right now, a lot of poor people pay no income tax. I pay no income tax. I just have to worry about self-employment tax (equivalent to FICA taxes for employed persons) and that's it. I don't earn enough to pay income tax, and I don't think I ever have. Came close while in college given my grants.
A flat tax that somehow benefits the rich? Wow, how did you arrive at that?
Let me see here. Under a flat tax I make X dollars and pay Y tax on them where Y = some% of X.
Another person makes 2X dollars and pays 2Y in taxes.
Uncle Money Bags makes 100X dollars (I hope I'm in his will) and pays 100Y in taxes.
You know, that really sounds very fair to me -- although truly fair would be that everybody pays the same amount of tax each year because everybody benefits the same from roads, schools and other provided services.
Anything else is punitive from envious people who hate that someone else had more than they do.
People are weird that way. Take the social experiment where the researcher offers you $50, which you can take or refuse. But there's a condition: If you take the $50 then I get $100. But if you take nothing then I get nothing either. While you'd think that it's a no-brainer that you now have $50 that you didn't have before, you'd be amazed how many people will refuse to take their money because someone else "unfairly" is getting more in the process. And that attitude carries over into other areas.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That's a regressive tax. Poor people spend more of their income on "stuff", so end up paying more tax (proportionally) than the rich, who use tier money in other ways (stock, shares etc).
You say "regressive tax" as though that is somehow morally wrong and shocks the conscience of the Universe. You might choose a cutoff that income tax starts on all income above a basic subsistence rate, but there is no absolute moral authority stating "regressive tax bad, progressive tax good." Besides, many low income people currently pay no income taxes at all. Even if they paid a pittance and had some skin in the game they might start taking a much greater interest in how their tax monies were being spent -- which would be a Good Thing.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Because 10% is very different for someone who makes minimum wage than it is for someone who makes millions. We may use the same roads, but we don't use them at the same level. Someone in a city who can't afford a car will be riding a bus with others, which will result in one less vehicle on the road. Flat tax only works in a case where everyone is on an equal starting point.
The companies *are* paying taxes. Through you. They hire thousands of people and those people, by law, have to pay x% of their wages in taxes. Government makes it as painless as possible (low corporate tax) to operate any business that employs large numbers of tax-paying worker bees. "Government", in this case, being people that you elected to look after these things for you.
In Washington State, not so much. You're talking out of your ass, and it smells like it too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
...Look at FL TX and TN no state Income tax. TX none on Corps either. Why? Because its easy to game and hard to Admin. Sales/Use and property taxes.
Yep. Just like Washington State. Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I pooped. It was green. It was also delicious.
Legal tax avoidance is just illegal tax evasion after you bought the relevant laws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And even to the schools issues, the feds were hands off it when we put man on the moon.
Oh deary me! Let's not even consider that Eisenhower sent the Army into Little Rock before Sputnik went up.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Shareholders pocketed more than 5 BLLION? LIEs
I am a shareholder, and I didn't see a penny.
Employees are shareholders also via stock rewards, they won't see a penny either.
Incorrect,
Evasion is avoiding paying what you OWE
Avoidance is avoiding OWEing.
Semantics is VERY impotant.
One is avoiding a occurred DEBT, the other is avoiding getting into debt in the first place.
And the parent says "fair" as though there's only one way to evaluate that declaration. As with most things it's a more subtle question than simply declaring that some other position is morally wrong and therefore your position must by default be the only acceptable option. If you want to support a regressive tax feel free, but simply declaring that a progressive tax isn't clearly morally superior is not the same as providing rational in support of a regressive tax.
Moreover anyone who excludes payroll taxes from their definition of "income tax" is stretching credulity. Payroll taxes are paid by even the very poorest earners, are proportional to income, and are deducted from paychecks. The only people who avoid them are the very rich who either hit the upper limit -- though it's unclear why such a limit even exists -- or those who don't have earned income in the first place, like those living on investment income.
And of course most poor people pay both payroll taxes and sales taxes, even if they "pay no income taxes at all". Which is why taxation needs to be considered as a system and not as a series of independent pieces -- only they very rich have the freedom to choose which taxes apply to them.
Oh, that's why Windows and Surface Pro etc are so "cheap"! It's because of all the money Microsoft is saving on Taxes. Right?
I would like to point out to you that during those wonderful years without government intrusion, that the economy suffered regular cyclical booms and busts that devastated lives.
You could say that it was the effects of one of the greatest busts in history, the Great Depression, that kickstarted the government into creating the PWA, an organization that has done more public good than any Wal-Mart or Microsoft. Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Triborough Bridge, Fort Peck Dam, LaGuardia Airport.. just a few of the things that we depend on still, public projects that spurred further private growth at a time when private industry was deadlocked.
Microsoft would never have built a Hoover Dam, why would they? Where would the profit be for them? And that is the problem when you get to this Libertarian "The market will provide" nonsense. The market will not provide, and it will not provide for everyone, just the people who can pay for it.
Also, your sending men to the moon example? Back then businesses were paying about 40% in taxes and typical returns on investments were expected to be in the 5% range over a decade, not todays 30% returns every quarter and zero taxes nonsense. Because our grandparents and great grandparents respected the role of government in improving the lives of the citizens, and they had learned hard lessons from the Great Depression about relying too much on corporations. Lessons that we are throwing out as we sink further and further into corporate oligarchy.
Some of the more prosperous years in our history were when the government was not in schools, limited themselves on the roads, did not deliver water and so on.
You conveniently ignore the fact that in those years, that infrastructure was owned and/or maintained by communities, not by multinational corporations with a fanatical profit-maximizing agenda.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Technology would NOT have happened anyways. In 1934 an engineer at Bell Labs named Clarence Hickman created a machine that would answer phone calls and record a message on a magnetic tape. The first answering machine! It was large and clunky, but of course AT&T immediately saw the value of this device and started to work to put this highly profitable device in everyone's homes! Err... not. AT&T killed it because they saw no profit in the device. Worst of all perhaps, was the their suppression of the magnetic tape as a storage medium, which they perceived as directly in competition with their phone business. Why would people make calls, they thought, if they could record their voices and mail the tapes to each other. Magnetic tape recording wouldn't return to America until WWII, with German equipment.
That wasn't the only technology AT&T suppressed that could have changed our world, simply because the managers involved either couldn't see a profit in it, or felt it was directly competing with their own telephone service. Since AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, they kept anyone else from utilizing these inventions as well. Fiber optics, mobile telephones, digital subscriber lines (DSL), fax machines, speakerphones.. all developed or envisioned much earlier than you assume, and all suppressed as being dangers to AT&T's business model.
Those old modems where you put your phone set in acoustic cups? That was because AT&T owned your phone and would rip you apart in court for modifying or replacing their equipment. Even today they still drag their feet over letting equipment onto their networks, not because the hardware is risky (there are like 2 cellular radio chips, and every cell phone uses one of them but no you can't add an 'uncertified' phone to their network!) but because they are deathly afraid of disruption of their profits.
For every innovation that does break through, more are lost through endless litigation, buyouts and suppression. Businesses do not want to innovate, they don't want to create and R&D budgets have been steadily dropping. Businesses want to find a widget or an app that is indispensable, create a market around that with no exits or competition and then ride the profits for as long as possible.
And pocket the dirty money yourself.
Indian casinos are some sort of religious institutions then? Because I thought they were businesses.
Silly me.
As a MicroSoft shareholder, living on a very fixed income, I thank the MicroSoft management for managing the company to increase my return of investment.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Someone needs to remind them Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
the Supreme Court suggested it may hold the Legislature in contempt
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the underlying issue, I'd really love it if the Washington (State) Supreme Court really did find the Washington (State) Congress in contempt... and then the Congress impeach, convict, and remove from office every single one of the justices on that Supreme Court.
Judges all over the U.S., at all levels, have long over-stepped the bounds of their given roles. They need reigning in -- hard.
AT&T immediately saw the value of this device and started to work to put this highly profitable device in everyone's homes! Err... not. AT&T killed it because they saw no profit in the device.
it appears that you think that if something is profitable at time T, then it must also have been profitable at time T - X.
What a simplistic idiot you are.
There is no chance in hell that when the technology was first developed to do it that it could have been profitable product. Just like when the technology for smart phones was developed it wasnt profitable. It took *decades* for all the technologies involved to mature enough to make multi-touch pocket computers profitable. Nobody was going to buy a damned $50000 answering machine.
"His name was James Damore."
So, while the funding for K-12 is being cut to fund the tax breaks for Microsoft . . . Gates is blathering about the importance of teaching history.
Maybe Gates will expand his plans for teaching history to include reading, writing, math and science . . . ? Then the state could get rid of K-12 altogether. It would be a Win-Win.
For someone.
Maybe.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
They wouldn't have to be paying for infrastructure support at a minimum, police protection, private exits from the freeway, ...
I suppose you want to pay a toll every time you leave your driveway? And another to leave work?
And another every time you cross an arbitrary boundary?
Another for every restroom use? At every water fountain?
Witness MS suppression of various "research" projects... they disappear unless it can be shown to support the monopoly.
He is also ignoring the fact that the roads were mostly dirt - or mud when it rained.
And ignoring the side effects - The spanish flu that killed millions.
It seems like everyone here thinks Microsoft has some obligation to give our government money. Have you seen what our government does with that money? Do you want them to have more tanks, guns bombs? More spying equipment? To continue the war on drugs? To imprison more than 1% of the population?
Thank you Microsoft.
Tax isn't about moral, it's business.
Would the state be better off without those corporations and their tax payment, though unfulfilled? How much more can you force them to pay before they decide they have enough and just leave?
Magnetic tape recording wouldn't return to America until WWII, with German equipment.
That wasn't the only technology AT&T suppressed that could have changed our world, simply because the managers involved either couldn't see a profit in it, or felt it was directly competing with their own telephone service. Since AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, they kept anyone else from utilizing these inventions as well. Fiber optics, mobile telephones, digital subscriber lines (DSL), fax machines, speakerphones.. all developed or envisioned much earlier than you assume, and all suppressed as being dangers to AT&T's business model.
AT&T's monopoly was imposed by the federal government. Government using a lighter touch in telecom regulation in the 1930s would have allowed all those products to market under somebody else's banner. AT&T being an abusive monopoly until they were broken up in the '80s is NOT an example of "We need government because the free market is horrible."
How much would the state collect if they eliminated the income tax deduction for union dues? Seems fair that it goes both ways.
If they put this much effort by going DMV and getting ID, we would not be having this problem.
If they want to protest, maybe they should protest in front of the county, state, or federal capitols. A corporation is legally obligated to operate in the way most beneficial to the stockholders, not the community or country as a whole. They are protesting a company obeying the law. If they don't like the law, they need to address that. Naturally it will get nowhere, as the government at all levels is bought, paid for, and manipulated by large corporate entities, but that's a different and far more sad issue that will only be resolved through some form of huge upheaval (voter attitude or disobedience). I guess they should get some small bit of credit for at least protesting something rather than hanging around the TV waiting for yet another shocking celebrity sound bite...
"because of us you have many thousands more people paying property/school/sales taxes and supporting the local economy. Other places would be willing to offer us a break on our corporate taxes if we moved there instead and benefitted their economy. So why don't you?"
ONLY Businesses can get away with this. The average citizen couldn't. Say I went to my city and said "you should give me a tax break because I spend my pay check in your city and without me you would have that much less local income." Sorry but it wouldn't work - they would LAUGH me out of the city council meeting. Why should big businesses be any different. Sure maybe give them -some- breaks but not the massive ones they get. Having worked for Cabelas I -know- how much they get out of a city to bring one of their stores into town. The big difference is big businesses can shove tons of money into the pockets of the politicians as well as pay for trips and golf outings, or put money in their re-election coffers and magically the business gets what it wants.
Sorry folks but Corporations - run this country and drive ALL the decisions not -YOU- - your vote means diddly squat! They only thing politicians care about is $$$$ to make their decisions. So if you want a politician to vote the way you want - be prepared to cough up LOTS of $$$$ to them somehow.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
That's just not true. AT&T's monopoly already existed when the government agreed to let them be a monopoly. The government was investigating them for antitrust violations, and then agreed to stop their investigation in exchange for them doing a few specific things, like requiring them to allow independent networks to connect to theirs in relatively limited circumstances.
Also, it was 1913, not the 30's, when this happened. Over the subsequent decades, the federal government basically gave AT&T everything they wanted - they approved 271 out of 274 buyouts of independent companies between 1921 and 1934, the government did not require them to interconnect their local services to independent local services, they did not require AT&T to interconnect with other long distance providers, and more.
That's the exact opposite of "heavy handed regulation" - that's the government rolling over to everything a corporation wanted.
AT&T's monopoly was not "imposed" by the government, it was allowed by the government, with a great number of provisions such as requiring phone service in non-profitable areas and regulated pricing. This was mostly a concession to the costs of building out the phone system. Without that, lightly populated or poor rural areas would still be disconnected from the phone system.
Nice to know what a slackjawed lackwit you are sir, in that you can't compose a reply without resorting to a base slanderous personal remark. Perhaps you need to sit down away from the internets and stop taking it so seriously, you low brow pustule.
That being said, we will never know how profitable a phone answering machine, or the additional technology of the magnet tape medium would have been in 1934, or how much profit such technologies could have generated before other companies developed their own versions of the technology, because AT&T killed all development on them. While people may or may not have paid exorbitant sums for an answering machine, the spin-off technologies from such a machine are easily something that would have broken into several industries, even at a cost above the average consumer's means. Sadly a feces-brained fool such as yourself can't see that, as you are too occupied with the fascinating detritus between your toes to have developed any form of imaginative thought.
ONLY Businesses can get away with this. The average citizen couldn't.
It doesn't work for average businesses any more than it works for average citizens (and for the same reasons). It might work if you were a billionaire, though.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
all these union idiots think they are entitled to a lifetime of employment and high pay. They behave like fucking children. You lose your job, well, go and find another one or get a new set of skills. Jobs and positions don't last forever just look at manufacturing which is almost dissipated in the U.S.
Turn off their water.
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
I though Microsoft was an Irish corporation.
Have gnu, will travel.
WA does not have a state income tax. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax :
"Washington – no individual tax"
So the liar zidium gets rewarded up to a +2, but the guy with actual experience that is correct gets hammered down to a -1. Fuck this site. This used to be a good technical site before the moderators decided they hated it and wanted to destroy it with stupid shit like this. Of course CONservatives always ruin everything touch. They hate the reverse midas touch, and this twatnozzle zidium has proven he is one of their kind.
Watched a documentary about a poor, African village. No electricity, no running water, but almost every child had a cellphone with reception inside their hut. But yes, the REA and breaking up AT&T was good for the country. For a country to provide the best life for its citizens some socialism is needed.
Love the quote!
Nice to know what a slackjawed lackwit you are sir, in that you can't compose a reply without resorting to a base slanderous personal remark. Perhaps you need to sit down away from the internets and stop taking it so seriously, you low brow pustule.
Ah, hypocrisy. The finest way to win an argument.
99% of these protestors don't understand it's the IRS's job to enforce taxes
And about 99.9999999999% don't understand the IRS is a treasonous organization, only 100 years old. Sheep will never realize this, and instead blame the company who is simply following SEC regulations.
That rate is the highest possible rate, not what corporations actually pay.
What a great system, where buying influence in government gets you reductions off an astronomically high tax rate.
Perhaps it would be better to have a system with fair tax rates that didn't beg for corruption?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Thank you for your post. I appreciate it.
Do you think it'd work if we had a flat tax like this?
Federal AGI
Subtract 250% of the poverty level (about $28,750 for individuals, and about $75k for families of six), then a flat 40% on top of that? Or even +1 poverty level, so a single individual would get 2.5 times $15k (which is for 2 people normally), or about $37.5k deduction. The only other exemptions I'd make would be for qualified tuition and medical expenses (think how expensive nursing homes can be) over 10%.
I also favor a negative income tax. With the threat of not being able to get hired for a job, layoffs, automation, out-sourcing, etc., I'd favor something that would provide us a guaranteed source of income.
Microsoft shareholders have pocketed more than $5.34 billion in tax savings as Washington State social services and schools have taken huge cuts.
Curious, when has the Washington State budget dropped at a rate less than inflation? When have receipts caused a deficit? If social services and schools are cut, it's not from a lack of revenue - it's the slime in Olympia deciding to change priorities and then use "we don't have enough money left for schools!" to try to extort even more dollars out of the taxpayers. There is plenty of funds for social services and schools - the problem is that Olympia (the Legislature AND the Governor) don't have the intestinal fortitude to actually prioritize as the State Constitution requires.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Maybe then, those f*ers would be voting for lower taxes than simply voting to increase the burden on *everyone else*.
[The government doing what AT&T wanted is] the exact opposite of "heavy handed regulation" - that's the government rolling over to everything a corporation wanted.
The government enforcing AT&T's monopoly was heavy-handed regulation of everybody EXCEPT AT&T. If the government allowed competing telecommunication services, AT&T wouldn't have been able to stifle technology the way the previous poster was complaining about.
The fact is, the government will use its power to help its friends (AT&T in this case) and hurt its enemies (potential competitors.) This is why we should have as small a government as it takes to fulfill the roles delegated to the National government in the Constitution.
That's why.
What is your point? Eisenhower did not get involved with the schools, he sent the military to enforce law about integration (blacks being able to go to white schools). Or do you think that was the down fall of public education?
The department of education didn't happen until 1980. There was an office level ED in various federal agencies through the years, but they dealt mostly with bureaucratic issues and vocational retraining.
The great depression was largely caused by the US government subsidizing agricultural products and jingoism/nationalism in Europe after WWI that the US government was trying to protect us from. I think you should take those rose colored glasses.
Why would Microsoft even be expected to do something like that? Other companies might as well done it. You do understand that a private company was the first to pave a section of road right? And they did this because cars (another private development) kept rutting the roads and getting stuck.
Please explain what this little diatribe has to do with the ability to return to the moon with humans? We lost the technology.. Any funding for NASA whether taxes are at 10% or 200% will have to find people who can competently do with better tools what people in the 1950s were trying to do with lesser tools. We have watches today with more computing power than the computers that sent men to the moon, yet we have no ability to do it again. This has nothing to do with tax rates.
But hey, I'm glad you are a good liberal who thinks government can solve everything. Only problem is you missed the critique I made about where it failed and went off on left field about something.
You do right now anyways. What, you don't see it? Ever gallon of gas you purchase has your toll built into it. You are paying that toll every time you start your engine and let it idle.
But it's pointless to pick roads. It is actually the one thing I mentioned that the US government is constitutionally charged with being involved in. Article 1 section 8 specifically gives the federal government the ability "To establish post offices and post roads". And yes, there are quite a few toll roads and bridges in the US.
Well, the law's the law whether it's integration or curriculum, isn't it? And what's this "downfall" you talk about? Do you ever bother to consider the intentions behind what is happening? I hope you don't believe that all this is an accident, or was unforeseen or something. Your only purpose is to make sure not to forget the fries with that Quarter Pounder. Don't go trying to rock the boat.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I think you should go back and read what was said again. The law had nothing to do with running the schools or setting standards like the department of education does. It was about equal access not being denied based on skin color.
In other words, you point is irrelevant just like your comment about cheeseburgers. Its like answer the question of putting a rocket into orbitt with the sky is blue. While it is true at times, it does nothing for the question.
Defend your assertions. Waving your hands repeating them is not defending them. Your claims that technology is immediately profitable the instant it is developed is remarkable, so the onus is on you to defend that claim.
The thing is that everyone here knows that you cannot defend that claim, because your viewpoint is that of a simplistic idiot. Everybody knows that technology is not instantly profitable the moment it is first developed.
Another example that might convince you of how stupid you are: Toshiba invested flash memory in 1980. Instantly, so flash drives were instantly possible, yet it wasnt until 1988 that *any* commercial application saw profitability, and that wasnt drives. In 1988 flash was introduced as a replacement for ROM and Firmware chips, but the technology was still to expensive for drives. It wasnt until 1995 that flash saw any use at all as anything resembling a drive, and that was as memory cards, so basically just floppy disks. The market for flash drives wasn't real until 2006, 26 years after flash drives were possible. Even today many people say that flash drives are still too expensive.
I will repeat that nobody was going to buy a $50,000 answering machine. That really is the end of the discussion you simplistic idiot.
"His name was James Damore."
What the heck, I can jump in on this too.
If big corporations decide to pay as many taxes as they can, they'll have to get the money somewhere, so they will raise their prices, and it'll be you and me footing the bill.
Except that that's not always true.
If they're in a monopoly position, sure; they can theoretically raise prices whenever and however much they want. If they're not, however, then they might just have to reduce the execs' bonuses this quarter, instead. (After all, if they could have raised prices before, why didn't they?) If you look at the statistics on where the profits of corporations have been going more and more over the past 40 years or so, you'll see that there's plenty of room for compensation at the top to be reduced to pay for all this sort of thing.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
The question is irrelevant. The system is designed to induce conformity and produce robots than can actually serve what you ordered. If you want to fix anything, you'll have to toss your entire political system out the window. It is a becoming a reflection of the worst of the worst. You can't expect anything else when people are merely voting for one stop convenience and an extra penny in their pockets.
Please, don't try to convince me the feds have ever been "hands off". It has been very much hands on since the Whiskey Rebellion.
Private industry finances and owns the government. They set the rules, the government enforces them. It is through the government that your private industry runs the show and "injects" itself. Your "educational system" will be reduced to teaching internet shopping. There is no interest in providing an education.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
in 1997 Microsoft Licensing was formed and setup in Reno, Nevada. one of the original 7, yes, it was to avoid over $600 million per year of corporate sales tax paid to King County Washington. $600 million was the windfall the first year based on $4 billion annual sales of Microsoft licensed software.
Tax avoidance is legal.
Tax evasion is not.
Microsoft was using its tax avoidance mechanism which is legal.
nuf said.
You are a seriously disagreeable person. Not because of your argument, but your entire attitude and personal attacks. Frankly you're an ass.
Nobody is saying that a product is immediately profitable the day it springs forth from someone's creative mind. But that's beside the point, and if you weren't such a clueless self involved ass, you'd realize it. AT&T didn't kill off it's nascent answering machine because it couldn't be profitable, they killed it off because it was a threat to their phone business. They killed it off, in fact, because they felt it would be profitable and popular.
As for your example, of how stupid you are, Toshiba didn't invest in flash as a hard drive replacement. It was a portable storage medium for cameras, as well as chipsets soldered onto boards. The idea of flash hard drives only became feasible in the last decade or so, but flash has been a profitable business venture for Toshiba and other companies long before technological advances allowed it to be used as a hard drive medium.
For that matter, early mechanical hard drives were not exactly impressive by today's standards. The first hard drive was created in 1956 by IBM, it was the size of 2 refrigerators, held 3.75 Mbs of data and IBM leased them at $3,200 a month, and made a nice profit off them for 13 years. So half a million dollars in revenue each over their lifespan and people were happy to have them! You braindead moron.
Tax avoidance is legal. Less government should be the direction we take in the wake of less taxes.
K-12 Educational funding should on the heads of property tax owners.
Higher Education should rest squarely on the corporations and businesses.
Don't mix use taxes, and common sense will not prevail since most leaders in government do not use common sense until they need to be re-elected.
Evidently, focus is not a strong point with you.
All your meaningless dribble here has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said so why are you saying it to me? Do you think you are replying to someone else in another thread or something?
No, you're the one telling me the feds were hands off in recent times. That is simply not true. It has always meddled in local affairs since its inception.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sigh. You are a persistant troll.
I said the feds are hands on in schools in recent times which is different that previous times when greatness was achived in certain areas.
Sigh And you're just another one of those who blame others for their own failures. You blame the politicians that you reward with reelection for their corruption. You blame the educational system for bad and negligent parenting. They buy their kids iPhones and turn them into zombies. I wouldn't know where to begin to "troll" this. I just know that you're barking up a tree without a paddle, and seem to be mimicking mass media propaganda bullshit.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Looks to me that you know exactly where to troll and you have already started.
How you got any of that shit from anything i said is beyond me. Do yourself a favor and move on. There is nothing for you here.
Yeah, I kinda figured I was talking to the hand... Wouldn't wanna wreck that comfort zone...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”